LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 8 May, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. DEPUTY CH AIRM AN, Albert Dri edger (Emerson): I call the committee to order. Page 7, Agriculture Estimates, Resolution 6, (b)- pass - The Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, when we left at 4:30 for Private Members' Hour, the Mi nister undertook to provide some statistics to us with respect to imports and marketings of cattle and exports and consumption within Canada over a number of years. I wonder if he was able to get those statistics for us. MR.

DEPU TY CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Minister. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Chairman, I just want the members to realize how fast and efficient a staff I have. I have the information here and they even went back to 1920 to get it, from 1920 to 1978, so we do the .. MR. DEPU TY CHA IRMAN: Is the Ho nourable Minister going to table this? MR. DOWNEY: I'll table it, yes. I'll be very co- operative this evening. MR. URUSKI: Yes, if there's a copy, then . MR. DOWNEY: I have some other copies here for other members of the committee. MR. URUSKI: That's good, great. MR. DEPUTY CHA IRMAN: (b)- pass - the Member for St.

George. MR. URUSKI: Could the Min ister ind icate in, say in the last ten years ... I've just received the statistics; whether Canada as a whole has imported or been a net importer of beef? MR. DOWNEY: As I ind icated earlier, the information is available on the sheets that I provided. The exports for the past two years, we were a net importer of beef. MR. URUSKI: Unless there's another, oh, I'm sorry, on the other sheet. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, when we look at the exports of 19 78, it's something like 97 million pounds as opposed to imports of 214 -plus million pounds. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, going back to '74 on the sheet that is shown there annually, it ind icates tha t Canada has been a net im porter of beef products throughout those years, leading one to the conclusion that our production of beef in this country does not meet our domestic needs, let alone the export market, other than probably a trading off of some specific cuts or carcasses that go across the border or elsewhere. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, the question . . . MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I think, for a point of clarification, this does not include the live export, the numbers of live cattle that are moved into the United States market. I think, given a little more time - the information that I have available to me at this particular time - that there would be some years that Canada would be in fact an exporter of total beef, when you add the amount of slaughter beef to the numbers of live cattle and live cows that may have moved across the border. These are dressed weights tha t we are dealing with here at thi s particular time. MR.

URUSKI: Could the Minister indicate if those statistics are available. He says there are some years; we've got the five years for the last five years. Are there any of those years where we have become net exporters of beef, based on what the Minister has said? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the information I have, some more information provided here, that for example, in the the years 19 77-78, there were approximately one mil lion cows exported out of Canada for those two years and if we were taking it on the dressed weight basis, I would think you'd be looking at the neighbourhood of, well, a cow would dress out about 45 percent so you'd look at 350 million to 450 million pounds of dressed beef. A million head of livestock, I would think. The cow average weight would be a thousand pounds per cow and a cow yield would be about 45 percent, so I would think that's ...

Yes, well, the staff suggests that if you take out the bones then maybe you end up with 360 million pounds of actual meat, so figure it however you like. I just want the members of the committee to realize it is not showing a total amount of beef that has been exported, the figures that we've provided, that the live cattle are on top of that. MR. URUS KI: Would there be, conversely, an importation of live cattle from the U.S. market ? MR. DOWNEY: At certain periods of time, Mr. Chairman, there would be a flow back to this side of the border but not as great as would move out because of the past . . .

Well, I say for the same period of time. Cow meat in the United States has been quite a lot higher than the dressed meat or the manufactured beef here in Canada, so the flow has been out as it has been a feeder cattle. The majority of the feeder cattle movement has been out of Canada and the United States over this past same period of time real ly. But to get in to specific numbers, I don't have it at this particular time. 3439

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 MR. DEPUTY CH AIRMAN: Order please. I'm wonderi ng, if the members of comm ittee could maybe give me some guidelines here. We're covering a wide waterfront under this item (

b) here and I'm wondering whether some of these items would probably better fall into a different category than under the Farm Income Assurance Plan. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, these statistics I wanted to make sure, at least for my own satisfaction, and the Min ister has ind icated there are other figures available, because of the statements that were made by members such as yourself, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the Conservative caucus about the program, the Beef In come Assurance Program.

I wanted to clarify in my own mind what the position of Canada was as far as production and consumption of its own production and I wanted to ask the Min ister, on the basis that basically Canada historically has been, in the main, primarily a net importer of beef products, can he give us an analysis of the reasons he can see for the decline in beef prices in this country since we have never yet or virtually not reached our production in terms of what we consume?

We have never produced enough to cover our own consumption but yet for some reason beef prices have declined, and in the middle '70s particularly, duri ng the time of the Beef In come Assurance Program; beef prices plunged to an all­ time low and yet we talk about the vagaries of the marketplace but the vagaries of the marketplace indicate that Canadians have never produced enough beef in terms of what they consume. What is the government's analysis for this apparent discrepancy in the end price to producers? How do you explain that away? MR. DOWNEY: First of all, Mr.

Chairman, I think the members of the committee realize the meat industry, the beef industry is a cyclical type of a production. That's the history and the nature of the business that we have seen. When we look at the past ten-year period, we've seen entering into the '70s somewhat a relatively strong period of prices, when in fact, moving from the late '67 to '68 period is when we saw the last real downward turn in the cycle, increasing into the '70s; somewhat to the year of 19 73 and the year of 19 73-7 4 we saw the dramatic decrease in not only in Canadian prices but north American prices and world prices.

We were seeing a lot of manufactured beef, so to speak, coming in from offshore, from other countries where the cost of production was somewhat lower and their supplies had been built up, depressing our Canadian market. At the particular time of 1973-75 I guess was the most depressed period of time since the late '60s with the pressure on the increased numbers of world meat supplies.

During that period of time, as we've discussed earlier, pressure was put on the provincial govern ment, as it was placed on the federal government and other provincial governments, to implement a program to gi ve the producers some relief from the effects of what was a world beef price. Since that period of time, the low cycle, and I guess that what we have seen has been somewhat of a delay in the producers disposing of their surplus supplies in the province of Manitoba and, I would say, to some degree, the Beef Income Assurance Program delayed that particular removal of livestock from the farms.

There has been a number of farmers from all areas of the province have ind icated to me, now, the fact that they are enjoying better prices, we are in an upturn in the beef price cycle. Over the last two to three years, well, we've seen in the last two years a turnaround and at this particular time they feel it would have been in their best interests to, in fact, be able to retain that moneys that they were getting to rebuild their herds and to maintain the herds which they had been trying to keep during the time of the Beef Income Assurance Program.

So it would ind icate to me that what has happened is the delay in the removal of the cow herds has taken place to this particular period of time. We have seen people now, and they have told me this, I make no bones about it, they have told me that the reason that they are selling their cow herds is they would sooner sell them - the Member for Ste. Rose said it's a good time to sell when it's high.

I agree, but it doesn't do the long-term industry, the long-term beef producer that much good if he has to deplete his cow herds to be able to take advantage of the upturn in the cow market; that he should be in fact able to sell his production from that cow herd when the prices are higher and retain his breeding herd. Now the Member for Lac du Bonnet made a good point. He said maybe five years wasn't long enough; maybe the fact that there was a five-year limit put in it at all was bad; maybe it should have been an open-ended contract where, in fact, the producers could participate or not participate.

I feel that, as I said earlier, the thing we can do now is take a look at all the beef stabilization programs that were put in place in the province, pick the best parts of them and work with the federal government to bring in one that has a longer term scope to it, in fact. I believe that what has happened, government involvement, the programs that have been introduc ed delayed what was going to happen. Now it's a matter of trying to not continually go through these kinds of extreme lows.

As I said earlier, I think we have to retain the highs for the farmers, because if you don't have the opportunity to produce and better yourself and increase your herd numbers, then I think we are defeating a purpose or a general desire of the farm community, and that's a desire to produce. So it's a matter of implementing a program that would take out the severe lows, but give them the opportunity to produce and take advantage of all the price peaks that are in the system. I believe that we have to take full advantage of the market that's to the south of us.

I believe, particularly when it comes to the market that's available to the feeder people, that they should have that market available to them. It should be available to the people that are producing breeding stock, whether they're producing slaughter cows or whether they're producing slaughter beef. I think that if we can have that free movement of livestock back and forth across the border without a lot of interference, that there are 220 million people in the United States who eat a lot of beef, that is a market that we should somewhat be encouraging our producers to work to continually develop. 3440

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 MR. DEPUTY CH AIRMAN: The Memb er for Gladstone. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't finished. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. The Member for Gladstone already ind icated prior to us adjourning before that he would like to have the floor. I allo wed the courtesy to the members of the opposition to initiate the activities tonight and, in all fairne ss to both side s, no individual party has a monopoly on this thing and I recogniz e the Member for Gladstone. The Member for St. George on a point of order. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I believe it has been the custom and the tradition in committees, both in the House and in this room, that any member when he has the floor he can continue to ask questions and receive response from the Mini ster until his questioning has finished. The time limit, of course, that is allowed any member, I believe, is 20 min utes on any one individual speech. But certainly I don't think there is a limit on an exchange backwards and forwards. If that is the wish of you, Mr.

Chairman, I think then you're in for a complete mumble-jumble in terms of exchanges because certainly I have made my notes on the questions I want to raise but you are intending to throw the line of questioning out comp letely and it will only dela y things, Mr . Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. I don't believe the member has a point of order. It is a prerogative of the Chairman to call the member whoever he wishes to recognize, either in the House or in the commit tee.

I've tried, in all fairness, to allow both sides of the House to have fair representation and if one member wants to monopolize the whole activity, it is still the choice of the Chairman to recognize who he wishes. I do not intend to curb the debate, I wish to allow everybody a fair chance, and this is why . . . One individual could monopolize the activities for a whole night. I think in the House also, we allow so and so many people to speak on one side and then we allow somebody else. As I mentioned before, the Member for Gladstone ind icated already prior to adjournment that he wanted the floor.

I recogniz ed the Member for St. George when we started the commit tee because he's the official critic of Agriculture and I've allowed him a certain amount of time. The Member for Gladstone already ind icated right from the beginning that he wanted the floor. I feel I'd like to be as fair as possible. If the Member for St. George feels that it is not proper, he can challenge the Chair. In the meant ime, I'm recognizing the Memb er for Gladstone. The Member for Ste. Rose on his point of order. MR.

A.R. (Pete) ADAM: Yes, on a point of order because I've watched the Chairman in the House in committee reminding speakers of the opposition tha t they had five min utes left to speak on a 30-minute period. When they have spoken 30 minutes, they have to sit down and allow another person to speak and then they can get up again as soon as the other member is finished and have another 30 minutes. But I'm sure that the regulations are that it be 30 minutes and the member hasn't spoken 30 minutes. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Orde r please. The Member for Ste. Rose also does not have a point of order because the Member for St.

George has had five different occasions to speak in the meantime. MR. URUSKI: And ask specific questions. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That's right. The Chair recognizes the Member for Gladstone at the present time. The Member for Gladstone. MR. JAMES R. FERGUSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, we certainly wouldn't want to interfere with the so­ called god-given right of our honourable friends across the way. They seem to feel that . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George on a point of order. MR. URUSKI : Mr. Chairman, the Mem ber for Gladstone wants to raise god-given rights and the like. Mr.

