Manitoba Hansard — 4 June 1970 (Sitting 101, 29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-101

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Ben Hanuschak Second Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen•s Printer for Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2: 30 o'clock, Thursday, June 4, 1970 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 2587 MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Re ports by Standing and Special Committees; Notices of Motions. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance, HON. SAUL CHERNIACK, Q.C. (Minister of Finance) (St. Johns) introduced Bill No. 106,

An Act to validate certain agreements entered into by the Government of Manitoba and the City of Winnipeg. (R ecommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Services. HON. RENE E. TOUPIN (Minister of Health and Social Services) ( Springfield) introduced Bill No. 112,

An Act to amend The Social Allowances Act (2) . (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. ) MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (River Heights) : Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister.

I wonder whether he can indicate whether the government is doing any additional study or has commenced any additional studies other than the studies by Manitoba Hydro with respect to the possible use of La ke Winnipeg as a reservoir for the Nelson River project or for the problem generally of flooding in connection with the present levels of the lake. HON. ED. SCHREYER (Premier)(Rossmere): Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Resources can elaborate further, but I believe the answer would be complete to say that in addition to Manitoba Hydro, some study of this matter has been carried out by the Lake Winnipeg and Manitoba Control Board - the Manitoba Water Commission, as it's existed and as it's named - has been doing some studies in this matter. MR. SPIVAK: A supplementary question, I wonder whether the First Minister then would be in a position to table that report. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q.C. (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources)(Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, as indicated, there is departmental work taking place but there, to my knowledge, is no document which can be referred to as a report; and with regards to the material documenting the work that has taken place, we are not in a position to table it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, again to the First Minister, We are aware of the fact that Hydro is studying the possible use of Lake Winnipeg as a reservoir in connection with the Nelson River project -- (Interjection) -- Yes, my question is to the First Minister.

Is it not the intention of the government to try and hire additional consultants at this time to be able to have another opinion in connection with whatever proposal will be forthcoming from the Hydro ? MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I really fail to understand the point of the honour able member's question, because Manitoba Hydro d;.d retain what I would suspect the honourable member would regard as a very competent engineering consulting firm.

I refer to the Crippen group and they have undertaken extensive studies, engineering tests and measures, so that I would hope that the honourable member would agree that this has been an adequate in-depth study. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, then the First Minister is suggesting that that study which Manitoba Hydro has undertaken would in fact be the study that the government would make its adjudication on. MR. SCHREYER: I'm not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that that is definitely the only study that will be made.

I've already indicated that other studies have been made by the Manitoba Water Commission and it may be that additional studies will be made, but I wouldn't want to commit the government to undertaking any further studies. It may be that we will, but we have seen no evidence yet to indicate that further studies are required. Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, may I compliment the Honourable Member for River Heights on his necktie and his taste of colours.

2588 MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege .... MR. SPEAKER: Order-- order, please. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS June 4, 1970 MR. SPEAKER: At this point I would like to direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have with us 50 Grade 7 students of the Lacerte Junior High School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Ruest and Mrs. Olson. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for st. Boniface. And 15 Grades 4, 5 and 6 students of the Sioux Narrows School of Ontario. These students are under the direction of Mr. James McCammon.

And 30 Grade 8 students of the Lorette Elementary School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Reynald Goulet. This school is located in the con stituency of the Honourable Minister of Health and Social Services. And 9 Grades 5 and 6 students of the Sperling Elementary School. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Sandra Delaloye. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Morris. And 30 Grades 5 to 8 students of the Nestor Falls School in Ontario. These students are under the direction of Mr. J erry 0' Leary.

On behaH of all the Honourable Members of the Legislative Assembly, we welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr. Speaker, really on a point of privilege, I'd like to accept with thanks the compliment of the Honourable First Minister and point out that the colour of the tie is red, white and blue. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Hon ourable the Minister of Labour, and ask him whether the reported crisis in the Federal Cabinet over the job situation, the employment situation in the nation at large is reflecting itself in any communications that the federal officials are having with the provincial department under the Minister's administration. HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour)(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I might say to my honourable friend, I'm not responsible for any crisis in the federal administration, be it the Department of Labour or any other department.

I can well imagine that there are crises arising down in that august body but as far as we here are concerned in Manitoba, things are going along relatively well. We're not satisfied with the unemployment situation in Manitoba but are taking steps to alleviate the situation in Manitoba. MR. SHERMAN: A supplementary, on a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. The crisis has to do with the apparent jobless situation and the rise in unemployment. Can we then ask the Minister if he can assure the House that there is no corresponding crisis in the labour picture in Manitoba? MR. PAULLEY: N� on a comparative basis.

May I, Mr. Speaker, inform my honour able friend that the Minister of Labour is talking to the Minister of Government Services to try and undertake a few programs that will alleviate the present temporary crisis, if you want to call it a crisis in unemployment in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GABRIEL GIRARD (Emerson): I'd like to direct my question to the Honourable Min ister of Youth and Education.

I wonder if he can advise the people of Manitoba as to whether or not the present practice in the Winnipeg schools will have any effect on the Manitoba Track and Field Final, the Provincial Final. HON. SAUL A. MILLER (Minister of Youth and Education)(Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I'm unable to give him assurance on that regard. However, I hear that it will have no effect, but I can't assure that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): 1\�. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Min ister of Youth and Education.

It's with respect to the Department of Education high school ex aminations which I understand, or which do run normally from 2:00 o'clock to 5:00 o'clock on a given day, and the question is with regards to Division No. 1, with the work-to-rule principle being adopted, the teachers leave the school at 4:00 o'clock. Is there any provision being made for supervision of the department's exams between 4 and 5?

June 4, 1970 2589 MR, MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I can't give a definite answer on that. It's up to the school board and the administration to see to it that these exams are held and I've no doubt that they'll come up with a method of doing it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J, WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Cultural Affairs. Would the Minister confirm the time, dates and places of the visit of the Royal family? Is the last

schedule that• s out, is that final and confirmed? HON. PHILIP PETURSSON (Minister of Cultural Affairs)(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I didn't get the full import of the last part of the question. MR. McKEN ZIE: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the Minister is the times, dates and places of the Royal visit as scheduled now, that's final? MR. PETURSSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the itinerary has been set out and it is almost minute to minute timing, and as it has been set out in the latest release that I have seen, that is the itinerary. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur.

MR. J, DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the First Min ister. I wonder if the First Minister has given consideration to the statement by the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, I believe the night before last, to the effect that violations of the delivery quota could result in the complete withdrawal of the boxcar allocation to certain points, or given points in the Province of Manitoba. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, as the honourable member puts the question, I'm not sure that I understand how the Wheat Board would presume to deny boxcar allocations to country shipping points if violations are being carried out by individual shippers. It seems to me that that is a penalty to an entire community that has no justification. However, perhaps the Min ister of Agriculture can elaborate on this somewhat. HON. SAMUEL USKIW (Lac du Bonnet): Well, I would gather, Mr.

Speaker, if the re marks of the Member for Arthur are correct, that I could read into it to mean that the viola tions are occurring on account of the activities of people in the purchase of grain rather than the delivery of it, and if that is the case I could realize the need for such action. MR. WATT: A supplementary question. My question was, has the First Minister given consideration --I assume that he did not hear the statement. MR, SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I must say to my honourable friend that I heardorthe statement but only about two hours ago, at the airport of all places. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Youth and Education is yet able to advise the House on the status of the collective agreement negotiations in the divisions in Manitoba, . MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I hoped that I would have it for today but I was with the Member from Riel all morning and I didn't get a chance to see whether the information was on my desk or not. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the House Leader.

I wonder whether he can inform the House when the next meeting of the Public Utilities will be held, that is the Public Utilities Committee. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of when the next meeting will be held at this point, but I'll try and have the information for my honourable friend tomorrow. A MEMBER: We won't be here. MR. GREEN: The next day we sit. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could make a comment then, by leave, in con nection with it, in a request. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned Debates on Second Readings. The Hon ourable Ministe r of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, 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 Majesty. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Elmwood in the Chair.

2590 June 4, 1970 COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY MR. CHAIRMAN: The remaining ten minutes of the estimates. The motion of the Hon ourable Member for Fort Garry. The Honourable Member for Rhine land. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, I did make some comments yes terday afternoon and I do not have too much more to say on that very point.

However, I should state briefly that I rather feel that the present government has a very difficult task on its hands, because as I pointed out, the money supply is certainly going up and with tight money in effect, this means that private business will have a more difficult time to carry on.

Certainly there are many reasons in this respect, because if money is tight there•ll be less purchasing and also this means fewer markets, and this is what we need, we need the markets for anybody to buy the manufactured articles or items that are being produced, and especially those that are being produced! in this province. We have had quite a few new industries coming in, smaller ones at that, in rural areas, and these certainly are dependent on the economy that we have.

If the economy is bu.oyant, people will buy goods, not necessarily essential goods but that they could use at their disposal, and in this way these industries will then be able to carry on. But if we should have a more serious and a further setback in the economy, this could work out - real problems in this province and make it that much more difficult for the province to carry on. Also, in connection with the revenue they use for the operation of a government, I'm sure this will refieet itself too in the revenue that we will be getting - anticipate getting within the next year.

I discussed the matter of inflation and certainly, as I have pointed out, under the present monetary system we have to have a certain amount of inflation in order that the economy can keep going. If it had allowed Mr. Aberhart away back in 1935 to carry on with the $25, 00 a month- and no doubt this would have increased by much more by now- ..... MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order- it's as much a matter of privilege as a point of order, and that is that the decorum of the House is not being upheld.

It's not only not fair to the Member for Rhineland but it's not fair to those who are trying to listen, and members should really, I suggest, make an effort to keep down the hub-hub of conversation. MR.

FROESE: I just mentioned if A7:Jerhart had been upheld in his legislation away back in 1935 and the early years that Social Credit was in effect in Alberta, where they passed cer tain legislation that was later on declared ultra vires by the federal courts, I am sure that we would have seen much more prosperity in those provinces than we've had to date, and yet even today Social Credit and prosperity are almost synonymous. This is where you have prosperity.

You have to have Social Credit in order to bring about prosperity, because we do not believe that we can borrow ourselves into prosperity but that our debts have to be paid off, and in this way we save the money that would normally be paid in interest and can use that money for other purposes.

Now if Social Credit, and when Social Credit will be in Ottawa, certainly a lot of that national debt will be cleared up by the stroke of a fountain pen and through the Bank of Canada, and in this way save millions of dollars to the people of Canada, because right now, right now we are paying close to two billion dollars of interest on our national debt that need not be done at all because we have the machinery, we have the Bank of Canada which could provide for us the national C?edit that we need and in this way we could certainly eliminate a lot of taxes and we could increase the tax exemption very substantially here in Canada.

