Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 55 (31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-55

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 9 May, 1980 Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (B irtle Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. ABE KOVNATS: Mr. Speaker, the Commi ttee of Supply has adop ted certain resolutions, directed me to repor t same, and as k leave to si t again. I move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Por tage la Prairie, repor t of commi ttee be received. MOTION presented and carried.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I would li k e to dis tribu t e to ,the members a copy of the 26 t h annual progress repor t of the Universi t y of Mani toba, Facult y of Agriculture. There will be copies available for the members. I would also li k e to ma k e a statement, Mr. Speaker, to the House, wi t h regard to proclaiming today, May 9th, as Arbor Day. And I say this year, as in the pas t few years, the con tinuing spread of Dutch Elm Disease is still the main concern we face.

The adminis tra tion of the Dutch Elm Disease con trol program will be transferred from my depar t ment to the Na tural Resources Depar tment , bu t regardless of who adminis ters it, we still have a responsibili t y to see that all the province's elm trees are pro tected. Sanitation and main tenance programs appear to be the only way to slow down the spread of the disease. A surveillance crew will once again be travelling throughou t the province to iden tify it. Mani tobans, meanwhile, are being urged to loo k for signs of the disease, such as wil ting of branches, so that the diseased trees can be removed.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and I las t year plan ted a new varie t y of Japanese Elm on the Legislative grounds which have been tested as being resistan t to the highly con tagious fungus. While it's being seen as a varie t y that could replace many of the elms tha t are los t to Dutch Elm Disease, the Japanese Elm won' t be commercially available for two or three years. Agricultural research stations are loo king at al ternative varie ties, such as Green and Black Ash, Linden or Basswood, which can also replace the disease-suscep tible American elms. Mr.

Speaker, Dutch Elm disease was firs t identified in the province in 19 75, and since that time was spread qui t e rapidly. Arbor Day is an appropria t e time to remind Mani tobans to take care of all varie ties of trees, shade trees in par ticular. In recent years, Birch trees have been suscep tible to drough t condi tions, which have resulted in many of them dying off. Par t of the tree main tenance program would be to ma k e sure that trees have an adequat e supply of wa ter.

Wi t h these comm ents, then, I am pleased to proclaim today as Arbor Day, and to recogniz e all those organi zations and individuals who will plan t trees to mar k this occasion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposi tion. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minis ter of Agricul ture for his statement . The effort to preven t the spread of Dutch Elm disease was star ted, of course, many years ago, and has con tinued since.

I would li k e to also just simply comment on the impor tance of joining together to at temp t to preserve the exis ting wooded areas in and abou t the, especially the ci t y of Winnipeg. Wi t h the spread of urbani zation, more and more wooded areas are being eliminated, no t only by disease such as the Dutch Elm disease, bu t by the developmen t of urbani zation itself. And I thin k, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minis ter should , as well as examining the entire area of preven ting the spread of existing diseases such as Dutch Elm, that possibly more can be done in order to preven t the removal of some of the trees in existing wooded areas, unfor tuna tely fas t disappearing. And as well, I thin k on the par t of the province to encourage more tree plan ting ac tivi ties by different groups in order to ensure that there is more, by way of preserva tion and extension of our treed areas in and abou t the ci ty.

So I would li k e to commend the Minis ter on the concern which he has expressed, which is a con tinua tion of policy for qui te some time, and would urge the Minis ter to examine other ways that we can ensure that all types of trees are encouraged to grow and to develop so that we don' t become just a bald , bare prairie abou t the ci t y of Winnipeg. I have a real thing abou t this, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure mos t members of the House have, that we are too rapidly losing the beau t y of our wonderful trees in this province. MR. SPEAKER: No tices of Mo tion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR.

ALBERT DRIEDGER (Emerson) in troduced Bill No. 40,

An Act to Amend The Labour Rela tions Act . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed wi t h Oral Questions, I would li k e to draw the honourable members' at tention to the gallery on my left, where we hve 65 student s of Grade 6 standing from the 3475

Friday, 9 May 1980 Robert Browning Elementary School under the direction of Mrs. Petra Clark . This school is in the constit uency of the Honourable Minister of Cult ural Affairs. We also have 26 st udents of Grade 9 standing from Ste. Anne's Collegiate in Ste. Anne's, under the direction of Mrs. Lucianna Yestrau, and Mr . Gilbert Demers. This school is in the constit uency of the Honourable Minister of Fitness and Amateu r Sport . On behalf of all the hono urable members, we welcome yo u here this morning. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. Is the Attorney-General prepared to table the letter which he forwarded to the city of Winnipeg pertaining to the applicability of Bill No . 2, presently before the Legislat ure, and the recent Supreme Court ruling , insofar as city stat utes, by laws , traffic tickets, etc. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne): Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the doc ument is a piece of pu blic correspondence and probably has been on an agenda of committee of co uncil , bu t if the Honourable Leader of the Opposition doesn't have a copy , I will supply him with one. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, further to the Minister. Could the Minister advise whether or not he has received legal advice as to whether or not traffic tickets , or traffic tickets which are now in fact summonses because of legislation which was passed several years ago, are not part of the co urt process itself and falling under the provisions of the Supreme Court Ru ling?

Can the Minister advise whether he has received a legal opinion within his department pertaining to this aspect . MR. MERCIER: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, can the Attorney General then advise the House as to the contents of that advice? MR. MERCIER: itself - that Opposition - advice. Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker. The letter I will su pply the Leader of the contains the substance of that legal MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll look forward to the letter. I think the letter is one that I wo uld ask to be tabled for all members of the House, not just for myself.

To the Minister of Finance, can the Minister of Finance advise whether or not the 25 percent equity which the province is obtaining, pertaining to the Potash mine in St. Lazare, as well as the 27 percent equity being obtained pertaining to the Granges Mine, whether or not the terms of ownership and equity involvement are identical in each case. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Finance. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the terms of the agreement and the equity positions are not spel led out yet, partic ularly in the case of the potash.

The agreement with regards to the Trout Lake Mine along with Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting in Granges, are further along and are being negotiated by the Manitoba Mineral Corporation. But in both cases they are not yet complete, so it wo uld be premat ure to indicate that they are identical. MR. PAWLEY: Can the Minister advise whether or not the 25 and 27 percent interest respectively on St. Lazare Potash and Granges will involve both assets, plant equipment , prod uction equipment, as well as the profits to be derived from each mine? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I can only repeat that it ' s really premat ure to attempt to answer that at this point because the agreements in both cases, while one is well along in negotiation, the case of the mining operation , the same cannot be said abo u t the potash. So it is really premat ure to attempt to answer that. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance again , despite the questions which have been asked over the past two weeks, has he reconsidered his earlier response that he was not prepared to table within this Chamber copies of the existing memorand ums of intention, altho ugh they may fall short of the final agreement. Is he not prepared, in view of the anno uncements that have already been made by himself on behalf of his government, is he not prepared to file the preliminary memorandums , the memorand ums of intention that have been agreed to as to his ministry and his government with each of the companies involved?

MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is repeat again, it 's the rights to exploration that have been given to IM C in the case of pota sh , and in the case of the Trout Lake Mine, that is an agreement that is currently under negotiation by the Manitoba Mineral Corporation with the two partners who are involved in that. Again, Mr. Speaker, I'd have to indicate to the members of the opposition that there's no pu blic interest to be served at this point in talking abo u t something that hasn 't been completed.

It will probably be till the end of 1980 before there is any agreement that is worked out in the case of potash. There will be a meaningfu l prod uction come forth before then which will be the regulations that apply to potash; and again to indicate to the members opposi te, for abo u t the fo urth time, regulations for potash have never existed. They still don 't exist, despite all the exploration work that went on thro ugh the 60s, and the attention of the 70s and so on, there never were regulations pu t thro ugh regarding potash.

They are the meaningfu l thing that the pu blic wo uld be interested in as the first step. Those will come abo u t as soon as we have them completed beca use they will be a prod uction of Order-in Council and they will be pu blic doc uments. 3476

Friday, 9 May 1980 MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, I know it may be after repeated questioning and answering, as the Minister has implied, but in view of the fact that Manitobans have not been given information as to what Manitobans are giving in return for the equity which they are receiving supposedly, I wo uld suggest that the anno uncement itself was premat ure insofar as released incomplete material to Manitobans not giving the total comprehensive pict ure as to what was happening pertaining to each of the mining developments. Mr.