Chairman, I have no difficulty in allowing any member the opportunity to take

part in the debate and ask que stions. Mr. Chairman, had I been completed and been allowed to complete my line of questioning in terms of statistics in my discussion with the Minister, this matter wouldn't have arisen. The other member certainly could have had an opportunity. I'm prepared, Mr. Chairman, to allow the other members to speak, although very reluctantly, on the basis of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, because I do believe that you have allowed members to conclude, and previous Chairmen.

In this morning's discussion in Autopac, as a matter of fact, I could have been accused of monopolizing the debate as I asked questions for approximately an hour-and-a-half in terms of concluding my questions on a particular topic. I was not ruled out of order and no one objected to that very procedure. Yet, Mr. Chairman, tonight it seems that after 20 minutes in the debate, you feel that somehow my discussion does not warrant my continued questions so you want to allow another member. That's fine, Mr. Chairman. I leave that with your conscience and not mine. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please.

I never ind icated that the member was out of order in his questioning. I recognized another member and I fully intend to recognize the Member for St. George again to complete his interroga tion. The Member for Gladstone. MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Chairman, we'll start out very soft-footed this time because we certainly don't want to offend our friends across the way. They seem to have very tender feelings this evening but I think it's also our o"pportunity, and our right, to answer a few of the questions and a few of the accusations that have been thrown out, number one. The Member for St.

George can't deny the fact that he pointed to each one of us during the course of this afternoon saying that we had said this, that and the other about the Beef Income Assurance plan 3441

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 and the other government plans. No. 1 was I don't think that anyone has said that the cattle producers in Manitoba, cow-calf producers in particular, didn't require some assistance and it came at a very opportune time. This we're not quarrelling with. No. 2 would be, that the Mini ster, and I can recall the former Min ister of Agriculture standing up and saying, yes, in the House and saying yes, there may be a payback. And our Min ister today read the quotation in Hansard that said that there would be a cash-flow back in if the price went over the price and there was a cash-flow back in.

This is basically all we're saying and this is all that is happening with the program that is now going on with the Beef Income Assurance plan. No. 3 is the program that the former government had over a five-year period, for giving us on buying breed cows, and I can readily recall going into auction marts and you could pick out the farmers that had never been in cattle before but had gone down to the bank with the idea that they could buy cows; if they had the same amount of cows at the end of five years, I think it was a maximum of 15 ,000 in investment, that there would be inter est charge.

A lot of people went into the business that had no business being there to start with and, unfortunately, they were walking in. Any toothless thing that could pass a pregnancy test, was bringing 1,0 00.00. Within eight months or a year those cows were worth about 450.00. This is the kind of things that we were talking about when we were standing up in the House, was the simpl e fact that thi s particular government program sucked a bunch of people in from the rural communities that had no business being in the cattle industry to start with. They got nipped, then they went crying to government for help.

A lot of those that were involved in this particular program were the people that were in here demanding 100 a cow, and there were a lot that weren't. The people that were involved directly with the cow-calf operation were hurt. The 42 million, the 41 -point-whatever-it­ was that went into the thing, it certainly would help the cattle industry and it certainly was in a position to retain the industry in a kind of a viable state, but what we're also talking about is the essence of the program, of the 41 million. 10 million is written off in one fell swoop.

All you had to say is, I'm going into the federal program and 10 million is written off. That was num ber one. Number two was that if you wanted to say, well okay, I want to get out of this thing, I've got my bucks now, I've got the maximum amount, my back is sore, my family has left me and I can't get hired help, whatever, this took care of another big segment of it. What we're talking about is the people who stayed in this program, the honest people who realized when they got a dollar out of the government and were quite willing to pay it back; these are the people who are getting hosed.

We're not trying to make the program easy for them but at least we're trying to be honest. You people lent 41 million out, then you tried to cover your backside by skirting out from every angle that was possible and you can't deny it. And as for the Member for Ste. Rose, the gutless wonder, who didn't have enough, if he wants to call it intestinal fortitude, which he did this afternoon, to stand up on a platform in his own constituency and defend that program in front of 350 farmers. I'll tell you, if that had been in my constituency and I had a program I believed in, I'd have been standing up there.

And don't say that he wasn't asked, because he was. He was asked to come up and sit and he chose to sit in the back. Another question I'd like to ask the Member for Ste. Rose was: When the Mini ster of Mines and Natural Resources people were going around - and these were civil servants going around checking on the fishermen - did the same member take the same prerogative? Like hell he did. He was manoeuvering around, standing on the platform, waving his arms in his usual fashion, and telling lies probably. But in any event, this is the action of the Member for Ste.

Rose and he will have to face up to some of his manoeuvers probably within the next eighteen months, and it might not be quite so pleasant for him. Getting back again to why our cattle prices have slipped, we're all aware that we have had up to this point an export program of 15 0 mil lion pounds coming into Canada. It was raised to 170 million pounds. This of course, again, has to be tied in with - I think it's about 15 5 million pounds, it's up to probably 17 0 now - it's probably tied in with programs that are involved with trading with other nations.

Certainly we would like only too well to have a beef import law that would restrict the imports so that the fast food chains like McDonalds, etc., etc., Bonanza, Ponderosa, that are bringing their meat in and using Australian and New Zealand beef, which can be produced for about 20 cents. They don't have to feed a cow at all and we have to feed them for eight months of the year, but unfortunately this is one of the things that we have to face up to. And if we start using restrictive methods in our trade, we will find we get it back on the other side of the fence.

So this is something again that is involved with the federal government, not with us. In going back a little further too, we talk about the build-up of the herds from '75 to '77 and this is when the new program came in. Certainly, people were waiting on the cycle to change and they hung on and they hung on and this is where this 41 million came in. But the smart boys who were in the cattle industry said okay, the thing is going to take a dip, they dipped out. Even the Member for Ste. Rose today said, well, you sell at the peaks. Well certainly you do. If you don't you're a damn fool.

But you get a bunch of people . . . How many of the people, the old cattlemen who have involved in cattle, have come yelling and screaming to the government for help? It isn't those people; it's the people who have been sucked in by government programs, the people have no business, probably, being in the industry to start with. The Member for St. George, it's a wonder that he's not chirping up because he says, we ll, everybody should have an opportunity, just like they do in turkey farming. Sure, we can put everything into supply management.

If we're going to do that, I'll go out and buy another 200 cows, so I've got a big quota. And then guess how many more young fellows get back into the cattle ind ustry? That's the theory that you fellows are preaching and we don't want any part of it. We still think that we have - 3442

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 and this is what our party stands for - we still think that we have enough gumption to stand up and at lease go along. We'll take our lumps and we'll produce with anyone, and we won't do it under the guise of supply management, etc., etc. How much longer do you people feel that you're going to push supply management down the th roats of the consumers? I just walked through the supermarket tonight. Turkeys are 1. 78, Grade B's. Well, what a disaster. I wonder what the Member for St. George got for his turkeys? But that's supply management for you.

They went into storage probably at about 78 cents, maybe cheaper, now they're hosing the public at 1. 78. Who picked up the buck? I'm sure the Member for St. George will have the answer. You bet your boots he will. Take broilers, take any one of the commod ities that is covered under supply management. If I was a consumer, I would just say, okay, eat your turkeys yourselves, gentlemen. Beef and pork are still sitting on tho se stands and the y're comparable. It takes three pounds of pork to equal one pound of beef.

We're still on a free and equitable basis on the thing, but we're not locked in and we're not afraid of competition. We're not hiding under the fact that we have a market locked in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Memb er for Gladstone gave us some statistics or at least figures as to why he thought beef prices had dropped throughout the years.

I would like to ask the Min ister if, in his knowledge, whether he, in the statistics he's presented us on the im portation of beef statistics, do they include the quota im portations that the Member for Gladstone has mentioned? The standard annual importation figures, would they be included in the figures that are shown in the beef num bers that we've got? MR. DEPUTY CH AIRMAN: The Ho nourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairma n , they would, I believe, follow within that particular quota because it is out-of-country beef, I believe. I don't think we're talking of only offshore.

It's a beef import quota which I believe some two years ago was 146.9 or 14 5.9 million pounds that were allowed into the country; raised in 19 78 I believe to 15 5, was it approximately, and proposal this year to allow 17 0- some-odd million pounds. But I don't believe that we've reached the maximum allowable amount in the last year. I think we were somewhat below that as far as the supplies that were coming in. I do believe, the statistics that I have figured out, that will be within the quota that's allocated to Canada. MR. URUSKI : Mr . Chairman, I thought those figures would include that then. Mr.

Chairman, I ask the Mi nister further, you see, the Memb er for Gladstone indi cated to us that there was an over supply of beef. However, when you look at the statistics, Mr. Chairman - and I'd like the Minister to comment on that - when you look at the statistics of the on-hand amount of beef and you look ...

Let's take the years from '7 4 to '78 inclusive, the two years in which the on-hand amount of beef was in fact to a degree lower in on-hand stocks than was the case in 19 76, 19 77 and 1978; 19 77 and 19 78, when beef prices started to rise in this country so that, in effect, our on-hand stocks in the years when prices dropped by these statistics that the Minister has provided were in fact lower and would in fact contradict some of the statements that have been made by the likes of the Member for Gladstone that we have had a glut of beef as a result of huge im ports and im ports coming in from overseas because, if you look at our on-hand stocks in those years, in 19 74-75 - that's why I'm getting to the question I raised earlier.

I would like to know who can explain to me and to the farmers as to what has caused low beef prices in this country? Certainly it isn't the statistics or the statements that have been made by the Member for Gladstone that says we had an over-s upply, because when you look at 1974 and 19 75 you look at the on-hand fig ures, they'r e substantially lower than 1976-77-78 in terms of the on-hand - (Interjecti on)- Mr. Chairman, our capita consumption going on that basis, it's been going up 96 pounds per capita in 19 74; in 1975, 107 and in 19 76, 11 3; Mr.

Chairman, 19 77, 107 it went down six pounds per capita and in 19 78 it did drop further to 100 pounds. MR. FERGUSON: What was it in 19 79? MR. URUS KI: I do n't kno w I don't have the statistics, I wish I had the statistics here, I would use your own figures. MR. FERGUSON: I'm talking about this year. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the prices of beef did go up in the years we are talking about, yet our stocks -(I nterjection)- I'm not. Mr. Chairman ... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order please. One speaker please. The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, it appears that some honourable members have the impr ession I am opposed to high beef prices and returns to the farmers. I'm exactly speaking about the opposite. I want to try and make sure that farmers of this province, especially of Manitoba, since we are representatives of Manitoba, gain the best possible returns based on the cost of production for the beef they produce. That's exactly what I'm after but I have yet to be able to determine in my own mind, to zero in on what the cause of low beef prices has been.

Where have we, other than the vagaries of the marketplace that I can determine, but no one yet, and that's the question I have been asking of the Minister. Tell me, Mr. Minister, why have we had depression prices in beef when in this country we have eaten more beef than we have been able to produce.

