Manitoba Committee Hansard — 13 July 1978 (Agriculture and Food Committee, Sitting 2, 31st Legislature, 2nd Session)

31-2-ag2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Chairman Mr. Robert Anderson Constituency of Springfield Thursday, July 13, 1978 8:00 p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie- Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

ime: 8:00 p.m. Hearing Of The Standing Committee On Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 :HAIRMAN: Mr. Robert (Bob) Anderson. IR. CHAIRMAN: We have a quorum. The comm ittee will please come to order. The first witness i Marguerite Larson from Lac du Bonnet on behalf of the Canadian Agriculture Movement. Mr s. arson. IRS. MARGUERITE LARSON: Mr . Chairman, members of the comm ittee. First of all, 1 would like ) withd raw my brief as a member or spokesman for the Canadian Agriculture Movement.

We had meeting in our area not too long ago and we made a dP.r.ision th at as it is a movement it does ot wish to make policy or become part of a confrontation between one commodity group and nother, or between one beef producer against another. This movement is not an organization and 1ill go and die at the farmers' will. This movement crosses all political parties, commodity groups, rganizations, and so on, and it does not wish to become involved in the battle. However, I would like to speak as an individual .

Thank you for this opportunity to present a brief on behalf of a family farm unit in regard to lill 25. As a member of the Charolais Associat ion, secretary of the Manitoba Cow-Calf Association, pokesperson for the Canadian Agriculture Movement' head leader of the 4-H Light Horse and Beef :lub, and a beef producer, I would like to express my great concern for the way Bill 25 was introduced 1to the Legislature, the contents of this bill, its imp lications and the precedent it wi ll set in Manitoba ' this bill is passed.

This bill has been drafted by the Beef Growers Associat ion, approved in principle only by some 1f the other associations, and not approved at all by one other beef association in Manitoba. Even hough it has been announced publicly that the Cow-Calf Association wished this checkoff, it does o without proper presentation by its membership or by the cow-calf producer and small feedlot •perator in general.

Some of the board di rectors who had memberships in their region and who �ere known to oppose a checkoff in the Cow-Calf Association were not notified of board meetings o discuss this proposed bill while others do not have a membership in their region and have not 1eld meetings as called for by their constitution. Therefore, I would submit that the Cow-Calf Association does not represent the majority of the :ow-calf producers in this province and thereofore has no right to speak on their behalf.

Furthermore, would suggest that those who joined this association with good intent were led down the garden ,ath and into the hands of the Beef Growers Association. As I submit this brief, I would like to make it very clear that I do so with respect for the House md this committee, however, with no respect at all for this proposed bill and for the indi viduals vho are attempting to enforce it upon the rest of us without our consultation and without giving 1s any say at all.

The effort I have made to prepare and present this brief at such a demanding time has been ;onsiderable and should convince you of my concern for the cow-calf producer, the beef industry, md agriculture for now and the future. Bill 25, to me, is a shocking piece of legislation. My objections to the bill are: Bill 25 sets a dangerous precedent. lt gives a small minority group the right to draft a bill and >ass it through the House without consulting or making an attempt to consult the ma jority of ;attlemen.

This would mean that any small group in the future can present a draft to organize an 1ssociation which will ha ve control over and speak for the majority of people against their will or >therwise. Are we, the producer, to be made the victim of interest groups who, with the change >f governments, can be tossed about as a ship in the storm? Bill 25 has been proposed by the Manitoba Beef Growers without proper presentation from the ;attle producers of Manitoba. Many groups and individuals have attempted to make their views known 109

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 but were given the brush-off. Only the few individuals who proposed this bill were listened to. In that this proposed bill does not have the support of the majority of cattle producers, but onl that of a min ority group, it would only seem fair and democratic that this proposed checkoff b brought to a refer endum in order that the wishes of thebona fide producer be known.

Objection number four: The main aim and intent of this proposed bill was not to benefit th cow-calf producer, but instead to provide funds for the Manitoba Beef Growers and also to prever the cow-calf producer from ever having any say in the marketplace and I would like to offer t you an example of this. I have before me a letter from the Manitoba Beet Growers Association dated January 26, 197 in which it states : "There has to be an appeal for membership funds to keep us operating unt a checkoff becomes operative.

As I mentioned earlier, we have an opportunity now to put in plac a Manitoba cattlemen's association, with the funding to properly represent cattle producers in thi province. We are urgently in need of funds in order to get the necessary work done between nm and the checkoff becoming operational. The point to bear in mind is that this organization is OL best insurance that we will not 'not' get a marketing board some time in the future. Although w have fought off the challenge of a beef board provincially, there is still a possibility of interterenc in the beef marketplace by the Federal Government.

Most of you contributed generously to th freedom campaign and we are now asking you to help us finish the job by remitting your 197 Beet Growers membership tees." MR. USKIW: Mr . Chairman, before we go on, I would like to ask Mrs. Larson whether she is prepare' to table that letter, or a copy of it, for the benefit of the comm ittee. MRS. LARSON: Yes, I am. MR. USKI W: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue, Mr s. Larson. MRS.

LARSON: lt is a direct violation of human rights for the government to give any segmen of society which forms a mi nority the legislative power to control and collect money from the majorit against the majority's will. The contents of this bill are only to benefit the large food chains involved in the food business for without marketing controls manipula tions in the prices paid to producers tor their product anc prices paid by the consumers can be made. Numb er six: This bill would endanger the family farm unit. lt makes big business a produce as well as all the shareholders of the companies who own cattle.

Anyone who wishes to buy a $1 .0( share in a cattle ranch or a cattle farm can become a producer, the way the bill reads now. Bi! business has more information, more experience, more time, in order to lobby, influence the press and do research. This gives an unfair advantage over the cow-calf producer who is already heavil� burdened to make ends meet and to recover from tour years of severe losses. This trend toward1 super farms, which is now being encouraged by this bill, in which large corporate farms swallov up the smaller family units, would have negative effects on. Numb er (

a) the employment situatior in our province. Statistics have shown that both in the United States and Canada, unemploymen figures go up when the farm economy goes down, or is in trouble. Numb er (b), rural life in Manitoba would be affected - and I think that's understandable - as well as rural business. If the family farm unit dis appears, then these will go as well. Numb er (d), consumer prices.

Big business, of course, their main purpose is to make a profit while many small farmers or family farm units have stuck with farming through bad times as wel as good because it was their way of life and they enjoyed it - profit is not the only motive. The efficiency and quality of product would be negatively affected. Imagine, if you will, 5,00( head of cattle fed a dangerous chemical by mistake. You can recall cars if a cotter pin is missing but what do you do with beef, once it's in the food chain? I would like to further emphasize this by reading an

article that was in the daily newspaper, frorr the Kitchener, Ontario Canadian Press: "Control of food production should be taken away frorr the corporation-owned supermarkets and given back to the farmers, delegates to a workshop or the future of foods agreed Saturday. Delegates voiced concern about statistics which showed tha1 about three-quarters of Canada's supermarkets are controlled by four major chains. The chains. which were not named, have interests and linking directorships which extend into the farm machiner) business, banking and broadcasting, delegates said.

The workshop was sponsored by the People's Food Commission, an organization composed of independent food industry representatives. Fift'l teachers, farmers, nutritionists, politicians and labour representatives attended the one-da'l conference which concluded that concentration of ownership in the food business is threatening 11 0

the future of family farms." Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 Proposed amendments. Not being a lawyer and having no previous experience in drafting a brief, I will propose my amendments as best as I am able, and should it be necessary - hopefully, it will not be - I would ask the Comm ittee to provide the proper wording without changing the context, if my wording is not adequate. First of all, I'd like to make it very clear that I strongly recommend this bill be withd rawn in its entirety.

I would suggest that public meetings are held in the country and that a refer endum be held as to whether producers wish a checkoff and a legislated Cattl emen's Association. I am, however, aware that the government has the majority and can act irresponsibly by passing this bill. If this is the case, then I would make the following recommendations to amend this bill in order to make it more democratic.

Forcing cattle producers to accept such a bill without giving them the opportunity to make their views known will make them antagonistic towards and distrusting of the group that proposed this bill, and the government that legisla ted it. This bill would not serve the purpose suggested of unifying the cattle industry. lt will divide the industry even more than it is now divided, and will encourage new associations to spring up to fight this Cattlemen's Association and this checkoff. If this bill is to be im plemented without consideration for the farmer, then at least give the producers democratic control.

No. (1) , amend

Section 1(

e) to read: "P roducer" means any person who grows beef as an agricultural product. Delete the remainder of this definition for it would give people who do not raise cattle at all, the power to control the industry. If this bill was meant to help cattle producers establish an organization, then it must give the producer democratic control. Amend 3( 1) by deleting the word "appointed or." This would elimi nate the favouritism that could be given to producers who drafted this particular bill.

Also, it would erase any suspicion of favouritism, because even if there should not be favouritism, people will still think that there is such. And give the producers the opportunity to decide who they wish to run this association by democratic vote. No. (3), amend subsection (3) to read: "The majority of members present at a duly constituted meeting of the association of the members present to constitute a quorum is the decision of the associatio n." This clause as it reads now leaves the association open to hold meetings improperly.

If only three people attend a meeting and two out of three were in favour of a decision, it wou ld be made on behalf of the membership of a particular region. Amending this clause as above would put the onus on the association to properly advertise meetings and make every effort possible to draw out the membership to these meetings. Amend

Section 4 to read: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council divide the province into 14 electoral districts, according to the number of cattle producers, evenly divided, and shall be responsible for the supervision of nomi nations and elections of 14 bona fide cattle producers to represent their dis trict and to hold office until re-elected or replaced by other elected members.'' If one feedlot has, as is proposed, 17 ,000 head, would that make him, or the manager of that, the whole Board of Directors for that area, or the whole executive? If it goes by cattle numbers, it should be evenly divided by producers.

No. (5), delete 6(2) entirely. If this organization is democratically controlled by producers, there is no need for this clause, for it is up to producers, through their admin istration by-law, to make decisions of this nature. No. (6), amend

Section 7(1) (

b) by adding this: "After a producer has assigned a deduction at the time of sale." lt seems that one can only call the checkoff as it is now proposed, compu lsory, if producers are forced to pay into it at the time of sale, and then have to write a letter to be allowed to withd raw their money. This amendment will save on admini stration costs and give the producer the right to decide whether or not he wishes to belong to the Manitoba Cattlemen's Association. To me it seems close to blackmail to be forced to become a member so that I can have a say. No. 7, amend

Section 7(2)(

a) to read: "Until a referendum of eligible cattle producers be held, and a majority vote in favour of this proposed Cattle Produc ers Association with the powers to im pose a checkoff." No. 8, amend

Section 7(2)(

b) to read: "Until an elected association is established ." No. 9, amend 11 (

u) to read: "The elections of the members of the association, and fixing their time of office."