Speaker, therefore all the Minister need do is table the agreements that have been entered into of a preliminary nat ure up to this point . Can the Minister advise whether or not there has been any preliminary agreement that Manitobans thro ugh their government will participate in the boards of directors in each of the concerns involved so that there is some joint participation in the decision making at the board of director's level? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I think that goes witho ut saying. If the government retains an equity interest, they're certainly going to retain representation on the board of directors.

Obvio usly - I noticed Tommy Douglas just went on the board of directors of Husky Oil, Mr. Speaker, and someone asked me this morning, will he now qualify to be a corporate welfare bu m, and I think yes, he probably will . It seems to me perfectly obvio u s that if we are going to retain an equity, yes, we 'll have corporate welfare bums on the board of directors. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, we co uldn 't help but note that the Minister uses the word if, therefore contin uing to imply that there is uncertainty . Mr. Speaker, as usual the First Minister got out of the wrong side of his bed, gr umbling from his seat.

Mr . Speaker, I pu t it to the Minister of Finance that in fact his retreat, his government 's retreat from original positions, indicates that in fact his government is now agreeing with the policy thr usts anno unced by T.C. Douglas that he made reference to over the last number of years, by now agreeing that the pu blic ought to share in equity involvement pertaining to mining development and participation, something that was abhorent to them over the years. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr . Speaker, .the Leader of the Opposition really is showing some pretty strange trends.

They sho uldn 't be strange in terms of those that have watched him recently in doing these turnabo uts . I was watching him wring his hands on late television last night, Mr. Speaker, with regards to a question he asked yesterday in the question period. Perhaps I can address another question that was asked yesterday.

The Leader of the Opposition asked abo u t the policy of the Li quor Control Commission in the mark ups on federal tax and I noticed with some interest that the Leader of the Opposition, who used to be a Minister who for some years reported for the Li quor Commission, and obvio usly must have done the same thing exactly as what he was commenting on yesterday as being really not a very nice thing to do . I hope that he certainly went home and washed his hands thoro ughly, because, Mr .

Speaker, when the question was asked -(Interjections)- when the Leader of the Opposition asked the question yesterday abo u t the practice of the Li quor Commission with regards to what happened when the federal government increased his tax, he was the best person in the House qualified to answer it, because he did it for years. If he wants the answer, if he really wants, and I pres ume he perhaps already knew it and doesn't really need it, he knows very well that the provincial tax in all cases applies on top of all other taxes. Mr .

Speaker, in short the 25 cents increase on a case of beer, for instance, 12 cents goes to the federal government, 8 cents goes to the Li quor Commission, 4 cents goes to the beer vendor in the event there is one - and the beer vendors apparently distrib ute the majority of the beer in the province - and 1 cent goes to provincial sales tax, and that makes up 25 cents, that was the increase in the price of a case of beer. There were similar increases in the cases of the spirits and the wines . Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I also understand that the Li quor Commission has pu t this information out directly .

MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for his lengthy response . Obvio usly the Minister of Finance didn 't answer the question which was posed to him, but rather was more concerned abo u t dealing with non-iss ues. In fact I indicated to some members of the media as to past history of some imposition of this tax yesterday. Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister of Finance, since he has ac quainted himself with the record, also advise whether or not previo u s governments complained abo u t the imposition of the tax at the federal level, complained abo u t the fact that the federal government was entering into a so-called traditional area of provincial taxation, then went from there within the space of weeks to realize millions of dollars of additional benefit, which in fact his government, his Ministry, is doing at the present time, despite the complaints and the griping that this Minister trotted along with during the past two or three week?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition again is trying to get aro und the fact that he is now ca ught in his hypocritical stance. He is ca ught in the hypocritical stance of having tried to say this na ughty thing, this na ughty tax, sho uld not be in place, where he milked it dry for all the years he was reporting for the Li quor Commission . Mr. Speaker, with regards to the other question as to whether or not it was appropriate to criticize the tax or not, it is entirely appropriate. Since, Mr .

Speaker, I am now being acc used of doing that, which I don 't recall doing, except I think I was asked for a comment on this by one of the media people when we were at the conference at Lethbridge, and I said that I felt that it was a traditional provincial field 3477

Friday, 9 May 1980 and we weren't entirely happy abo ut the federal governmen t entering in t o it, is an entirely valid observa tion. I recall, of co urse, tha t they also wen t in t o the field of tobacco tax, and I don 't hear the member talking abo ut that, Mr. Speaker. Let's go back, Mr. Speaker, to the comparison.

I don 't know that they applied this so-called ad valorem tax when he was repor ting for the Li quor Commission , bu t he certainly used it ; bu t they did apply the prod uction equipmen t tax, of co urse, which pu t the price of bread up , and added their tax, 5 percent sales tax, the former government , on top of the excise tax, the man ufac turing tax, the customs ' tax, every other tax that the federal government ever pu t on, and then they added ano ther 5 percent and said, we wan t that for Mani toba. If he is going to be consis tent, Mr.

Speaker, he is going to have to say then pu blicly wha t he is saying now, we wan t to remove it off foods, bu t we wan t to leave it on bread. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I wo uld like to pose a question tha t may be on somewha t of a ligh ter vein. My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minis ter of Labo ur, and I wo uld like to ask him if he has any thing further to repor t in regards to the negotia tions between the grain handlers of Churchill and Management. MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Labo ur. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell yo u that our la test informa tion is that bo t h par ties have come to an agreement , that is the par ties that were at the table, no t necessarily the membership or no t necessarily the Treasury Board in Ot tawa, which some of the members opposi t e probably aren't aware of the in trig uing things that take place in this par tic ular si tuation. Both par ties have come to an agreement and will be recommending to bo th their respective par ties a settlement of the recommendations. MR. EINARSON: Mr.

Speaker, I am no t sure that I fully understand the Minis ter of Labo ur, bu t is the Minis ter indica ting to us tha t a settlement is definitely in the offing. I wonder if he co uld elaborat e a li ttle further as to just where that si tuation stands. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Speaker, it is a li ttle bi t of a different si tuation , where the union nego tia ting commi ttee has agreed to recommend, bu t they can' t recommend to a membership that is no t entirely in place, meaning by that there are X number of people that are in Churchill at the momen t .

Us ually the membership is comprised of approxima tely 110 to 120 people and they'll be wai ting for the next two or three weeks until a majori t y of that nu mber is present, so they in turn then can vo te. That's the proced ure that ' s normally followed. It is in teresting to no t e and I wan t to thank all those in the province, and there has been a good many tha t have phoned, several gro ups wi thin societ y have expressed a very sincere in terest in the negotia ting process. People have phoned and bo th encouraged and made suggestions to myself and I wan t to thank them.

The one gro u p tha t we 're missing in that entire exercise was the official opposi tion in this House. At no time have I received any display of in terest , any display of policy or concern or understanding of the entire iss ue. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to propose a second question and this one is to the Minis ter of Agricult ure and I wonder if he co uld repor t any further informa tion to us as to how much grain and the type of grain that is in the elevators in Churchill at the present time? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Agricult ure.

MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the informa tion that I have received on the grain stocks at the Por t of Churchill is the fac t that they are qui te low. In fac t there is something like 7,50 0 bushels of whea t and abo ut 400 and some thousand bu shels of barley ou t of a holding capaci t y of some 5 million bu shels.

I guess one of the reasons that the stocks are low at that par tic ular por t at this par tic ular time is the fac t that the negotia tions had broken down and there was some concern whe ther in fac t the por t wo uld be opera tional this year, bu t it is encouraging to hear the repor t s par tic ularly for the farm comm unity, to hear the repor t s that the labo ur negotia tions are at the state they are at this par tic ular time and I am sure we will be press uring the grain transpor tation co-o rdinda tor and the Canadian Wheat Board to fill the eleva tor at Ch urchill so tha t shipping can proceed this par tic ular year.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank yo u, Mr. Speaker, since the Minis ter of Agriculture knows wha t kind of fig ures there are in por t elevators of grains, co uld he tell us how many millions of bushels of feed grains have been sold from co untry elevators and the por ts, to eastern Canadian feeders in the las t year or two or three? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Agricult ure. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker: I can 't give him that specific informa tion bu t there is one piece of informa tion that I sho uld mention is that the other day a question was forwarded by the Member for St. George, and I'm no t sure whe ther it was in question period or in commi ttee, bu t he had suggested that Thunderbay was clogged or had been filled up wi t h non- Board grain, that half the grain there was in a posi tion of no t being con trolled by the Wheat Board.