We have seen the imports, we have seen the on-hand stocks, which normally would tend to lead to low beef prices if there has been a glut of storage of beef or, as the member suggested, turkeys in storage, meat products that have been plowed into storage, and when the storage stocks start rising we know there has been a general trend 3443

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 to lower prices. But actually on the statistics that have been provided to us by the Min ister, it has exactly been the reverse, if I am reading the statistics accurately; if I am reading them wrong on what he has provided for me, because if you look at 19 74 on-hand 44, 18 0; 1975, 49,735; 19 76, 77,482; 19 77, 56,406 and 1978, 58, 130.

In the years where beef prices have actually gone up the on-hand storage stocks have actually increased and in the years when beef prices were drastically low, and beef on hand was relatively low in comparison to the statements that have been made that there has been an over-supply. And that's the point I'm getting at, Mr. Chairman, I think our argu ments in this comm ittee, and I defer in terms of knowledge to the beef people; I would ask the Honourable Member for Gladstone, since he is a beef producer, I want to know why you have been shafted in terms of taking a low price.

When I see the statistics they don't reflect what you've been saying and somebody has been taking it, taking that money. You're right; I agree with you, but I'd like to know your comments. Mr. Chairman, the Mini ster mentioned we've had cyclical prices in beef every few years, of course we realize that, Mr. Chairman, that's been the history of beef production in this country; it's been up and down, depression, the boom and bust cycles. So that's evident to us, the history has shown that we have had the cyclical prices in beef every few years, that's very evident.

The Member for Gladstone made remarks to myself with respect to the Beef Income Assurance Program to the effect that we were trying to hide behind something in terms of the Beef In come Assurance Program. I can assure you that I, for one - well at least that's the impression I got from your remarks - what were you getting at, maybe I'l l let you ... MR. FERGUSON: You're so used to twisting things Billie you have trouble keeping ends straight. MR. URUSKI: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I'l l let the honourable member clarify it for himself if he wishes to because I certainly, for one member of the former admin istration, would want to say that the Beef Income Assurance Plan did one thing, it stabilized inc omes to farmers, based on their cost of production and it saved many farmers. And the fact of the matter is, we had hoped that the marketplace would do better for the farmers, that the Treasury would have recouped the moneys that were paid out to the farmers and it didn't occur for a number of years.

But what did happen was that there was a lot of confusion created in the minds of producers, and rightly so, on the basis of what the government had done with respect to the program, in terms of the changes and the shift in the way the program was to be operated, away from exactly what the farmers signed in terms of the contract and there was a general confusion and the confusion, Mr. Chairman, was well orchestrated on behalf of the government of the day.

The government wanted and, I think, to a degree succeeded in making producers get the impression that they would never get involved with any government program again because of the hodge podge that went on with respect to this program. You did your job very well, Mr. Minister, and the Conservative caucus, in terms of saying to people you've confused us so badly with the changes you've made that we don't know whether you're coming or going, we know that we want to produce beef and we want to have a fair return based on our cost of production and that, Mr.

Chairman, has plagued farmers and I think turned farmers in opposition to any income stability they might have received. The Mini ster is now starting to talk about income stability for producers and looking at other plans. But yet, Mr. Chairman, we haven't been able to determine, or at least the Minister hasn't explained to myself and members on this side, how he can ind icate what has caused the downturn in the price of beef in terms of the Canadian scene.

You know, of course the prices in the States dropped, but in terms of the Canadian scene, if my reading of the statistics is wrong let the Minister explain and I, and I think many producers and I think even the Member for Gladstone, would lik e to understand better the reasons that beef prices dropped in the middle '70s in terms of the price paid, based on what our consumption was, based on our on-hand stocks and based on production of beef in this country. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRM AN: The Honour able Mini ster. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I said earlier in speaking to the Member for St.

George that we are on a North American pricing and a North American market, that we're not divorced in any way from that particular price setting mechanism. There are 220 million people in the Uni ted States, their consumption and their demand for beef pretty much regulates what happens to our beef market. We are sitting with something like 12 million head of beef cows, I believe it is in this country, with 20-some million people, 23 or 24 million people; in the United States of some 200-some million people with probably the biggest meat-eating nation there is in the world.

I think it's a matter of, we're conne cted directly to that North American market. I said earlier that it was a cyclical thing, that we have gone through the lows of the mid-S ixties. Towards the latter part of the Sixties when the cycle was at a low, we saw the buildup in the world beef supplies and hit the market about the mid 1970s, when in fact it went into lower gr ound . It's th e natur e of the business, the production and demand for beef; you can't look at and take the figures of beef on hand in Canada and say that this is the only thing in which we base whether or not beef prices go up and down.

That's totally an irrelevant figure. I think we have to look at the total world supplies which I have talked about, the offshore beef, that comes in from Australia and New Zealand where in fact that amount of beef that's available to the consumers in this country. As I say, that probably has a bigger impact than anything else, but not to just pick up a figure of beef on hand or supplies on hand in this country and say that our beef prices should really be relationship to that.

That isn't it at all; it's the amount of movement back and forth across the United States-Canadian border, plus the amount of offshore beef that comes into this 3444

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 country. That, Mr. Chairman, is the main reason, I would say, for our lower prices of beef. The same thing when we talk of grain prices. We're on an international pricing system that our grain prices work in relationship to production of crops in Russia and production of crops in China. MR. URUSKI: Export sales. MR. DOWNEY: Export sales, that's right, and let's face it, our meat industry is on the same basis to the United States. The North American market again, I say, they are the bigg est consumers of beef, the biggest producers of beef and that's what we work in relationship to.

We can't divorce ourselves from that market, in the same period of time. So I say that the figures that the member brings forward or uses as statistics in any way he likes, because we have so much beef on hand in Canada, that's what is going to set the the price. It's not the case at all.

I guess the other thing was that truly when the prices of beef were lower that we did see the consumers getting a good bargain, an extremely good bargain, and we saw the per capita consumption go from 1974, when the price of beef was somewhat higher - the 19 73 beef clearing through the system which was somewhat of an all­ time high since the early Fifties, when we had the hoof-and-mouth problems in this country - where we saw the beef in 1974 go from a 96 per capita consumption go up to something like 11 3 pounds per person, when we were experiencing probably the lowest price for slaughter cattle in this country in a time since the problems that we were faced in the late 1960s.

As the beef became lower priced, people ate more and we see the reverse happening now that in 19 77-78, when the price turned around again, consumers, using less of their money to buy beef, are eating less of it. We haven't got the same comparison for pork, but I would think that we would take the same table at this particular time and we would see, at this particular time when there is a surplus of pork on the market in the North American market, that the consum'ption of pork would be away up. The same with poultry meat, if you are in the surplus position. So I make those comments. The members asks, why?

I say we can't use the on-hand figures and have a price correlation to it, it just doesn't work. It's a cyclical business. We have done our best to try and alleviate some of the problems that producers found themselves in. I hope I have answered the members to their satisfaction; if not, well . . . MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of points that I would like to ask the Minister. He indicated that we're tied to the North American market. The statistics that I used, Mr. Chairman, are those that he presented me.

I used them with trepidation and if I used them in the wrong sense of the word, I stand to be corrected, and I would like to be corrected if I'm interpreting the statistics wrongly. However, the Minister ind icated in the imports for consumption, they were based on Canada's import laws and the amount of beef that we allow into this country, which are contained in those statistics. He talked about offshore beef being available to this country. I presume that offshore beef would be part of the importation quotas that this country imposes.

Therefore, based on the amount of imported beef that can enter into this country, since there are import laws, of what relevance then is the market of the United States in terms of setting the trends of the Canadian market for beef prices for producers here? If we do have import laws - and the Min ister has indicated that there are and I believe so - I don't think any offshore beef that comes into this country is regulated or not regulated by the import laws. I think the import laws include any beef coming from any country. -(I nterjection)- I know, it's a quota, yes, it's an amount of beef. MR.

DOWNEY: If I could just . MR. URUSKI: Yes, go ahead. MR. DOWNEY: . . . on a point of clarification. The figures that I have tabled here, and I said so earlier with some reservation on whether or not the U.S. beef came under the 15 0-million-pound quota, the figures that I have here that it doesn't; it couldn't, because we are sitting with some 15 0 million pounds. I said so with some reservation but I will want to get clarification on that. MR.

URUSKI: Just for further clarification, is there not a quota on beef coming in from the States, as well or is it included in the total offshore quota, or is ther� a separate quota with the U.S. based on the offshore quota? Are there two actual amounts that come in, one more than the 155,000 and 170,000? -(I nterjection)- There are two separate - well, I want to know that, I want to understand it better. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, again, I wanted to make sure I'm clear, but the information that's provided me at this particular time, we're talking, that the amount of beef that's come in on the imported end, as far as the quota is concerned, the quota does not apply to processed meat and that would be canned meats or manufactured meat. But, in fact, again the information that I have provided to me is that the import quota does apply to . MR. URUSKI: To the U.S. MR. DOWNEY: ... to the U.S., but it's not the processed-type beef, it's the ... MR. URUSKI: It's carcass beef. MR. DOWNEY: It's called fresh carcass beef, or boxed beef. MR.

URUSKI: Okay. MR. URUSKI: Thank you. So then the figures do include all carcass beef from wherever; offshore is offshore, whether it· be the U.S. or Australia or wherever, it's ... MR. DOWNEY: reservations. MR. URUSKI: Yes. 3445 I said so earlier, with some

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 MR. DOWNEY: knew there was some problems with the figures that we had here because . . . MR. URUSKI: No, no. Okay, the processed beef would likely be the corned beef, the canned beef and the specialty meats that we would be purchasing. I just wanted to understand that, and that's why I keep asking the Min ister and saying okay, we are connected to the North American market he has said, and yet we do have an import quota in this country. The marketplace, I presume, should be working on the Canadian scene.

We look at our on-hand stocks, we look at our imports for consumption which include all offshore beef and yet it still puzzles me that we are somehow, although we are tied to the North American market, there is a limit in terms of what imports this country brings in out of the North American market and out of the world market and yet we have had depression prices in beef. And for the Mini ster to say that we are tied to the North American market, in what way are we tied when we know that there is a limit of offshore beef that comes into this country?

I can't figure out why our prices would drop if we know that there is a limit of importation, unless we've got an oversupply ... You know, we call this a market of supply and demand. Our supplies have been relatively low in the years of low prices and yet our supplies in the years that the prices have gone up, in terms of storage, have increased and that's when the prices have dropped. Maybe there is some answer but I'd like the Minister to try on it. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, as I said, we're talking of processed meats and other carcass beef or whatever and I think, as I ind icated earlier, we saw the softening of the beef prices. They know; they were involved in introducing the program at that particular time. We saw the period of 1975 of imports for consumption increase from 174 million pounds in 19 74, which is the beg in ning of the downturn in the cycle or the downturn in the price cycle, we went to 200-and-some thousand pounds coming in from whatever source, whether it's United States; that's imports for consumption.

In 1974 we saw 174 million pounds, increase in 1975 to 200- and-some million pounds and, as that worked into our system, we saw a record of that particular five­ year period of 311 million pounds, which was probably in 19 76, which was the extreme bottom of our price. So we did have the supplies coming in from United States, from offshore, to the tune of 311 million pounds, which was no question; it depressed our price in this country. And then we reverted back as the supplies started to drop.