Section 4 guarantees the producer democratic vote, if amended as previously suggested, before any admin istration by-law is written. No. 10, add to

Section 11 (1) that the association should provide for at least one annual meeting a year to be held in a central place with the membership present. The membership has the right to an annual meeting wherein any business of the association can be conducted, and reports read. 111

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 There is no prov1s1on made for this under the Admin istration by-law. No. 11, delete

Section 11 (h). All registered producers who pay into the check off should hav the right· to vote. What kind of game is this when an appointed board has the right to decide wh is to vote? No. 12. To further amend

Section 11 (1) by adding a subsection to provide for a secret ballc "that the election of the provincial executive be made by secret mail ballot of the membership. This will prevent decision making by a few people who might attend the board of directors meeting� Manitoba is a large province. If the meeting is held in Brandon it is difficult for all board director to be there. lt will also give the cattle producers the opportunity to be involved in all decision makin� thus a more democratic method than is being proposed at present. My experience in pas organizations which are run from the top with no grass input has made me concerned about thi particular legislation. No. 13. Amend

Section 11 by adding another subsection 4 for the Revocat ion of The Cattl1 Produc ers Association Act. "Where not less than 10 percent of the eligible membership of thi: association request the revocation of this Act (Bill 25) the membership be entitled to vote on thi: revocation with proper hearings being held." No Act should be made or passed without an: safeguards built in. Allocation of Funds: 1. Amend

Section 7(1) (

a) by adding to the end of this clause "and that financia statements be sent to the membership on a yearly basis." If the producer is to pay into thi: association he is entitled to know where his money is being spent. All reports should accompan: these statements. Members are not always able to attend annual meetings, therefore these record: should be mailed out to producers. No. 2. The bill should be amended in that instead of

Section 6(2) which I have already state< should be deleted, the following

section be included: "The association shall not engage in an� campaigns designed to fight other agricultural organizations and that if individual members wis l to organize a campaign, no moneys be allotted towards such a campaign, and that the associatior does not assume any debts of any organizations or campaigns of the past." The association ha� no right wh atsoever to spend members' money fighting other organizations under the name o promotion, or other philosophies that a member may believe in.

I would suggest that the same peoplE proposing this bill have spent incredible sums of money in the Freedom Fighters' Campaign las year. Therefore, it seems of necessity to keep a new associat ion from becoming involved in anc paying for any such a campaign that is designed to indoctrinate cattle producers. No associatior has the right to rule from the top with the money paid by a producer without giving the produce1 a fair say. In conclusion, I recognize the fact that the government has good intentions in introducing thil bill. However, it has come at a most unfortunate time and without careful study.

The cattle industr� has suffered a severe crisis in the last four years. The checkoffs in other provinces have done little if anything, to offset this crisis. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has shown little concern f01 the cow-calf producer at such a time. One should learn from this example before advocating � checkoff. lt has already been proven that private organizations can do nothing about falling pric e� Only government can regulate impo rts for the benefits of cattle producers and set policy which wil guarantee fair returns for the producer who is a good manager and an efficient producer.

All the beef promotion in the world, all the research, all the impr ovement in quality will not ensure the beef producer a profit for his product when it is so easy to manipula te the markets. The presen1 government has been quoted as saying that its policies are like medici ne, hard to swallow for the spoiled Manitoban but good for them . I would like to take that analogy a bit further in saying tha1 even though some medicine may be good, the wrong medicine can do a great deal of harm, even kill the patient or prevent him from getting the proper cure.

If the beef producer may be considered the patient, I would submit that Bill 25 is the wrong prescription. Respectfully subm itted by myself. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Larson. Will you submit to questions from members of the comm ittee? MRS. LARSON: Yes, I wi ll. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Driedger. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER: Just to clarify the point, when you started off you said that you were not representing the Canadian agricultural movement. MRS. LARSON: That's right. 11 2

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 IR. DRIEDGER: This is a personal brief that you're presenting then. Might 1 ask roughly how many ead of stock do you market through the Union Yards or auction marts, this type of thing, in one ear? �RS. LARSON: Well, first of all, before I answer that question, I would like to point out that it hould not make any dif ference how many head of cattle I market at the auction mart.

That was Jst a point I tried to make in my brief, that perhaps if people could decide how many, or who producer is, or who was eligible to vote, they might take it upon themselves to say that they ave to have 10 0 head or 200 head, or wha tever. Now, to answer your question specifically, we have 15 0 head, approximately. We have 60 cows; 1e feed out approximately 30 steers and we have approximately 50, 60 calves. IIR. DRIEDGER: Thank you. Are you a member of the National Farmers Union? IIRS. LARSON: No, I am not. IIR. DRIEDGER: Do you believe in one organization for the beef producers? IIRS.

LARSON: I do not see how one organization can benefit the beef producers when the beef >roducers are of different ideas and different ... Well, for instance, the cow-calf producer sells 1is product and he wants a good price, while the people buying it from them want to get it at the owest price possible. So I cannot see how these two can be the same organization, but I do think hey can work together and dis cuss their problems, as different organizations. III R.

DRIEDGER: Seeing as you are opposed to the present bill the way it is standing here now, vould you have preferred to see a bill of the nature that was presented for vote in the last referendum hat was held under the Marketing Act, as such? Would you have a preference for . III RS. LARSON: Well, as that bill ... Or a vote was taken on the ... VIR. USKI W: For the benefit of the Member for Emerson, there is no need for a bill for that kind lf a proposal, the legislation has been on the books for 30 or 40 years. VIR. DRIEDGER: Mr . Chairman, I think my question was basically whether Mr s.

Larson would prefer :m organization of that nature as was proposed in the last referendum. III RS. LARSON: I would only prefer an organization or a plan of that nature if the majority of cow-calf :md cattle producers in Manitoba wished it. I believe it is up to the cattle producers to have a choice to say so, and if they do have a choice, I would respect it as such, whether I liked it or not. III R. DRIEDGER: Well, I think the wishes of the people were spoken in the election, as such. I was asking you a personal opinion whether you would prefer that kind of an organization MRS.

LARSON: I wou ld prefer an organization that has some control of the markets, but I'm not saying specifically a marketing board because I don't und erstand all the ... I have not studied it in great detail, and before I would vote I would study it in great detai l. I did not vote in the last one. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does any other member of the comm ittee ... ? Mr . Einarson. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, you indi cated in your brief as an indi vidual, Mrs.

Larson, that you did not feel the Beef Growers Association and the Cow-Calf Produc ers and other beef organizations when amalgamating together, if this association were formed, would nullify all those organizations and then they would become one organization for the province. Do I understand your brief correctly when you mentioned that? MRS. LARSON: Would you clarify the question again? I mis sed the question. MR. EINARSON: If I understand your brief correctly, Mrs.

Larson, you do not agree with the activities and the efforts that the Beef Growers' Association, the Cow-Calf Producers' Associat ion, and all the Pu rebred Associations, the efforts they have made over the years. Are you saying then that 113

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 these organizations, if they were being blended together, to try to come up with one associatior to do certain things for the benefit of the beef industry as a whole in the Province of Manitob. - that is what this bill is trying to do? Do you dis agree with that philosophy? MRS. LARSON: Yes, I do, because I believe that every association has its own purpose. 1 do belon1 to several associations, as you can see. I would not like to see them joined, because then I fee that they would be ineffective in what they are set out to do.

Furthermore, if I wanted to join a1 organization, I would join one that covers all agricultural commodities, rather than one specific on1 that covers just beef, when there are so many differences in the beef industry. MR. EINARSON: When you answer in that way, Mr s. Larson, what type of organization would y01 want to cover all commodities? What would you call it? MRS. LARSON: Well, I don't really think it's for me to say what organization I would want, becaus� again, I have not set out any plan as to what I want. I'm here to oppose Bill 25, and I'm tryin! to say what I do not want. MR.

EINARSON: Well, when you say you are opposing Bill 25, - I think, if I understood your brie - you are opposing the efforts of the various organizations that are representing the beef industq in the Province of Manitoba at the present time, then what alternative are you prepared to offe1 in place of, say, Bill 25? What suggestion have you to offer to try to solve the problems of the beef industry in the Province of Mani toba? MRS. LARSON: Again, I would say it's not up to me to offer a suggestion.

I'm not here to make policies; there are people much more qualified than myself, and the people that did set out this bill, I appreciate their efforts. But again, I'm also one that has done a great deal in farm organizations and I do not feel that I have the right to speak for anyone else unless the majority approved. MR. EINARSON: Well you then, Mrs. Larson, speak as an individual? You have no affiliation wit� any particular beef organization in the Province of Manitoba, is that correct? MRS. LARSON: Yes, I do have affiliations.

I listed all my af filiations ; I'm a member of the Charolais Association, I'm the Secretary of the Provincial Cow-Calf Association, spokesman for the Canadia n Agriculture, head leader of 4-H, Light Horse and Beef Club, and a producer, and a consumer. MR. EINARSON: You say then that you are a member of the Charolais Association. Are you speaking on behalf of all those members who belong to the Charolais Association? MRS. LARSON: No, I'm not. I do not think it's my right to speak on their behalf. I'm speaking on my own behalf. MR. EINARSON: Very wel l.

Then you are speaking on your own behalf, and you are not interested in the purpose of Bill 25 as it is outlined in the bill? Do I understand your purpose? MRS. LARSON: Oh, I'm definitely interested in it, but I'm also opposed to it. MR. EINARSON: You are interested, and you are opposed to it. MRS. LARSON: Yes. MR. EINARSON: Are you opposed to trying to do something for yourself as well as all the other producers of beef in the Province of Manitoba - I give you one example, and I ask you - in trying to upgrade and improve the grading standards insofar as the producer is concerned in this province? MRS.

LARSON: Well, I feel as a taxpayer, some of my tax money should be spent that way. I pay a great deal of taxes, because I also have a non-farm job to keep our farm going, and as a taxpayer, some of this money should be allocated to agriculture and the research should be done by the government because you've got some very good staff there right now; they can do a much more effective job than a private organization who perhaps - said it about themselves - even sell their information. MR. EINARSON: Do you believe in a Marketing Board for the beef industry in the Province of 11 4

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 19 78 MRS. LARSON: Well, the only way I can answer that, is that when I raise my beef, I'd like to know that I'm going to get a price that will give me a profit, and if a marketing board is the answer, then I would approve it, yes. But I'm not sure at this point that it is the answer as yet. MR. EINARSON: Yo u're not sure that it's the answer at this time. MRS. LARSON: Right. MR. EINARSON: Then, you are not sure just exactly where you are going in your own particular enterprise. Do I understand you correctly when you say that? MRS.

LARSON: I don't think that I can even answer that, because I am looking for a sense of direction. I have ideas in my own mind, but I don't think it's up to me to divulge it here. MR. EINARSON: Well, I'm interested. You presented a brief here to us to this Commit tee, and as a member of this Legisla ture, and as a producer of beef cattle myself, I sympathize with your comments. I' m only asking questions to find out what in your view personally would you like to see happen to imp rove the lot of the farme; who is in the business of p;oviding beef and producing beef in the Province of Manitoba. MRS.

LARSON: First of all, I'd like to see the Cow-Calf group have a better chance to get organized. They did make an attempt to get organized, but unfortunately, it fell by the way side. lt was a young organization, the Cow-Calf Association of Manito ba, that is, and it had great potential, but as I said, it fell by the ways ide. Several reasons for that: apathy, perhaps; too much of a shadowing by the Beef Growers, and many other reasons . But I would lik e to see the Cow-Calf Association become stronger, perhaps join with the Western Cow-Calf Association.

Furthermore, I'd like to see the government come up with something that we can buy, I think we're in a bargaining position. MR. EINARSON: That is, the Cow-Calf Association. MRS. LARSON: Right. MR. EINARSON: How long has the Cow-Calf Association been organized? MR S. LARSON: I would say approximately four years. lt became organized just after the beef prices fell. MR. EINARSON: How long has the Beef Growers Association been organized? Have you any idea? MRS. LARSON: That I don't know, no. MR. EINARSON: How long has the Cow-Calf Producers' Association been organized? Do you know that? MRS.

LARSON: Well, that's what I said, approximately four years. MR. EINARSON: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you meant the Cattlemen's Associat ion. MRS. LARSON: No, I have no idea of the Cattl emen's Association. MR. EINARSON. Then, you are saying - sort of my conclusion, so that I don't misun derstand you - you do not agree with Bill 25, you don't agree with the various beef organizations getting together and trying to mutually solve the problems that they have in the Province of Manitoba. Is that what you're saying? MRS. LARSON: There is no reason why they can't get together as they stand.