I wo uld just like to clarify that par tic ular poin t; this time the grains at Thunderbay, half of them are no t in fac t ou tside the Canadian Wheat Board, half of them are non-pooled grains, of which 35 percent of them are made up of grains that are con trolled by 3478

Friday, 9 May 1980 the Canadian Wheat Board. It is not the fact that it is non- Wheat Board grain that 's clogging the system, but is in fact non-pooled grain s . MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the Mini ster indicates that 35 percent of the grain s at the Lakehead are not controlled by the - are only under control of the Wheat Board. That's abo u t the fig ure s that we 've got, and the Wheat Board does 85 percent of the bu siness ou t of the Lakehead.

Can the Mini ster confirm that we stern farmers have, over the la s t three years , lo s t in sales on feed grain s to eastern Canada in terms of the open market system, at least 49 cents per bu shel of wheat sold, 16 cents per bu shel of oat s sold, and 36 cents a bu shel per bu shel of barley sold? Of every bu shel of barley and wheat and oat s sold, tho s e were the lo sses to we stern Canadian farmers ba sed on the open market system that he advocate s . MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to accept the premi s e or the fig ure s that the Member for St.

George ha s , but I wo uld like to bring to the attention of the House, somewhat of a hypocritical, or the two po sition s that he likes to take when he says that the eastern Canadian feeders are getting a deal on the we stern Canadian feed grain, he co uld be somewhat right.

But he contin ues to support a program or a policy that ship s that grain down under a stat utory rate which does n't pay for the movement of grain, and here he is saying that we are helping them by giving them our grain at lower money, and he still want s to say that it should go at a cheaper rate than what it can be fed here in we stern Canada and used here to help the ind ustry. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order plea se. We went thro ugh a very delightf u l debate thi s morning between the Leader of the Oppo sition and the Mini ster of Finance. I hope we don 't go into a second one, now. The Honourable Member for St.

George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Mini ster of Agriculture can give us a statement of government policy with respect to hi s po sition on the ba sis of the lo sse s that we stern Canadian farmer s have encountered in terms of their feed grain sales to eastern farmers, and whether or not he ha s done anything abo u t the congestion s at the Lakehead in terms of the car s , that it 's been reported that the rail car s have in fact been sitting there on siding s , being unable to be unloaded for up to two month s at the Lakehead, in stead of talking abo u t how many bu shels of grain are at Churchill and something that the Mini ster of Labo u r in thi s province ha s had nothing to do with.

Why does n't he move, because the 400 rail car s that he ha s rented from the United States will be of no use if they can 't be unloaded at the port s for the Canadian Wheat Board to ship the grain s out to export market. MR. DOWNEY: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, we pu t no regulation s on them as far as the movement of grain is concerned. The car s are available for the total movement in we stern Canada and they can go to Churchill if they were able to go because of the track being available, but it really co uldn 't carry them. I wo uld like to say as far as the feed grain, at thi s partic ular time, Mr.

Speaker, that for the information of the House that the Canadian Wheat Board price of barley is 1. 70 initial payment and the open market is 2.19 a bu shel at thi s

part ic ular time. Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a situation where in fact the final payment ha s to come up some 50 cents a bu shel to cover what they wo uld get from the open market. So to sit here and criticize the open market over the pa s t few years - I think we should talk of current situation s as well. I think that the Member for St. George wo uld be well advi sed to ha s some concern for the Port of Churchill because it does play an important part of the total economy of Manitoba and we stern Canadian agric ult ure. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, certainly members on thi s side have been concerned with the Port of Churchill in terms of setting up the Port authority and it s involvement in the Port of Churchill over the years and the entire comm unity of Churchill, rather than knocking the entire comm unity of Churchill that the Premier ha s done and the like. I ask the Mini ster of Agricult ure . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order plea se. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank yo u , Mr.

Speaker, I certainly don 't want to take credit like the Conservative s have for the report that their Member of Parliament from Li sgar ha s made on the use of the Port of Churchill, as being a completely useless piece of equipment, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Mini ster of Agric ult ure whether he can confirm that we stern Canadian farmers have lo s t 14 3 million over the la s t three year s .

In partic ular Manitoba farmer s , Manitoba prod ucers who have shipped feed grain s eastward in excess of 30 million on the ba sis of the open market system, because the Wheat Board wa s not able to sell the grain s and the open market did not sell the grain s on the corn competitive ratio that wa s to have establi shed the price for feed grain s in we stern Canada, and the feed grain price s have dropped below that on the open market, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Ro uge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank yo u , Mr . Speaker.

I have been asked by some residents of River s to ask a question of the Mini ster respon sible for the Environment . The question is: Will the request of the town of River s that no extension be granted on the order of the Clean Environment Commi ssion that Minnedosa be required to complete con str uction of the new lagoon in order that the lake at River s may be cleaned up and restored to recreational use? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mini ster of Cons umer and Corporate Affairs. HON. WARNER JORGENSON: Mr.

Speaker, I will have to check with the Environmental Branch to determine ju s t what the po sition of that partic ular order is at the pre sent time. 3479

Friday, 9 May 1980 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Urban Affair, in view of recent announcements that 25 million may be available through OREE for rail relocation in Winnipeg. I wonder whether he could assure the House that no OREE funds that Manitoba is presently entitled to will be used for railway relocation, but these funds, if forthcoming, would have to be new or additional funding. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give the member that assurance.

The OREE agreements that have been entered into with the various departments of our government are put to certain defined purposes and I doubt very much that Ministers responsible for those departments would be prepared to give up those funds, because a priority has already been established for the use of those moneys under existing OREE agreements. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister accept the figure of 16 8.5 million for railway relocation, in view of earlier figures that have been thrown around as little as a year or two ago, such figures as 33 .5 million, 32.5 million, 74 million, or 11 7 million?

Has he examined that figure and does he accept that figure as accurate and up to date? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the figures of 16 8 million are figures contained in the report by the consultants that the federal government retained to do that particular study. All I can indicate to the Member for Elmwood is that Mr. Pepin did not dispute those figures when we met with him. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I would also ask the Minister whether, if the project appears to be proceeding in terms of whether it is feasible to relocate, whether he would press for a percentage sharing of the costs, because if, for example, federal funding of 25 million were spread over 5 years, when you are dealing with a figure of 16 8 million and you spread that over a few years, the inflation alone would eat up that money and it would disappear in the process. MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the figure of 16 8 million is, in fact, one expressed in 1979 dollars, so that obviously over the course of proceeding with that project, if it indeed were proceeded with, the costs would escalate in accordance with inflationary increases and a formula would have to be devised to ensure that all parties maintained the same percentage of the eventual cost. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood with a fourth question. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, just to be more specific then, it is not total dollars that the Minister is interested in, but a percentage of the costs, and this is what he would press the federal government for. Is that my understanding? MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, The Rail Relocation Act itself refers to a contribution by the federal government of up to 50 percent, and I think that would be the proper manner in which to handle that. The cost of the project, if it is to be proceeded with, is by sharing the total cost on a percentage basis. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. I have read a number of his answers with respect to questions on filing the Letters of Intent with respect to the agreements on potash and the Flin Flon agreement, and he has stated to the House that all of the matters contained in those agreements have been made public. I would therefore ask the Minister to table the Letters of Intent, and if he is not prepared to do so, I would appreciate him advising as to why specifically it is in the public interest not to table those letters of intent if he has .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please.

I believe those same questions were asked earlier today by your Leader. The Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, those questions were asked earlier by my Leader, they were asked earlier by my Leader, however they were not answered, and I am asking for an answer. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. In that case I have to rule the question out of order; it is repetitious. The Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. SC HROEDER: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Finance with respect to the potash agreement.

Could he advise as to whether specifically the government has discussed with IMC the matter of the government obtaining the shares of IMC, should IMC sell its interest in that operation, as it did in New Brunswick when it took over a lease from the government and turned it around and sold it for a 24 million profit the next year? Have you made sure that that will not happen in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, those sorts of things are still to be discussed and examined as we proceed to an agreement.

Let me repeat again, what has been indicated to the company is that they will have the rights to the final exploration leading up to hopefully a feasibility study that will prove the operation viable and in the event of that occurring, it will be the Crown's intention to retain a 25 percent equity position in any operation that is undertaken. Mr. Speaker, furthermore I want to point out again that what has been assigned is exploration rights, and let me remind the members that the government, in that general area that appears most likely viable for this operation, own some 40-odd 3480

Friday, 9 May 1980 percent of the mineral rights, the remaining 50 to 60 percent are owned by others. IMC upon entering the picture owns very little, if any, of those rights. IMC is in the position now of dealing with those other parties, and it is in the government's interest and so on to see that a good and as best possible arrangement and negotiation that takes place can take place from the point of view of any future involvement of the government. With regards to that, those are the primary contents that have been indicated.