We dropped from 311 million pounds in 1976 to 1977 of under 200 million pounds, a drop of 12 0 million pounds of meat of one kind or another coming in to this country, and we saw the price respond to that kind of a reduction in meat supplies coming from the United States. You know, the figures are right there. We've seen the supplies of imports for consumption. We've seen the per capita consumption go up at the same time go up from 107 to 11 3 pounds per capita, the reason being that the price was dropping and people were eating more beef.

And now, as the supply is shortened, and it's the supplies that were coming in from both Unit ed States and offshore that supplies started to drop and we dropped in 1977, 120 million pounds of meat for consumption, imported. Imports for consumption dropped from 19 76 when the prices were at the most depressed time, to 191 million pounds for consumption in 1977, when we saw the price reflection at the marketplace. The price started to respond and, at the same time, as those prices increased, the people started to buy less.

We've seen somewhat in 1978 again the people still eating less, down to 100 pounds per capita, and again the little bit more of an increase of say, 24 million or 25 million pounds for consumption. So I think that pretty well explains really what happened to our Canadian price. Now I don't know how much plainer I can make it to the Member for St. George that the 311 million pounds hitting this mar ket in 19 76, from both Uni ted States and offshore beef, depressed the beef price. MR. URUSKI: We ll, Mr . Chairman, look at the exports. MR. DOWNEY: He says look at the exports. Well, we had a ... MR.

URU SKI: Alm ost the same amount of increase, virtually the same amount of increase of exports as there were of imports, almost 100,000. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, if we look at the exports in that particular year . . . First of all, this is the meat we're talking about, not the live animals or cows. Remember we said that earlier, that the figures that we had here were either sides of beef or meat that was de-boned. MR. URUSKI: A carcass is a carcass. MR. DOWNEY: Well, a carcass is a carcass but a live cow is a live cow and they aren't calculated in these figu res.

But really what I'm trying to answer the question to the member is that the reason why our meat prices depressed at that particular time was because of the imports for consumption increased at such a rate. The amount of beef eaten per capita in this country also ind icates that as the beef went down in price, people ate more of it; but as it started to go back up, they ate less of it. I can't make it any plainer than that, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: For now I'll just ask one more question. The Mi nister indica ted that we . . .

I believe the statistics are carcass for carcass, and then he made the statement that we had an over supply of cow herds and a lot of our head of cattle were exported to the United States, that we did have an over supply. Now I'd like to know which is the culprit. Is it the imports that are the culprit in terms of lowering Canadian prices or has it been the over supply in terms of our having to export whole heads of cattle, which isn't shown here? This is just shown as processed beef.

I mean, I'm not so sure that I'm reading the Mini ster because he told us, on one hand, that we did ship a number of beef that statistics don't show, that are of entire animals being shipped south; okay, 3446

Thursday, I May, 1980 that we had an over supply. The over supply doesn't seem to show up on here but yet now you've ind icated that our low prices are a result of a 100 million pounds of additional imports that came in between '75 and '76 and that's already at the time the price, in effect, bottomed out because '7 4 was the beginning of the downturn in the beef prices. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the numbers that I ind icated earlier, and I would explain it in this way: As I would understand it, in 19 77-78 is when we saw a larger number of cows moving out of this country into the United States, live cows for slaughter.

What it would ind icate again, the numbers here, is that the large population of the United States, after the price started to incr ease, because they had moved X­ number of pounds and it's ind icated here we've seen something like 311 million pounds come into this country in '76, that their recovery of their meat business was recovering and able to absorb the cow numbers that were moving off our market as the price increased.

Our movement of cows south were moving into the market that was demanding them at a higher price than what the consumers were here because, as our price went up, our consumers were eating less and the United States population were demanding these numbers of cows. Now that's it in as close terms as I can explain it without getting into the specific details. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr . Chairman, I' ve been listening to the debate all this afternoon and this evening and we're dealing with the Farm Income Assurance Plan.

I know if I'd have been on the opposition where the members are now, I would have been add res sing myself to the Farm In come Assurance Plan, something that I was felt responsible for bringing in in the first place, and would have been interested in addressing myself to the kind of questions to seek information as to how the plan is working now and probably why the diversion of the plan, as we are now proposing, compared to what the previous government had planned for the farmers of Ma nitoba. Mr .

Chairman, the honour able members opposite have accused those of us on this side for making statements to the affect that we are out to destroy the plan. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, and that' s before the time of the Mi ni ster of Agriculture, who wasn't in this House, that I fully recognized the plight of the cow-calf operator and of the beef industry back in the mid-Seventies.

And the problem that we had with the previous administration at that time was that when they locked the farmers into a plan for five years, that was the main criticism, and I speak for myself, which I had, insofar as the plan was concerned. We had no quarrel, I think we were in full agreement that the beef industry was in dire straits in 197 4, 19 75, 1976, was in dire straits, but we did not agree.

If the members will recall, when the then Mini ster of Agriculture in 1977 in the month of April brought in a bill to allow the farmers who had opted into the plan or entered into the provincial plan, by the legislation that the then government had brought in in April of 1977, he ind icated at the time when he addressed himself to that legislation that any farmer who was in the provincial Farm Assurance Income Plan had the opportunity to opt out of it and opt into a federal plan, that we thought then, and I agreed with the honourable members, that it was going to be something of more than a one-year duration.

But we got fooled by the federal government of that time. Eugene Whelan apparently didn't get the support of the rest of his colleagues because they did not feel that they wanted to enter into any kind of support to western Canada. That was the attitude of the Liberal government then, it has been ever since, and it still is today. Mr. Chairman, when we found ourselves in that position, we also found out that Manitoba was alone insofar as the advantages that we had, as farmers in Manitoba, to engage in the opportunity of getting the benefit of the federal plan.

And because of the tact that the government of the day had decided to make a five-year plan, the farmers could only get the benefit of 50 percent of what the full value of the plan was, in sofar as the federal government was concerned. On the other hand, Saskatchewan and Alberta had plans that were more or less to assist the farmer over a short period of time, until such times as the market would address itself to keep the farmer in business. Then he wouldn't have to be required to seek assistance from the Treasury. And that's the difference between Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Now the Member for St.

George has been asking the Min ister, Mr. Chairman, as to why our prices are such, insofar as beef is concerned, and why we have such depressed prices. I'd like to tell the Member for St. George that in 19 73 in August, the federal government chose to put an embargo on red meats going into the United States of America. At that time our steers were hitting 50 cents a pound; prime steer was 50 cents a pound. And because of that legislation in August of 1973 - I believe I'm correct, Mr. Chairman, on that particular date. If I'm wrong, I stand to be corrected but I believe I am correct on that.

In August of 19 73, the federal government put an embargo, and I repeat, on red meats going into the United States. That had an immed iate affect on the prices of our beef, and I remember so well, Mr. Chairman, when prices were 50 cents a pound; within about six weeks, they dropped to 40 cents a pound.

The Canadian Cattlemans Association protested vehemently to the federal government but they paid no attention, and I can't recall the then government in Manitoba ever making any comments towards Eugene Whelan about this very matter, because I think that the member who was the Min ister of Agriculture at that time, was in such close co­ operation, such cahoots with Eugene Whelan on the supply management program, that he didn't want to disturb the situation. So I feel, Mr.

Chairman, that he was negligent in his responsibilities in not raising supreme hell with the federal government on the kind of irresponsible legislation that he brought in in 1973. And I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, the Member for St. George is asking, why the prices had depressed. That's one example of what happend, Mr. Chairman. -(I nterjection)- Now the Member for St. George is saying, we can't have it both ways. Is he now starting to realize tha t this country depends on other countries, it's reciprocal trade agreements we have 3447

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 to establish, that we do business across the border and it works both ways. That's right, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what happens and this is one of the reasons why we have our problems. By the same token, Mr. Chairman, at that time, barley was 60 cents a bushel and it went from 60 cents to 1. 50 a bushel and if you don't think, Mr. Chairman, that didn't have some effect, on the beef industry. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, for the information, edification for the Me m ber for St. George, I recal l, Mr . Chairman, Mr.

Otto Lang was a speaker and spoke to a group of farmers in 19 73 in September in Brandon. I happened to be there, Mr. Chairman, and I addressed myself a question to Mr. Otto Lang and asked him why it was he put this emba rgo on red meats going into the United States and I indicated in my question what happened to the price at that particular time. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I recall very well that, the then, Mr. Otto Lang took an exception to my using the word em bargo and he gave me a long lengthy answer, like sometimes lawyers are tempted to do, with all due respect to the Memb er for lnks ter.

But this was the case and that was the situation that time. That was one example, Mr. Chairman, of what happened on the downward trend of our prices of beef and following that we know what happened. Then the government of the time in Manitoba brought in this loan plan where a farmer could borrow 10 0 on a calf. I remember in 19 75, going to some of the abattoirs or some of the stockyards where farmers had taken into on this plan and they were so angry because the then Min ister of Agriculture had suggested they hold their beef.

This was an ind ication, I don't what, I'm sure the Minister was sincere, I'm not questioning that, but the fact was that the market did not turn around, it did not im prove. As a result of that program, with all good intentions of the previous administration, it was a disaster as far as the beef men were concerned. So when they borrowed that 100 they turned around and sold those same animals they had borrowed money on the next year, for less money than the money they had borrowed on; so they were in the hole. Mr. Chairman, this is just a little bit of history of what's happened in the beef industry.

I would say we're talking about the farm insurance program insofar as the beef industry is concerned and I would hope we would get on with it and discuss those particular matters as far as this plan is concerned rather than getting on to an international global market which does not have any relationship to the resolution at hand. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: You know the Member for Rock Lake has just explained it very well, why you should have a marketing system for cattle. He's explained it so well.

This is the kind of public relations we need to encourage farmers to come in with a marketing system for their cattle because we've just heard it explained very well by the member, how the market system is a catastrophic system that doesn't seem to be resolved un der the present free marketing system. For instance, the Minister -(l nterjecti cin)­ yes you sure enlightened us because now we know that we need a marketing system, a better marketing system than we have, you've just explained it for us.

The Minister ind icated we are now exporting some beef, we are exporters of beef, and so there appears to be a market. "'!e are not able to supply our own demand in Canada and yet we've seen a drop of about 10 cents a pound over the winter on beef and I'm wondering why beef prices have gone down 10 cents just over the winter months, when we have a market for our beef and why has the price been depressed? I would like to ask the Mini ster if he could tell us, on the figures that are quoted here, whether or not this would include the beef coming from Australia, I presume and New Zealand, if any.

When we import beef from Australia, does it go through the United States first before it comes here or is it billed there? Do we buy Australian beef from the Americans or do we buy it from Australia? Does anybody have that information? MR. DEPUTY CH AIRMAN: The Ho nourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I guess if we were buying meat from Australia we would buy it from Australia.

Some of it could come via the United States, but I would not think so, I think the majority of any meat trade that takes place, and I don't have the specific answer to that, but I would assume that's where it would come from; if we're buying it from Australia that's where it would come from. MR. ADAM: I know there are times, you know, with the statistics on livestock the packers know what amounts of beef are going to hit the market, they know how many head and how many yearlings there are and how many slaughter cattle there are and they have a pretty good idea when those cattle are going to hit the market.