They have their delegates, they can hold meetings together, but I don't think they should be legislated as a group to control the producers. MR. EINARSON: Do you understand from briefs that have been presented to us previously that if this association is formed, the Beef Producers' Association, the Cow-Calf Producers' Association, all the breeds ' associations, are prepared to dis appear from the picture and form one association to speak as a united voice for the beef producurs of the Province of Manitoba? 11 5

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MRS. LARSON: As I have already mentioned, I do not feel the Cow-Calf Producers' Associatio really represents anyone at present. I telephoned the President of the Charolais Association an he said that he approved of this checkoff in principle, but that he was not even aware of som of the things in the draft. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further members that wish to question this witness? M1 Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The witness before us has indicated that she is a member c the Cow-Calf Producers' Association. Did you say that you were on the executive, or are you simpl a member at large? MRS. LARSON: I am on the executive pending. MR.USKIW: In what capacity? MRS. LARSON: Pending on whether we hold another meeting in our region, and whether I becom elected on the Board of Directors. Or as a President or Vice-Pre sident. I would have to go an1 tell the people that they would have to elect me so I could be Secretary, because I have alread been elected at the Board meeting. MR. USKIW: I see.

What particular role did you play, active role, in the association to date? MRS. LARSON: Well, in our region I feel I have played a very active role. We held meetings - 1 was the treasurer of our association - we held meetings every month. We started off with i membership of 200 people, we dwindled down to a hard core of 35 and at present we're not sun where we're going. We really haven't got any renewed memberships for this year. MR. USKIW: Is it your understanding that that is the general picture throughout the province witl respect to that association? MRS.

LARSON: I can't speak for all the regions but I know it is in several regions. MR. USK I W: So you're making the claim then that the Cow-Calf Producers Association doesn' truly exist other than in name and does not represent a great number of people at the presen time? MRS. LARSON: That is right. MR. USKIW: In your particular region, were you in a position to canvass by way of a letter 01 a meeting the opinion of your membership and did that opinion find its way to this commit tee 01 is it part of the package that is being presented by the Cow-Calf Producers Associat ion? MRS.

LARSON: There was no effort at all made to find out the opinion of the people in our region. lh fact they were quite disgusted at this, at some of the meetings we did hold. There were three meetings held, about the only three meetings that were held last year and my husband, who was president of our region, myself and the vice-president were not notified of the three meetings tha1 were held to discuss Bill 25, or the drafted proposal. MR. USKIW: Well, let me clarify then.

Are you suggesting that the executive of the provincial association failed to contact your particular organization in your region with respect to Bill 25? MRS. LARSON: Yes, I did. MR. USKIW: Have you any reason to give for that kind of action? MRS. LARSN: Well, 1 telephoned the former president of the Cow-Calf Association and he had said that he had tried to contact us the first time, it was probably the night before, and he couldn't get hold of us, but I don't see any reason for the other two times that we were not contacted about the other two meetings. 116

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 VIR. USKI W: Do you have any particular thoughts or feelings about why you have been omitted 'rom this particular function? MRS. LARSON: Well basically I believe it's because of our stand. We have felt that the grass roots should have the say and that when you do have an organization, you do have representatives for those different regions. These representatives should give the feelings of the people and bring those to the board meetings and not the other way around.

The feelings of the board meetings should not be taken down to the people and they should not be told what to do, as was indic ated. MR. USKIW: Do you see the 8Cow-Calf Producers Association continuing as an organization? MRS. LARSON: No, I do not. MR. USKI W: Regardless of what happens to Bill 25? MRS. LARSON: I believe that if Bill 25 is not passed, there might be some hope of reviving the association but if Bill 25 is passed, I believe it will be dispersed. MR.

USKI W: Let me then ask you a very im portant question - perhaps you've covered it in your brief and maybe I' ve mis sed it - do you believe that it's the government's role to legislate people into associat ions of any kind? MRS. LARSON: No, I certainly do not because I am an 8 individual and I feel that I have individual rights and I do respect the rights of the majority rule. I do respect minority rights but not in the capacity that they should have the rule over the majority. MR.

USKI W: If you were a member of the Legislative Asse8mbl y and a government was passing such a measure, how would you look upon the association that was formed subsequent to the passage of this bill? Would you look upon it as a neutral organization or as an arm of the government? MRS. LARSON: I would look at it as the arm of the government. MR. USKI W: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. MR. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Larson, you said in answer to my colleague's questions that you felt that the Cow-Calf Association would disappear if Bill 25 passed into law!.

Just a few moments ago, the Member for Rock Lake made that quite clear because in his remarks he commented that the Cow-Calf Association was going to dis appear. He made that an accom plished fact when he made his statement. So I just want to draw that to your attention that he knows, according to the statements that he made, he knows already that it's demised. You are saying that there is hope, there is hope if Bill 25 does not become law. MRS. LARSON: Yes, I do think there's hope because in our region the people do want a Cow-Calf Association.

They're all cow-calf producers and they're quite interested and they have attended meetings and quite a few people have taken active part. I'm sure that it must be the same in other regions as wel l. MR. ADAM: You mentioned also that there were various reasons why the membership of the Cow-Calf Associat ion fell so drastically. Could you elaborate a little more on that point or are you in a position to? MRS. LARSON: Well, taking our region 10 meetings, I know at the beginning a lot of politics were brought in.

We tried to di spense with that because we feel that it's a farm organization, not a political organization and the chairman did reprimand people very strongly for taking political views. Because some of these meetings were basically political, some of the people, some of the members there, felt that they did not want to become involved with this on both sides, of different political parties. Other people did not like to be ruled by the beef producer, they felt that they were a cow-calf producer and that a beef producer should not be in the Cow-Calf Association as telling it what to do. 11 7

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. ADAM: Is that because the Manitoba Beef Growers are more pure bred breeders or is therE a difference there between ... ? MRS. LARSON: Well, my own personal view of the difference, we feed our beef too and we could actually be called a feeder but our main concern is raising that calf, so we call ourselves the cow-cal1 producers and I think there are people whose main concern is feeding out cattle. Their main operation is based on that and they might have a few cocow-calfs, so those people I would call feeders.

There are feeders who contract feed for different packing companies and different individuals so they are another group. MR. ADAM: So then what you are saying, Mrs. Larson, is that the membership of the Manitoba Beef Growers are more oriented to feeding cattle, fattening cattle, for slaughter, and buying feeders, is that what you are saying? MRS. LARSON: Yes, I believe they are. The executive, most of the people on the executive are. MR.

ADAM: I recall attending some of the first organizational meetings of the Cow-Calf Associat ion and as I recall, not very long after they were organized, the Beef Growers made overtures to the Cow-Calf Association whereby they would make a directorship available on the Manitoba Beef Association and they wanted the Cow-Calf Association to do likewise. Do you feel that this may have had some effect on the loss of membership of the Cow-Calf Association? MRS. LARSON: No, I really do not, because there wasn't enough commun ication between the provincial board and the region.

I attended an annual meeting at Brandon two years ago and I made a very strong point that there had to be better communic ation between the board of directors or the executive, and the cow-calf producer if we were going to survive and this became a resolution. lt was passed but it was never acted upon. MR. ADAM: I see. You read a letter from the Beef Growers in regard to an appeal for funds. Were these funds to be used to finance the new association? MRS. LARSON: lt did not indicate in the letter. MR. ADAM: That is not indicated in the letter? MRS. LARSON: No. MR.

ADAM: Then the purpose of the appeal was just to finance the admin istration of the Beef Growers, do you think? MRS. LARSON: That I could not be sure. MR. ADAM: lt doesn't indicate how these funds would be expended, because I posed a question last night to, I believe Mr . Mayer, the president, and I asked him how the associat ion, the new association, if it became law, how it would be funded for the first 18 months' and he seemed to be at a loss as to how funds would be raised to undertake a registration of the producers who would qualify to vote or who would be members of the association.

That is not clearly defined in the bill, as many other things are not clearly defined in the bill. He seemed to be at a complete loss as to how they would proceed once this Act became in force. You also mentioned, I believe, in your brief, and I took note of that when I perused the bill, that it was possible, and I see you have made that one of your concerns, that it would be possible for a board to establish the term of office. I believe you made that one of your concerns. I see nothing in the bill that would not prevent them from establishing a lifetime term, if they so wished. There is nothing in there ...

MRS. LARSON: Yes, that is true, there is nothing in the bill to establish the term of office. I assume it would be under the admin istration by-law if this legislation were passed, but it could be anything. MR. ADAM: lt would have to be established, but presumin g that they could, they could if they wished ... 11 8

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 !II RS. LARSON: Yes, they could. !II R. ADAM: . . . they could make it five years, ten years, or one year, or whatever. !II RS. LARSON: Yes, they co uld, if there were no demo cratic rule from the cattle producers. MR. ADAM: I notice that you mentioned that in one area here that it wasn't a snow job but it was a brushoff. "Bill 25 has been proposed by the Manitoba Beef Growers without proper presentation from the cattle producers. Many groups and individuals have attempted to make their views known but were given the brushoff.

Only the few individuals who proposed this bill wre listened to." Could you elab orate on that. MRS. LARSON: Well, first of all, at meetings of the Cow-Calf Associati on, I know it was a battle. At the last board of director's meeting we had only six people who felt that they could carry on without a quorum and make rules, and it was five against one, and the one was against this bill and the other five were for it. They would not really listen. lt was rather an argument for the whole period. Furthermore, we have contacted Mr .

Downey's office - this is our region - and we have asked him to come to a meeting, and if he could not attend that meeting, we asked when would be a good time for him to attend because we could have made changes. This was in March and this was the meeting at Selkirk. We made it at Selkirk because we figured it would be more convenient for him or for members from the government to come down. We also invited ML As. There was only one ML A there; Mr. Uskiw was there. The rest did not attend. We waited. We wanted to make our views heard; we wanted to ask questions, and were very disappointed that no one came down.

We had given at least a week 's notice and there were 50 people who had travelled a considerable distance, some as far as 70 to 10 0 miles to attend that meeting, and we couldn't ask questions. And when we did come to the Legislature as a body of CAM, Canadian Agriculture Mo vement representatives, we tried to meet with him for two days. He was Very busy at the time; no arrangements were made to ever meet with him. MR. ADAM: 1 see.

I could appreciate that maybe the Minister could be busy but I'm sure if given advance notice, he could have prehaps had a representative there to represent him, at least, but of course that is for him for say and not for me. Are you aware of some of the directors of the Cow-Calf Association from my constituency going to a meeting and attempting to have the views of support for Bill 25 discontinued or stopped? Are you aware of that? MRS. LARSON: No, I am not. MR.

ADAM: Are you aware that the directors of the Cow-Calf Association from my area have sent in a petition which is now in the Chairman's file with approximately 50 names on, I understand, I haven't seen it? MRS. LARSON: Which area is that? MR. ADAM: From Ste. Rose. MRS. LARSON: Well' 1 heard a few people from Ste. Rose - being in the Canadian Agriculture Movement, I have contacted a great number of people and I contracted a few people in Ste. Rose and they had ind icated that they were a little frightened of this bill even though at first they had approved of it in principle. MR.

ADAM: 1 was advised by two of the di rectors of the Cow-Calf Association that they had taken the time to go down to a meeting and they appealed to the directors and to the president not to go ahead with this proposal without a referendum and according to what I was told , they were advised that if there was a vote held, or a referendum, that it would be defeated so therefore they could not consider that at all. This is what I was told but the petition, I expect, will be made available to the comm ittee members later on. MRS. LARSON: I'm not aware of that at all; I hadn't heard anything about that. MR.