If I take a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica, under "Socialism Principles and Outlook'• and I might quote here - "Socialism reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public properl;y and the division of the resultant public income equally and discriminately among the entire population. Thus it reverses the policy of Capitalism which means establish ing private or real property to the utmost physically possible extent and then leaving the dis tribution of income to take care of itself. " MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder whether the honourable member would permit a question. Included in the Social Credit program which has achieved prosperity, as he put it, in the Provinoe of British Columbia, do )'.:>U iilclude the phblic ownership of the power company and the public ownership of the ferry boat company that was instituted by that government? MR, FROESE: It's probably good that he did ask the question because this gives me rea son to give a brief explanation.

Here we had some large companies controlling these particular services and they would no longer take directives from the government, so the government had to step in and take over the utility in order to provide better services and also get the .....

June 4, 1970 2591 MR. GREEN: That's Social Credit? MR. FROESE: No, we don't subscribe to that, but in a case where we have no alterna tive-- and I don't know if I had been in power whether I would have done the same thing because I believe that we should leave the private companies to carry on and the business, the private business, and the business that they are there to do, as much as possible. I feel that the gov ernments are there to govern and not necessarily to be in business and to carry on business. MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has about one minute to conclude. MR.

FROESE: We note that United States too is lifting the lid again in increasing the amount of borrowing in that country and they have borrowed- what is it?- close to $300 bil- lion. We are still away from that, but percentagewise we are there where they are, and they're again lifting the lid this year and they have to have special permission to do that for any borrow ings over a certain point.

So in an economy as we have in the Western world there is no other recourse but to have a certain amount of inflation under the present system, If you had Social Credit, we would bring about this extra purchasing power through a national dividend, through the Bank of Canada, which would not be a.debt on the people of this country. MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the Department of Estimates. There is an amendment to dispose of. I am advised by the Clerk that the amendment should be disposed of first and then the main motion and all other motions.

On the motion of the Member for Fort Garry, seconded by the Member for Lakeside, that because the Minister of Industry and Co=erce has failed to deal effectively with the problems facing the business and industrial community of the province, that his salary be reduced to $1. 00. :MR. CHAIRMAN put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. WALTER WEIR (Leader of the Opposition)(Minnedosa): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Chairman, MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been put and this continues throughout the resolution. MR. WEIR: We asked for a recorded vote, Sir. MR. GREEN: A division has been requested, MR.

CHAIRMAN: I am advised by the Clerk that this cannot be done, that the amend ment has been put and all other resolutions will be put in the same ...•• MR. WEIR: Mr. Chairman, the motion that has been put is one, as I understand it, to do with the salary, then the formality takes place after that, but I think that a request for a division at this point is in order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't matter whether it was on a motion of reduc tion of the salary or the salary itself.

If we hadn't terminated the discussion on the salary it would automatically be put. MR. WEIR: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I have asked for is a division. MR. CHAIRMAN: A counted division? All those in favour of the motion of the Member for Fort Garry ..•.. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, if you are having a division then we have to call in the members. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the members. A COUNTED VOTE was taken the result being as follows: Yeas, 22; Nays, 25. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion lost. The Member for Winnipeg Centre, MR. BUD BOYCE (Winnipeg Centre): I'm paired with the Member from Ste, Rose.

If I had voted, I would have voted against the motion, MR. CHAIRMAN: (Industry and Commerce- Resolutions 62 to 'i'O; Department of Mines and Natural Resources - Resolutions 78 to 80; Department of Municipal Affairs - Resolutions 81 to 91; Legislation- Resolutions 1 to 3; Executive Council- Resolutions 4 to 6; Flood Con trol- Resolution 106; and The Pas Enabling Fund- Resolution 107; were all read and passed.) That completes the Estimates of Supply, Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee has passed certain resolutions and begs leave to sit again, IN SES SION MR.

RUSSELL DOERN (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Rupertsland, that the report of the committee be received. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.

2592 June 4. 1970 MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Min ister of Government Services, that the resolutions reported from Committee of Supply be read a second time and concurred in. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. CONCURRENCE MR. CLERK: I. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $975, 300 for Legislation, Resolutions 1 to 3 separately and collectively, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1971. II.

Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2, 089, 400 for Executive Council, Resolutions 4 to 6 separately and collectively, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1971. III. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10, 059, 300 for Agriculture, Resolutions 7 to 18 separately and collectively, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1971. MR. WATT: Mr. Speaker, was that Resolution 7? -- (Interjection)-- I' m sorry. MR. CLERK: IV.

Resolved that there. be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8, 219, 500 for Attorney-General, Resolutions 19 to 24 separately and collectively, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1971. MR. WEm: Resolutions which, Mr. Speaker? MR. CLERK: Resolutions 19 to 24. MR. WEm: Mr. Speaker, we thought they were going a resolution at a time and one of my colleagues wanted to go on Resolution 7, that's why he made the enquiry. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, in order to help deal with the problem I suggest that the Chair simply call on any honourable member who wishes to rise on some earlier resolution.

If there is a resolution coming before Resolution 19, whether it be 7, 10 or 12, that the hon ourable member rise in his place now and indicate which resolution he wishes to move a non concurrence on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. WA'IT: Mr. Speaker, are you prepared now to deal with Resolution No. 7, De partment of Agriculture? MR. SPEAKER: Yes. MR. WATT: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Riel, that while concurring in Resolution No. 7 this House regrets the government has failed to give effective leadership in coping with the present farm income crisis.

MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. WATT: The Member for Arthur, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be a difference of opinion on the other side of the House whether the term or title "Honourable" should be inserted there. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion on concurrence and I want to inform the House at the outset that the amendment that I am bringing in today, that I have presented before the House, is exactly the same amendment that was presented to the House on May 21, 1969.

It was presented by a Socialist backbencher at that time in the Opposition, the Member for Brokenhead. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, the Province of Manitoba has witnessed and has been subjected to what I term a miscarriage of a democratic way of life, a miscarriage that has catapulted the Brokenhead member over into the responsible position as Minister of Agri culture, and I regret to have to say today, Mr. Speaker, that in that responsibility ..... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, The Chair is findingit extremely difficult to hear the Honourable Member for Arthur. The Honourable Member for Arthur may continue. MR.

WATT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I thought that I was trying to speak loud enough to attract the attention of most members opposite because what I have to say today I think that they should listen carefully to, As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Brokenhead, or I believe I termed the Brokenhead member one year ago when he presented that resolution to the House, has been put in a responsible position and I must say, and I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, is carrying out his responsibilities in the same irresponsible manner as he conducted himself in the House as a backbench oppDs!tion D;�.ember �

June 4, 1970 2593 (MR. WATT cont'd.) I could talk at length today, Mr. Speaker, on the different aspects of our agricultural situation in regard to production and in regard to the marketing of our agricultural products, but I realize, Mr. Speaker, as my honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture did not realize when he was on the opposition side, that it is very difficult in that position to cope with the problems that we have particularly in regard to marketing, since that responsibility lies prin cipally with the Federal Government.

I say again that whether he realizes it or not, I believe he did not realize it, that he had no mercy on me when I was Minister of Agriculture and try ing to cope with the problems that I responsibly did carry out at that time. But I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, for a moment about the immediate crisis that eXists in the Province of Manitoba, and that is particularly accelerated by our problems in seeding operations in the Province of Manitoba now and as our seeding operation relates to what we know as the infamous Operation LIFT.

There has been a great deal said in this House about Operation LIFT in the past months, and while I do not want to be repetitious in this area, I think that this, our last opportunity to speak on this particular subject, that I should bring something factual before the House.

Yesterday I asked the question of the Minister of Agriculture what his position was and if he intended to stand up and apologize for his part that he had played in the coming into being of Operation LIFT, and his answer to me was "get up and recite the part that I played." I do not intend today to make any recitation on the part that he played because we are not particularly clear on exactly what part he did play. We know, Mr.

Speaker, that during the months prior to February that the farmers of Manitoba were looking for and expecting some assistance in supporting the agricultural industry in our province from the Federal Government. We know unofficially that before a policy was laid down and established by the Federal Government that the Ministers of Agriculture from all the western provinces were called to Ottawa to consider the proposal. We also know, Mr.

Speaker, that at that time, no farm organization to my know ledge, or to the knowledge of any of the people· on our side of the House here, that no considera tion had been given to what these people thought would be an adequate and a fair and a just assistance in what has been established as a crucial period in our agricultural areas. The Minister of Agriculture proceeded himself to Ottawa, and immediately on return from Ottawa, he declared that a satisfactory policy had been arrived at and agreed to in Ottawa.

And while he has consistently through the weeks, in fact months actually since this House con vened, denied that he has been part and parcel of that program, I want to again read into the record, Mr. Speaker, exactly what he did say in a news release from the Information Depart ment of the Government. And I read again the statement: "We can look upon the new program as a sign of hope for the western farmer. I think our problems are being recognized." Subsequently, Mr .. Speaker, and immediately after that statement, the reaction of the Conservative Party on this side of th ..

House and of the farmers throughout the Province of Manitoba, and the farmers throughout Alberta and Saskatchewan, immediately were adverse to the program. And what happened, Mr. Speaker? The First Minister came into the House, when we denounced this policy and the provincial Minister of Agriculture for the part that he had played in this program, arid I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, from Page 789, April loth, Hansard, and I' m quoting the First Minister.

The First Minister - pardon me before I quote The First Minister at that time was denouncing the Conservatives on this side of the House be cause of our reaction to the government's position in relation to the federal policy, and this is what he said: "As soon as the Federal Government announced its policy, we would have got up and simply denounced it." This is what he is saying that he should have been saying.

"As soon as the Federal Government announced its policy we would have got up and simply denounced it without even giving it one hour's consideration and study, but I think the people of Manitoba and elsewhere in Canada are coming to demand a little more of their elected representativeE:. They would rather like their elected representatives to think somewhat longer about a given policy proposal than to give a dispassionate analysis and then make a statement." And the First Minister further down then goes on to say, "My honourable friends opposite, on this, know it was predictable.

You pull the chain on a flush box and it flushes, and my hon ourable friends, when the .Federal Government makes a statement, my honourable friends react, you know, spontaneously like Pavlov's dogs." Now, Mr. Speaker, that is quite a statement. And I'm sure that the First Minister when he came into the House and used the term "Pavlov's dogs" - and I don't want to get into a

2594 June 4, 1970 (MR. WATT cont•d. ) •.••• discussion on PavloV's dogs again today because we have mention ed them - but what I want to ask the First Minister when he referred to us as PavloV's dogs because we rejected that policy immediately when we saw Operation LIFI', is he referring to the farm bureau? Is he referring to the United Grain Growers and to all the other farm organ izations? Was he referring then to the farm union? Was he referring to Mr.

Atkinson of the National Farm Union when he referred to we on this side of the House, who had reacted quickly when we saw the Operation LIFI', as PavloV's dogs? MR. SCHR EYER: Is the honourable member asking a question? MR. WATT: No, I'm not asking a question right now, but you may ask me a question, all you'd like when you sit down. In fact I'll take questions from the whole ..... across there, but right now I want to go on. Consistently, Mr.

Speaker, since the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture, we asked questions in the House in regard to Operation LIFI' and we finally got this statement from the Minister of Agriculture. Now I want you to ..... MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member was asking a question, I'm won dering if he would like an answer or whether he was expecting an answer later. MR. WATT: I'll be expecting an answer later. I want you to reflect on these two state ments, Mr. Speaker.