It is an assignment of rights and that the regulations dealing with it will be dealt with as they are now under way and will be processed through by Order-in-Council. But, Mr. Speaker, if you want the direct reference to Beauchesne, I'm sure that you, Mr. Speaker, or the Clerk of the House will find it pretty rapidly, indicating that when something like this is under negotiation, it's not normal practice to be trying to do it on the floor of the House.

The information that has been given has been given because we think it's important for the public to know and the parties that are likely to be involved in what the government's position is. That's all there is to be said. There's nothing further that would be of any substantive value until the agreement is brought about, which will be later this year. The first very solid indication though, will be the regulations which will be tabled as they go through by Order-in-Council, as soon as they're ready to go.

That will probably be as soon as the staff gets completed with them, and will be before there is a final feasibility report and before any agreement is written. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ross mere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Surely this company will have the right, has been given the right, to mine this property, at least the government's portion thereof, in the event that exploration proved successful, and I certainly hope that it is successful.

If that is the case, then if the government has not already negotiated an arrangement under which is has the right of first refusal on IMC's shares, then any negotiations you would undertake now would be like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. In fact, it would be too late at this time, if they have the right now, to lease and mine that property. Is that not correct? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the member's contribution is well taken. That's his position, that's his opinion. Let's wait and see what comes out of the agreement. MR.

SCHROEDER: Again, on that particular issue, I would like to know where the Minister stands on it. Does he believe that the government should have a right of first refusal on this mine? MR. CRAIK: For the fifth or sixth time, Mr. Speaker, those kinds of details will be spelled out in the agreement. The member will have plenty of opportunity at that time to examine it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Economic Development respecting the unfortunate layoffs of men and women at the Edson Manufacturing Company in the industrial base at Rivers, and I would like to ask whether there have been any provincial grants made to this company, or whether the province has been involved in assisting the company getting any federal OREE grants for that particular operation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fitness and Amateur Sport. HON. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

I know the staff of the Department of Economic Development have been speaking to the people out in Rivers and have been consulting with them with regards to the employment levels out there, and the current layoffs. I am informed by them that the company has a very high inventory at the present time, and as we all know, if the inventory isn't selling, there's not too much sense in producing more of the same product.

They are, apparently, in the process right now of trying to sell that inventory, and I will endeavour to see if there are any provincial grants, or what assistance we were to the company in obtaining a OREE grant. MR. EVANS: I have a supplementary which I would like to direct to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.

Inasmuch as the President of the Company has indicated that the prospects for future employment of those employees that are to be laid off are very dim, and that, at least in his opinion, the prospects for such people being re-employed in the future seem to be very bleak indeed. will the Minister be prepared to set up a special committee to assist those employees, to aid those employees, in obtaining alternative jobs as was the case in the case of layoffs at the Swift Canadian plant in the city of Winnipeg, at least a similar attempt to help those people because in proportion, the layoff there is as significant, perhaps moreso, than a layoff of that dimension in the city of Winnipeg.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. MacMAST ER: Mr. Speaker, I attempted yesterday, to outline the prospects for the company as we knew it then, and for the employees. That position hasn't changed today, that we are still not sure of the number involved, or whether in fact other products may come on line, or whether alternate employment within their own operations may take place. That hasn't been firmed up yet this morning.

I believe I assured the Leader of the Opposition that I would let him know when those decisions had been made. · Our department has, in fact, been working along the very lines in anticipation, pessimistically, that there may be a problem greater than we hoped for, but we have been working along the lines of setting up a group and have been in touch with the federal people and our own manpower division and labour 3481

Friday, 9 May 1980 people in the very area that the Member for Brandon East is talking about, looking at possibilities of alternate employment or relocation or whatever. We're working in that line, at the same time being very hopeful that something else breaks within that particular company which may assist them to maintain their employees. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period having expired, the Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call the Resolution by the Honourable Minister of Finance, then adjourned debates on second reading. PROPOSED RESOLUTION MR.

SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution, the Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health, that: WH ER EAS subsection 23 (1 ) of The Mineral Taxation Act, being

Chapter M15 0 of the Revised Statutes, provides in part as follows: 23 (1 ) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act according to their intent, the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may make such regulations as are ancillary thereto and are not inconsistent therewith; and every regulation and order made under, and in accordance with the authority granted by this section, has the force of law; and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may make regulations and orders, not inconsistent with any other provision of this Act, (a) .......... ; (b) .......... ; (

c) amending

Schedule D of this Act; (d) .......... ; AND WH ERE AS pursuant to the aforesaid provision, Manitoba Regulation 23 /8 0, attached hereto as

Schedule A, was made by Order-in-Council 119 /8 0 on February 6, 1980 and published in the Manitoba Gazette on March 1, 1980; AND WHERE AS subsection 23 (2) of the aforesaid Act provides in part as follows: 23

(2) Where (a) ........... ; and (

b) the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council makes a regulation under clause 1(

c) amending

Schedule D when the Legislature is not in session, unless the regulation is ratified by resolution of the assembly within 90 days after the beginning of the next session of the Legislature, the regulation ceases to have effect on the 91s t day after the beginning of the next session of the Legislature; AND WHERE AS it is expedient and desirable that the aforesaid Manitoba Regulation 23/8 0 be ratified by resolution of the assembly, pursuant to the aforesaid provision; TH ERE FORE BE IT RE SOL VE D THA T the aforesaid Manitoba Regulation 23 /8 0 is hereby ratified. MO TION presented. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, in regard to the resolution, that it's not one that we frequently encounter. It's pursuant to changes that were made last year in the Mineral Taxation Act, that effectively completes the undertaking to bring freehold lands into the same realm as Crown lands, with regard to the taxation levels and the actual process of equating producer returns on freehold land with those on Crown land was not completed last year, and accordingly, some further minor adjustments in the taxation of freehold oil production are necessary this year. Mr.

Speaker, the reason for bringing it in as a resolution is that, as I read, there is a requirement that within 90 days of the beginning of the Legislature, such a resolution should be brought forward, and inasmuch as we are approaching the 90-day time from the beginning of the Legislature, it's not 90 sitting days, but rather 90 calendar days, it was appropriate to bring it in at this time since the deadline would be May 20th. It is a fairly minor change, it makes some small difference to the amount of revenue to the Crown, although it is very insignificant in the total.

It was an undertaking that was indicated last year when the Acts were changed, and this brings it to completion. I would like to, of course, recommend it to the Legislature and indicate to them that it's the completion of an undertaking from last year. It's a tidy-up that was necessay mainly because of the time restriction that was put on in the legislation, otherwise we would have dealt with it in the normal course of events later on during the session. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: I wonder if the honourable member would agree to a question?

Unfortunately, there was a considerable amount of noise when the Honourable Minister was speaking, and I didn't hear all of his remarks, but in so many words, is the Honourable Minister stating that this is strictly a relatively minor administrative change, or is it a fulfillment of a major policy change that was made last year, and therefore, I guess the two are connected. I understand it's connected to last year, but is it part of a major policy change? I wasn't aware of the Minister's remarks in that respect. MR. CRAIK: It's part, Mr. Speaker, of the policy change that was made last year.

It isn't a policy change that we're initiating this year. It's an administrative requirement pursuant to the policy change that was made last year to bring the freehold lands and the Crown lands into the same level of taxation. There is a small increase in revenue to the Crown as a result of this change, but in the total picture, it's small. The size of the decision that was made would have affected the revenues, January 1, of this year, by about 50, 000 in total, so that gives you the scale of the impact.

It's not a new tax that we're advocating bringing in, it's something that completes what was a requirement of the changes in 3482

Friday, 9 May 1980 the legislation last year, that we have this 90-day limit on, and therefore had to do it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Kildonan, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call the adjourned debates on second reading, please. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING MR. SPEAKER: The first bill is Bill No. 4, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Stand, Mr. Speaker. (Agreed) BILL NO. 6 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE WILLS ACT AND THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this debate on behalf of the Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, we have examined the contents of the bill and we are prepared to let it go to committee. We might have some questions to ask with respect to particular sections, which we will have the opportunity to do then. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 8 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ARBITRATION ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, we have examined this bill, we are satisfied that it is mainly housekeeping in nature, and I understand, I spoke to the Minister the other day, what the proposed amendments that he is going to be introducing into committee. We may have some questions we wish to ask in the committee when it goes to Industrial Relations Committee, but we are prepared to let the bill pass to committee at this stage. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Bill No. 13 (stand); Bill No. 35 (stand); Bill No. 49 (stand). BILL NO. 36 -AN ACT TO AM END THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT AND THE TORTFEASORS AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT· MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this debate on behalf of the Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had an opportunity yesterday to ask some questions of Mr. Dutton with respect to this matter.