ADAM: Well, that might give you a lift, so that there is still hope for your association because there are individuals who do not agree with what has been done. Now, the Member for Rock Lake has made quite wide-s we eping statements about many 119

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 19 78 that are proposing or supporting this kind of a bill. I want, for the record, that it should be stated that so far we have only one or twobona fide associations that have shown their support, as far as this commit tee is concerned - I'm not sure what the Mini ster has in his own file - but the commit tee, and the statements of the Mini ster during the introduction of this bill, and I have his statements here, however, I'm not going to go through them. But there are only a very few here. Well, there are so few, I may well put them in the record again ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could the Member for Ste. Rose direct questions to the individual? I bel ieve the time for speech making is in the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order please, order please. I would caution the commit tee that in the interests of the convenience of those wit nesses who have come substantial distances, that you make your questions as di rect as possible, so that we can conduct our busi ness as expeditiously as possible, and I'm sure that can be done without in any way interfering with our thorough examination of this question.

Would you proceed, Mr . Adam? MR. ADAM: Mr. Chairman, on that point, I think we would proceed a lot quicker if we did not have any interruptions.

But are you aware that in the introduction of Bill 25 on Friday, May 12 th, that the Mini ster indicated that he had received a letter of support in principle from the United Grain Growers, and that he had received a letter in support to this principle of the checkoff from the Mani toba Farm Bureau, which are not really bonafide producer associations but rather commodity groups; that he had received from the Maine Anjou Association, and also letters of support from the Diploma Graduates Associa tion. I don't know whether they produce cattle or not; I'm not aware what they actually do.

And the Manit oba Beef Growers Association, a letter of support for a resolution passed at the Mani toba Cow-Calf Association, a resolution that read - are you aware of this? - "After a lengthy discussion, a motion was carried and the Manito ba Cow-Calf Association supports the principle of the establishment of The Cattlem en's Association." Do you believe that that is really the true opinion of the grassroots? MRS. LARSON: No, I believe that any organization can be run from the top and it is very easy to do so. MR.

ADAM: Then, in your opinion, there is not the wide support that has been indicated by the Min ister and other groups, such as the Member for Rock Lake. MRS. LARSON: Well, as I have said before, being active in the Canadian agricultural movement, 1 have telephoned many people; I have talked to people right across Mani toba except for the southeastern region. I haven't been able to contact people there.

But all the people I have talked to - and as I said before, they are a cross-section of many different commodities and many different cattle producers - and I have not had one person say they were for this bill without a referendum, except for some of the people on the executive of the Cow-Calf Association, the heads of the breed associations, and the Beef Growers. MR. ADAM: You are dia metrically opposed to this Bill 25 in its entirety. That is what you indi cate. MRS. LARSON: What is the question again? I'm sorry; I didn't hear it. MR.

ADAM: You are dia metrically opposed to the introduction of Bill 25, all it stands for. MRS. LARSON: Yes. MR. ADAM: That's what you indicate here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next speaker on the list is Mr. Bostrom. I'm assuming that ... You have not yet completed your remarks? MR. ADAM: I just have one or two more comments. Several people have commented that where there was such legislation, as in Saskatchewan and in Ontario, support was shown because very few people bothered to apply for a refund and the Min ister has indicated this in the introduction of his bill. The Minis ter mentioned that.

I bel ieve he said that in Ontario there was only 3 percent 120

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 Nho bothered to ask for a rebate and there were others that made the same comment in varying jegrees. Do you feel that the fact that a producer who is compelled to opt in, whether he wants to or not, and the fact that he doesn't apply for a refund, that indica tes that he supports the :>rganiza tion? MRS. LARSON: No, it does not. I would not withd raw my money either, because I would want to have a say in the Cattlemen's Association. Otherwise, it would be run by people that just paid their money.

If everyone took their money out - wel l, not everyone but a large majority took that money out - then I feel that only a few people would speak for the organization and I do not like to have people speak for the organization without the Cattle Prod ucers having a proper say. You mentioned Saskatchewan, Alberta - I'm glad you mentioned that, because I talked to quite a few people in Alberta. I was there on the Canadian Agricultural Movement. I was there to present briefs to Mr. Whelan. I was in Regina.

I talked to people from Ontario, and apparently in all these provinces a number of grassroots' people are against the checkoff for various reasons and there are indications in Ontario there already is a group that has started to fight against it. I believe it's called Beef For The Future. MR. ADAM: Are you aware that the legislation in Saskatchewan, similar legislation to this, has been amended to allow for imm ediate opting out? MRS. LARSON: Yes, I am. MR. ADAM: Well, checkoff legislation. MRS. LARSON: I have read news about what happens . . . MR. ADAM: it's not similar.

I mean dissimilar legislation - dissimilar legislation. Let me correct myself - dissimilar legislation. MRS. LARSON: I have read the newspapers and I have seen that they have the chance to checkoff whether they want to pay into the fund or not. I think that's a very good idea if it's going to be a checkoff. I do not know exactly how it's being run or how it originated in the first place, but I do know that some producers did not even know that they were paying into this until I brought it to their attention. MR. ADAM: Is that so?

Are you aware also that the big objection in Saskatchewan was the provision that they could only have a rebate at the end of the year? And the other very violent objection was that most of the funds were going to the federal association for admin istration purposes. In fact, the record shows that since its inception in Saskatchewan $303,640 went to the CCA, out of a total of $550,445. But what I wanted to point out is the contention that if a person doesn't apply for a rebate, that indicates support. And here's what the Saskatchewan , the SSGA has indicated. I ask you here, now, to consider this.

The Saskatchewan Association predicts because of the immed iate opt-out feature, that the revenues will drop by 50 percent. So would that, do you think, contradict the statements of the Min ister and others who have said that because people don't ask for a rebate they still support the association?O MRS. LARSON: Well, 1 don't know how anyone can predict anything like that until it actuai ly happens. MR. ADAM: That's all for now, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next questioner is Mr. Bostrom. MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate the witness for a presentation of an excellent brief.

I believe that she has pointed out all the shortcomings of this very regressive legislation that is being presented before the Legislature. I'd like to ask the witness if this bill is passed in its present form requiring every cattle producer in the province to automatically become a member by law, and to abide by the regulations of this associat ion, in the event that this bill is passed, do you personally intend to continue to protest this type of law being im posed on the cattle producers of Manitoba? 121

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MRS. LARSON: Yes, I will continue. I don't know how long my energy will last. I have been unde1 grief, stress since February since I first was aware of this draft, and when it was mentioned in thE Throne Speech, I did not ever think it would come into legislation, but when I actually saw it, was greatly concerned, and when I saw the bill I was even more so. But I would continue to figh1 as long as my energies last. MR.

BOSTROM: And my second question is, given your knowledge of the cattle producers in Manitoba, those you've talked to and those you know about through your experience in the industry, do you think other cattle producers will continue to protest this law, if it is passed in its present form? MRS. LARSON: Yes, I'm sure they wi ll.

A lot of producers could not be here because it's understandable that now is a very busy time, whether it rains or not you always have to be there, and the rain hits one area and not the other, so a lot of producers had wanted to come but some are afraid to present a brief, others are too busy, and as a result more briefs, perhaps, would have been made if the time had been better. MR. BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. That compl etes my questioning. MR. CHAIAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mrs.

Larson, I'd like to ask you, did you have an opportunity to discuss this proposed cattlemen's association with my department? MRS. LARSON: I had tried to get the opportunity in different ways, but I didn't have the opportunity. MR. DOWNEY: Were you not a part of a Cow-Calf Association that participated in discussions with a meer from my department? MRS. LARSON: No, I was not, unfortunately. MR. DOWNEY: Were you not a part of the association that were invited to discuss with a member of my department? MRS. LARSON: We never received any such an invitation. MR.

DOWNEY: As it was advertised in local newspapers, farm papers, that there was an opportunity to discuss the proposed livestock association? MRS. LARSON: I guess at that time I didn't read the papers, sorry. MR. DOWNEY: In regards to the meeting that was held at Selkirk, what kind of an answer did you receive from my office in regard to my attending that meeti ng? MRS. LARSON: The meeting was on a Wednesday; I'm not sure exactly of the date but the Friday before the meeting - Friday, approximately 8:00 o'clock - Mr. AI Church phoned my house.

He asked for my husba nd, because my husband is the president and he was the one that had made the invitation. I talked to Mr. Church, and he said that you, yourself, had dropped my letter on his desk and asked him to do something about it, and he questioned me on it. MR. DOWNEY: I would just like to clarify that. I believe that I had indicated to him that I was in Estimates, and I would be unable to attend the meeting, but that the time element for one thing, the short notice made it difficult for me to attend that particular meeting, because of the fact that we were busy.

Another particular time you have said that I would not meet with your group, when coming to the Legislative Build ings. I believe that I had indicated to you, or had people indicate to you that I would meet with you at a time that was prearranged so that I could have an opportunity to setup a

schedule to meet with you. Is that not the correct? MRS. LARSON: Well, answering the first question first, I believe I had indicated in the letter that we would be glad to meet with you at any other time, that meeting was called for March, but three months have transpired, and I'm sure that if you had really wanted to come to our meeting, you would have sent a letter in response to the letter we had sent you. 122

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. DOWNEY: I would just like to clarify for the record that I receive quite a few invitations to go to different places, and I am unable to attend them all, and I believe that you did have indications from my office that I would be unable to be there, if the information that I have received is correct from my department. MRS. LARSON: Also for the record, I'd like to make it known that I had asked for yourself, and understanding that you could have been busy and not be able to attend we had asked for someone else to be sent in your place. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. JAMES R. FERGUSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Larson, I'm glad to see you out with your brief. We met, I guess, on the Legislature steps. There are just a couple of questions I would like to ask you. You are representing the agricultural movement? MRS.

LARSON: No, as I said before, I'm not representing the agricultural movement because I do not feel I can represent it without having held meeti ngs, and being given the okay to present this brief on their behalf, but I am an individual in it, and everyone is a spokesman and I'm speaking for myself as an indi vidual involved in the Canadian Agriculture Movement. MR. FERGUSON: Okay. You are aware that Mr. Downey, as Min ister, has signified that he is quite willing to accept amendments and appreciates the fact that people like yourself are appearing, and suggesting amendments.

I think you are quite aware, also, that this provisional board basically has no say except to arrive at a voters list and a few of the regulations, that the only board with any say so will be an elected board. MR. LARSON: Yes, but I'm afraid of who's going to be elected when the appointed board has the power to decide who is to be eligible to vote. This is my great fear. MR. FERGUSON: Well, I can assure you that we, as politicians, are afraid who is going to be elected when we go into an election also. One other thing, I take it that you and your husband run a herd of cattle together . MRS.

LARSON: Yes, that's what I just said, when I began my brief. MR. FERGUSON: Did you both have a ballot to vote last spring? MRS. LARSON: No, we did not. There was only one ballot although more than one had been sent out. We have three people, well, actually two people, my father-in-law and my husband are on the Stabi lization Program, so they had both been sent a ballot.

We called into the office and asked if we should fill out both ballots saying that there's only supposed to be one for each unit and they suggested that we should not do that, that it was illegal, we did not do that, we only took one vote, and I did not vote. MR. FERGUSON: Okay, thank you, Mrs. Larson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Yes, the Minis ter of Agriculture has indicated in his comments that for some reason or other he was unable to respond to a request from your organization.