The first that I have read into the record, "We can look upon the new program as a sign of hope for a western farmer, and I think our problems are being recog nized. 11 And I quote now, Mr. Speaker, from Hansard, April 9th, 1970, Page 776. "Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we are not happy with the program because it does nothing for Manitoba. In fact it hurts the producers of Manitoba if that program isn't altered because it takes away from them the right to market a product if they produce it." Now, in the middle of all this, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture got up when we tried to get a direct question from him and inferred that he was in a state of flux. At that time I asked him exz.ctly what was his state of flux as it applied to the situation at that time.-- (In terjection)-- Yes, I've already told you, but it's repetitious.

But it's worth repeating, I want say to the Honourable Attorney-General, it is worth repeating because I think the farmers of Manitoba should know that the government of the day in the Province of Manitoba have sold our farmers down the river, in fact have effected the rape of the farmers of the Province of Manitoba to the extent of $20 million. And I said, and I've said in this House before, that if the program had been carried out as announced in Ottawa, the intention to inject $140 million into the agricultural economy of the western provinces, that our share should have been in excess of $25 million, and, Mr.

Speaker, the First Minister himself has indicated in this House that we'll be lucky if we get from one to two million dollars out of it. And this at a time, Mr. Speaker ..... . MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question? I'm sure he doesn't want to be unfair. MR. WATT: I've already suggested to my honourable friend that he can ask me all the questions he likes when I finish my speech - and it's going to be short, Mr. Speaker, because I'm not inclined to make long speeches in the House here like my honourable friend the Min ister of Agriculture and dodge issues.

I'm talking about a direct issue. And I say again, Mr. Speaker, because of the Honourable Minister's negotiations or lack of negotiations with the Federal Government, that it has cost the farmers of this province at least $20 million. Now, my honourable friend had an alternative. He had an alternative that he was pre pared to inject $12 million into the agricultural economy provided that the Federal Government did not come through with a satisfactory policy. Let us establish now.

May we establish that the pblicy is not satisfactory, the federal policy insofar as the Minister of Agriculture is con cerned or the government? Let's have a look. Prior to the meeting in Ottawa, February - I believe prior, we're not sure because we haven't been told exactly when the meeting was or what transpired at that meeting- February 18th, 1970, Winnipeg Free Press. "Stop-gap Ready: Uskiw - $12 million dollars in cash advances to the farmers." I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, that that was a deceitful announcement in respect to the farmers of the Province of Manitoba because the government of the day had no intention of in jecting $12 mil.Uon in cash advances into the economy of this province, had no intentions of injecting $12, 000, had no intentions of injecting 12 cents because the proposal that they put to Ottawa was unacceptable and they knew it before it was proposed; no question about it. I want to read again, Mr. Speaker, into the record, I want to read again into the record Mansard, May 1st, Page 1535. The Honourable Member for st. George is speaking and I

June 4, 1970 2595 (MR. WATT cont'd. ) •. ..• quote: "The province proposed on its own initiati.ve, even though the limited amount of money that is available to a province of this size, it still proposed to the Federal Government a cash advance program in the amount of $2, 000 ..... " - now I'm assum ing that the $2, 000 will be a maximum to the individual farmer - "with, of course," - and I want you to listen to this, Mr.

Speaker - "with, of course, the understanding that Ottawa would permit the province to collect first on the repayment of this when the grain was delivered." How, by the wildest sense of imagination, could anybody possibly propose to the Federal Government, any province, that they would loan, that they would loan and take first mortgage on a product or a commodity that the Federal Government had already the first mortgage on? Call it what you like. Call it what you like.

The Federal Government have the right now to demand repayment to the extent of one-half of the sales and to the extent of the total advance in any given case, to any given farmer, and my honourable friends sit over there and try to put across to me and to the farmers that they really believed that the Federal Government would give them priority, would give them first priority in recovering that need -- (Interjection) - you can just stand up and speak when I get finished.

By the wildest sense of imagination, there's nobody could believe in their right mind that any such proposal presented to the Federal Government would be acceptable and the First Minister knows it. He knows it, and I say em phatically, Mr. Speaker, that it was deceit, that it was a deliberate attempt to lead the farmers of Manitoba to believe that they really intended to inject money into the agricultural economy. And what have they done?-- (Interjection)-- Window dressing, my friend says. It's exactly correct- window dressing; window dressing.

I'm reading facts, I'm reading facts into the record, and when I finish speaking I'd like my honourable friend the First Minister to get up and to justify such a statement to the farmers which he did in the Province of Manitoba, that he would inject $12 million into the economy provided that the Federal Government would set aside their priority on recovering cash advances. And what did the Federal Government say to them? They said oh no, no such foolish agreements have been made by any government. And I'm not here to defend the Federal Government, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not here to defend the Federal Gov ernment, but I give them this much credit, that they've got sense enough to see through any such proposal as that. HON. AL. MACKLING, Q.C. (Attorney-General)(St. James): Would the member answer a question? MR. WATT: Just sit down and I'll answer your questions when you -- Mr.

Speaker, I said at the outset that it was not my intention to make a long speech here, but I want to say, I want to say again that the Minister of Agriculture of the Province of Manitoba has let the farm ers of this province down to the extent that has never been visualized, that never could have possibly happened, has not in the 100 years that this province has been a province. And I say again to him that he should probably get up and apologize for the part that he played in establish ing a policy known as Operation LIFT that is not acceptable to one farmer in the province.

My honourable friend sits and laughs and they jeer and they boo, but let him come out to the con stituency of Arthur and stand up on a platform and tell them the same story, tell them the same factual story that he's getting here today. MR. USKIW: Invite me over, I'll have a debate with you. MR. WATT: I'll be glad to have you. I would just love to be on the platform with my honourable friend when he comes to Arthur to defend his

part in Operation LIFT. That's an invitation. So, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down with these few remarks, but before I do, I want to say that if the Minister of Agriculture has the interest of agriculture and the farmers of this prov ince at heart, that he will resign his position. And I have said before that if he did, that if I demanded that he resign, who would take his place over there?

I've come to the conclusion that probably the Member for Winnipeg Centre might -- (Interjection) -- he couldn't possibly make any more bungling than has occurred in the short time that the Minister of Agriculture has been in office in this province. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I demand that my honourable friend resign, but I think that in justifi cation to the farmers of the Province of Manitoba, and particularly in the plight that they're in now when they are being forced to rely on Operation LIFT, that in the words of the Minister of Agriculture is worthless to the farmers of the Province of Manitoba, that he should get up and publicly apologize, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General.

2596 June 4, 1970 MR. MACKLING: ...•. ask a question? -- (Interjection) -- Yes, you will, you'll answer a question now? MR. WATT: Yes. MR. MACKLING: Do I take it from your remarks that you support the Federal Govern ment's position ..... MR. SPEAKER: May I remind honourable members to maintain some decorum in debate, that it's preferable that remarks be addressed to the Chair rather than directly across the floor. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the honourable member, Mr. Speaker, whether or not he, Mr.

Speaker, will indicate whether or not his position then supports the Federal Government• s rejection of the Manitoba proposal. MR. WATT: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Federal Government did not reject the proposal of the Manitoba Government to inject $12 million into the economy of our agriculture but they rejected the basis on which it would be recovered, and I say again that I could not possibly, in all conscience, say to any clear-thinking business corporation or assembly that they should suddenly set aside a commitment that had been made to recover money advanced by another body. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member hasn't answered my question so I put the question to him aga.in, with your permission and with the permission of the honourable member. Mr. Speaker, can I hear from the member whether or not he supports the position taken by the Federal Government in respect to the proposal that was put to them by the Manitoba Government? MR. WATT: I have already said that the proposal put to the Federal Government by the Manitoba Government, that the Manitoba Government }mew before the proposal was even sent that it was not going to be acceptable. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I don't think ...... . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before the Honourable Minister proceeds, I'm informed that there are 59 Grade 5 and 6 students have just arrived in the gallery from Barclay Public School of Dryden, Ontario, under the direction of Mrs. Siska and Miss King. On behalf of the Honourable Mem bers of the Legf.slative Assembly, we welcome you here this afternoon. CONCURRENCE (Cont1d) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to take a great deal of time to respond to the innuendoes that are coming from across the way. The honourable friends opposite seem to in sist on indulging on misrepresentation in the House, that is misrepresentation of the facts as they are .•.•• MR. WATT: Is my honourable friend denying the fact that I read out of Hansard and out of the newspaper? MR. USKIW: My honourable friends opposite can read anything they want out of Hansard. The only thing they refuse to read is the whole story.

They like to take out one line of a sen tence or one line of a paragraph and I want to say that that is absolute nonsense and nobody here is going to pay a great deal of attention to it. If my honourable friend wants to be constructive, I would suggest that he criticize, if he likes, the program and proposal of the Government of Manitoba, and 'Yith the criticism should offer some serious and legitimate advice to the Gov ernment of Manitoba which he hasn't done.

I want to say to my honourable friend that he himself,_ in my opinion, is practising to some degree a deceitful action when he accuses the Government of Manitoba of doing so with a proposal that was most seriously presented to the Government of Canada back in February. My honourable friend again, and to prove my point that he takes things out of context, only quoted half of our proposal - only half. The other half of the proposal - and maybe my honour able friend ought to refresh his memory ..•. MR. WATT: Half as much money. MR.

USKIW: . . • . and that is that we were also prepared to inject that kind of money into Manitoba's economy based on a proportionate return of funds when the grain is sold through the Canadian Wheat Board, proportionate to that of the Government of Canada cash advance

June 4, 1970 2597 (MR. USKIW cont•d. ) ••••• program, My honourable friend didn•t see fit to mention that. He said we only proposed something that was very difficult for the Government of Canada to ac cept, and that therefore we were practising some form of deceit, knowing that this would not be acceptable to the Government of Canada. I want to say to my honourable friend that the Prime Minister thought it was a very good idea, His Treasury people perhaps didn't think it was all right, but he himself thought that was a very novel idea, I want to say that that proposal, Mr.

Chairman, was indeed put in all seriousness and it had two objectives, One was to indeed bring ahout some kind of cash into the pockets of the grain producers of the prairies; and the other objective was that if that was turned down, at least we will have done everything we could have in pressuring the Government of Canada to announce some program that would replace or substitute the kind of proposal which we had. That was really the objective of that exercise.

Now, my honourable friend likes also to indicate to members in the House and outside the House, as do other members opposite as reported in various newspaper articles and so forth, and as reported by some of the people who write to me to which I have replied, asking that they perhaps should seek a greater degree of truth from their MLA rather than to accept what they have stated as being completely true, or at least not out of context. So I want to say, Mr.

Chairman, that it is not true, and my honourable friend knows it, that the provincial Ministers of Agriculture were involved at all in the development of the LIFT program, and I indicated that in this House on more than one occasion.