He assures us that this change will not result in any substantial increase in payouts from the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, that in fact, the way the law is currently being interpreted in our courts, generally negligence and gross negligence are being interpreted as one and the same thing, and therefore, this will not make any significant difference to drivers of motor vehicles in terms of being subject to extra liability as a result of this change, and we will be asking some questions about it in committee. We are prepared to let it go at this stage. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney- General. MR.

MERCIER: Just one brief comment, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Rossmere indicates that as a result of questions asked of Mr. Dutton of Autopac, and Mr. Dutton's answers, that it was not anticipated there would be any great additional cost to Autopac, that he is prepared to allow the bill to pass. I don't think, Mr. Speaker - I want to make it clear, I don't think that is the sole criteria of whether this bill should be passed.

I think it should be passed because it is a change in the law which will benefit guest passengers in automobiles as a result of damages, personal injuries which they suffer in automobile accidents. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what the member cites is the reason why, when members opposite were in government, four and five years ago when the Law Reform Commission made their recommendation, as the reason why the change wasn't made, not because it was a benefit to passengers in automobiles, but because it might have been an additional burden on Autopac. And I don't think that's a proper rationale, Mr.

Speaker, in dealing with the law as it affects the right of individuals in this province to claim damages for personal injury, so I'm glad to hear that Mr. Dutton has said that. But as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, that's not the basis on which this bill should be passed. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 43 -

AN ACT TO AM END THE FAMILY MAINTENANCE ACT AND THE QUEEN'S BENCH ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I adjourned this debate on behalf of the Honourable Member for Rossmere. 3483

Friday, 9 May 1980 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have examined this bill and are basically in agreement with it. We do have some questions with respect to the

Section 31 .6. That is the area dealing with the criteria on which a judge has the right not to make an order fixing arrears beyond one year, and I think that there will be further questions on that during committee. It seems that the judge's discretion is being substantially fettered by this wording and we would be interested in discussing that matter further in committee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General will be closing debate. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Rossmere for his comments.

We have attempted, as I indicated earlier, to follow the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, and arising out of concerns expressed to the Law Amendments Committee last year, we have amended the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, to indeed apply a stricter test, and most certainly will be prepared to discuss any concerns or questions that members opposite may have at committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS cont'd MR.

SPEAKER: At this time, I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery on my right, where we have nine students of Grade 11 and 12 standing from the Fort Alexander School under the direction of Janet Cowan. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Rupertsland. On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Corrections, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Community Services and Corrections and the Honourable Member for Emerson in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture. CONCURRENT COM MITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Albert Driedger (Emerson): Committee come to order.

I refer members of the Committee to Page 7, Resolution 6, Item (e)(1 ) Research - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister can give us an indication of what research has been done in the last year in terms of policy studies and the like. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Some of the work that has been done, Mr. Chairman, and I can just update the members, we had a grain transportation study carried out by the university under Dr. Ed Tyrchniewicz.

The particular status of that report at this particular time, I have received it and haven't had an opportunity yet to go over it. I am going to meet with Dr. Tyrchniewicz to discuss the study. Another one of the major studies that we have done in the province in the last year was on the hog industry, Dr. Clay Gilson from the University of Manitoba was the individual who was handling that study, and it has been finalized and tabled. I am sure members of the opposition have received copies of Dr. Gilson's study. If they haven't received it - I believe I mailed copies to all members, or at least the rural members.

MR. URUSKI: Wasn't it last session that we received that study? MR. DOWNEY: No, no, it wasn't, it was after the last session, Mr. Chairman. Those are basically the main studies that were carried out within the department. MR. URUSKI: Could the Minister indicate to us - if I recall from his last year's comments that there was about 40,0 00 to be spent for 1979 studies. Was that amount used up in terms of 1979 studies, that amount of money that was estimated? MR. DOWNEY: I can't recall what I suggested then. We had the same amount of money in the appropriation last year as we have this year. MR.

URUSKI: Then can I ask him what the cost of the grain study was and I gather it has been completed? MR. DOWNEY: The estimate on the cost of that study was around 30,0 00. MR. URUSKI: Is that the final cost of that study? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: And the Hog Industry Study? MR. DOWNEY: In the area of around 11,000, Mr. Chairman, I would say. MR. URUSKI: Would the Minister kindly give us an update of the recommendations of the Hog Industry Study?

He indicated that he mailed us a copy and he may very well have mailed us a copy of that Study, if he would like to at this time enlighten us on the major points in the study. I recall the study done on the marketing of hogs and that was done prior to last session. In terms of the difficulties that he foresaw between the packers and the Manitoba Hog Marketing Board, however, this study, could he give us some details on that? 3484

Friday, 9 May 1980 MR. DOWNEY: Yes, the fi rst study that the member is referring to wa s the study that wa s cha ired by Gordon Mu irhead who did a 90-day rev iew, really, of the hog market ing situat ion in Man itoba. As members are aware , there wa s a breakdown between the pack ing hou s e indu stry and the Producer Board. The interim 90-day Study wa s put in place to get the Producer Board and the packer s back in the bu siness of buy ing and sell ing hog s .

That work wa s very successful and at that same time I suggested to the hog indu stry and to the pack ing hou s e indu stry that I felt we had to take a more in-depth look at what the hog indu stry in the prov ince needed for a major rev iew of it, and I apolog ize if I haven't sent a copy of that report out to the members of the oppo sit ion, and if I haven't I wi ll have the staff make a copy ava ilable to them. If there are po int s that they want to br ing out of the study at a later date, I would be qu ite prepared to deal wi th them dur ing estimates if there were some th ing s .

Basically, the recommendation s from the Gilson Study - there wa s a recommendation to cont inue on wi th the Dutch Clock Marketing System, the pr ice sett ing mechan ism that they further recommend. Some of these recommendations had actually taken place .

During the pro cess of the study there were th ing s happen ing, in fact , he recommended an independent panel of three per son s be establ ished to received compla int s about the operat ion s of the Dutch Clock System and that th is Comm ittee could deal wi th any problem s that may ar ise before they developed into a po sit ion of non-negotiat ion s wi th the pack ing hou s e indu stry and the Producer Board. At th is

part icular time we haven 't moved to put that Comm ittee in place becaus e we have seen a good work ing relat ionship between the pack ing hou s e indu stry and the Producer Board over the la st year and a half, and th ing s seems to be go ing on on an objective ba sis and a good relation ship. I am still givi ng con siderat ion to the placement of a Comm ittee that may in fact act as a group that may li sten to or hear either one side or the other if there were diff icult ies that may have to be dealt wi th.

The Natural Product s Market ing Counc il, of cour se, are the over seeing author ity that have the ab i lity to rule on any orders or regulation s put in place by the Producer Board, so we in fact have got a mechanis m in place at th is

part icular time. The recommendation, as I understand it from the Gilson Report , wa s in fact to not have any power or author ity but to be a mediat ion-type organ izat ion comm ittee to help keep the two sides in an area of negot iat ion s instead of confrontat ion. That 's the thought , I'm sure, behind the recommendation. As I said, the dutch clock system wa s one of the th ing s that he wa s rev iew ing and ha s recommended it be cont inued on .

As far as the order buy ing of hog s by the board, he recommmended that the po sit ion taken by the co ord inat ing comm ittee wh ich wa s put in place pr ior to hi s study, and it' s quoted here, that the Hog Board ensure that the exist ing order buyer, operat ing on behalf of the boa rd, operate s under the same cond ition s of purcha s e and sale as other buyers and that the con sideration be given to expand ing the order-buying funct ion to include other independent order buyer s if fea sible, and that wa s a recommendation that he supported from the interi m comm ittee that wa s in place to start wi th.

Do you want to me read thes e out at th is p art icular time , becaus e a copy of the report is ava ilable? MR. URUSKI: Well if there are cop ies ava ilable . . . MR. DOWNEY: ... I'll read it out and deal wi th them each way and then you can respond, I guess , if you so desire. Hog board purcha ses, purcha sed hog s for cu stom kill.

It is recommended that the po si tion taken on th is matter by the co-ord inat ing comm ittee aga i n be reaffirmed, and I quote, That hog s purcha sed by the hog board to its own account for cu stom kill ing should be purcha sed on the same term s and cond ition s that are ava ilable to other buyers . These board purcha ses should not be used to influence unduly the go ing pr ice for hog s. He dealt wi th the hog pr ice differential wh ich wa s one of the ma i n area s that had cau sed some concern or some of the problem s between the producer board and the pack ing hou s e indu stry.