I know many times they arrange their imports to come into Canada just when this beef is coming onto the market and the reason they do this is to depress the prices. It is just another ind ication where there is manipulation in order to depress prices and, you know, this is just adding another argument to the Member for Rock Lake, when he explained how bad the situation was.

I know there have been times when shipments from Australia are brought in just to coincide with the big fall sales, to come in when all these cattle are going to hit the market and then you have all this beef coming in from offshore or the United States, but primarily from Australia, in order to depress our prices here. So I think when the National Farmers Union asked for better controls on imports and also the Canadian Livestock Association, as well, have criticized this open dumping place for surplus beef from other countries and surplus products from other countries, they have certainly some solid grounds.

But we haven't resolved the problems that the Member for St. George and the Minister have been discussing before supper and now; we haven 't resolved those problems. We seem to know what the problems are, or we think we know what they are but we haven't done anything to try and resolve this so it doesn't happen in the future. So until we're able to do that we should keep our Beef Assurance Program in order to protect our producers here because until we're able to resolve that problem that we have 3448

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 discussed here today, I think we'd have been wise to retain this program. I kno w the Memb er for Gladstone would not want to leave the impression on the record when he said programs tha t were introduced brought a lot of people into the beef industry that should never have been in here and those are the fellows who were at the Legislature here demanding for support which finally brought out the Beef Assurance Program.

I say to him the people who were coming here demanding some kind of a program and government interference in the free market, which couldn't provide them a living and couldn't keep them viable, were people like Terry Eyjolfson the President then I believe of the Cow-Calf Association and many other leading beef men in this province, including the National Farmers Union had been in here. These are the people that the Member for Gladstone says should have never been in the beef business, those are the leaders, these are the people. Well, I'm sure they were here, Mr.

Chairman, we met with them when we were in govenrment. - (In terjec tion)- Well yes, but you made general comments. These were the guys that came in and asked for the program. Well Terry Eyjolfson was the leader of those some ofs, he was the leader. - (Interjection)- Of course, people with 500 head were coming in here that should have been solvent, shouldn't have had a care in the world. They were here asking for assistance. -(Int erjection)- Well, they do, yes, sure they like handouts but they don't like government int erference, they like the free market but when they're in trouble they know where to come. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to try to make sure that I have a proper understanding of what happened with the Beef Price Stabil ization Program, is that the right name? Beef Inc ome Assurance Program.

That the price of beef was depressed in the mid-70s, -(Int erjection)- '74 or '75 it doesn't matter; that it was hovering in the 40 cent area, 40 cents, okay let's say 30 to 40 cents, that what was felt to be a normal pric e was somewhere around the 50 cent level, that was a break-even point. -(I nterjection)- No, I am just saying that the 50 cents was somewhere around the break-even point. Therefore, you had many farmers who were in the position of having to get 35 cents on products they needed 50 cents to break-even.

They were in a difficult way and many of them who had for many years said that the public shouldn't be handing out money to people who were in a difficult way suddenly said, well we used to think that way, now we think there should be money handed out to people who are in a difficult way but we don't want handouts, we think there should be a deal with the government.

That since 50 cents is the break-even point you pay us the difference between the market price, which, let us say, is 35 and 50 for any cattle we have to sell now, but since we are people who are honourable, believe in not taking money, when the price goes to 60 cents we will give you back the money we took when it was at 35, we will give you the cattle at 50 cents and then you will sell them for the overage. Am I esse ntiall y righ t as to the philosophy of the program? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMA N: The Ho nourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, from what the Member for lnkster is saying, I would say, yes, he is saying what I can read in Hansard . . . MR. GREEN: Leaving out the editorials that I put in, that's right. . . . MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's basically what the concept was, I would say and I don't think I'll take di rection from the Member for ln kster whether I leave out the editorials or not. MR. GREEN: Well, I'm sure you would want to leave out the editorial. If you want to leave them in be my guest, that's right. I'm prepared to have them in. MR. DOWNEY: But a direct answer to his question would be pretty much yes. MR.

GREEN: All right, then for some years these people, who never wanted to get any public funds, got 30 mill ion worth of public funds. (I nterjec tion)- Forty-one. Well over a num ber of years, these people, who always complain about people being on welfare and people being on the dole and people trying to rip off the government, they got 40 million from the government, from the public, from all of the taxpayers and people of Manitoba. Then, lo and behold, the price goes up to 50 cents.

When they see the price getting to 50 cents, then a bunch of Conservative politicians came in here and say: the farmer who said that he would pay you money after it got the 50 and went up to 60, that he would pay back to the public what they gave him when it was 50, the Conservatives then called these farmers a bunch of cheats. The Conservatives say if you demand that money back these farmers are going to stop their businesses because they are so adamant to cheat the public that they're going to go out of business rather than raise cattle, that's what the Tories said. Is that right? Mr.

Chairman, the Tories did bill them and then they came to us and said these farmers are adamant about not paying their debts and because they're going to go out of business rather than pay back what they have taken from the government in hard times, they then stop producing cattle. Now I never said that about a single farmer. I never said that. That's what the Mi nister of Agricultur e said.

The Minis ter of Agriculture said that if these farmers who bid on the dole, that's right, who have made this deal that when the price is low they will take, when the price is high they won't give back, I didn't believe that the farmers of Manitoba are such people. I would never suggest such a thing about the farmers in Manitoba. But the Minister of Agriculture says that that is the case and in order to get these farmers back to the position of growing cattle, he said anybody who pays us what they now owe us can get out of the plan. Is tha t right? Is that what happened?

That anybody who pays the present billing can get out of the plan and as a result . . . Pardon me? MR. DOWNEY: Or stay in it. 3449

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 MR. GREEN: Or stay in it, but if they pay the present billing they can get out. Therefore, if everybody paid the present billing, then of that 40 million that was advanced, how much would be left unpaid? 39 million was left unpaid? I can hardly believe it. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think there's one thing that I want to make the Member for lnkster understand. That first of all the intent of the program as introduced by his colleague, the last Mini ster of Agriculture, should have built into the contract the rules that would have made those particular people pay that money back.

First of all, there was no place in that contract to make them pay back on calves. MR. GREEN: Did you ever sue a single one of them? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order. The Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: . . . at this point, Mr. Chairman, but we went through this earlier today. But I'll just tell him that his colleague - and he was in Cabi net at that particular time, he had to be - wrote off 10 million, wrote off 10 million. Why is he telling me that I let the farmers go with 39 million? I couldn't collect that 10 million that he was a part of letting go.

He can't sit there and say that we wrote off 39 million of the taxpayers money. MR. GREEN: Well, but you did. MR. DOWNEY: But I didn't, Mr. Chairman. The 10 mi llion and 1,20 0-and-some prod ucers, Mr . Chairman, were let off by that member, one of the members of the Treasury, he's sitting right there; the Member for ln kster was part of that particular organ ization that wrote off 10 million. Now he can't come into this committee and say we wrote off 40 million. We're not writing off 40 million. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, if I said 40 million, it was because the Minister gave me that figure. 10 million was written off many years before so I will revise the 40 million and say 30 million, and I will say 30 million. And I will then talk about the 10 million, because the 10 million, the federal government came along and said that if you have these people transfer to our program on condition that they won't have to pay back, we will take them over. If we hadn't done that, then there would be much more than 40 million owing.

So as a pressure from the federal government that this was the only way that the farmer could participate in the plan, the only way that they would let them go into the federal plan, is if we wrote off the present amount owing under the provincial plan; that's what they did and that was the deal that was made to us. What would you have us do? Would you have us cont inue to have them getting money from the province rather than from all of the people of Canada, on the basis that they would have to pay that back? In the meantime much more money would be paid out by the province,

whereas this way it was paid out from the Canadian government. If the Minister wants to find me culpable for that 10 million, I'll say that I will plead guilty on the basis that that's what we did. We did it in order to get all of Canada contributing to that plan, rather than merely the province, but we're still left with 30 million, which these people, these farmers in the province of Manitoba ... And I suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, that the Min ister cannot say that the agreement didn't provide for repayment, he never sued for repayment; I suggest to you that if the agreement di dn't provide for repayment, which I suggest that it did, that if that was an oversight that there was no harm in do ing what any . . . - (Int erjection)- Look, I really don't care what Mr. Uskiw said. I don't care what Mr. Uskiw said and I don't know what Mr. Uskiw said. All I know is that the program was designed for the farmer who got over 50 cents, at the time, to pay that money back.

I say, and I' ve always said, tha t ther e was a responsibility to get that money back. I would say the same thing to Mr . Uskiw, that there was a responsibility on the part of the government to get that money back. I believe that the farmers of the province of Manitoba are decent people. I don't say, like the Tories say, that they are welchers or that they're cheaters. -(I nterjection)- Well, you do say that. You say to the farmers of Manitoba that they are going to stop producing cattle because they don't want to pay back the money that they got in hard times. That's what you're saying. Mr.

Chairman, what does a person have to do to get this money? He had to show that cattle was selling at 35 cents and the price was 50. He didn't have to go to a government agency, say to them that I don't have a farm, I don't have any money in the bank, I don't have any income, I'm starving; he could be the richest man in the province of Manitoba and still get the difference between 35 cents and 50 cents on the basis that cattle are selling for a low price.

Let's take the position of what I hear many times, people complaining of a guy who loses his job, who runs out of unemployment insurance benefits, who can't get a job. Will the government say to him, as long as you're not getting a job we'll pay you the di fference between what you are getting in unemployment and what you would get if you were working? Isn't that what the cattlemen got? No, sir.

They say, first prove that you haven't got a house to live in; second, prove that you haven't got a pot to pee in; third, prove that you have no money in the bank; fourth, prove tha t you've got no clothes on your back; fifth, prove that you've got nothing in your pockets; sixth, prove that nobody else in your family has got anything to feed you with, and then we may give you something to get you a scrap of bread and then society turns around and says, those dirty welfare bums.

And the cattlemen get between 35 cents and 50 cents, and they could have a million dollars in the bank, and then when the price goes up we let them not pay it back. What kind of justice is that, Mr. Chairman? What kind of justice ... He's saying we wrote the contract. I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, that if I was in government there is absolutely no doubt that if that contract had a flaw, I would do what we did with other things that had a flaw. What happened when the AIB had a flaw? If 3450

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 there was a flaw, and I'm not suggesting there was. What happened with the AIB? We passed a law saying there is no flaw. Workers think that they're going to get more money, the Liquor Commission employees, because they made an agreement with the government to get more money and the Supreme Court said that you cannot reduce that salary. We all got into the Ho use and said, to hell with the Supr eme Court; you 'r e not going to get that increase, we're going to pass a law saying that that salary goes back. That's what we said. And where is there a better example than this? Now, Mr.

Chairman, these are not the people who were worse mistreated. The people who were worse mistreated - and my friend from Ste. Rose is wrong - he says nobody will ever go into such a program agai n. If you ever had such a prog ram again everybody will do it. Everybody will go in to it because, Mr. Chairman, you had farmers, decent people in the province of Manitoba who took the 35 cents, who did not ask for the extra 15 cents; those people have been gipp ed by the Conser vative government. -(I nterjec tion)- That's right, by the Conservative government. They have all been gipped because for those years, Mr.