I made a very lengthy report to this Chamber explaining that position, that we were indeed called in to be advised of the program that was to be ann ounced the very next day, and that I expressed some regrets in this House, in this House, that the Government of Canada did not consult either with the three prairie provinces and indeed more fully with the farm organization before they launched a program. All we were asked to do, Mr. Chairman, was to be informed or to inform ourselves if we desired, and that we not issue any press statements until they issued their ann ouncement the very next day.

And that's only fair, I don't think that it would have been cricket for the Government of Manitoba to say anything in advance of the statement on the part of the Govern ment of Canada with respect to a new policy, And I think my honourable friend, if he was fair, would agree, would agree that Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta indeed played no

part in the development of any program that has been announced by the Federal Government in recent days. I wish we would have played some part because I think we would have had a much improved program. much improved program.

As my honourable friend ought to recall, I made a statement in this House that I was not going to take a political position on their proposal, that I was going to at least give it the bene fit of some study in depth as to what it really means to the people of Manitoba, and that sub sequent to that study we would be issuing a statement and would be making further representa tions to the Government of Canada trying to effect the kind of changes in their program that we thought were desirable.

And my honourable friend knows 1that those are, but he obviously neglected to mention those because it suits his political purpose and intuition to do otherwise. MR. WATT: Would he permit a question? MR. USKIW: Certainly. MR. WATT: Did you study the program before you made that statement? MR. USKIW: That statement ..... MR. WATT: Again I will read the statement, "that we can look forward to new hope." MR. USKIW: That's right, I think we can. MR. WATT: Have you studied it? MR. USKIW: I think we can look forward to new hope because I think that people at the federal level. .•. MR.

WATT: You agree with the program then? MR. USKIW: Pardon me? MR. WATT: You agree with the program? MR. USKIW: I didn't say that at all. I said I "Violently disagreed with certain parts of that program, I want to also say to my honourable friend that the program is not completely bad. There are good aspects in it for those people that can respond to it, but on balance it's not a program that is most beneficial to Manitoba. So my honourable friend -- there is no such a thing as a black and white situation in this issue. There are significantly good points about

2598 June 4, 1970 (MR . USKIW cont'd. ) ••••• some of the proposals and there are very adverse points from the standpoint of Ma.!nitoba.' s position- parts that were in that program - and I've outlined this very adequately, both to the news media and indeed to the Legislature some months ago. And re peatedly within the Chamber, within this House, Mr. Speaker, I've outlined Manitoba' s position quite completely and my honourable friend knows it, so I don't think that I ought to repeat my self.

I think that we're debating the same argument, or we• re into the same argument that we have had here for at least half a dozen times in the last two or three months and it's pure repetition. Everything my honourable friend said today he said a month ago, two months ago, three months ago, and despite the fact that there have been rebuttals to his statements and his remarks, he ha.E not changed his record - maybe he can't afford a new record, I don't know maybe he hasn't found someone to write a new speech for him. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J.

EINARSON (Rock Lake): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in connection with this motion of concurrence on the Department of Agriculture. Listening to the debate here in the last few minutes, I want to say that speaking of Operation LIFT and trying not to be too much in the way of repetition. I do concur with my colleague the Member for Arthur that this is one aspect of our agriculture industry that has and is playing and going to play a very important role insofar as agricultur e is concerned.

While the Minister has just conveyed to us the fact that there have been probably some organiZations in this province who have been consulted by the Federal Gover nment, I have come to discover on some occasions that I find it hard to understand whereby some members who are representing farm organiza tions seem to feel they are speaking for the farmer - and I am speaking on behalf of the masses of the farmers of this province when I say this - and I sometimes become ala rmed and concerned at what kind of reputation they're getting when it comes to dealing with proble ms with the Federal Government.

I feel rather critical of the Minister in this case where I feel that he should have given much more study to the Operation LIFT than was given before coming to any decision. As I understand it, if I do recall correctly - I don't have the statement before me - I believe it was on the 28th of February where the First Minister and the Minister of Agricul ture had agreed that the Federal Government were finally realizing that there was a problem in Western Canada, and I believe they were agreed that the program that they were about to follow was one that they concurred in.

Then. after having found this out, realizing when the matters all came before the farmers throughout the country, they joined those forces that seemed to feel at one time were in favour of it, and then suddenly realized when the farmers were opposed to it, got on the bandwagon and went along with the organization that formed here in Winnipeg, and I think you all remember that, and where the Minister of Agriculture took great support with. So I find it very difficult to understand, where does the Minister stand.

One time he's with some thing he thinks :is going to be of benefit to the farmers, and they finally find out that it's not going to work, fuen gets on their side and goes along with them and opposes the whole program. MR. USKIW: I wonder if the honourable member would submit to a question? MR. EINARSON: I would rather complete my statement, Mr. Speaker. So much for that. But one thing that I would like to mention. and that is the Minister has failed in all his time of office to call the Agricultural Committee on many other matters that are important to agri culture and the farmers as a whole.

I think of the Farm Machinery Committee that we held - and when we were government we had many meetings - and I think that this is one matter that farmers throughout the province, as a resul t of many accidents that have occurred on tractors, to give you one example, have happened. This is something that we were concerned about when we were in agriculture, and when my colleague the Member for Arthur was the Minister, had a number of mee�ings, discussed this and we were working sort of in conjunction with the Federal Commission that was working on the same matter.

Since they took office there has never been one word mentioned of ever calling the Agricultural Committee on the farm machinery matter and the many proble ms that relate thereto. Another ma_tter that has been very important in the province, and I thought we had come quite a long ways in establishing a program, particularly for the farmers in the dairy business, and I'm referr!Jlg to the artificial insemination program that has a lot of problems and things that had to be ironed out insofar as the people who were providing the services and the people who were providing the products were concerned.

This is another area that has not received any attention. to my knowledge at least, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that the Minister has certainly reneged in his responsibili ties in this field.

June 4, 1970 2599 (MR. EINARSON cont1d. ) There• s one other matter that I want to bring to the Minister's attention. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation was in my area not so long ago, was called out to speak to a group of citizens who were concerned about Rock Lake and what was going to be. done about it. There were a number of questions asked, and the Minister, certainly he agreed to takethesequestions and to give answers.

I was concerned about the amount of money that I was given to understand was going to be granted by the ARDA funds to begin a project that I think was long awaited and it was about time to do something ab9ut it, and when I asked a question in the House about the funds that I was given to understand were being all ocated, the Minister referred me to the Min ister of Mines and Resources. A few days later I was told -- the Minister of Mines and Resources said this is the re sponsibility of the Minister of Agriculture.

So I asked the Minister of Agriculture and he didn't know on that particular day but he did finally give me the answer and said that there were no funds being all ocated for that purpose and said that we, or the previous government had not committed any funds in any way.

This is also an area I think- if this is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture I wasn't aware of it at that time - I think that has been lacking and certainly deserves more attention because I think this is an area where as our cities grow larger people have more time on their hands and they like to get out to plac es where they can spend, say, the weekend, or their leisure time, get away from the city life and into the rural communities, the beauty spots - and I want to say that in the constituency I represent we do have a number of areas and they are in the news these days, right from Pelican Lake right through to Swan Lake, Rock Lake and Swan Lake, and we invite people there.

So I say I was rather disappointed in the comments that I got from the Minister of Agriculture in this regard. Those are some of the comments that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Min ister's portfolio is concerned, and I feel that he has reneged very much on all these matters. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable ..... MR. USKIW: Did he want to submit to a question, Mr. Speaker? MR. EINARSON: If I can answer it. MR. USKIW: Yes. With respect to ARDA funds, you had stated that I had not played any

part in allocating ARDA funds to Rock Lake for recreational development. Is it not true that the decision as to where ARDA funds were to be used, all the residual ARDA funds that were left in the program, were decided when the previous government was still in power and had made all the decisions with respect to all the funds that were left in the ARDA program? MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I was given to understand that $60, 000 was allocated for Rock Lake. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister. MR.

SCHREYER: In a way it' s unfortunate that much that has been said, and much I sup pose of what I will say, is in a sense repetitions, but inasmuch as there seems to be some dif ficulty in communication between those of us on this side and certain members onnosite relative to agricultural policy, well because there is that difficulty in communication I suppose it's necessary to repeat so that misunderstanding can be minimized.

The old Lattn saying applies, that repetition is the mother of learning, and perhaps if we repeat our position often enough the Honourable Member for Arthur will learn that it is not nearly as bad as he would make it out to be. Let me begin by making reference to the difference of opinio n that exists as to this govern ment' s position relative to Operation LIIT. Let me go back to the time when the program was first announced by the federal authorities.

When it was announced, I received almost concur rently a letter from the Prime Minister saying that this progrrun., the Federal Government hoped, would be one of great significance in trying to solve the probl ems of Western Canadian agriculture, and stating further in the letter that he hoped it would receive the cooperation of the prairie Premiers and prairie provincial governments. I replied to him to the effect that certainl y we would keep an open mind on the matter and that we would give it full study before making any comment either completely favourable or completely adverse.

It's very soon there after that I did indicate to the news media that because of the amount of money that was being tal ked about, and the Honourable Member for Arthur should be among the first to recall that an amount something in the order of $120 million was being talked about -- (Interjection) -- I beg your pardon? - $140 million, that on the basis of that and prorating it to the Manitoba farm scene it seemed like there would be something in the order of 20 or 22 million dollar s.

2600 June 4, 1970 (MR. SCHREYER cont•d. ) Now it is no fault of the Provincial Minister of Agriculture that those estimates given by _ the federal officials were so far out.

I mean this is what came out at the very beginning, and it seemed to be a program of such magnitude that it would of necessity be of some Jignificant help to prairie agriculture and to Manitoba as well, so subsequent to that the Mlmster of Agriculture here and myself, and others, did make, not myself so much I admit be�ause of other duties, but certainly the Minister and members of the staff of the department did make a pretty comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the full implications of the operation; so-called LIFT program.

My first reaction to the program when questioned about it by the press - and this is on the basis of a superficial reading of the news account _ - I said that it was a program which may be helpful, and if it really and truly was a program in which $140 million would be involved as they said would be, then it no doult would have been helpful, but those estimates were wrong apparently from the start and I on behalf of my colleague and myself cannot take any responsi bility at all for Ule fact that the figures given, the estimates given by the Federal Department fo Agriculture VJere that far out.

After considerable study was made of the matter and a num ber of weeks passed, we saw more clearly that the program was not likely to be as beneficial as the Federal Government was making out at first that it might be. Now here comes the rather amusing incident, the exchange between the Member for Arthur and myself.

When I referred to the attitude of honourable members opposite whenever federal policies were announced, I said that their attitude was comparable to that of PavloV's dogs, and I did not mean that in the sense that my honourable friends opposite were dogs but simply that their response was so automatic- you know, I mean completely automatic, that if the Grits in Ottawa say something is good the Tories say it's bad; if they say that something is black the Toriea say it's white; and it's that kind of automatic response that quite frankly the Minister of Agriculture and I. and I think most of my colleagues, not all, are trying to get away from, the kind of political jockeying about that has been the pattern for so many long years that when the party in power says something is so and so, the opposition automatically takes the opposite position.