There wa s an effort put forward by the board to remove the differential between hog s in eastern Canada, the pr ices received for hog s in eastern Canada , and pr ices received for hog s on the Winn ipeg market. Whatever ha s taken place, that ha s happened; we see our hog s runn ing pretty much in the same pr ice range as eastern Canad ian hog s . In fact at some time dur ing th is

part icular stud y , we saw the hog s in Winn ipeg go higher than the hog pr ices in Toronto, and wh ich is a . MR. URUSKI: For the first time. MR. DOWNEY: I believe that would be for the first time that that

part icular situat ion reversed. But I th ink that there wa s effort put forward on both sides to allev iate some of the problem s and the other th ing s that happened, of cour se, we saw Quebec increa sing its hog number s . We have had a trad i tional eastern demand for the hog s in we stern Canada and, as they increased their product ion, then they filled that market, probably at lesser co s t than what maybe the hog s were mov ing out of we stern Canada and find our selves in a po si tion of hav ing to look to other areas for markets.

On the hog pr ice differentials, and I'll ju s t quote a couple of hi s part s that he put in here under (a ), effective operat ion of the dutch clock sell ing system and compet itive pr i cing throughout the system should go a long way toward s the insuring that the hog pr ice differential s are fa ir and reasonable, and it apparently ha s taken place . If and when unrea sonable pr ice differential s between market s begin to appe ar, the board can effectively arb itrate between the markets by buy ing hog s on its account and sell ing to other market s .

So in tact the mechan isms are there to help allev iate the differential and it in fact ha s worked to allev iate the concern s of the produ cers to th is

part icular po int. One of the other major issues that he dealt wi th and that wa s on the contract ing of hog s . Some of the pack ing hou ses were up set that one

part icular company got an exclusive right to contract hog s. They felt that they should have an equal opportun ity to bid on the contract s ; that if there wa s a contract 3485

Friday, 9 May 1980 availab le, that contract should be put up for bids. He dealt with that particular issue and he has recommended, and I quote again from the report, It is recommended that domestic contracts, when used, should be governed by the following terms and conditions.

Insofar as possible and practical, all buyers should have an equal opportunity to bid for such contracts at competetive prices ; that a maximum limit should be set as a matter of policy on the percentage of total hogs marketed which can be sold under domestic contracts ; that insofar as possible and practical the terms and conditions of such a contract should be made public. It is recognized of course that the contracting firms will insist that certain of the terms and conditions must be kept confidential in the line with normal commercial practices.

Insofar as the contracting is concered, we have not seen any other companies desirous of contracting in the province. The board has responded by saying that they have agreed with this recommendation, that they do not intend to enter into any other contracts, and if they did it would be in the best interest to put them out for bid the same as a lot of hogs, because that's actually what you are doing.

Production contracts, another item that he dealt with, If the production contract issue is not satisfactorily resolved by the immediate parties concerned, it is recommended that the Minister of Agriculture establish a three-person committee which could have as its responsibilities, (

a) To study and recommend on appropriate guidelines for hog production contracts in Manitoba, and to monitor the operations of such contracts , if or when applied to hog production in Manitoba. I guess this is in reference to some of the systems that are in place, particularly in place in Quebec where we have seen a vertical integration of the hog industry. They did not have a producer board in place to market all their slaughter hogs through , that in fact some of the feed companies, packing house industries, or individuals were vertically integrating their industry.

I have said, as far as my policy is concerned, that I do not support the vertical integration of the hog industry, that I believe that the family farms, or the people who have traditionally produced hogs, should be the people that are producing the hogs in the province.

If they are offered forms, or programs, and they feel it's in the best interest of theirs as being a production tool that they can best use withou t, and I say this, without influencing them as producers or putting them at a disadvantage, then I think they should be the people that make the decision on whether or not they enter into a feed contract or whatever, as long as - and I'm very firm on this - as long as all the hogs that are produced in the province go through the Hog Marketing Board, which in fact is the case, all hogs have to go through the hog marketing structure.

So there is a control over the final supply of hogs for the bidding on those hogs by the producers organi zation. So that basically is my position on that particular issue, of which he had recommended. And also, we are monitoring the situation as we see certain things develop in the province.

Another one of his recommendations, and that's in the area of export contracts and forward sales commitments for hogs and pork sold in the United States, and I'll just again quote from the report, In view of the criticisms of some U.S. buyers about the lack of a continuous dependable supply of Canadian pork, it is recommended that the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board explore ways of assisting packers and exporters to provide a sustained supply of pork to U.S. customers.

A variety of short and longer term forward supply contracts might be developed which could be adapted to needs of particular firms and customers in the United States. I think in this particular area, one of the concerns that Dr. Gilson pointed out , and pointed out specifically to me, is the fact that some several years ago, and there are tables here to support what he is saying , that some several years ago we were expo rting something like 90 percent of our pork into U.S. markets.

In the period of the last several years - I'm correct on that, it's something like 90 percent was going into the U.S. market - in that last ten years we have changed from marketing that much into marketing just around 10 percent into the U.S. market, and the information that Dr. Gilson had provided is that the main reason was the lack of conti nuity of supply from our markets. He pointed out very distinctly that the U.S. market is one that we should , once again , approach and look at very aggressively.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't look at other export markets in other countries, but we should recul tivate the ground that we once had in the United States. You may say it's a difficult time to do it when the United States have such an amount of pork in their particular market. Again, as I said last night in the beef business , we are on a North American meat market, the hogs , well, first of all we produce 1 percent of the hogs that are produced in North America, I think we have to look at these kinds of markets on a long term basis, not on spot sales.

It's a matter of assuring the producers of pork in Manitoba that we have long term markets developed, whether they be in the United States or whether they be in Japan, or whether they be in Mexico, and I think that's an interesting market, not only an interesting one, one that is quite available to Canadian producers, and I am encouraging, and we are seeing the development of a lot of Canadian breeding stock moving into Mexico. They are a population of some 60-some million people , with an expanding rate at about 2 percent to 3 percent a year, and they are very interested in increasing their agricultural base.

One of the problems, of course, that they have at this particular time, in accepting or receiving , particularly processed product from this country, is the fact that they don't have the refrigeration and the chilling facilities available to handle that product. But it is a market that I think is one that we in Manitoba should be pursuing very aggressively.

Another recommendation , and that is to do with expor t credit insurance, and I will quote again from the report : In view of the need, by you as buyers of Canadian pork , for some type of credit arrangements; and given the risks associated with the longer term supply arrangements, it is recommended tha t the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board, together with the packing industry, explore the feasibility of using the facilities of the Export Development Corpora tion for export credit 3486

Friday, 9 May 1980 insuran c e where it is necessary and appropr iate. Th is, of course, is a federal government tool that is ava ilable to prov ide some form of credi t insuran ce. I believe that we have to, and wi ll be pro ceeding to identify more of these federal government tools that are ava ilable to our agr icultural produ cers and export people , that in fa c t I th ink we should be tak ing fuller advantage of these systems that are ava ilable, ident ify them.

When I made my open ing comments I suggested that export market development was one of the areas that we would be exerting our emphas is, and these are the types of th ings that wi ll be done. One of the other ones wh ich I feel is a fa irl y major recommendat ion, and that is on the Canad ian International Pork Institute, wh ich I believe has a lot of meri t to it, and I th ink that there have been discuss ions take pla c e wi th i n the board and the pa cking house industr y, and I don't know exactl y what stage it's at.

I don 't th ink it is being overl y well received, but the concept of course is, and I'll read it first and then I'll just speak to it br iefl y. It is recommended that the prov ince of Man itoba, in co-operat ion wi th the var ious sectors of the pork industr y, explore the feasibility of establish ing an international pork inst itute in Man itoba. The scope and purpose of the proposed inst itute would be as follows : It would serve as an instru ctional fa cil ity offering courses of a pra c tical and commercially or iented nature in pork produ ction , technolog y, pro cessing, and international trade.

Courses would be offered to Canad ian pork produ cers, pro cessors, consumers and to an invi ted number of persons wi th government departments and commer cial organ izat ions in countr ies bu ying pork produ cts from Canada. The proposed inst itute would help to acqua int the Canad ian pork trade wi th needs of potent ial foreign customers. The inst itute would serve as the veh icle for br ing ing potent ial foreign bu yers to Man itoba to acqua int them wi th pork produ ction and pro cess ing in Canada.