For the purpose of the record, am 1 correct in recalling that you had stated that you had given an option to the Mi nister's office, to change the date to suit his convenience? MRS. LARSON: Yes, I had. MR. USKIW: That's fine, thank you, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions for this witness? There being none, thank you Mrs. Larson. MRS. LARSON: Thank you. 123

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to all wit nesses that the same p�ocedure that we used las night can apply tonight. For those people who for various reasons ·are unable to attend ou proceedings tomorrow, because I don't think we will compl ete all the briefs this evening, for thos of you who are some great distance from the city and must have your brief in tonight, mak, yourselves known to the Clerk, the gentleman at the small table to my right, and your brief wi be heard. lt has been brought to my attention already by the Clerk that Mr.

Harvey Dann, for persom reasons, cannot be present tomorrow, and for that reason we will hear your brief now, Mr Dann. MR. HARVEY DANN: Mr . Chairman, gentlemen, I am appearing here tonight as a manager of ; farm, a cattle feeder, and past president of the Manitoba Beef Grocers. In a few prelimi nary remarks I would like to ... In listening to some of the papers, I am wonderin! how many people you are forcing to stay in the cattle business in Manitoba. MR. USK IW: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order .. MR.

USK IW: I hate to interrupt our witness, but before it escapes the comm ittee, has the Clerl picked up a copy of a letter that was read from by the previous speaker and which was commit tee to tabling for the purpose of the members of this comm ittee? MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is well taken. Would Mrs. Larson please deposit the lette1 referred to in her remarks with the Clerk. Could you continue, Mr . Dann. MR. DANN: As a Manitoban, I feel we have a lot of opportunity here in the cattle business. WE have spent a lot of time and effort developing and we do have the agricultural base to do it ir Manitoba.

We don't have the oil of Alberta, we don't have the potash of Saskatchewan, but we do have a terrific agriculture base. We have a packing house industry and we are in the middl e of Canada to develop markets. Therefore, I would like to take a positive approach of what a checkofl may do under good leadership for the industry in Manitoba and the organization will only be as good as the people who are involved. This is how I expect the 25 cent hedge to work.

First of all in beef promotion and public information, we have spent a considerable amount of time trying to help people understand the beef industry, both the ones that are in it and who are only consumers in the sense that they don't produce it. Everyone is a consumer, as somebody stated earlier. Public information: We in the organization have' in the past and in the present, spent considerable time trying to develop public information for everyone to use who markets beef.

Part of the problem is the produc ers themselves. lt is easy to always pass the buck to somebody else; somebody should provide information; somebody should do this and somebody should do that. But if we are going to be responsible, we have got to handle the situation ourselves and in a manner that everyone can understand it. Legislative affairs is another area that I think that people in the industry who want to think positively and realistically can be a great help to you elected people.

Some programs have been developed in the past that, I think if there had been some input by organization people, that if the thing went wrong, the people who are involved in doing it would be the ones responsible to the rest of the organization. Unfortunately, the buck seems to stop at the Minis ter of Agriculture, and he is not God, whether he thinks it or not. I would like to see input from organization people to carry out these different functions. Market Information: Again, for anyone' any size, the availability of information helps everyone.

People buying your fat cattle or people buying your feeder cattle, whatever, are not going to pay any more than they have to and if someone sells a product who is ill-in formed on the pricing procedures, it disrupts everything for everyone and I think that we have got a long way to go but you can only do so much with lim ited resources and input. We are sadly lacking in research in this province.

We need a barley that will grow 10 0 bushels to the acre as a rule, not an exception, because on a world market of pricing, the dollar return per acre counts and in the same comparison, if we only produce Cadilla c-type grains, there will only be a few people who can afford to buy them , and not keep us competitive in the industry. I think seminars and workshops are a must if people are to understand what they are marketing.

I would envision and would encourage that people from all parts of the province take a day or so and visit, first of all, live animals and the animals hung up in the coolers, to know what they are 124

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 >elling. The packers are more than willing to show people around. I spent time at a packing house; 1 know how they feel, but again, it is a producer's responsibi lity and a producer organization's responsibility to help set these things up. They are available for the asking. Industry News: With the cattle cycle the way it is, and politics the way they are, it is purely c:oincidental if they run together in giving out the type of information that a producer can make decisions on.

Someone earlier mentioned about membership involvement and I fully agree with it. lt is hard for one who is 200 or 300 miles away from Winnipeg to get in to town a long way for a meeting, but it can be set up if given an opportunity to do this. Again, if the people who are put in there have ulterior motives, it will be for a short time. The organization is voted on every day and if 50 percent of the people pull their money out, the di rectors pretty seriously should look at what they are doing . I think that in summar izing it is im portant to think positively and practically and to look at it.

We can be com petitive and if you don't feel you can be competit ive it is your privilege not to be involved. We have kept the industry open, that we don't elimina te anybody from getting in. One thought in mind, or saying in mind, that I have used before: If you can't stand the heat of the fire, get out of the kitchen. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dann. Will you submi t to questions from mem bers of the comm ittee? MR. DANN: Yes, Sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr.

Dann whether he has any comment to make on the letter written by the Beef Growers Association and read in this commit tee just moments ago by the previous speaker? Having been the president of the Beef Grocers Associat ion, how do you look upon that letter, Sir? MR. DANN: I'm sorry, Mr . Uskiw, I wasn't here for the first part of the presentation so I did not hear the letter, I'm sorry. MR.

USKI W: In your comments, sir, you suggest that it is im portant to do a job with respect to market information, and I want you to comment on what market information would do for us on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Commis sion into beef marketing in Manitoba, the 19 76 report. Yes, Janua ry of 19 76, and I'm not sure if you're familiar with it. For the benefit of facilitating your answer, I will read to you some of the recommendations and observations. Then I would like you to comment on how your market information program as envisaged in this bill would do something in that regard.

On Page 3 of the Commission's report the following is stated: "In other respects, however, the marketing system is seriously deficient. The Com: -nission found that for many producers and consumers the marketing system is a jungle, replete with misinformation, inaccurate grading standards, inconsistent price relationships, incredible price discrimination, incomprehensible merchandising practices and unconscionable service charges." Can you tell me what market information service you will provide through Bill 25 that will redress those grievances? MR.

DANN: I would suggest that we first of all could do more ou a job on our railway pricing service and get it more widely recognized. I feel that people selling live fat cattle could get their sales into a central place in which they are again turned out as information, updated regularly as something new comes in. I would suggest that producers get to know their product before they're selling it and they many not feel as if they've been so badly done.

I'v e seen some terrible examples of so-called fat cattle and I think that this is where we who are fortunate enough to have been involved and are closer to city can help out and make it a better industry and better information. MR. USKIW: What powers do you see in Bill 25 that will allow your association to deal with absolute and blatant price discrimination? MR. DANN: Well, 1 think that our past performance in our rail grade program, people who thought they had a problem, or if there was a problem, we endeavoured and got the situation corrected.

Produc ers have called the association and in turn we have got hold of the packer involved - this is when 1 was involved directly with the marketing service, it's been passed on now - but I feel 125

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 that there has been recourse used in its best way possible and the power here gives some the right to find out information if there's a problem. Nin e times out of ten it's a misunde rstanding between two people. If you're familiar with the cattle business, a lot of it is done by word of mouth and becomes a misun derstanding. I had an opportunity last week to hear a price that was quoted on hot versus cold.

Now this was passed on to the association and the association is working on it and we 're right back to the bill, Sir, that you brought in and brought information out. These are the kind of things that I would want to see done. If they weren't being done we wouldn't be serving our function properly. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, just to pursue the question, I am aware of your desire to redress these grievances. I'm asking you where in Bill 25 does it give you, the association, the authority to redress those grievances? MR. DANN: In my

interpretation, it would be in 7(1). That would be the area that I would think, that's my

interpretation. MR. USKIW: Well, as I interpret 7(1) , the association may make regulations requiring information, but assuming 8you had the most devastating information, how would you go about enforcing an adjustment in a given situation where a farmer has been aggrieved? MR. DANN: As I said earlier, if there's a misu nderstanding been made, I'd say 10 0 percent of the time responsible people will make it right. MR. USKIW: But, Sir, I'm dealing with the irresponsible and unethical now. Not everyone in the industry is responsible or ethical.

There are some that are not, Sir, but people are not aware who they are, where they are, and how they may be harmed by them . They are innocent victims. -(I nterjection)- Mr. Chairman, the Member for Rock Lake says "hypothetical," if he wants me to read the whole Inquiry Commission Report I will begin now,

chapter and verse, taken under oath, Mr. Chairman, and given as information to this Commission by the buyers, the meat packers of this province. Now it is their information that I will be reading to you. MR. EINARSON: Don't waste your time, Sir. MR. USKIW: Well, the Member for Rock Lake now doesn't want to hear, obviously, Mr. Speaker, because he may be one of those privileged sellers of cattle who indirectly is taking advantage of others who are not so privileged. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Einarson on a point of order. MR.

EINARSON: We're not here for any one member, and I say to the Mem ber for Lac du Bonnet that he is not here to cast aspersions on other members of this comm ittee, he's here for the purpose of asking the witness questions and seeking answers. What I do with my cattle and how I sell them is my business at the present time. MR. USKIW: Mr . Chairman, just to satisfy the Member for Rock Lake, the Inquiry Commission did not name the Member for Rock Lake as being one of the beneficiaries of a corrupt system.

I merely indicated it's possible that he could be whether he knows it or not, because this particular report deals with the problem of some people getting preferential treatment in the marketpla ce which is then taken out of the value of the carcasses delivered by other people who don't happen to have the same connection with the buyer. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask the witn ess before us, how are you able, in Bill 25, from a legal point of view, to redress that kind of a grievance? MR. DANN: Well, I don't really feel it should go that far.

If we provide the information as to what the price of animals are and a farmer knows his product, if he wants to sell it below that price that is his business. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, are you aware, Sir, that this study proved that most farmers were unaware that they were being cheated in the marketplace and therefore would have not launched a complaint? MR. DANN: That study is taken so far out of context that it isn't even funny. 126

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I then ask this witness whether he belie ves that the evidence taken under The Evidence Act is authentic or is he disregarding The Evidence Act of Manitoba and the information that was submitted under that Act and in this report? MR. DANN: I would say that the specific situations are taken far out of context and that any marketing system is not perfect. Nobody's got a monopoly of brains on how to develop any system but we can work at it and try to achieve as best as possible.

We don't have all the answers but we're wi lling to put our money on the line and try it. MR. USKIW: I would then ask you, Sir, if you believe that it's proper for a government to pass a law that compels people to belong to an association that they wish not to belong to. MR. DANN: In my opinion, they are not forced to belong to an association. They can opt out any time they want and as far as government passing laws and situations for the cattlemen in this province, it may not be perfect but it's a long way towards what was passed in the last eight years. MR.

USKI W: Well, perhaps the witness would want to elaborate on what laws were passed with respect to the beef industry in the last eight years. MR. DANN: Programs, I should have said. MR. USK IW: Programs. What has that got to do with legislation, sir? MR. DANN: We are endeavouring here to set up something, that we can set up good programs that will be beneficial to the whole industry, and not give people a false sense of security. MR. USK IW: Can you, sir, point out to me in Bill 25 where there is a

section that allows an individual producer to opt out of this legislation and out of this association? MR. DANN: lt will come in the adminis tration by-laws. MR. USKI W: Mr . Chairman, for the benefit of the wit ness, the law of the land is passed by the legislator, not by the by-laws passed by this association, and in this statute, as it is now before us, there is no opt out provision, and therefore the by-laws could not circumvent the intent of this legislation. MR.

DANN: lt is our intention to have an easy opt out for people who don't want to belong, and they have every right - if someone has an opposite philosophy, I believe they should have the right not to have to pay into it. I fully agree with that. MR. USKI W: All right then, would it be reasonable if we pursued the easy opt out procedure, to provide that opportunity before the first penny is deducted, as opposed to after it has been deducted? MR. DANN: Admin istratively, we could spend all our money on that approach, we want to make it simple.