I know that there is such a thing as legitimate difference of view and constructive dissent and opposition, but I think that it is meritorious and becoming an opposition to look, at least take the time first to look carefully at something, and e_ven my honourable friend the Member for .Arthur I think would admit that it takes more than six or twelve hours to make a full analy sis of a program. So I don't think that the Minister of Agriculture should be faulted for the fact that he was pretty cautious in his preliminary statement with respect to Operation LIFT and so was I.

I did not want to take quite frankly, I did not want to take an automatically negative position and so I said at the beginning that it may be helpful. This is what I said. Subsequently, �.fter fuller consideration, I said it seems clear now, after consideration, that the program will not be nearly as advantageous or worthwhile or beneficial to western farmers as the Federal Government initially suggested it would be.

Now I consider that to be a reasonable position that the Member for Arthur should not want to quarrel with so much. and the reference to PavloV's dogs was simply to be taken in the context that it's not becoming an Opposition to take an automatic opposite position after one hour of consideration of a complex subject or complex program. Take enough time to give it some study and then take your position.

It's not just with respect to agricultural policy, just about every issue that comes up in the House of Commons - well, here too far that matter - the tendency I think has lasted far too long that the government of the day takes one position and just automatically in a matter of minutes there is an opposite position being struck by the opposition group. PavloV's dogs behaved that way, and it's only in that sense that I used that expression and not to in any way reflect on the integrity or on the powers of analysis of members opposite, it is just that they didn't take enough time.

They should have taken a little more time before they denounced that program. I do not fault them for denouncing it, I should add, because after sufficient consideration of it it is clear, and it has been said by the Minister and by my self on repeated occasions, that the program has little import for western agriculture and in particular for Manitoba farmers. One hopes that it will be -- if anything comes of it it will be more because of nature than because of the benefits that the program provides. I know that there is really no inducement

June 4, 1970 2601 (MR. SCHREYER cont•d. ). or m� worthy of the name in operation LIFT that will induce farmers to proceed along the lines that the Federal Government would like them to, cut down on their wheat acreage,_, increase summerfallow and the like, but maybe nature this year will, simply because it i8'1ilat e spring, a lot of precipitation in some parts of the province, it may be that there will be a lot more summerfal lowing, but as I said, it will be because of nature, not because of the so-called inducements under Operation LIFT. Now may I in concl usion, Mr.

Speaker, make Ollf3 further reference to, in this case, what was said by the Member for Rock Lake - and the Mem1!er for Arthur too. They said, what are you doing? What are your polici es; they are non-existent.

Lwell I want to tell them that we have appropriated in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture an amount which shows that there is for example, and I'll just cite a few examples, $150, 000 more for the Animal In dustry than there was last year, and I presume a lot more than there was two years ago; $160, 000 more for Veterinary Services than there was last year, and inasmuch as we are trying to encourage greater diversification into livestock industry, one will see that it is a logical and consistent thing to do, to appropriate more money for Veterinary Services and the Animal In dustry generally.

We have an additional $400, 000, an increase of $400, 000 over last year for Agricultural Extension Service. We have $80, 000 more in the division of Soils and Crops. We have a 100 percent increase in appropriation for the Manitoba Farm Credit Corporation, an in crease from $900, 000 to 1. 8 million. All in all an increase for the Department of $1. 7 millio n, an increase of 21 percent, and I think that the Honourable Member for Arthur has to admit that an increase in the departmental appropriations for agriculture of 21 percent in one fiscal year is something that is to be taken notice of.

Not only that, in addition to the increase of 21 percent in appropriation for farming, for the agricultural industry, we have through the Department of Agriculture and Finance made available, pledged several mill ions of dol lars for farm credit. All in all I think that the prov ince, within the limits of its constitutional responsibilities and powers, is doing about as much as can be done with respect to the problems in the farming industry.

We conceivably could do more with the cooperation of the Federal Government, and we have indicated that we would be prepared to go into fields of spending in the farming industry never before entered into - and I'm not blaming the previous administration that they did not enter into certain new fields of spending in agriculture because really these new fields I am talking about are clearly federal and have been for the past 30 years, but in the past 1.2--month period and slightly more, the Federal Government has been reluctant to increase its sJending in the Department of Agriculture despite the fact that there has been an abnormal situation, very adverse economic circumstances, but despite that they have not entered into additional spending programs in that department.

So for that reason the province was contemplating, and still contemplates and would be prepired to enter into new fields of spending, even though some of these may be under federal jurisdiction, if there was an indication of intent on the Federal Government to at least expedite it by making, by cooperating in terms of administration or by cost-sharing - and I refer to cash advances and/or acreage payments.

But honourable members opposite never saw fit and I'm not blaming them particularly - to go into provincial acreage payments and I suggest the present administration can look at this seriously only on the basis of cost-sharing with the Federal Government on seme basis of two to one or fifty-fifty.

Well, if provincial action in this respect is likely to bring about some federal extra cash injection, then I think the province ought to be ready to do it, but we do not want to move in completely into a new field of spending that up until now has been completely federal without bringing in federal invol vement as well, because to do so would be to change subtly the division of responsibility to agricult ure that has existed between the two levels of government, federal and provincial, ever since the depression, ever since the end of the 1930' s.

So I think honour able members opposite should want to be more fair in their remarks that they direct to the Minister of Agricult ure. MR. WATI : Could I ask the First Minister a question? I would like to ask the First Minister does he not agree that the agreement by the Minister of Agricult ure of Manitoba, when he saw that proposal in Ottawa before it was announced, prompted the Minister of Agri culture in Ottawa to announce that policy ? MR. SCHREYER: Operation LIFT? MR. WATT: Yes, I was referring to Operation LIFT.

2602 June 4, 1970 MR. SCHREYER: Well, if the honourable member is suggesting that something that was being pro posed or being said by our Minister of Agriculture is what prompted the Federal Government to come forward with operation LIFI', then it's news to me. Certainly what our Minister of Agriculture was proposing at the meeting in Ottawa had to do with extra cash advances or cooperation on supplementary cash advances and the like, but nothing that I'm aware of was in the nature of urging a program such as Operation LIFI' is. MR. WATT: Mr. Speaker, then does the First Minister not agree with Mr.

Olson• s announcement in Manitoba, subsequent to the announcement of Operation LIFI', that it had been agreed to by the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba? MR. SCHREYER: Well, why doesn't the member put that question to the Minister of Agriculture. It's a case of finding out what he agreed or did not agree to, but certainly I know that we did not condemn the program automatically right off the bat, we wanted time to study it carefully, which was done, and I think the Minister has expressed the opinion subse quent to the careful study and consideration that the program has many shortcomings.

I hope I'm not misquoting the Honourable Minister. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris) : Mr. Speaker, the First Minister has stated that he was reluctant to change anything in the way of arrangements that have existed between the federal and provincial governments in the way of division of responsibility, and I know, and I'm quite prepared to concede that those things, t"!\ose changes don't come about readily.

A change in the constitutional responsibilities of this country is not easy of achievement, and successive conferences dealing with these matters have proved that it's almost impossible to get those kind of changes and I'm not faulting the government in that respect. However, I do want to draw to his attention • • • MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I was also referring to division of financial responsibility.

It wouldn't take an amendment, as the honourable member knows, it wouldn't require any amendment to the constitution to enable the province to pay cut money on a pro gram that hitherto had been a federal responsibility. MR. JORGENSON: I quite agree with the First Minister. The point that struck me was the seeming reluctance on the part of the government now to change the status quo.

This comes in the light of the statement in the Speech from the Throne that they wanted to throw out old ideas, concepts and traditions and change the world, at least change the world as it exists in the Province of Manitoba, and I see now that there is some degree of reluctance on the part of the First Minister to want to do that if it means that there is going to be an assumption of further responsibility. Well, be that as it may, I do want to deal with a couple of the statements that the First Minister has made.

I regret that I was unable to be here when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking but I presume that we heard somewhat of a repetition of what we have heard in the past so I'll perhaps let some of my colleagues deal with those statements.

But the th ing that strikes me, Sir, is the statement by the First Minister to the effect that they wanted an opportunity, wanted an opportunity to examine the proposal of the Federal Government before they commented on it, and he perhaps will not be surprised if I tell him that it took very little examination on the part of many members on this side of the House to recognize immediately that the program was useless insofar as this province was concerned and so we immediately rejected it, rejected it on several grounds. -- (Interj ection) -- Well, all one had to do was to read the figure and one knew exactly how little it would do for this province.

As if that wasn't enough, as if the $6. 00 an acre figure ..,. and the people in Ottawa seem to have a preoccuption with $6. 00, they were known at one time as the six-buck boys and this figure seems to recur in their lifetime - but apart from the inadequacy of the amount that was involved, the penalties that are imposed on farmers both in the quota allotments for this crop year and their inability to participate in that program if in previous years they had voluntarily reduced wheat acreages in recognition of the problem that was developing.

The farmers who recognized that difficulty are being penalized and the farmers who through no fault of their own, through crop failures in the past two years - and there are many such farmers in the Red River Valley - t-wo succes sive years of poor crops have placed them :In a position where there is a great need to seed, there is a great need to have a crop in order to have something to sell at all. They are now going to be penalized as a result of this program. It didn't take

June 4, 1970 2603 (MR. JORGENSON cont'd) . . . . • any more than a cursory examination of the program to determine that it was going to be of little if no benefit to the farmers of this province, and it was on that basis that we immediately rejected the program.

I suggested, suggested then and I suggested again in the House here the other day, and I'll make the suggestion the third time because I don't think that the First Minister was here when I made it during the course of the debate that we had in the House the other day on Private Members' Resolutions, that the simple solution and the proper answer to this problem would have been a recognition of the cash needs of farmers first of all.

The cash advance in this instance is of not much value to a farmer who has nothing to be advanced cash on, but a recognition of the cash needs could have been met by simply the government suggesting that they would be prepared to rent land from the farmer at current rental rates. MR. USKIW: Would the member submit to a question? MR. JORGENSON: There' s nothing, really nothing wrong with that kind of proposal. Farmers in every area, in every municipality of this country know the rental rates of land in their particular municipality because there are rental agreements going on every year.

It would not have placed the farmers in the position where they• re being bludgeoned into accepting something that they didn't really want to accept. They were free to accept the rental arrange ment or reject it. MR. USKIW: Would my honourable friend submit to a question? MR. JORGENSON: I don't know why I can't get through a speech, Mr. Speaker, without somebody asking me to submit to questions. If the Minister will wait until I'm through and let me pursue my line of thought, perhaps he'll learn something and he won't have to ask any questions.

What I'm suggesting is that if this rental rate had have been proposed by the Federal Government, they then would have been in the position where they could rent the land that they wanted to take out of production as a result - and I agree with the First Minister when he said there's going to be a lot of land that's going to be taken up under this program not because the farmers want to but because of the weather conditions and the weather conditions only.

The Liberals even got the Almightly on their side this year, but if they had a straight rental arrange ment the government then could have taken out those acres that they felt contributed most to the surplus. As it happened, as it's going to happen, they• re going to get a lot of acres that are not and never have contributed much to the grain surplus - sub-marginal land. The farmer on the other hand would have been in a position to determine on the basis of his own experience, his own position, his own situation, whether or not he wanted to rent land, whether or not it would be advantageous for him to do so.