An in cidental , but not insign i ficant, thrust of the inst itute would be long-run market development for pork in foreign countr ies. The inst itute could serve as a central repos itor y for the data and informat ion on man y matters relating to the pork export trade - transportat ion fa cil ities, cred i t insuran ce, labell ing, health of an imals regulations, import restrict ions, anal y sis of markets and other su ch matters relating to the export of live hogs and pro cessed pork. I th ink Dr.

Gilson, in his report, has covered prett y thoroughl y the pork industr y, and I th ink there is a lot of informat ion, some of the items, I sa i d have alread y been acted upon , some of the recommendations haven 't, but I th ink it's a pos itive report that recommends to the pr odu cers of pork in the prov ince, to the pa cking house industr y, that if we work objectivel y, as an industr y, that we can, in fa ct, take advantage of markets that are ava ilable.

I have to sa y that one of the other items that he dealt wi th br iefly, and that was the Export Canada West, wh ich I found we were a shareholder as a government, in a corporat ion wi th the prov ince of Saskat chewan, and it showed that the last Mi n ister of Agriculture, it was established . . .

I should sa y that the agreement was signed in 1973, wh ic h led to the corporat ion of an inter-prov inc ial hog marketing agency known as Export Canada West, and given the fa ct that no decision was made since 19 73 to pro ceed wi th the actual operat ions of the compan y, it was recommended that I, as the Mi n ister of Agr icultu re, meet wi th the other Mi n isters of Agriculture in Saskat chewan and Alberta in reaching a decis ion on what should happen wi th Export Canada West. That meeting has taken pla ce. We held that meeting ba c k in February . There were no decisions made at that

part icular time, but it was discussed in a manner in wh ich . . . In fa ct, the two Mi n isters from those prov inces had not had it brought to thei r attention pr ior to th is, because they were both new and, at th i s

part icular time , it is in a discuss ion bas i s wi th staff . Our pos it ion to the produ cer board at th is

part icular time was that we weren't ready to move on it unt i l we understood what the objec tives were and the concept was . I, at th i s

part icular time , wouldn 't feel comfortable in mov ing, and

part icularl y in light of the some of the work that is being done wi th the produ cer board and the different produ cer boards. If they, in fa ct, as produ cer boards wanted to form a corporat ion I do not bel ieve that they could be restricted or would be restricted from do ing so , but I don't th ink at th i s time it is in the best interests to pro ceed unt i l we have a little more understanding of what the objectives were of the initial setting up of that corporat ion.

My concern was that I had a member of staff who was a shareholder of a corporat ion in conjun ction wi th the prov ince of Saskat chewan, wh ich was set up in 197 3, that la i d dormant for four years under the last adm inistrat ion. I needed more informat ion and more ba ckground before I was prepared to move on something that the last government wouldn't move on. That, Mr. Cha irman, bas icall y covers the Gilson Report. As I sa id, I believe it is an objec tive report. Some of the th ings have alread y taken pla ce.

The Dutc h Clo c k System has been ac cepted by the both the bu yers and the sellers of pork in the prov ince. The area of export development , an Export Development Institute, follows along the same line of th inking and the Canad ian Grain Institute, wh ich has done a good job in the work wi th i n the gra ins industr y. I th ink the same kind of a stru cture or me chan ism can work wi th i n the livesto c k industr y, so I look forward to input from the Comm ittee on th i s kind of a concept, and I feel that we wi ll be able to move.

When I talk of market development thrusts, these are some of the areas that I am look ing at for further development in the industr y. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Cha irman . I appre ciate the Minister's comments in br ing ing some of the recommendations or the recommendations as conta ined in that report wi th respe c t to the hog industr y, and I would like to deal wi th some of those recommendations .

But I would like to, as well, wh ile he has given us some of his government's pos itions wi th respec t to the pork inst itute, Export Canada West, I would like to · know whether or not he has given an y direction to the Man itoba Hog Board wi th respec t to future order bu ying by meat pa ckers and/ or export contra cts that ma y take pla ce, and as well, domestic contra cts, on the wa y the Board has been handl ing them. If I understand correctl y , the ma i n dispute that arose between the pa ckers and the Hog 3487

Friday, 9 May 1980 Board was for the very fact that the Board did sign a guaranteed amount of hogs to one pac ker over the objection of the others, because they did not know how many hogs were going to be pulled off the mar ket. As a result, they were not in a position to know how many hogs were going to be coming onto the mar ket and that brought the element of uncertainty to the purchasers, as a result competition had to increase if the pac king houses wanted to continue and operate their slaughter houses at full capacity.

I would li k e to know the government's position and what direction the Minister has given, and his position with respect to this report. Has he had discussions with the Hog Board; has he given his views to them; what position has he ta ken on this Report? MR. DOWNEY: First of all, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the members of the Committee, the major brea kdown in the mar keting of hogs in Manitoba did not come about because of the contracting of hogs to one pac ker. That was one of the developments that too k place somewhat after the initial negotiations or the initial mar keting system had bro k e down.

The dispute arose from the Board in their attempt to remove the differential between hogs sold in Manitoba and in Toronto or the eastern mar kets. They were selling on a basis of a formula and they suggested that they were going to continue on and the pac kers disagreed with the type of mechanism that was being used, and that was the initial brea kdown between the pac kers and the Producer Board. We had meetings with both sides.

After discussion with both groups, they had agreed to both agree to the ninety-day review of which, at that particular time, the Board agreed to introduce the dutch cloc k system, and from then things started to come together. But in the middle of the breakdown or in the reluctance of the pac kers to buy hogs and the reluctance of the producers to sell hogs, the Board entered into a contract with one company. That further upset the other people who were in the business of buying hogs. They were very upset that that kind of thing could ta k e place without them having an opportunity to bid on the contract.

My position is, and I accept the recommendations of Dr. Gilson as he accepted the recommendations of the Committee, that in fact if there are contracts available to be offered and the Board agrees with this, if there are contracts to be offered, that contract should be put up ' for a negotiation or sold to the pac kers on a competitive basis.

If you followed through with the concept, if for example, and I am sure members opposite would be concerned with this, if the Producer Board decided to sell all their hogs to Canada Pac kers, for example, or one pac king house, they could literally put the other industry out of business.

I don 't thin k members opposite or members of this Committee would want to see that happen, that in fact to give the kind of authority to one segment in society to say to one pac king house industry, you will have all the hogs and the rest of them can lay their employees off and put them out of business, then I don 't thin k we want that. I accepted in the report that the contract should be offered for sale to the different pac king houses.

I haven 't finali zed my position on what percentage of the hogs should be contracted, and I thin k that, as we have seen in the past year, there has only been one contract put in place. I would thin k that what might happen, and this could be a more acceptable way of contracting hogs, if the board itself were to do some of the contracting of those hogs.

I say that, when I say the board itself, that they would have to be the group to do, but I thin k that they have to recommend what they would see being to the best of their advantage, what percentage of their hogs would be best contracted because we do have to remember that we are in an export position in por k products out of this province. And with the fact that we rely on the North American mar ket and the international mar ket to sell our product into, then it would be very difficult to go completely, I thin k , on the contract basis.

A portion of hogs, as I say, I thin k that 's one of the areas that we have to wor k out. I would thin k in the neighbourhood of 25 to 30 percent of the hogs contracted may be sufficient to allow the basic stability to the producers in the province of Manitoba. That figure though, I thin k , is one that I would have to have the producers of the hogs, the producer board and the industry spea k to in a more explicit way, and it 's something that I would thin k would be very difficult to set on a basis of a non-changeable type of percentage. MR. URUSKI: Could the Minister .. .

I'm assuming that he has - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - had a meeting with the Manitoba Hog Producers Board with respect to his report, and the views that he's expressed to this committee this morning about the contracts and about the matters that he's raised have been transmitted by he or his staff, as far as his vi ews are concerned, to the board? Am I correct in that assumption? MR. DOWNEY: I've had informal discussions with the Chairman of the Board.

My Deputy has had several meetings with the Producer Board on this repo r t and I've had input from the Deputy, so there have been meetings ta king place. We have met also with the pac king house industry to discuss the report and they have responded. As I say, there are things happening and their are positive discussions ta king place. It's not one of those things that you can just draw the lines and say that this is the way it will be or it won 't be. I thin k the policies that we have adopted have been acceptable to the Producers Board and have been acceptable to the pac king house industry.