Chairman, they sold their cattle at 35 cents and you were paying 50 cents to other people on the understanding that they would give the money back and they didn't give the money back, and you didn't try and get it back and you're still not trying. -(I nterjecti on)- The dollar's on your conscience, Mr. Chairman, because that money ... And the government had every responsibility to make every effort to see to it that that money came back; that's the basis upon which it was obtained.

Every cattleman who got it knew that's what it obtained and the Conservative government is helping those cattlemen rip off the public of the province of Manitoba because they say that those people are dishonest. They have condemned the farming community in this province; worse, they have given them a worse condemnation than I have ever heard before. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture has said that the cattlemen in the province of Manitoba, rather than pay back what he got in hard times on the understanding that when good times came he would repay it, that the cattlemen would stop producing cattle rather than pay that money back. That's a worse condemnation on the agriculture producer in this country than I have ever heard, Mr. Chairman, in the 16 years that I have been in the House. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I wanted to go back to the Member for lnkster's comment about how he saved the provincial people the money by having pressure put on him by the federal government. - (Interjection)- Mr. Chairman, the pressure was put on him by the feds. I'm sure that he would yield to that kind of pressure. I know the Member for lnkster far better than that. That in fact what he had done, what he had done by allowing those 10 mill ion producers is no different than what happened to the producers today.

Because the federal Mi nister of Agriculture, the federal government have made it very plain, very plain indeed, before there would be a program that would be sufficient to meet the needs of the provinces, that they had to do away with their provincial programs. We indicated to the federal government that we were prepared to move in that direction. As tar as the principle of payback, Mr. Chairman, the contract that tells the people of the province who signed those contracts that it had to be paid back, the Member for Lac du Bonnet said exactly the opposite. Our

interpretation of the contract is that there is a commitment back to the province. We have tried to collect that money and we still have not given up on collecting that money. I ind icated earlier today that if those people did not pay back, we are prepared to take them to a court of law. But, Mr.

Chairman, we could also be, with the contracts that are in place - and I'm not saying and I' ve ind icated earlier that I don't see where the province will have to pay money out this year again to those same people who stay within the contract - but it could be with the revised cost of production, with the market droppi ng, that the provinc e could once again be in the position, probably a year or so down the road, where in fact they may have to pay out again to those same people. MR. GREEN: Well, don't pay out if you're not getting back. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the position we are taking. Mr.

Chairman, to allow these people to opt out is no di fferent than what the Member for ln kster ind icated he was a member of government that did and let 10 million off. Mr. Chairman, there was no attempt made. Why didn't he make the Member for Ste. Rose pay back some of the money that he took? Why did he allow those kind of people to opt out without any attempt . . . -(I nterjecti ons)- MR. DEPUTY CHAIRM AN: Orde r please. The Honourable Mini ster. MR. DOWNEY: Mr .

Chairman, without any indi cation of making anybody pay back one red cent, they said if you want to go out scot-free, you're gone, with 10,000-1 5,000.00. Mr. Chairman, he was a member of the Treasury that did that. Made no attempt at all to collect one nickel back from those people and he's sitting here accusing me, accusing me, of committing a great crime. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there were farmers in this province that came to me and said, that if they didn't get out of the contract and had to pay the money back, they were out of business.

We are sitting here today in the province of Manitoba, particularly in the areas of the province - and the Member for Ste. Rose knows one of them; the Chairman of this committee kn ows another - where people are relying totall y on livestock production for their incomes. Those people are in damned tough shape. They haven't got extra money to give back to the province of Manitoba. So it's a matter of either gfving them this option, Mr . Chairman, or introducing another program that would again cost the taxpayers of this province money. I believe, Mr.

Chairman, those people aren't here because they aren't proud people. Mr. Chairman, they are proud people. They needed assistance and 3451

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 they took assistance. I believe that, in the best interests of the economy, Mr. Chairman, they took the mone y to help their families. At this particular time, it's in the best interests of the total cattle industry; in the best interests of the people that are working in the pack ing-h ouse indus try and the consumers of Ma nitoba, that there are benefits accrued to the whole works of them, and by us allowing those people to opt out, I say, has not hurt the credibility of the cattlemen one bit because those people needed that help. Mr.

Chairman, I think that the Member for lnkster is quite right, that there is a responsibility to those people to pay back a certain percentage of funds. We are living up to that particular principle. If we're unable to collect it, Mr. Chairman, then I will suggest that maybe we moved wrong in doing it but our intent is to make them live up to the contract as it's being interpreted by the legal counsel. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the Mini ster has said that we didn't try to collect any money back.

Now let me remind the Min ister, up until 19 77, the price never went up to 50 cents. Isn't that right? MR. DOWNEY: That's right. MR. GREEN: So how could we anything back? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, but you let them off, you let 10 million ... MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, but he said that we didn't try to collect. There was no time that we were in government that we could have collected anything. But what we did say, was approximately a year after the plan started, isn't that right? Would that be correct , that the federal government started a program and we were . . . MR. DOWNEY: Two years. MR.

GREEN: Two years, okay, two years. By that time we had paid out 10 million or, no, we paid out more than that. We paid out more, and we said that those farmers who opt for the federal plan would have no commitment to pay back to the province. That's right, I agree with that. We said that, Mr. Chairman, not because we didn't want the people to pay back, but because we would have continued to pay out those people money and that the federal government would not take them into their plan except on condition that they were out of ours and that they were relieved of ours. That was the reason but, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister says we didn't try to get anything back. I am telling you that at no time that we were in government was there any possibility of colle cting 1 cent back un der that contract because the program, the price of cattle had never gone up to the figure on which we could collect. - (Interject ions)- That's right. Well when you say two­ thirds, you have told me that a 40 million total was paid out and if 10 million was relieved, so there was 30 million still in. Well, Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister is telling me that we let people out without trying to collect the money back and that they had sold cattle for over 50 cents, then I will say that we did the wrong thing. - (Int erjection)- But, Mr. Chairman, there was nobody in the years ... It is tr ue, if the ho nourable members are saying that some cattlemen collected and then died and stopped selling cattle, or whatever it was, that we didn't collect it, I would say next time, Mr. Chairman, I would make that a debt. I would absolutely make it a debt, a debt plus the right to collect the cattle.

I wouldn't undo the program; the program is a good idea, but if you are asking me, that next time I would say it's not necessarily cattle. If you stop producing cattle, then you owe us X dollars and we will put a claim against whatever assets you do have, cattle or otherwise, so that people will know that when they are collecting this money on the basis that if they are still in the cattle business they will pay it back, that they cannot relieve themselves of it.

But we have people who are still in the cattle business and who are still producing cattle and selling it for over 50 cents, and we're not trying to collect the money back. If the Minister says that he is, then I say, more power to him, because I've always said that he should. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (b)- pass; (

c) Planning and Mana gement: (c)( 1) Salarie s-p ass - the Member for St. George. MR. URU SKI: Mr. Chairman, could the Mini ster explain the (

c) section in terms of Planning and Management, in terms of the . . . MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the Planning and Management is made up of the Assistant to the Minister. The positions that are available are nine in that particular allocation of secretaries, a Deputy Minister, an Assistant to the Secretary to the Deputy, a Federa l-P rovincia l Co-ordina tor, and another Program and Policy Co-ordinator, along with an Administrative Assistant, made up of those positions. There is one vacancy right at this particular time. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I recall the last time we were doing the estimates, if I recal l, the Mini ster di sba nded the planning mechanism within the department and transferred the staff to the various directorates within the department and the director at that time was transferred to, I think, it was to MACC? MR. DOWNEY: No. MR. URUSKI: No? MR. DOWNEY: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. MR. URUSKI: I believe the director of Plannning, if I recall the Minis ter' s remarks correctly, was transferred to th e Ma ni toba Agricultural Credit Corporation to do some research work there. Mr.

Chairman, who is doing the co-ordinating within the department for Planning presently? Is there a Director of Planning within the department? MR. DOWNEY: No, Mr. Chairman, the Program and Policy Co-ordinator is Dick Filteau. MR. URUSKI: Within this branch? 3452

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 MR. DOWNEY: Within this allocation. MR. URUSKI: Within this allocation. Could the Minister explain to us how the planning mechanism within the department presently works? MR. DOWNEY: If he's referring to the program co­ ordinating and the work that's being done, it's a matter of working with the di fferent farm organ iza tions or the di fferent departments of government within the different branches to see that the different programs are working effectively, to recommend new programs or to make changes to programs that may be necessary to meet the needs of the farming commun ity.

Basically, that's his responsibility. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (c)( 1) - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, while I understand what the branch will do, since there is no central planning mechanism to look over the programs of the department, the various planning people would be in the various branches of the department, what mechanism is used by the Min ister and his department to overview the de sirabili ty or the success of the programs to be able to recommend shifts when, in fact, the planning people who are overviewing the entire department are now within the line functions of the department and they are, in fact, those used to deliver the programs or in overseeing the delivery of the programs?

How do they fit into the overall planning mechanism of the department? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the planning within the government or within the department, I should say, is now handled basically through the Deputy Minister and the ADMs are respons ib le for the different branches in conjunction with the directors. The analysis for the different programs pretty well are handled by the Economics Branch, so that any analysis work that has to be done, the capacity to do that is within the Economics Branch.

So the main planning is done through the Deputy Min ister and the ADMs, the Assistant Deputy Ministers, with resource persons coming to provide, as I say, economic analysis from the Economic s Branch in the department. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, could the Mini ster ind icate what type of studies or work has been undertaken in this year in terms of program planning and the like within the branch? Have there been any specific tasks undertaken within the planning portion of the branch or is it general in terms of the programs that he has announc ed which are the federal-provincial agreements? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, some of the work has been done has been the reorganization of the department. We've gone through an internal task force working where, in fact, we've identified and had the different staff within the different parts of the department identify areas that they feel should be strengthened to better serve the needs of the farm community. We have also, after the identification, made moves to assist and we have mentioned some of those in my opening remarks, some of the areas that we feel needs strengthening, particularly, in a lot of the cases.

Dealing with the federal-provincial agreement, a lot of work has been done directly with the farmers, with farm comm ittees, working with departmental staff in the planning of programs to better, as I say, assist the farmers in the province. The overall planning and co-ordination on specific programs has been hand led basically with the Deputy Min ister through the ADMs and through the Directors. MR. URUSKI: Mr .

Chairman, the decisions for policy direction and planning within the department are handled through the planning people within the branches and then they are, if I can understand the process, brought up to this group headed by the Deputy Minister. Who else is involved, the senior ADMs in the department and they reach the decision on the direction that the department should take or what is the process? MR. DOWNEY: First of all, Mr.

Chairman, let me tell you that the process basically on policy comes from my colleagues, the MLAs for the province, in consultation with them and the policy direction comes from the Minister in consultation with them and, also, discussions with the Deputy Mini ster and ADMs. But the basic policy decisions are made by myself, as the Minister, and my colleagues, the MLAs. MR. URUS KI: Mr. Chairman, okay, we can probably deal with it on research, but what type of ... Pardon me? MR. DOWNEY: I have to do something. MR.