That's the decision the farmer could have made on his own without being bludgeoned into it. I made that suggestion within hours after the Minister Without Portfolio had suggested the kind of proposal that he bad made. I made it later in a radio broadcast and I suggested it here in the House during the debates on a Private Member's Resolution and I'm suggesting it again. But it has not been taken up and I think it would have afforded an opportunity for the government-- (Interjection) -- no, cash rental runs 12 to 15 dollars an acre in most of the good acres in this province.

If you want to rent land at $6. 00 an acre, you will rent sub-marginal land, you will rent pasture land or some thing like that. Now we know the reason why, Mr. Speaker, now we know the reason why that it took them so long to recognize the deficiencies of this program. If the First Minister suggests that $6. 00 an acre is the rental rate for land in this province, then he is far from being right. MR. SCHREYER: For grain land? MR. JORGENSON: Yes, for grain land. MR. SCHREYER: Six dollars an acre, I suggest, is a little closer than my honourable friend' s figure.

He suggests $12. 00 an acre and I think he's quite high on that. MR. JORGENSON: I think the First Minister will find that :In the Red River Valley land has been renting for 12 to 15 dollars an acre, and this would have been a more appropriate figure for the government to come up with if they were to meet the objectives of reducing wheat acreage.

Ten million acres at $15. 00 an acre would have meant only $150 million and it would have been $150 million well spent, because in addition to taking the land out of production there would have been a cash injection into the hands of the farmers that would have done something to relieve the cash situation. It would have placed farmers in the position where they would have been able to pay some of the bills that they have incurred, would have been able to pay the

2604 June 4, 1970 (M R. JORGENSON cont'd) .• ••• taxes on their property and would have been able to carry on until this situation rights itself. And there' s no question in my mind that it's going to right itself. I'm not so pessimistic as to think that this surplus situation is going to be with us forever. That's exactly what they said in 1957 and in 1958, that farmers had to reduce wheat acreages, and instead of that wheat acreages were increased and the grain was sold and markets were found. I note now, Sir, that the government are finding markets.

They're finding markets in South America: because they're finally looking to South America for markets. They are finding markets in Asia where they never looked before. They are finding markets in other parts of the country where we haven't had traditional wheat markets. I suggest to you, Sir, that the fear that is expressed by so many people that because India and Pakistan are going into wheat production that they are going to create surpluses on the world markets is one that will not be borne out by the facts or by subsequent events.

What India and Pakistan will do in getting into wheat production will be to change their dietary habits so that they will be consuming larger quantities of wheat in their regular diet, and anyone who has any familiarity with the situation in India and Pakistan will know that almost exclusively the success of crops in those areas depend upon the monsoons, and the monsoons fail more times than many of us perhaps know. It will mean that in order to maintain their diets from time to time th<3re will be required large quantities of wheat from those wheat producing nations such as Canada.

We will then be in a position to have a stabilizing effect on the world market, will then be in a position to supply those markets that will be in existence in the event of crop failures that do occur from time to time across this world. But the important thing is that there will be developing in those countries markets for wheat, markets for the products of our farms. Now then. the needs of the farming community are such that a cash injection of $150 million would not have been in excess of what the requirements are.

And this government, this governmem, Sir, as near as I can make out, have done nothing in the face of rising assessme nts on farm land and declining farm prices, done nothing to all eviate that situation. They've continued to believe thatth.e farming community is a cow that can be milked in perpe tuity, and I suggest to them that that is not the case.

Anyone who is familiar with the municipal situation today will recognize that the payment of taxes in rural areas is going to be a problem that the government is going to have to face up to very shortly, and the injection of this amount of money into the farming community would have done a great deal to alle viate that situation.

It's on the basis of that argument that I made the proposal that I have just outlined to the House and I think it would have done a great deal more to solve, or to alleviate - the farm problem is going to be by no means solved - but to alle viate the present crisis in agriculture, and I wish that the government had paid a little more attention to what I was saying at that time and conveyed my solution, what I believe to be the solution to the present crisis, to the Government of Ottawa.

I had an opportunity to do that at Lethbridge when I was talking to the Honourable James Richardson and he suggested that I should have done it sooner. Well, maybe that's true, but I thought that my words were received well enough in this House that they would have been carried on to the Government at Ottawa. Since this government in particular had no ideas of their own, I thought they would be happy to take ideas from somebody who did have a suggestion or two to make on this particular situation. MR. USKIW: Would the member submit to a question now?

Is it not true that the reason for the cash shortage is because of the lack of grain sal es ? MR. JORGENSON: Well, th at's partly the reason but I don't think it's a reason that you can apply. I'm perfectly willing to admit, and no one can deny it, that the wheat crisis, the lack of sales in wheat reflects itself in all other areas, as indeed it's doing in the industrial area right now, and so solving of the wheat problem is most certaiuly something that has to be done immediately.

But one of the ways that it can be done, one of the ways that the problem can be all eviated is an injection of cash into the farming community on the basis of the sugges tion that I made here this afternoon. MR. USKIW : Would my honourable frien_d not agree, Mr. Speaker, that if a farmer has a cash shortage because he' s unable to move his product, that indeed an advance against the production of that product would indeed bring about the kind of cash return that he's looking for? MR. JORGENSON: It's of no good at all to a farmer who does not have a surplus of

June 4, 1970 2605 (MR. JORGENSON cont•d) . • • . • grain. lt' s of no benefit at· all to a farmer who suffered from two successive crop failures and now is going to be penalized by this program, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland, MR. FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, I feel that I should say a few words since this will probably be the last chance that we will have to discuss agriculture under the estimates and its concur rences, and I listened with great interest to what has been said this afternoon and also to the previous speaker who• s just sat down. l' m just wondering whether we as a province should have gone into a program on our own. because what do we have, about between 4 and 5 million acres devoted to wheat in Manitoba, and if we'd cut it down by 1 million and given $15. 00 an acre, this would amount to $15 million.

This would have been a very substantial decrease in the wheat acreage, I'm sure that this would then mean cash to the farmer and certainly he would have some income at his disposal. But then we hear some very depressing news as well, and I refer to the Tribune of this afternoon and we find the statement here to the effect, and I quote: "24 Percent Price Drop for Wheat Within Five Years. A u. s. economist predicted here Wednesday that world wheat prices will decline at least 24 percent within five years. Professor D. R.

Canterbury of Florida State University said many less developed nations will soon be producing enough wheat to meet their domestic requirements and will be entering the export market." This sounds very depressing, When we speak of the motion and what the motion refers to, coping with the present farm income crisis, I think it is incumbent upon this House to inform the farmers of this province of any developments that are on the horizon, that are taking place and that we will be facing and will have to face up to.

But when we hear statements of this type and then to go around spreading this in the Province of Manitoba, I feel that it is very depressing and that I for one would not like to spread gloom of this type - and it is very gloomy in my opinion.

The Member for Morris just mentioned that he certainly didn't feel that we would have these surpluses forever, that times would come again where we would be in short supply, and I don't doult this myselt I think we have had these cycles; we'v e had good crops for many years; and as a result we'v e had surpluses, but I feel that sooner or later we will not be having the same good crops year after year and I'm sure that as a result these surpluses will dis appear.

But it disturbs a farmer to read in the paper, when outside speakers come in and make these predictions, and no doult statements of this type have an effect, I think, on the export markets and those people that do the importing, and no doult will one day prevail that prices should come down, and prices have already dropped in Canada. We noted that immedi ately when the dollar was reduced, or the dollar was increased in value compared to the U.

S. dollar, that this meant a decrease in the wheat price, not only in wheat but the price of flax, no doubt because it's higher value the decrease is that much greater, so that this will also mean a reduction in the income of the farmer in the current year, that he will, even if he is able to sell he will receive less for his product, and so this is certainly no improvement. I don't wish to repeat what I said earlier in debate in connection with inland storage and so on.

I'v e made my views known on that and I feel there would be a certain advantage if this was implemented and that we could then sell the product in time of greater need. However, we will soon be finished with the estimates and we'll be gone for another year. In the meantime, the farmers themselves, they will have to cope with the situation.

They're in it; they can•t escape it; and as indicated by the Member for Morris that they will be unable to pay their taxes and that this will become a real problem to them. and I'm sure it already is in many quarters, that they're the ones that are facing the desperate situation that will occur in many places, because many farmers today are unable to seed their fields; very little seeding has been done, especially in the Red River Valley, so far - more has been seeded up in the western part of the province - and this also adds to the depression among people that already exists.

I sure would like to see any program whereby we could assist the farmer in the current year and not have to wait for another year to come along and just wait on the good graces of the Federal Government that they will bring about programs that will be to our benefit. We know that the LIFT program certainly will not be doing much for the farmer in Manitoba. In fact, I think it's just going to harm them much more than help them. I've indicated this on previous occasions, that deliveries will be cut down very substantially, and this means a lower income to the farmer.

So I do hope that we Call still come up with something that will help the situation in Manitoba. Maybe we should ask the government at least to have a commit tee continue during the recess and see whether we cannot bring about some program and

2606 June 4, 1970 (MR. FROESE cont•d) • . • . . something that will help the farmer in the current year. I. think this is very essential because of the situation that they face. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. LEONARD A. BARKMAN (L a Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a few words concerning the position of our group.

I think that we have no alternative but to say that we will support this motion of concurrence for perhaps other reasons than have been mentioned in this House today, one being that this motion, having been the now Minister' s former motion, if things were critical and bad a year ago, they certainly have not improved from a year ago, and I think that :regardless how hard the Minister says, or doesn't say -- regardless how hard he may have tried, I think the whole government is responsible for this position, and there seems to be an attitude existing today and during the time of the estimate debates, there seems to be somewhat of a feeling that, well, we•ve got this thing under hand, and somehow, as the First Minister was speaking, it just seemed to bear out that well, we•v e done this and we•v e done that, and really the Federal Government is responsible for most of the problems, and I agree they are, to a great extent; the re' s no question in anyone's mind that they aren't.

But in the meantime, there seems to be a feeling of, well, we haven't done too bad. · And I was very disturbed the other day, after asking for this committee to study some of these problems on agriculture, and I'm sure it embarrassed the Honourable Minister of Agriculture himself when the Honourable Member for St. George brought in the amendment of saying that we must and we should commend the Minister.

Well, I'm sure that was not the intention of the Minister, but for the First Minister to defend that kind of an amendment, I thought was not in order with the agricultural situation being as it is today, and these are a few of the reasons that we will be voting with the motion, and I think that, if I may say, that this government cannot take the attitude that they will be solving all the problems, but they can certainly take a different attitude by suggesting in their own minds that we have a problem; let's not be too optimistic about it ; let's work with it ; and I think this is the one part that I' d like to stress, and I find not so much fault -- I think perhaps the Minister went to Ottawa on a rather inexperienced basis and probably didn't know what some of the games were that lead on to some of the problems that come out of Operation LIFT and so on.