The people, even though they opt out, would still benefit, they' ll still be able to phone in and get market information, they'll still benefit from the research. We're not denying that, even though they're not paying. MR. USKIW: Well, then I ask you, sir, to comment on the fact that in the province to the im media te west of us, they have had an opt-out situation after the fact.

They have since amended the legislation providing that a person may opt out before any money is deducted, or at the plant gates, so to speak, or at the buyer's gate, so that the farmer indicates in advance that he wishes not to contribute to the association. Si nce it has been tried and proven to be not workable in Saskatchewan, as this bill suggests it should be, don't you think that it would be reasonable for legislators to make that provision for the producers of Manitoba, that is now being made effective in the Province of Saskatchewan? MR.

DANN: Saskatchewan has their problems with their Agricultural Mi nister too, sir, and the cattle industry has done well despite. lt will be interesting, what happens in the other way. If more is eaten up in admini stration, that's less for research and market development and the things that we hope 127

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 to achieve. MR. USKIW: Well. Then, sir, you are indicating that you are prepared to sacrifice the rights of the individual tor the pu rpose of simpl icity of collection of funds, so that you might generate more revenue tor your objectives to be realized, even though they may not be the objectives of the person from whom you are collecting those funds. MR. DANN: I would say, sir, that - don't refer to them as my objectives.

I'm trying and attempting and will look at it as an industry-wide thing, and it's the industry of Manitoba we're talking about here, not my objectives. MR. USKIW: Well, I am assuming, sir, that you are supporting Bill 25. At least that is what I get from your comment, and if therefore if you are, those are your objectives and I have to assume that the objectives are the same. Do you believe in the purposes as outlined in Bill 25 on Page 1, sir? "Developing improved marketing methods, grading standards, quality standards, research and educational programs." Do you think those are very worthwhile objectives? MR.

DANN: I feel that they are very worthwh ile. MR. USKIW: Could you then explain to me the contradiction on 6(2) which removes any power with respect to improving marketing methods. Page 1 indic ates that that is the purpose, and on Page 2, it takes that purpose away. MR. DANN: They are two different things as far as I am concerned. We can try things out; we don't want to be involved, as I read it, in ... MR. USKIW: Who is "we", sir? MR. DANN: The present people involv ed, the people that I would like to be part of. MR. USKIW: Are you speaking for the Beef Growers Association, sir? MR. DANN: Yes, I am. MR.

USKIW: All right, so when you say "we" you are referring to the Beet Growers' membership? MR. DANN: would have to say yes to that. MR. USKIW: I see. You are satisfied, then, that the Min ister is catering to the Manitoba Beef Grocers Association in that connection. MR. DANN: I feel that the previous Minis ter looked after the Farmers Union for four years and 1 think that the Mi nister has seen fit that responsible efforts have come forward . He is looking at it. We are not getting everything just handed to us on a platter. MR. USKIW: Let me pursue that point, sir.

You have imp lied that the previous Mini ster did something in particular favourable to the Farmers Union of Manitoba and I would like you to know, sir - 1 would like to ask you whether you would support this bill if it didn 't read the Cattle Produc ers Association Act, but read The Manitoba Farm Union Cattle Producers Association Act? Would you support the same bill if it had the same provisions? MR. DANN: And the name was changed? MR. USKIW: If we just changed the name and we left everything as it was but we called it the Manitoba Farm Union Cattle Producers Association Act. MR.

DANN: The name really doesn't matter to me, if we achie ve the objectives that will develop the industry in this province. MR. USKIW: I see. Are you aware, sir, that the Farm Union, which by the way presented a much more credible position to me a few years ago, that they wanted to be enshrined in legislation as 128

Standing Commi ttee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 "the" association representing the farmers of Manitoba, on the basis that they had 50 percent plus of the farmers enrolled in their associat ion? Are you aware that that request was made of the previous government? MR. DANN: No, I wasn't, not until I heard it ... MR. USKI W: All right. Well, then, you are not then aware that that request was also denied, even though their provision was that over 50 percent of the farmers would first have to belong to their association before such a bill would be effective. MR. DANN: I wasn't aware of it. MR.

USKIW: Do you agree with that kind of a request? MR. DANN: They have their opportunity to put their view forward and obviously if you would have felt it would have passed, you would have tried to get it thro ugh. MR. USKIW: Would you support me if I pass such a measure? Would you think that I, as Mi nister of the Crown, did the right thing in passing a law that says that the Farm Union is going to be the spokesman for all farmers in Manitoba? MR. DANN: I think that you wo uldn' t be prepared to close the lid on agriculture in Manitoba. MR. USKI W: You suggest, sir, then, that that is closing the lid?

Well, since this particular group does not have to have any majority, in fact, it says only 14 people will constitute an associat ion, you feel that this isn't closing the lid on Manitoba? MR. DANN: If the people involved have another philosophy want to run and they become the directors of that association, then the associa tion will have policies that they wish. MR.

US KIW: So you are making the point then, sir, that others have of your group have made yesterday, that since everyone will be able to participate and run for office and get elected and change the rules as they deem necessary, that this indeed will represent a democratic procedure. MR. DANN: The only way we could make it more democratic for the industry to really forge on, is to have the cows vote. MR. USKIW: All right.

Then I ask you, sir, to tell me why there is any restriction in this legislation with respect to what this association may or may not do, since it is going to be democratically operated, people will run for office and will be elected before they can do anything, why do we have 6(2) in this legislation? Since you trust the election process, why do we have that proviso restricting the scope of their activities? MR.

DANN: Well, I think that being that we are supporting the bill now, we looked at it long term and what wi ll be best for the industry, and it is our feeling that we don't want to have the product controlled. I know it won 't be beneficial. MR. USKIW: We? "We" is who? MR. DANN: The people with the Beef Growers; the people that I work with. MR. USKIW: Do they represent a majority of the beef producers in Manitoba, sir? MR. DANN: There is representation from all different parts. A majority is a very hard thing to define.

A majority of, say, active people who are really interested in if the industry goes ahead, I wou ld think that they represent a good part. MR. US KIW: Isn't it then a contradiction, sir, to say that we the minority will first predetermine the rules of the game and then we will have a democratic process to imp lement those rules? MR. DANN: In my opinion, no. 129

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. USKIW: You think that is not contradictory? MR. DANN: No. MR. USKIW: That the mino rity can decide the ground rules, and then wave the flag of democratic freedom since these people will then run for office and do wha tever they want to do, and therefore there is nothing wrong with this legislation from a democratic point of view? MR. DANN: In my opinion, no, because I'l l tell you what will happen.

If the directors are doing something that is opposed by a great number of the members, and a great number of members withd raw their money, there is no more organization and directors would be well advised to look at their plans. MR. USKIW: Let's then take the most extreme proposition. Let's assume that at your annual meeting and all of your regional meetings two years from now, that you have a unanimous resolution, well, if not unanimous, 60 percent, and if not 60, 55, or 51 of your delegate body voting that we want to establish a marketing board for beef in Manitoba, do you think they should be able to do so?

MR. DANN: If the majority wants to go with it, fine. MR. USKi W: All right, then I ask you why is 6(2) prohibiting that from taking place? MR. DANN: Because this is the bill we are discussing right now and this is what we believe ... MR. USKI W: Then you are saying that the majority will not have their say, that regardless of 10 0 percE of the delegate body moving such a motion, that in your view, it should be predetermined today that tt can never do that. MR. DANN: I think that if a majority feel that way, that probably something will be able to put in tt it can happen if the majority feel that way.

We're not selling anybody on a bill of goods. We're setti it out how we think the industry can be im proved. We're going behind in this province right now and ' want to imp rove it. MR. USKIW: Then, sir, why don't we have a bill that simply says there shall be a cattle producE association and that the board of directors will be elected and they can do anything they please witt the laws of the Province of Manitoba, and no restriction in this legislation at all? MR.

DANN: Because, in sitting down, there was a lot of work that has gone into this bill by interest' people in the industry, and we do not want to restrict the product; we do not want to restrict anybo from getting into the business. MR. USKI W: Who is "we," sir? MR. DANN: We? MR. USKIW: Yes. MR. DANN: The Beef Grocers organization that I happen to be part of, our company ... MR. USKIW: But you have told me you are the minority now, so why should the mino rity predetermine what the majority should be doing? MR. DANN: I don't believe I said that we were a minority. MR.

USKIW: Yes, you indicated to me that you didn't have 50 percent of the produc ers belonging to your association. MR. DANN: That's right, but the interested people in the industry in Manitoba - we would have the majority. MR. USKIW: So you are saying that quite a number of people are disi nterested, therefore, of the interested group, you are the majority? 130

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. DANN: I would say that's right. MR.USKIW: I see. And you believe that even though you are going to rely on the elected process to determine how this organization will function, that you will not trust it far enough to let it do what it wants to do once it is elected. MR. DANN: If that's how you interpret it ... I don't interpret it that way. MR. USKIW: This bill interprets it that way by denying it the freedom of action, sir. This bill is not a bill to give cattlemen freedom; this bill takes freedom away from cattlemen. MR. DANN: No, it doesn't MR.

USKIW: Well, then, tell me, under this piece of legislation, how this association will be able to introduce a beef marketing board into effect in the Province of Manitoba with

Section 6(2), if they decided that that's what they wanted to do, by a majority? MR. DANN: I wo uldn't have the technical information on how to do it, but I am sure there is a way. MR. USKIW: I see. Well, sir, maybe you have found a way in this legislation that has escaped me, sir. I can't find it. MR. DANN: Well that's good. MR. USKI W: Yes. Let me then pursue the bill further, sir.

We notice here that a majority decision of this agency, a board of 14 people, "A decision of a majority of the mem bers present at a duly constituted meeting of the association is a decision of the association." Do you think that two or three people should make a decision that will affect 15 ,000 producers in Manitoba?

Section 3(3), at the top of Page 3, a majority decision. MR. DANN: I don't see anything wrong with that. MR. USKIW: So if five people show up to a meeti ng, three people can make a decision. Is that what you are saying? MR. DANN: If it has been properly advertised and the proper procedure done, I don't see anything wrong with it. I cannot foresee that happening if there are interested people in the province. If they are not any more interested in their industry than that, wel l, that's what will happen. MR.

USKIW: I suppose it is no more absurd than the 14 people who are going to make decisions for 14 ,000 without having been elected by the produc ers of Manitoba. MR. DANN: As I recall it, in a previous vote, there was going to be an elected board to start things off. MR. USKIW: Yes. MR. DANN: I think that at the time that we were relying on fair judgment on your part for 14 people, and I think that the government of the day will have fair judgment on the people that they appoint. MR. US KIW: No, sir, I beg to differ.

The people were to be elected from day one. lt was not my judgment, sir, it would be the judgment of 14 ,000 registered voters. MR. DANN: In 19 74, I'm talking about. MR. USKIW: In 19 74 that was, sir, your proposal, not mine, that was put to a vote. MR. DANN: That was our proposal with your twists to it. MR. USKI W: No, Mr. Chairman, I beg to take issue. That proposal was drafted by the Manitoba 131

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 Beet Growers Association and the referendum was carried out by the Manitoba Marketing Boarc under The Natural Products Marketing Act. MR. DANN: That's right, on a compu lsory checkotf. MR. USKIW: That is correct. MR. DANN: We wanted a voluntary checkoff, and you said if there was going to be a vote at all, it would be on a compuls ory checkoff. MR. USKIW: Sir, your form of volunteerism was very identical to Bill 25, also absurd. MR. DANN: That just depends on whose opinion it is. MR. USKIW: You are absolutely correct, sir, you and I don't agree.