URUSKI: Yes, what type of group has he within his department in terms of reviewing critical areas and the like? Who handles that type of work and ongoing work? MR. DOWNEY: I guess in a general way I'v e ind icated that some of the policy and program work is handled by Dick Filteau in some specific areas, but in a more general way, the major particular or major areas, we deal with the people - if there is special work to be done, there are special people - who are qualified to do that within each department. Not one specific person is continually left to do one, then the other, or we could have two or three.

Another individual who does some work on program analysis and working within the system is Ross Cameron, a very capable individual who has done a lot of the other work in the particular area of program analysis that are throughout the different departments. MR. URUSKI: Has there been a change in the number of staff in this area from last year? MR. DOWNEY: No .. MR. URUSKI : The change s in salaries of approximately 40,000, is that general - no, I'm sorry. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (c)(1)- pass; (2)- pass - the Member for Ste. Rose. On which item? 3453

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 MR. ADAM: On the first item, Planning. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (c)( 1) - the Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: decided upon? Is this the area where policy is MR. DOWNEY: The Min ister's Compensation. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Is the item under which there would be policy guidelines? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, in the area that policy should be discussed in under the Minister's Compensation because that's the policy area within the government. MR. ADAM: We're just talking about programs now. MR. DOWNEY: That's correct. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (1 )-p ass; (2)- pass; (3)- pass; (4)- pass - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the amount of funds tha t are set aside for the Special Emergency Program, could the Minister ind icate the use of the funds that were made last year and the projected use of the voted amount for this year? What does he foresee for the use of that statutory amount? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. Is the member speaking on item (3)? MR. URUSKI: Yes, (c)(3). MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I was under the impression we had a pass. The Honourable Min ister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I'd have to get that information from the staff to see how much money was used in the last year. Mr. Chairman, the amount of funds - I don't have the specific amount of moneys that were spent in the amount of funds, but it wasn't any large amount. I guess the member also has to realize that when it comes to emergency programs it's very difficult to foresee whether it would be an insect outbreak or other problems that are faced within the farm community and at the time that the estimates were put together there were no emerge ncy-type things that we could foresee at that particular time. MR.

URUSKI: For last year? MR. DOWNEY: Well, as far as any emergency, Mr. Chairman, there was very little paid out as far as any emergency items, out the depa rtment of this particular appropriation of funds. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, were the funds used for any expenditures within the department? If they were for last year, could the Minister ind icate what they were used for? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, as I ind icated, there weren't any for emergencies that I have identified here for me but there has been an ongoing agreement to pay the Gardeners Co-op 14 ,800, which was an agreement entered into in 1961 and that's just the annual principal and interest that has been going on since that particular time. MR. URUSKI: Could the Minister ind icate what the Gardeners Co-op; where is it located and if he has some information with respect to this. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, it was an agreement between the vegetable growers of the province and it was to build storage for vegetable crops and, as I ind icated, it's the annua l principal and interest payment which has been ongoing since 1961, so we'll have one more year of a payment to make for that particular organization. MR. URUSKI: And tha t amount of money has been coming out regularly out of this appropriation with the balance not being used likely. MR. DOWNEY: The word from beside me says yes. MR. URUSKI: Okay. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (3)- pass; (4)- pass - the Member for Ste. Rose on item (4). MR. ADAM: Yes, on (4).

The pricing formula I believe is arrived at once a year, is it? What is the formula now for the . . . ? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Item (4), Milk Control Board. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Could the Mi nister give us some information as to why there is a reduction there in one-third? And also there's been representation made in regard to the cost pricing formula used by the provincial Mi lk Control Board and how this reflects the Manitoba conditions. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the difference in last year's allocation for the operation of the Milk Control Board and this year's request is tha t the decrease is due to reallocation of the Board office and we're also sharing, I believe, some staff with the Milk Control Board. So that was the reason for the reduction in requested funds. It was a matter of space-saving and use of staff to better utilize employees within the department and that is the reason for the reduced request.

As far as the pricing mechanism in the province, we have the Milk Control Board which holds hearings after they are requested to by the producers or any organization and that has to go through the hearing process to set the price of milk. And as members of the committee are quite aware of the fact we've had a lot of representation from the dairy producers of this province and I have assured them we would look at what the alternatives are and if alternatives are decided upon, members of this committee will see them if they are, in fact, proceeded on in the House and that's basically it.

The process is still the same as it has been for the last several years. 3454

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 MR. ADAM: I presume then the Min ister hasn't come to a decision yet on his statements, of some time ago, whereby he would take under consideration the representations made to him by the producers and also by the National Farmers Union. I believe, there may be some other groups too that have made representation in this area, perhaps the Farm Bureau, I don't know, but has the Minister arrived at a decision on that, what he intends to do on that, as far as holding the public hearings and all that. I believe he had mentioned something in that regard, I'm not so sure if it's Mr.

Rampton who made statements in that regard. There was a boycott of the hearings, I understand, and I'm not sure whether there were other things involved, perhaps litigation, I'm not sure. But it seems to me that the situation is such a condition that warrants some explanation by the Mini ster what he intends to do. We don't want to go through the same thing we went through every year like we did last year. MR. DOWNEY: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have ind icated to the members that there have been a lot of dairy farmers, a lot of organizations that are unhappy with the pricing mechanism.

We have met with the Consumers Association, we've met with several interested groups and I think it's an area that is something that we have to address. No final decision has been made. When it is it will be handled in the normal manner of making cha nges. All members here know that it is

an Act of the Manitoba Legislature and that any change would have to in fact take place in this House.

Now as far as the principles - and I'll just speak briefly to them - the concern of the dairy farmer, the fact that he has to go before a public hearing, the time lapse when he applies for a price increase and the time in which that increase takes place, sometimes can run into a period of six months and in tha t particular period of time it costs him additional amounts of money for operation and they are unhappy with having to go before the public and plead for a price increase when, in fact, they feel there should be an easier mechanism put in place to accommodate them.

I agree with them, I think that there should be a mechanism in place that will accommodate a price change, through a formula system, without having such a long time before that takes place. On the other hand , I think that the consumers of this country have enjoyed a mechanism that has allowed them to have a mechanism to speak to if there are price increases and they're not satisfied; that in fact they are able to let their thoughts be know and in fact influence the decision made by a mechanism.

So you know, it's very difficult to build into a system that's going to provide protection to both sides, but when that decision is made, if it's able to be done then, as I said, the House will be informed. MR. ADAM: I think the Minister seems to be in agreement with the presentation made by the Farmers Union, which they say that the costs should -(Int erjection)- well, he's almost read it word for word.

The cost should reflect Manitoba conditions and agreement on a pricing formula between the Milk Control Board and the Producer Board is essential and that price reviews should take place on a semi-annual basis, based on the agreed formula, and should be automatic between the Milk Control Board and the producers, so that you don't have to go through that harangue every year, or twice a year, or whatever time it takes. Could the Mini ster advise if he intends to introduce any legislation at this session or is he going to wait till after the session, or how can he do it with . . . ? MR. DOWNEY : Mr.

Chairman, first of all, I'm pleased that the member recognizes that I listen to all farm groups whether they're the Farmers Union, whether they're the Farm Bureau, or dairy farmers; that I have a sympathetic ear to the whole agricultural community, and I'm pleased that he recogniz es that. If one has an idea which will help the best interests of the farmers, then I'm quite prepared to look at them. As far as giving him a decision tonight on whether or not it will be introduced, I'm not prepared to do that at this particular time. When that decision is made I will proceed in the normal fair way to go.

I would suggest, I told him earlier, I am sympathetic to the dairy farmers but we also have to be aware of the fact tha t the cons umers have enjoyed a mechanism in place that they have been able to speak to and it's difficult to build in those kinds of principles, and I think we'll be able to do it. I would expect, the members opposite being interested in the farm community, that if a change like that were to take place, that we could get there full support on trying to help the dairy farmers. MR. ADAM: Does the Mini ster feel that the public interest can be protected by the Milk Control Board.

Perhaps it may have to be changed somewhat in order to represent objectively the interests of both the producers and the consumers. MR. DOWNEY: If I und erstood the question correctly, I'm keeping in mind ... MR. ADAM: Does the Mini ster believe that the Milk Control Board could represent the interests of both the producers and the consumers without having to go through all these hearings, if you have a good pricing formula based on Manitoba conditions? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not prepared to make a comment here that would reflect upon the present Milk Control Board as it now is in place.

I think that they have probabl y acted fairly. The mechanism was put in place, so if there have been some accusations that they haven't, I haven't got any grounds to suggest otherwise at this particular time. I think it's a matter of looking at a mechanism that would work, and I said this earlier, would work on a flexible basis so that if a price increase were needed by the producers to keep them in business, then in fact the formula would trigger and give them that increase.

At the same time, if the cost to production were to reduce in some particular area, then in fact the price could lower and the consumers would have the advantage of lower priced milk. Now that is pretty much a hope that may never come true but it's still in theory; it works both ways. 3455

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 At the same time, I want to assure the consumers of mi lk tha t we want to leave it in place, a mechanism which they can be heard when it comes to a price increase. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Minister in dicated that there would likely require legislative changes to The Milk Control Act.

Would there have to be legislative changes in terms of setting up a pricing formula or could that be done by regulation by the government in terms of setting down a formula as has been discussed in - I think it's the Woods Report that did the work on the Milk Control Board? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the member refers . to the formula that was introduced. I'd have to further check the legislation, but I do believe that the milk price-setting mechanism, the Act as it is now, has to go through an open public hearing. I believe the Act states that. And to make any changes would have to be a legislative change.

So I don't think that there's capacity within the legislation now to allow the Milk Control Board, in fact, to introduce a policy or a formula. It still has to go through the open hearing even though they use a formula, I'm sure, to look at, they use a formula. But I do believe they still have to go through the process of having a hearing and there was still that time lapse in increasing the price to the producers. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, from the Min ister's thinking I'd like to understand what some of the thinking in government and himself is in terms of the policy dir ection that they are contemplating.

He's hinted to me that there may be the likelihood that if changes are made and they go the formula route in terms of setting up a formula for future price changes, that the process of public hearings may change. Is that the kind of thinking that's going on within government? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I believe I ind icated that the public, as far as I'm concerned, feel that there should be an opportunity to be heard and I don't disagree with that. MR. USKIW: Okay. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (4)-pa ss - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, then the Minister feels that there should be some public input in terms of the changes in price, if I understand him correctly.

Then is there anything preventing the Mini ster and the Milk Control Board from - and he has ind icated that likely the Milk Control Board does use some formula in terms of the price-setting mechanism even though they go through the hearing process, that they must use some formula in terms of calculating the processors' costs and the producers' costs and then price costs to the consumer - would there be any difficulty in the government ind icating to the board or the government setting down a price formula that can be scrutini zed by both th e producers, the processors and the public and have the hearing once and then have a regular meeting go on on a regular basis every three months, or every six months, to look at the cost of production index or the cost of living, or whatever costs that would make up the final price, and there'd be mechanism to trigger that, I would think, probably every six months.