This, to me, is excusable when you're not in power only that short a time, But to take an attitude . . . MR. SCHREYER: What do you think of Operation LIFT ? MR. BARKMAN: But to take an attitude -- well, I must say this to the First Minister, he hasn't been back to the land close enough for awhile if he suggests that the rental value is only $6. 00 because ..• MR. SCHREYER: .•. the very point, Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit an observation?

I was so intrigued by the Honourable Member for Morris' suggestion that grain land had a rental value of $12. 00 an acre, that I left the Chamber to make some phone calls, and I checked in three different localities in the area northwest of the city, north of the city, northeast of the city, and my figures were far closer than the Honourable Member for Morris; certainly not $12 . 00 an acres - $7. 50, $8. 50 and $9. 25, . . . . • Continued on next page

June 4, 1970 2607 MR . BARKMAN: I 'm very surprised to hear that because we have quite a bit of the -- in my constituency there 's quite a bit of land rented out. Now this was not grain land - you were referring to grain land - but grain land, a lot of it rented out at $15 .0 0 to $17 .5 0 -- (Inter jec tion) -- No right now, this year. I can show you. I can show you contracts in rr.y office. MR . SCHREYER: Grain land :? MR . BARKMAN: Grain land .

And mind you, it's more; it's $25 .0 0 for beets and what have you, but -- I 'm talking grain land now, and this of course varies, but in the meantime I think exactly this attitude should not necessarily exist. I think the matter is serious and I do wish that the Minister and this government feel that we 're going to do all we can, regardless of how small a part Manitoba's

part is in the role of agriculture. MR SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney . MR . EARL Mc KELLAR (Souris-Killarney): Mr . Speaker, practically everything has been said in this motion of concurrence, but due to the fact that I was not here while the esti mates were being debated, I thought it's only right that I should say a few words at this time.

Many of the members have expressed the condition of agriculture in the Province of Manitoba and I think everyone pretty well mentioned the serious situation we have of cash, that the individual farmers have of trying to get enough cash in their pockets to even put the crop in this year. I think that while this LIFT program, which has been disc ussed to a great extent this afternoon, I think that the Government at Ottawa should have been better given a lot more thought to this program and I think the Senator Hazen Argue expressed this very thoroughly.

He said they should have taken this program to the people before they made it pass the legis lation. I' ll tell you what this program is going to do for the farmers of Manitoba. It 's going to put many of them out of business. And why is it going to put them out of business? Because if they don't react to the reduction of the wheat program they're penalized on the number of bushels they can sell, and in my own case I know it's going to affect me to a great extent. Now, how are ycu going to overcome this ? You have your payments to make in the fall and you 're not allowed to sell the grain.

In our point at the present time we have one bushel quota, a one bushel quota, and not looking forward to much more than a four-bushel quota, if we get that, to the end of July. Many of the young farmers in our part of the province, and I think in all parts of the province , are getting hurt real bad - are getting hurt real bad; and this is where I'd like to bring to the attention of the Minister, because I don't think he 's paying enough atten tion -- right now he 's not even listening to me -- he 's not paying enough attention to the young farmers of the Province of Manitoba.

If the Minister would sit in his chair I' d like to talk to him for a minute, because I think he 's the age group that should be listening, he 's the age group that should be listening to young farmers who took out mortgages back in '58, '59, and they're having real troubles right now. And why are they having real troubles? Because they expanded on the rates that the wheat was going, that the price was going to stay up around $1 .7 0 around $1 .6 0, that we're going to be able to sell all we can, and I know from experience that these people will not last another year unless some help is given to them.

Now the experts say, what do you do ? You kick off the young farmers, take them off the farms; you remove them from the farms. So what's that going to do ? It 's just going to create more unemployment. You assist the older farmers like myself to the point where you try to get them so they'll stay on the farm until retirement, and then you buy their farms, and I don't know what they're going to do from then on. But I think your government should pay more at tention to young farmers, because they are in trouble, and I mean in trouble .

Many of them have debts up to $100, 000 in my area, and they don't know which way to turn, and I know that their mortgages. are to the point that they can only pay their interest on their mortgage right now, and at any time the mortgage companies, of which the Manitoba Credit Corporation or the Federal Credit Corporation or the Prw:lential Insurance Company or other mortgage com panies that are involved, can foreclose on these young farmers, and they're mined for life.

Now I don't know how they can be helped, but I do think the suggestion by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye when he brought in his resolution, or put his resolution on the Crder Paper, would have done something for these young farmers, because I think out of all the people that he had suggested attending this meeting, they would have come up with an idea that would have helped these young farmers. Now the average age of farmers in Manitoba is 56 years of age - 56 years of age . What's going to happen to all the agricultural areas in Mani toba once these men are ten years older?

Half the farmers will be retired and nobody will be

2608 June 4, 1970 (MR. MCKE LLAR cont'd.) ••... able to take them ov er, and this is going to put these people in a terrible position . I really don 't know what to suggest to the Minister at this time , what he can do, but I wiBh 4e would talk to the :farmers, I wish he would talk to the farmers. It's all right to stay m this builcling sure , you meet the odd farmer coming in here , but you don't meet enough of them, and I think he should hold public meetings across the Province of Manitoba.

I think he should hold public meetings and hear these farmers and hear their problems , and if he doe s not, if he doesn't want to listen to the Honourable Member for La Verendrye because I think he had a very good idea there that all the grain industry in the province. the pool elevators, the grain growers and other private trades, could sit around a table and discuss these problems . Now, Mr . Speaker, there 's not much else I can say; I think everything has been said. But I want to just say here right now, we 're in a disaster period right now , and I mean a disas ter period, second to none .

I lived all through the Thirt ies and there 's nothing can compare right now with the Thirties - the Thirties were far better . They were far better, and I mean it, and I want to tell you this year wheat was selling for 50 and 60 cents a bushel, oats for 15 cents . They weren't really much difference in the Thirties. The prices weren 't that bad and what we did get, the bit of grain we did grow, we could sell . They weren 't that bad. But what are the expenses today? To put a crop in a ... of land will cost you $4 ,0 00 to $5 ,0 00, if you fertilize reasonably heavy - and most of the farmers have to fertilize.

This is so serious, Mr . Minister , it 's so serious that I think you should get out of your seat right now and go out and meet the farmer s of Manitoba. You should take time off and go out and meet the farmers of Manitoba and talk these problems over with them, and if you do not take this suggestion and sit in this building during the months of June and July, it's going to become too late; the pro blem will be too involved and the farmers will be in such a difficult position when they go to pay their taxes and make their payments in Oc tober .

Now the Honourable Member for Morris made a -- he brought up one very good point. It's on assess ment of farm lands, assess ment of farm lands. One half

section in the Glenboro area is paying exactly $1, 000 in taxes on 320 acre s -- $1, 000 . How can that man operate un der the present conditions when he can only sell four bushels an acre at $1 .2 5 a bushel ? $5 .00 an acre he 's getting for all the wheat he sold. How can that man operate when he pays $3 .0 0 an acre for taxes alone ? This is the kind of problem that we 're involved in, in farming . If we lose these people in the farming area, what 's going to happen to the City of Winnipeg? I know what 's going to happen to the City of Winnipeg - it'll fold up; it'll fold up .

It'll only take a matter of a few years, but it'll fold up, and it's just the same as all the other towns are hav ing trouble . They're no different . Winnipe g is only a service centre for Manitoba and we stern Canada, and it can •t last if the people haven't got money . Now , you say you've got all you can do . Well, this might be true , but you have a depart ment; you have a department; you have a lot -I don 't know how many men you have in your department, 70 or 80, maybe more , and I wo uld ask you to have all those men go around the various parts 0f the Province of Manitoba and talk to the f:..rmers.

Talk to them. Get the many ideas and take them, have these men come into your office and talk it over and see if something can be done to help the situation. Mr .

Speaker, I don 't think there 's much else I want to say, because if the Member for Morris or the Member for Rhine land haven't said, and all the other members, Arthur and all the other members haven't, I think it 's about time that the First Minister and the members of this government realize that agriculture is the most important industry in this province , and I think it needs the kind of attention to help the farmers and at least give them a chance to survive for another year or two.

I know that maybe the problems in Ottawa , that as they see them down there and I realize they 're far away from the problem, but I think they need some direc tion, and I think they need it from the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba, if you have any ideas , or if you haven't got any please get your department to help you and get on the phone to Ottawa as soon as possible . Thanks very much . MR • SPEAKER : Are you ready for the question ? MR . USKIW: .. . submit to a question, Mr . Speaker ? MR. MCKELLAR: Sure . MR.

USKIW: If it is true that farmer s were selling wheat at 50 or 60 cents a bushel this year, as he stated, then do you think that the farmer that would receive a dollar a bushel in cash

June 4, 1970 2609 (MR . USKIW cont'd .) . advances would not like to take the dollar a bushel in advance and still have his wheat, as opposed to selling it for 50 or 60 cents ? MR. MCK E LLAR: Mr . Speaker, I forgot . I was going to mention about that cash ad vance . T hat gives me an opportunity to speak again. Mr . Speaker, the honourable member should know how cash in advance are involved. If I borrowed $3 ,0 00 on cash advance , and if I sold all the grain they allowed me to sell, I only pay off two thirds of that cash advance, two thirds of it . because they deduct one half, take it off and I get half. Mr .

Speaker, how in the name of the world are the farmers going to su rvive on another cash advance? I' ll just tell you what's going to happen to these farmers if they get another cash advance . Either you or the Federal Government would own that farm in two years -i n two years; and if you want to take control, that's fine. The farmers don't want it. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the quest ion ? MR. MCKEN ZIE : Mr. Speaker, before you call the motion I would just like to appeal to the Minister, in one last effort, to call the Commi ttee on Agriculture .

I've been asking this question since the House opened, a matter of such serious importance as this, and the Minister has not got the courage to call this commit tee . lt'E beyond my apprehension for to reason why -- is he afraid or is there some just reason why he doesn't want to call the committ ee in this crisis that we are facing in this province today? Let's not get ourselves going in 14 dif ferent directions or going all over , chasing the hare around the fence .

Let's sit down together, the farm leaders of this province with the Minister and the members of this Legislature , and let's have a real serious discussion on this very serious matter . And Mr . Speaker, I don't know what more I can say, or how I can urge the Minister, to. please call the committee . MR. SPE AKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the amandment lost . MR. WATT: Ayes and Nays, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKE R: Call in the Members . A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Me ssrs .

Barkman, Bilton, Claydon, Craik, Einarson, Froese, Girard, Graham, Hardy, Johnston (Portage la Prairie), Johnston (Sturgeon Creek), Jorgenson, McGill, McKel lar, McKenzie , Moug, Patrick, Sherman, Watt, Weir and Mrs . Trueman . NAYS: Messrs. Allard, Barrow, Borowski, Burt niak, Cherniack, Desjardins, Doern, Ev ans, Fox, Gonick, Gottfried, Green, Jenkins, Johannson, McBryde , Mackling, Malinowski, Miller, Paulley, Pawley, Petursson, Schreyer, Shafransky, Toupin and Uskiw . MR. CLE RK : Yeas, 21; Nays, 25 . MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment lost . MR. BILL URUSKI (St. George): Mr.