Do you bel ieve that 14 people should make the decisions tor all of the beet producers in Manitoba? MR. DANN: We have got how many people in the Legislature? MR. USKI W: These are not elected; these are appointed people, appointed by the Mini ster. -(I nterjection)- Oh, yes, they do. Do you think that that is right? MR. DANN: I think that it is a good start to getting a proper associat ion. MR. USKIW: Do you think that it is right that if a beef producer or a group of them don't like a decision, that they made, that there is no way they can appeal that decision? MR. DANN: They will have an opportunity.

Anybody who disagrees, who wants to be part of the organization, they can run for office and be one of those 14 people in later years, or the later year, whatever is occurring. MR. USKIW: Well, you are aware of course that this organization becomes effective on the date of proclamation? MR. DANN: Yes. MR. USKIW: That could be a week from today. MR. DANN: I would hope that it is moved on fairly fast so that we can start carrying out the job that ... MR. USKIW: You are aware, sir, that elections don't have to be held until the end of 19 79? MR.

DANN: I know that responsible people will want to get the elections in place as soon as possible. MR. USKIW: Well, I'm talking about the bill. The bill indicates that the election shall take place before the end of 19 79. In the meantime, it provides for a provisional board of 14 persons who may make decisions non-appealable to anyone. Do you think that is right? MR. DANN: Yes, because there has got to be a first stand taken somewhere to set up something, and then you work from there. MR. USKIW: All right.

So do you believe then that it would be right if we abolis hed Law Amendments Commit tee and that you could not present your views here today? Is that what you are saying? MR. DANN: After last night and tonight, I could give an opinion on that. MR. USKIW: Well, I'm asking for it, sir. I want your opinion. MR. DANN: Okay, 1 think that we have seen a lot of nit-picking. lt is something like going to your banker and wanting $1 00,000' and he says all the cows are going to die twice and therefore he 132

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 won 't give it to you. There is not an element - you are throwing up every possible worst situation that could happen and I think that under any circumstance, if people were to believe the worst things would happen, I wou ldn't be supporting the bill today. MR. USKI W: Sir, do you think that legislators should pass bills so loosely that sometimes the worst thing could happen? MR. DANN: I think that that is done quite often. MR. USKI W: lt is done quite often, but do you think it should be done? MR. DANN: Well, I don't think anything is in concrete.

I don't think that anybody is perfect and there is not a perfect bill written yet by anybody. MR. USKI W: But you would not be offended if you weren't able to appear and present your views to the Legislature? MR. DANN: I think that the people invo lved in the Legislature know our feelings. MR. USKI W: But you wou ldn't be offended if you didn't have this opportunity? You think that would be efficient government? - MR. DANN: That can be debatable. MR. USKIW: I agree it can be but I want your opinion, sir. Do you believe that this is a worthwhile exercise, that you have a right to present your views on legislation?

MR. DANN: I think that it is being dragged over the coals far too much for what we want to accom plish. MR. USKI W: Do you think the balance of your association should not bother presenting their views to this comm ittee? MR. DANN: I never said that. MR. USKI W: Oh, you would prefer that they do? All right. Then why wo uldn't you want to allow the same opportunity to be given to a person, individual, or group of persons, who have a grievance as a result of a decision made by 14 persons appointed to this association? Don't you think they should have someone to go to to launch their grievance? MR.

DANN: As I said earlier, the organization is being voted on every day. MR. USKIW: No, no, this is an appointed board. This is not being voted on; this is an appointed body with no appeal provisions. MR. DANN: There has got to be a start made somewhere in an organization. We are only 20 years behind everybody else and now is the time to get on with the show. MR. USKIW: Regardless of anybody's feelings, of course. MR. DANN: Not regardless of anybody's feelings, because we can stay here until sunset tomorrow and it wo uldn't be any difference to anybody's feelings. MR.

USKI W: Since we now regard other people's feelings even if they are different from ours, how would we allow them to introduce their views? MR. DANN: They are having their opinions right now and that to me is sufficient, and we get started on some thing. I take the view on these things that nothing is in concrete and imp rovements can be made as we go along, or if something is detrimental, that that should be removed too. MR.

USKI W: So you believe, then, sir, that if we pass this bill, that it is not unreasonable to expect someone who has a grievance to wait a whole year in order to bring an amendment to this Act in order to get redress? You believe that is reasonable? 133

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. DANN: I believe it is reasonable because this could be dragged on indefinitely and there could never be anything established, as in any other bill. MR. USKIW: Would you then indicate to me that all of our legislation should have no provisions for appeal then; we can always meet in the Legislature and redress the grievances on every piece of legislation that we pass? Do you think that is reasonable? MR.

DANN: I think a lot more would get done sometimes and the people would have to live with a responsible decision and that would be their part, where they would tend to think a little bit about the decision they made. MR. USKIW: You have just confirmed my suspicions about the credibili ty of some people advocating Bill 25, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that com plete your questions? MR. USKIW: Do you believe, sir, that it is right that this association, appointed by the Min ister, without an appeal provision, should finance another association? MR. DANN: What do you mean by that? MR.

USKIW: Should they give a grant to the Canadian Cattlemen 's Association? MR. DANN: In my opinion, it will be the di rectors who decide when it gets going, if it ever MR. USKIW: Yes, but they are appointed directors at this stage. MR. DANN: Yes, but the appointed directors do not have anything to give anybody. MR. USKIW: They can pass a by-law suggesting that there shall be a contribution to the Canadian Cattlemen 's Associat ion, can they not? MR. DANN: I suppose they could if they wanted to. MR. USKiW: And they can also pass a by-law suggesting that there can be a contribution to the Farm Bureau. MR.

DANN: I suppose they could, if they wanted to. MR. USKIW: And to the Farm Union. MR. DANN: I suppose they could, if they wanted to. MR. USKIW: Right. And do you think that people who object to having their money finance organizations they are opposed to, should have no right of appeal? MR. DANN: They are appealing when they withd raw their support. MR. USKIW: But they are not doing that yet, sir. We are talking about the provisional board. MR. DANN: I think that, as I said earlier, it is a starting point. We get the organization going and get some of the th ings started, and I'l l stick by that. MR.

USKIW: How is this association going to be financed before they are in a position to collect levies? Do you have any idea? MR. DANN: I don't know, but I would assume they would probably have to borrow money, some thing of that nature. MR. USKIW: Do you believe that any of the moneys that are raised pursuant to the passage of this Act should be placed in a position that would retire any debts of any past associations? 134

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. DANN: This is not for a past associat ion. lt is a start-up cost of the proposed association. MR. USKIW: So are you suggesting to me, sir, that you are in agreement with me that not a penny of this money should go towards any existing associations for the retirement of debts, expenses, etcetera? MR. DANN: If there are obl igations which have been made, they would have to honour them, but if there were not oblig ations made, I would think honour them. MR. USKI W: If who has made obligations, sir? MR.

DANN: Contract work, and I would think that you would honour your commitments. MR. USKIW: Well, sir, when you say you would honour your commitments, who are you referring to because we don't have an association yet so obviously there are zero commitments until this bill is passed. MR. DANN: Well, if there are zero commitments then there would be zero to honour, wouldn't there? MR. USKI W: So you are suggesting that moneys collected under this legislation should be used only for the purposes of future costs of this association? MR. DANN: I don't know the commitments.

I am not a director any more and I don't know the commitments you are talking about. MR. USKIW: What does your directorship have to do with commitments in this legislation, sir? MR. DANN: You suggested earlier the commitments of these proposed directors, and if there are no commitments, they wou ldn't have to honour them. MR. USKIW: I see. You are not referring to the commitments of the Beef Growers Associat ion? MR. DANN: The commitments of the Beef Growers Association? MR. USKI W: Yes. You are not alluding to those comm itments? MR. DANN: What commitments have been made there? MR.

USKI W: Well, I'm asking, sir, I don't know. MR. DANN: Well, I don' t know either. MR. USKI W: Okay. That's fine for the moment, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to very briefly ask a question of the witness, Mr. Dann. I presume you have perused The Cattle Produc ers Association Act? MR. DANN: Yes, I have. MR. EINARSON: I am just wondering if you agree that the purpose and intent of this bill is in number 2, namely the pu rpose of it, is an important

section of this bill? MR. DANN: Yes, it is. MR. EINARSON: I am just wondering, there are a number of aspects of this particular

section of the Act, mainly the purpose of it, and one of them that interests me is the grading standards. I 135

Standing Commit tee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 would like to ask you, Mr. Dann, in your experience in marketing beef cattle over the years, whether you think that there is an improvement to be made in the grading of our beef, namely A- 1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 carcasses of beef? MR. DANN: In my opinion, the grading system meets my needs as far as being able to fatten cattle to meet those needs and provide a product that is satisfactory to the consumer. MR.

EINARSON: Would you say that possibly an imp rovement could be made insofar as the dis crepancies in the variation of prices paid on the various grades. MR. DANN: This is a good observation but unfortunately animals are like people, they aren't all built the same way. You 've got to work on averages. MR. FERGUSON: Well, yes, that's fine. I just wanted to find out your views on this because 1 just wondered, having listened to other farmers, whether we could have some reduction in the spreads and variations, say of a A3 and A4, or even into the C classes of beef according to the weight scales.

I just wondered if by doing some research in that area whether that would add dollars to the pockets of the beef producers. MR. DANN: I would say anything we can do to help a producer understand the grading system . I think once he understands it, for instance, say seeing cutouts on an A3 to an A4 com pared to an A 1, he would understand what we 're trying to do. There's a lot of people, in my opinion, that don't understand the grading system and we've got an educational program to do right there involve bringing people in, letting them see their animals hung up. MR. FERGUSON: In other words, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to Mr. Dann, are you then saying that individual farmers themselves should probably take a little more time and greater interest in coming in to see how their animals grade and to see the quality and in this way would enhance their appreciation of the whole grading system. MR. DANN: I would definitely agree with you. MR. FERGUSON: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questioners for this witness? Mr . Adam. MR. ADAM: Thank you. Mr. Dann, I just have the one question.

I know that once funds have been made available through a checkoff, once this associat ion has the finances available, it will be up to the board to decide how this money shall be spent. I'm just wondering, as a past-president of the Manitoba Beef Growers, how would you like to see the money allocated? Are you able to give us any opinion at this particular time as to how ... You mentioned research; that's why I asked this question, I know that that question does create some concern that there hasn't been enough research.

So I'm just wondering, on a percentage basis, if you had $1 00,000 available to disperse for different things that this association could do for imp rovement of the cattle industry, how would you di sperse these funds? In your own view - never mind what the board is going to do, what would you do? MR. DANN: Right. My own view would be that we get our market information service, put a lot more effort into that, where we get the live sales, dressed sales, and any pertinent information as weight rates, etc., by the producers, sending the information in as it happens.

I would hope we could spend a fair amount of time in trying to show farmers the advantage of getting good information into the central bank to be fed out again. I would hope that we could spend a fair amount of time and effort and money in helping producers just to understand their product as far as yields and grades, what they really mean, how it affects them. I think those are the two big areas that we should tackle first. MR. ADAM: Would you consider this to be all research, what you have mentioned now? Is that all in the area of research, or what do you define as research? MR.

DANN: I would say that research would be helping - joint efforts with other provinces - if there is some calf disease, developing this sort of thing, rather than everyone trying to go their own way - working with other provinces on a real good research program in calf scours, on things fitting at the time, whether it's in the cow-calf industry or the feeders, wherever. But it seems to 136

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 me that we've got to work with other people to do this and we all benefit. MR. ADAM: What about the area of market development, to find more markets for beef? MR. DANN: I think with our resources to start with, again we'd have to work with other provinces in order to do this. I don't think that the amount of money that would be available could significantly help that area. I feel the market information and producer involvement are the two things that are greatly needed. MR.