It would have to be reviewed on a regular basis once a base is agreed to. Is that the way the Min ister is thinking? MR. DOWNEY: As I have ind icated, there are several alternatives that can be proposed and I've told him that if there are changes to be made that have to be legisla tive, he's a member of the Legislative Assembly. If it were to be proceeded on he'll have a proper time to have that input into that particular item, a recommendation in the House or in commit tee stage. I would have to say that decision hasn't been made and I don't feel it would be, until that decision is made, proper to say any more.

That, in fact, we are looking at the alternatives and at this particular time we're asking for funds to carry on with the Milk Control Board, the admin istration of it. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, what kind of time frame is the Mi nister looking at in light of the representations that have been made to him by producers in terms of moving ahead in any changes, if any? Or is he prepared to allow the status quo to continue for another six months or a year? What kind of a time frame is he setting in this area? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, it depends on the members opposite.

The quicker we get through my estimates the quicker I can get into doing the other work that I have before me, and that would be one of the things I'd be able to address. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, it's actually a year, one year and some three weeks, from the time we last dealt with the Mini ster's estimates, the last time he was in this Chamber in terms of allowing him to do the work. Certainly he can't say that he hasn't had time to look at it.

If he's generally saying to us that he doesn't intend to act at the present time, doesn't feel that there is a great urgency in this area, that's fine, I'd like to hear that from the Minister. As well, could he ind icate what the situation, in terms of public input and the total hearing process, is like in other provinces, both to the west and to the east? What is the process in terms of setting milk prices, say, if he can go through the various provinces? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the member asked me about what my time frame is and I've ind icated to him that I was sympathetic to the individuals who requested some change, the dairy producers, the different associations that met with me, the Farmers Union, as the Member for Ste. Rose ind icated their concern. I feel that there has to be something done and when a decision is made on the proper route then they'll be let known. I think it can be fair to say that Ontario, which lies somewhat to the east of us, have the right of appeal mechanism put in place, that the price can in fact change by formula.

The producer board sets the 3456

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 price and if the consumers are not satisfied they have the right to appeal after the fact. I believe, and I'm just going by recollection, that the province of Alberta I believe, go before the Public Utility Board, that they have the right to go to the Public Utility Board if they are, in fact, unhappy with the price increase. Saskatchewan, I believe, are almost a milk­ free province at this particular time. They are not producing a lot but I would have to get tha t information. I'll get that information for the member for tomorrow, but I don't believe that they have a hearing system.

I believe, it's been pretty much trad itional. We've had a heari ng system in thi s province that was No. 1 before the Public Utility Board; and then the Milk Control Board was set up. I don't believe that we have to have the consumers and the producers in this province going to the public arena, doing an open battle every time that the price has to change. I think it would be in the best interests of the consumer to have the producers being paid properly and fairly and equitably; that the dairy farmers shouldn't be expected to subsidize the consumers.

I don't believe that the producers should be able to take advantage of a situation and I think a fair return for their investment and their labour and their efforts is not an unreasonable request. We have to realize that milk cows have to be milked seven days a week; they can't turn the cows off for a three week holiday and go away; that they are commi tted people.

I think there has to be extra pay go in to that kind of indus try so tha t we recognize some of these hardships that they go through, particularly when we live in a society that expects X number of weeks holiday or a 9 to 5 kind of a job. -(Int erjection)- That's right. The member also brings us up-to-date, and being a turkey farmer, that the hens lay eggs seven days a week. MR. URUSKI: Seven times a day we have to pick up eggs. MR. DOWNEY: Seven times a day? My goodness, I understood that a hen laid one egg a day but I understand now they're up to seven out in St. George . MR.

URUSKI: They all don't lay at the same time. MR. DOWNEY: Oh, I see. Anyway, I think that's a point I'm trying to raise, that we want to make sure that the consumers have an adequate supply of top quality milk and the best way to get it is to have a fair and equitable price paid to the producer. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (4) - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has received a repor t based on the study that his department undertook. Has he made any moves in terms of the recommendations made within the report?

Or are his moves going to be all encom passing when he decide s to make any changes? Have there been any recommendations that have been made in the report implemented by the government and the Milk Control Board? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, basically two things. One is we've turned it over to the Milk Control Board who are the pricing mechanism for the producers in the province and consumers. Also it's been used as part of the review that has been going on in the whole pricing system, or the pricing review that we have been going through. So that's how it has been used, Mr. Chairman. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (4)- pass; (c)- pass; (

d) Management Services (d)(1 )- pass - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Yes. Mr. Chairman, could the Min ister ind icate to us the numb er of staff? He ind icated in his opening statement I didn't bring it with me or if I have it I haven 't got it handy - there was an increase in staff this year of how many within the department? MR. DOWNEY: The total increase of 9.24. MR. URUSKI: Nine staff man years, Mr. Chairman. Last year there was a reduction of 105, if I recall correc tly, Mr .

Chairman, and with an existing vacancy within the de partment of 84 or 85 staff man years, of which there was a net reduction, I believe, of 21. Are there any vacancies within the department now? I've used the figures for the total department. I think he's talking about 105. MR. DOWNEY: If you want to deal with this

section I can deal with it right now, Mr. Chairman. I'm informed that there are three vacant positions at this particular time. The staffing complement is the same, 38 last year and 38 this year, with three vacant positions in this Management Services Division. MR. URUSKI: The vacancies occur in what areas? MR. DOWNEY: An admin istrative officer; a file and voucher clerk and a personnel admi nistrator and I'm informed that they are in the process of being filled at this particular time. MR. URUSKI: All three of them? MR. DEPUTY CHA IRMAN: (1)-p ass - the Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman, we're in the process of filling two at this particular time. MR. URUSKI: Two of the three. Which one isn't being filled at the present time? MR. DOWNEY: The file and voucher clerk is not being filled at this particular time. MR. URUSKI: Okay. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (1 )- pass; (2)- pass; (d)- pass - the Member for Ste. Rose is speaking on which item? MR. ADAM: Well, it doesn't matter. What are their responsibilities? 3457

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the responsibilities are to admin ister the total department; to look after the moneys that flow out of the department, the government accounting services, program analysis, personnel training, computer services, admin istrative, the total management portion of the department. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (1) -p ass; (2)-pa ss; (d)- pass. The Member for St. George on which item? MR. URUSKI: Yes, on (d). Just before we finish that. Is there any major shift in terms of major exp enditur es within this branch? The other expenditures are some 18 ,000.00. Is there any . MR.

DOWNEY: No. MR. URUSKI: No major shift. MR. DOWNEY: No major shift, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (1) -p ass; (2)- pass; (d)- pass. (

e) Research (eX1). Comm ittee rise. SUPPLY -COMMUNITY SERVICES AND CORRECTIONS MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr. Abe Kovnats (Radisson): Comm ittee will come to order. I would direct the honourable members' attention to Page 19 of the Main Estimates, Department of Community Services and Correct ions, Resol ution No. 29, Cla use 3. Communi ty Health and Social Services - Regional Operations, (

b) Regional Personal Services, Item

(1) Salaries-pass - The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Well, you're pretty tricky, Mr. Chairman. I thought you were looking out there and the first thing I know that you called me to order. I can see you should be more of a quarterback than a referee, that you have that kind of view that you can see the whole field. MR. CHAIRMAN: Football experience. MR. DESJARDINS: Can we get into that, Mr . Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I believe, I think we've done very well before the dinner hour, we've never gone that fast.

In fact, we probably surprised the Minis ter because we were going to get some information on the agencies, the grants, and we have passed that long ago. We'll have to take it in the Minister's Salary now. I'm talking about the list of the agencies and the gr ants that they have received. The Minister said they would be ready tomorrow. I said we surprised the Minister; we've passed that so we will have to, if there's any questions, we will have to wait for the Minister's Salary on that. I think we have been going quite well, but I want to make quite sure of this.

I believe that this is probably the most important item that we're going to deal with or certainly one of the most important. It is here that you find all the delivery of the services that are provided by the departme nt or most of these delivered. I would like to get some information because there has been change, first of all, from a format to another when there was a change of government.

That was done over a period of years and now there is another change in the department so I would hope that the Mini ster will be patient and try to give us the information so we could really be able to look at that with a bit of intelligence. I would like to know now, I know that the Minister before the dinner hour told me that of the . . . and I was dealing with the public health nurses and I requested , I asked the Min ister how many public health nurses were working for home care. The reply that I received was 23 in Winnipeg, and in the rural area it's done by some other people.

But what I would like, the question that I would like to ask the Mini ster now, is how many of the total complement of 717 staff man years, how many of them are working in home care? The reason that I asked that previously, it seems to me, the next item is home care. Normally, we had staff there but there is no longer any staff. It is just the amount of money tha t you work for the homemakers, not the permanent staff, not the staff of the government but the people that are providing home care in the homes. So I would like the Minister to look into this to give me the number out of those 717 .

I know that there is 12 1/ 2 under continuing care under the Department of Health which do some of this work. They work on this program of home care, placement and panelling and so on. The Mini ster can correct me with the help of his staff. I'm trying to get the total amount. The 1977-78, under Regional Personnel, there were 695 1/ 2 but there were also home care for 80 1/ 2, and that made 776, and I'm comparing that to the Regional Personnel now in 19 80-8 1 of 717 in continuing care under the Department of Health for some of the same programs, 12 -1/ 2.

Now I know that all these people are not working in home care but I'm trying to determine to be ready on the next item, how many people are actually working in home care and what they do. I know that there are 23 public health nurses in Winnip eg now. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, if I could before I start to answer that question I should correct the comment I made before the supper hour, where I ind icated there were nine spaces I bel ieve for medical officers; that was seven, not nine. I just wanted to correct that. -(I nterjection)- Yes, not nine.

Right, but I had indicated the number as nine and I wanted to correct that. With regard to the home care service as the honourable member mentioned, in Winnipeg there are 21 social workers and 23 public health nurses. Then out of that staff complement of public health nurses of 18 0, a portion of their time is spent - this is out in the regional offices - a portion of their time is spent in dealing with the Ho me Care Program. I don't know whether our staff can break out exactly the numb ers that would be di rectly related in terms of SMYs; their time is proportionate.

In Westman region, to give an ind ication of the public health nurses that would be involved in this, there are 30 in Westman; 14 in Eastman; 22 in 3458

Thursday, 8 May, 1980 Central; 17 in Interlake; 19 in Parklands. Am I going too quick? MR. DESJARDINS: These are the public health nurses in these areas. MR. MINAKER: Right, and approxima tely 25 percent of their time is spent on home care. MR. DESJARDINS: Twenty-five on home care. MR. MINAKER: Yes. I might ind icate, just for further information for the honourable members, that most of the services are delivered by homemakers that are on a part-time basis, and I could give . . . MR. DESJARDINS: If I may, Mr. Chairman, to assist the Min ister, I don't want to involve the Minister at this time.

I will ask that question but on the next issue. I'm just trying to determine now how many people because under the next item, we had some staff man years and now they're included in here, apparently. Am I right in saying they are included in here? Mr. Chairman, we'll wait for my remarks under Home Care for the information that I've just received. But now my concern is for public health nurses more than e