Speaker, I was paired with the Honourable Mem ber for Gladstone. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion . . . . . . Continued on next page.

2610 June 4, 1970 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR . SPEAKER: Before I proceed, I wish to direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 37 Grade 5 to 8 students who entered a few moments ago, from Piney School under the direction of Mr . John M. Gie sbrecht . The school is in the consti tuency of the Honourable Member for Emerson . On behalf of the members of the Legislative Ass em bly, I welco me you here this afternoon . The Honourable Member from Winnipeg Centre . MR . BOYCE: Mr .

Speaker, on a matter of privilege as affecting my ability to operate in the House , a matter of clarif ication . I was informed by the Clerk that when a person is paired that they should not be in their seat - that they should move their seat . I was wondering if we could have some clar ification on this rule because I was paired with the Member for Ste . Rose and U I had voted I would have voted against the amendment . CONCURRENCE (Cont' d.) MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Rhineland . MR . FROESE: Mr . Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave of the House to make a motion in regard to Re solution No . 1.

MR . WEIR: Mr . Speaker , if I may, because of the manner in which we got started, I think the First Minister asked for those to identify themselves and the first person who did was the Member for Arthur and I'm not sure that other members had the opportunity to identify themselves at the time . MR . SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker , I would like to help clarify the matter before us. When Mr .

Clerk was reading the re solutions it was obvious that the Member for Arthur was about to move the motion, and it 's simply because of the speed with which the res olutions were read, we · passed by No. 7 before the member had an opportunity to rise in his place , but certainly there was no indication that there was anyone else prepared to move a motion on an earlier resolution . I think that we made the arrangement only because it was obvious that the member was about to rise and was simply prevented from doing so by the uscal efficiency of Mr .

Clerk, but it would be, I think, awkward in the extreme if we were to go back now to Resolution No . 1 or any other earlier resolution after we have clea rly passed them. A MEMBER : Maybe the boys will be awake from now on . MR . CLERK: ill . Resolved there be granted to Her Maje sty a sum not exceeding $1 0, 059 , 300 for Ag riculture , Res olutions 7 to 18, separately and collec tively for the fiscal year ending 31s t day of March 19 71. IV.

Resolved there be granted to Her Maje sty a sum not exceeding $8 ,2 19 , 500 for Attorney-Gene ral , Resolutions 19 to 24, separately and collect ively for the fisca l year ending 31s t day of March 1971 . V. Resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $666 ,1 00 for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Resolutions 25 to 28, separately and collec tively for the fiscal year end ing the 31s t day of March 19'71. VI.

Resolved there be granted to Her Maje sty a sum not exceeding $1, 666 , 700 for Cultural Affairs, Reso lutions 29 to 34, separately and collecti vely for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March 19 71 . VII . Resolved there he granted to Her Maje sty a sum not exceeding $3 ,4 22, 900 for Fi nan ce , Resolutions 35 to 41, separately and ... MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for As siniboia . MR . STEVE PATRICK (Ass iniboia): Mr .

Speaker , I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for LaVerendrye that, while concurring in Resolution 35, this House regrets that the government has failed to shift the tax burden from the property owner to a provinc ial tax base promised in the last elect ion . MR . SPEAKER presented the motion . MR . PATRICK: Mr .

Speaker , I don't intend to speak long, just a couple of words, because there has been enough debate in the House on this matter , and I think -- The only point I wish to make, it is probably time that we started to discr iminate in favour of the low income person in this province in the way of taxation problems and housing. The other point I wish to mention at this time while we are on Finance, I think it would have been worthwhile for the Minister of Finance to table his White Paper or his pos ition paper that he will be proposing to the Confer ence the next two days that will take place here in Winnipeg.

I understand some of the other

June 4, 1970 (MR . PATRICK cont' d.) . premiers in other province s have done this and I think it 2611 would be good information for all the members of this House if the Minister would be ablt to do this , so I do not intend to speak but I feel that everybody knows that there are 16 percent of the people in this province - not in the province but in the city of Winnipeg -w ho make le ss than $3 ,0 00.

There are many more that make le ss than $5, 000 , and with the high property tax that they have to pay, not that they are not able to buy a home of their own, but if they do they just can't afford to pay the high property tax, and as I said, I will not go into any detail because there has been enough debate on this matter . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finan ce . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr .

Spea ker, I as sume no one els e wi shed to speak on this so I want to thank the Honourable Member for As siniboia for making it brief, because I agree with him that it need only be brief, so I' ll answer him -I will try to be as brief as he was . 1.

The fact that it was in our elec tion program never meant that it would all be done in the first year and we have not yet reached the anniversary of our first year , and yet he is one of those who is complaining that we are proceeding on our electi on platform in connection with auto insurance, something he knew was in our platform, and he was the one who was complain ing that we are rushing ahead to carry out the program. We set the prioritie s, not the Honour able Member for Ass iniboia, and obviously he would rather have the choice to set the prioritie s.

I invite him to join our party and then I would listen more carefully to his opinions in regard to our elec tion platform . 2. We have said many times, and I' ll say it softly and quietly because I've said it loudly in the past, that we in our short term have carried out the most massi ve shift of taxation that has ever taken place in the province of Manitoba during the Liberal regime, during the Con servative regime.

This most massi ve shift of taxation was one which was directed to help the lowest income people in the province of Manitoba, who are the same people who pay real pro perty tax and on whose behalf the Member of As siniboia appears to be most concern ed. They are the ones who are helped, not the high property taxpayers but the low property taxpayers were helped by the most massi ve shift that has ever taken place in the province of Manitoba .

In regard to the area of assis tance and reco gnition for urban needs, let met tell the hon ourable Member for As siniboia that the Federal Go vernment, which is presently in the hands of his party , has done very little in terms of urban needs and that is something that we hope to talk about in the future. In regard to the posi tion paper , I would hope that the honourable member has read the attachments to the budget address delivered not so long ago. That is the posi tion paper of our government in connecti on with the important factors dealing with the conferences co ming up starting tomorrow.

I have also given and distributed a paper on the Ben son proposal s on tax reform . To that extent I have been giving this House ample and advance information on the posi tion we are taking . I have also had occa sion to speak on the question of inflation , as has the Premier, and I can as sure honourable members that if they've been paying attention to the things we 've been saying, they know our posi tion, which is not radically altered. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Rhineland . MR . FROESE : Mr . Speaker , the Honourable Minister mentioned auto insurance.

I don 't see any provision or any monies alloca ted to the matter of auto insurance, and if auto insurance is going to be brought in in 1971 . . . . MR. CHERNIACK: On a point of order, Mr . Speaker . The motion before us is one that relate s, I believe, to aid to the real property taxpayer, and I think the honourable member should speak to that . When I spoke about auto insurance I was talking about the elec tion plat form of this party . Now, if that is what the Honourable Member for Rhine land is talking about, then I leave it to you to decide whether he 's in order or not. MR.

FROESE : Well I think the motion that is before us and the motion that was read out by the Clerk says Reso lutions 35 to 41 separately and collectiv el y. MR. CHERNIACK: Correction, Mr . Speaker, if I may . It's a long point of order . I' ll read it to the honourable member although the person immediately behind him could show it to him: "that, while concurring in Resolution No. 35, this House regrets that the government has failed to shift the tax burden from the property owner to a provincial tax base as promised in the last electi on ." MR. FROESE : Mr .

Chairman , the motion is an amendment to the motion read out by the

26 12 June 4, 1970 (MR . FROESE cont 'd .) ...•. Clerk. That actually amounts to an amendment to the motion that was read out by the Clerk earlier . The motion by the Clerk is to accept these several reso lutions. MR. CHERNIACK: I don't interpret that to be an amendment . That is a resolution . MR. SPEAKER : •.. agree that if he reads the amendment that he'd find that it is an amendment to Resolution 35 . MR . JAMES H . BILTON (Swan River} : Mr . Speaker , on a point of order, Item No . 35 does include insurance premiums. MR . FROESE: Well Mr .

Minist er , the Finance Department inc ludes taxation and insur ance - the lnsUTance Branch, so I would like to know whether this auto insurance branch that is going to be set up is going to be run without any cost whatever. This is what it seems like . We 're not allocating any monie s toward it .... MR. SPEAKER : Orde r, please . I' m wondering if the honourable member wishes to pursue that point, that there may be a more opportune moment for it than the present resolution . MR . FROES E: Mr .

Speaker, the Honourable Minister referred to this matter and cer tainly I think in my remarks I could certainly refer to it as well . MR. PAULLEY: Mr . Speaker, may I just suggest that my honourablp {riendthe Member for Rhine land might have the opportunity he 's seeking when the Resolution XIII, Municipal Af fairs, is before the House , because there is there an item, automobile insurance , of $100 , 000 . We may dispose of this and get on in the proper order . That's my suggestiGn, Mr . Speaker . MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party . MR. G. JOHNSTON (Portage La Prairie ): Mr .

Speaker , I was in agreement with my col league from As siniboia that we should keep certain aspects of the debate brief, especially when there's been some repetition , but I couldn' t contain myEelf when the Minist er of Finance in his very urbane manner saw fit to tick my friend the Member for As siniboia off because he dared to suggest this sort of a resol ution . I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance , I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he 's seen headlines such as this where people have been cry ing out for auto insurance .

And here 's people crying out about the tax burden , the crushing tax burden - that's the headline : Property Tax Burden Sa id Crushing, and this is a meeting of municipal and school trustee people who are so concerned that they know they can't put any more taxes on their people . And I would like to ask the Minister if there has been an outcry like this for what he consider s a priority . I say no there has not; there has not . MR . GRE EN: Yes. MR. G. JOHNSTON: There has not .

My friends have created a diversion, and I've said that before, but there have not been resolutions from councils; there haven't been reso lutions from school boards; and there haven't been pleas to the Ministers over auto insurance , but there have over high property taxation . MR. GR EEN: Just the little guys who buy ... MR. G.

JOHNSTON: The only one that I know that is an outcry, and it came in the mail a few days ago, May 21st, and it comes from a Communist Party , but I'm talking about the or dinary people of Manitoba and hardly a week goes by in the newspapers that there is not con cern shown by councils and by school boards over the crushing burden of property taxation . MR . SPEAKER put the question on the amendment and after a voice· vote declared the motion lost . MR . PATRICK: Yeas and Nays, Mr . Speaker . MR. SPEAKER : Call in the members . A STANDING VOTE was taken, the re sult being as follow s: YEAS: Mess rs.

Bilton , Claydon, Craik, Einar son , Froese , Gira rd, Graham , Johnston (Portage la Prairie ), Johnston (Sturgeon Creek), Jorgenson, McGill, McKella r , McKenzie , Moug, Patrick, Sherman, Watt, Weir and Mrs . Truemen. NAYS: Mess rs. Allard, Barrow, Borowski, Burtniak, Cherniack, Desjardins, Evans, Fox, Gon

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-101
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 101.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9a0e81a90d876121e7c74c199bda6a0de7d1cad6

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