ADAM: Yes, I asked that question because I'm perusing the Alberta Cattle Commission budget for 19 77-78 here and I notice that from revenues of nearly $600,000, there is only $6,500 allocated for market development and you know, I find that insignificant in an amount of nearly $600,000 for revenue. I find . that the admin istration costs get probably the largest percentage of the total revenues, adminis tration costs of the Cattl emen's Associat ion, federally and provincially. MR. DANN: According to your figures, how many dollars are spent in admini stration of the Cattl emen's Associat8ion in Alberta? MR.

ADAM: Well, I have figures here for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. ! believe that's the federal body. lt would be $1 32,0 00 . But then there's the provincial group as wel l. lt is something like $263,000. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would caution all members to confine their questions as closely as possible to No. 1, Bill 25, and No. 2, the presentation made by the witness. If we can confine our remarks as closely as possible in those two areas, I'm sure we can conduct our business in the most expeditious manner. Mr . Adam. MR. ADAM: Well, on that point, Mr .

Chairman, what I was trying to clear in my mind was the purpose of Bill 25 as I see it, is primarily to find a source of finances to finance some activities of an association, part of which will be finding markets, research for animal dis ease and what have you. I'm asking from this witness, in good faith, and I think he's trying to answer in good faith, his opinion, and I'm wondering what his opinion is on this particular question The Al berta group allocated $8,500 last year for market development and this year $2,000 less. I find that very insignificant as far as finding markets for cattlemen. MR.

DANN: Well, for the record, Mr. Chairman, our figures may not jive but I got them today for the Alberta Cattle Commis sion in the year 19 76 to 19 77, September 30th, and on new markets, you're right at $8,000 ; you're looking at producer com munications or market information, there was a total of $68,000 spent, $1 5,000 from the Alberta Cattle Commission and the rest from the province. There were $49,000 given to the Beef Information Centre. Out of the total expenditures of some $359,000, $1 05,000 went to consuiT'Pr eclur-Fiti'JP, promotion Rnd market development.

So the $8,000 was only one little segment of the whole thing. MR. ADAM: Have you any information on the Saskatchewan operation at all. MR. DANN: No, I don't. MR. ADAM: Well, apparently what I have here is that in 19 77 they haven't allocated any funds whatsoever for market development of the amounts they receive. But anyway, I think I got pretty well the information. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to now pursue the question of principle.

You, sir, talked about the im portance of providin g good information to be of some measureable benefit to the beef producers of this province having to do with prices and grades and so on. How do you view this associat ion's role in that connection, assuming, for example, that Harvey Dann and his cattle that were shipped today received preferential price treatment and Mr. Adam's cattle shipped on the same day, of the same quality, received inferior price treatment.

Do you see the role of this agency as being one that would get onto Dennis Shebannick's CBC program and shouting to the rooftops that there's been a ripoff at the packers today? 137

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. DANN: Well, heaven forbid if we choose the CBC to do that. MR. USKIW: Well, take your choice, Sir, take your choice. I merely point that out because man) farmers listen to the CBC Farm Program. But for whatever it's worth, what would be the role o1 this association in dealing with that kind of a situation? MR. DANN: I would envision this happening: Mr. Dann's preferential treatment has come up many times, though I can't see everybody knows more about it than I do ... MR. USKIW: How do you do it? MR. DANN: I don't even know.

But anyway, I would envision this: If I sell cattle, live or dressed, I would forward my price to the Market Information Service. When Mr. Adam phones in that he has some cattle for sale, he gets an idea what they're worth, what the market trend has been, then he makes his decision to sell, and vice-versa. If Mr. Adam phones in first, that's what I would envision him doing. MR. USKIW: Well, let's assume that he phones in and he knows how much Harvey Dann got but he got 10 cents a pound less. What is the role of this association in dealing with that kind of a situation? MR.

DANN: Well, if that was the case, I would say two fools met, one for offering 10 cents less and one for taking it. MR. USKIW: Well, that, Sir, does not deal with the problems in the marketing system. You are not dealing with the fact that there are people that will not get involved in telephoning in advance but will merely use some of the information as a guideline and ship in their cattle to find out a week later, when they get their cheques, that they have been had. MR. DANN: That is not true. MR.

USKIW: Now the process that you're suggesting can be very well handled without this association, and it is being done today. There are many farmers who know their way around the system, who phone for an adjustment and get an adjustment price. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't have those kinds of connections, nor do I see in this bill any means of providing those kinds of connections for the majority of people. Are you suggesting that the passage of this bill will ensure that there will be equal treatment to all producers who deliver cattle to the marketpla ce in Manitoba?

Can you guarantee that, Sir? MR. DANN: Never is a long time, but I would envision that if we put the market information out and a producer sells a product that you say he finds out a week later that he's been had, he obviously did not do a good job of merchandising his product. MR. USKIW: Well, let me test you this way, Sir. If two or three years down the road after we have had the experience of Bill 25, that we get a Commis sion report similar to this one on price di scrimination, do you think that would be reason enough to abolish Bill 25? MR. DANN: Definitely not. MR. USKI W: Oh, okay.

Then what should we be doing? MR. DANN: Well, I think before you again throw the cloak and the dagger out, you should have some of the background to ... MR. USKIW: Well, there's lots of it in here. MR. DANN: . . . to people invo lved in the specific situations. I think that that would destroy your method of throwing out the daggers. lt's the producers own fault if they do not approach somebody, if there's a problem, if there's been a wrong animal happened to get weighed. Nothing is infallible as long as it's touched by human hands. MR.

USKIW: But the Commission of Inquiry reported that the packers purposely have discrimi nated in their pricing by offering premiums to some people and discounts to others without any explanation. 138

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 ll.nd the words used in the report are "price discrimi nation." MR. DANN: That report was not written by someone who understood the cattle industry and I think that I take it in that context. MR. USKI W: Are you suggesting then that the evidence that was compiled under The Evidence Act is not accurate? MR. DANN: I would say if the background to that evidence had been put in there it would have been a lot better report. MR. USKI W: You believe that Dr. Wood would sign his signature to a report that was erroneous? MR.

DANN: I don't know why the background of some of the specific situations wasn't put in there and giving a group of figures, as the old saying goes: "A liar can figure and figures can lie." MR. USKI W: I see. Well, it's interesting to know that we can have lies under The Evidence Act anyway, even iilough the iniormation was provided freely by the packers to the Commission. Then explain to me why the Schumann Commis sion came up with very similar findings in 19 64, I believe it was, or 19 65; explain to me why the Federal Commis sion came up with similar findings.

Are all of these reports false and not properly researched? Is it coincide ntal that federal and provincial Commissions of Inquiry of dif ferent governments happened to highlight the same problems in the marketing system? MR.

DANN: lt all goes back to a producer, and not by any fault of his own, not understanding his product and not coming forward if he's got a problem and then if you want to achieve an end that everybody will be treated , as you say, equal, it's an impossibility because unless you are going to start putting cattle on an assembly line and spitting them out so they're all equal, all cattle are not worth the same thing. MR. USKIW: Do you believe in the principle of equality of treatment, Sir? MR. DANN: I believe in the principle of merchandising to the best of my abil ity. MR.

USKI W: Do you believe then that it's fair that you should negotiate a price advantage at the expense of your neighbour who happens to get a price disadvantage in order that you realize more money for your cattle? MR. DANN: As 1 said, 1 believe in merchandising to the best of my abilit y. My neighbour has the same privilege. If information is given on my end, if I happen to be the one that's so-called getting the advantage, as you would say, if a barometer is set, my neighbour has the information on which to market his product. MR.

USKIW: If you and your neighbour both delivered cattle the same day, cattle of the same quality, kind, grade, etc., and this was a very particular close neighbour of yours, you curled together, you played pool together, you jumped into the swi mm ing pool together, and you found out that the packer ripped him off $500 on his load of cattle today in order to give you $500 more, do you think you would accept that as being reasonable? MR. DANN: I would not say that it would be $500.00. MR. USKIW: Well, I don't know the amount but I'm just pointing out, on a load of cattle, it could be $500.00. MR.

DANN: First of all, you go back to all animals being the same. There are no two people feed cattle the same; there are no groups of cattle that yield the same or grade the same. MR.

USKI W: The Commission Report deals with identical situations wherein they point out very massive price discrimination and they point that out to the lack of some people's abil ity to publicly relate to their buyer and the, perhaps over enthusiastic relationship between other shippers and their buyer, and that it's summed up just in that way, that it depends who you know in the system, how big you are in the system, how imp ortant you are in the system. That's really the sum total 139

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 of it. MR. DANN: I didn't realize we'd take an hour to get to the bigness because I expected to gel that nailed to me the fi rst time. MR. USKIW: I didn't impl y that. MR. DANN: But anyway, as far as I'm concerned if you merchandise you give out the information, it's up to each individual to do the best he can. If he wants help to market his product, if he hasn'1 got the expertise, there are people he can hire to do it. There are all types of ways he can merchandise his product. MR. USKI W: What, Sir, is your role in the industry? MR.

DANN: My role is a cattle feeder and cattle marketer. MR. USKIW: You don't raise any cattle yourself. MR. DANN: Personally, I fatten cattle, yes. MR. USKIW: I didn't say fatten cattle, I'm talking about raising calves and feeding them out. MR. DANN: Yes, unfortunately we do get in the cow-calf business every spring. MR. USKIW: Every spring, accidentally. MR. DANN: Yes. MR. USKIW: I see, but that is not your main business. MR. DANN: No, it is not. MR. USKIW: What is your main line of business, Sir? MR. DANN: Fattening cattle and marketing them. MR. USKIW: These are cattle bought from other producers? MR.

DANN: Yes, Sir. MR. USKIW: Do you not see some difficulty in com bining the sellers of feeder cattle with the buyers of feeder cattle in the same association? MR. DANN: No, I don't. MR. USKIW: Whose interests shall prevail? MR. DANN: Well, fi rst of all, I think that again you're trying to pit one segment against the other. MR. USKIW: No, I'm not. I'm asking you. No, I'm sorry, I'm not. I'm asking you whether it's compatible. MR. DANN: Well, it's to our advantage to have a viable cow-calf industry so why would one try to get policies through that would elimi nate cowcalf people? MR.

USKIW: Well, then let me pursue the question. Who is to determine the income of a cow-calf producer and his viability in order to bench mark the prices that he should get and the treatment that he should get in the marketpla ce and in turn the prices that the buyer should pay? Who should make that determination? MR. DANN: The cow-calf operator. 140

Standing Committee On Agriculture Thursday, July 13, 1978 MR. USKIW: The cow-calf operator. And you think that through this association he will be able to do that? MR. DANN: I would hope so because as I would envision the people selling feeder cattle would be doing the same thing as we who sell fat cattle for the privilege of other producers selling feeder cattle. I would hope that's the way it would go. MR. USKIW: Could you explain to me then why out of the last 25 years, that the cow-calf producers lost money in about 22 of them? MR.

DANN: They were not keeping a good set of records, possibly, and if they lost money for 22 out of 25 years . . . MR. USKIW: Out of 25 years, yes. MR. DANN: . . . they've got better staying power than I have. MR. USKIW: Yes, that's right. They humbl e themselves quite a bit more. MR. DANN: You feel so. MR. USKIW: Oh, yes8, otherwise they wo uldn't be there today. Do you think that that is reasonable for

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-2-ag2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 2nd hansardpdf ag2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ccc5083042db902774798e12b0574df24b0e62f7

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