Now it 's not to say that there might be some disagreement develop in the future with different things happening in the industry, but basically, at this point, they are both wor king with some objectivity in mind and I want to commend them for that, both the prod ucers and the pac king house industry, because we tr uly have to wor k together as an industry to ta k e adva ntage of the export mar kets that are available to us. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, certainly now I can at least sense some of the direction given to the Hog Board and to the pac king ho use industry of where this government's friendliness lies, or closeness lies, to which industry, Mr. Chairman. The Minister 3488

Friday, 9 May 1980 indicates that he accepts the recommendations in this hog study that he has given us, that the contract of domestic prices should be put out to bid and all packers should have equal access to whatever hogs should go on contract. Mr.

Chairman, I believe that's exactly the reason, or one of the reasons, that the hog industry may be in the difficult position, to some degree, and it would have had an impact on the price to producers if the Hog Board's authority has been removed from it making contracts of its own, whether on the export or domestic market, to remove a certain percentage of the hogs to provide some competition in terms of the packers who are bidding for the hogs that are availa ble. Mr.

Chairman, if there is a contract that's been signed and it is not known by the industry as to how many hogs have been removed out of the marketplace in for any one period of time, then the hog industry has to sharpen its pencil in terms of whether it wants to keep its production facilities going. If contracts are allowed to be negotiated in the open, then of what incentive is there for the packing houses, if they already know, who's purchased what kind of contracts?

They know how many hogs are totally on the market, so what incentive is there for them to bid or sharpen their pencil and pay a higher price for the hogs since they know where all the hogs are in the system? To what advantage is it to the producers of Manito ba to be able to tell the packing house buyers where all their hogs are? They know the total amount of hogs. Now if the producer board, on behalf of its producers, signs a guaranteed contract and, Mr.

Chairman, that's one of the reasons that forward contracts were signed initially by boards, and that's the reason why Export Canada, I believe, was formed in 1973 . MR. DOWNEY: Why didn't you use it? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the boards initially - when he's asked me, why didn't they use it - I would imagine that boards individually, provincially, did sign long -term agreements, agreements that members of your party totally criticized because they wanted to know how many hogs were on the market and what the price of hogs for export were. Mr.

Chairman, prior to 1973 Canada's exports of hogs were at fire sale prices. When the hog marketing boards changed this pattern and they negotiated long-term forward contracts, especially with the country of Japan, -( Interjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what happened. When a percentage of hogs were removed off the Canadian market, that did provide some sta bility and some increased price to Canadian producers. If all those hogs had been dumped on the Canadian market - the Minister's shaking his head, no, that wouldn't have changed the price - Mr. Chairman, it would have affected the price.

What do we have today? If the Manito ba Hog Board has been given the direction that the Minister indicates that is his position, the producers are left completely vulnera ble to the marketplace, Mr. Chairman. The hog industry, the processors, know exactly how many hogs there are on the marketplace. There haven't been -( lnterjection) Mr. Chairman, they know anyway. Why were they then very unhappy that the contract was signed with Burns to pull a certain percentage of the hogs off the market at a guaranteed price?

Certainly that would have been offered to any of the packers if they wanted to sit down and say look, we want a continued supply of hogs for our processing plant, but no, they said that we could pro bably do better if we go on the bid system, and we can pro bably purchase hogs at the best price possi ble. And that is the reason for the debate and the opposition to the forward contracting system. Certainly it has, in the long term, given producers a much greater advantage in the marketplace, and now, Mr.

Chairman, that small, and I say it is small, small advantage that they have had has really been removed from the producers of Manito ba by this government, by this government's acceptance of that one recommendation which can only have one impact, Mr. Chairman, lower hog prices in terms of producer returns. And that's what we have seen, not only in Manito ba, but of course, coupled with the production -( Interjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister indicates that we're talking backward. That has had an impact on hog prices in the province of Manito ba; i has had to have an impact on it. As well, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister now indicates to us that he really wants to have more information about Export Canada West and whether or not that corporation can continue. Certainly, Manito ba has had three years of the new administration, you're into your third year, and if, after three year, Manito ba is not in a position to find out or set its own goals as to what can be accomplished in terms of export markets; certainly the Minster has talked about, and certainly wanted to proceed on advancing Manito ba's export position in terms of meat products.

The Export Canada West would have been one vehicle that could be utilized to the advantage of Western Canadian producers in terms of export markets. We know that Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manito ba all have had contracts in the U.S. and in Japan, and certainly one vehicle on behalf of all the producers, certainly would add efficiency and greater return to the producers since the provinces themselves would not have to be competing one board against the other. So Mr. Chairman, I believe the Minister has had opportunities given to him .

I think he has, over the last while, in this area especially, has tied the hands of producers. He has talked about increasing exports and increasing production, which the producers undertook in the hog industry, while at the same time he has tied their hands insofar as their marketing opportunities on the local level are concerned, Mr. Chairman. And the reason that he has done that is, he has not allowed them to be able to operate in the marketplace fully and freely in terms of trying to get the best price for producers.

And now that the hog industry in this country is in trou ble, I'd like to know what moves the Minister intends to make in terms of assisting producers in Manito ba, rather than going out and trying to ta ke some credit for a federal announcement of hog sta bilizaion as he has tried to do in the last few days, instead of coming up with some program to assist hog producers in the province of Manito ba. Is the Minister prepared now to recommend to hog producers that they should organize and set up a 3489

Friday, 9 May 1980 national marketing agency in terms of hog production in this country , because Mr. Chairman, I've said it before and I will say it again, that with what is happening in the province of Quebec with respect to the vertical integration of the hog industry and the incentives that are being poured into the production of hogs , we can only see down the road a number of years that there will be move for a national marketing agency. That province and the province of Ontario will have increased its production to the point where it can only be detrimental to the province of Manitoba.

And it's been said that we likely should have moved in that area a number of years ago, because the writing is on the wall, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this Minister is saying, no, we are going to drag our heels on this matter of national marketing, we don't believe that it's in our interests, regardless of what the other provinces are doing, I believe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is doing a disservice, and the history will show , a disservice, especially to the hog industry in this instance that I'm speaking about , instead of doing some forward thinking and forward planning in this area. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I find it somewhat amusing to sit here and listen to the Member for St. George suggest that we haven't been giving the producers the ability to go ahead and do the things that they feel are in their best interests. I'll just substantiate really what has happened. We have not, in any way, taken away any power of the Producer Board, in fact, we have been very supportive of the Hog Producers Board and the direction in which they have been going .

We have been working very closely with them to help them in the area of market development , to see that the producers in this province were, in fact, taking advantage of the export markets. I guess No. 1 I would like to point out is that in 1979 - it's in the Annual Hog Report and I think the board and the hog producers and the industry are to be commended - that in 19 79, for the first year in the history of this country , that we have seen the average price in Winnipeg be comparable to that in Toronto, 64.1 4 cents per hundredweight , compared to Toronto's 64.1 5, something, Mr.

Chairman, that the Member for St. George should have been able to accomplish during their time; 8 years they had, and they set up a corporation in which to do it . Let us just talk briefly about the Japanese contract that he talks about. I think the board should be commended for their efforts in going and looking for markets outside of this country . But the Japanese people, Mr . Chairman, are very shrewd traders, they're not going to come in and buy Manitoba hogs or Canadian hogs at 2 or 3 a hundred higher than they can buy off the world market. But, in fact, Mr.

Chairman, what they did was they came in and made a deal with the last government in this province, and I'm not condemning the board, because the board were working under the guidance and some of the direction from the last Minister of Agriculture, that the hog producers in the province of Manitoba, entering into that contract with the Japanese, lost 2.75 million dollars that they subsidized the Japanese consumer. So Mr.

Chairman, he sits here and says how well he helped the Manitoba hog producers, when it's documented that the amount of money he lost, or their government lost, for the hog producers in this province, totals 2.75 million, and he says that they were the great saviour of the hog industry. Then let's get into the supply management program, or the supply management suggestion that the members opposite are so keen to get into. During their time in office, Mr. Chairman, they had, in 1971, 197 2 , 19 73, something like 1.2 million, 1.3 million hogs being marketed in the province.

We, in Manitoba, were in a pretty good position we were suppl ying eastern Canada. But what happened during that particular time? They sat back, Mr. Chairman, and tried to build a wall around Manitoba and say , we can control the whole thing within Manitoba and influence the rest of the world market. Well, Mr . Chairman, what happened?

At that time, while they had their heads in the sand, Quebec was increasing their hogs, the biggest market we had, Quebec were taking advantage of the market that they had, we weren't in that market competing, and we dropped from a 1.2 or 1. 3 million hogs to 800, 000 hogs in this province in 19 77 -78 , which , Mr.

Chairm an, was something that a province that depends on their livestock industry , a diversified agriculture, just can't afford to have happen, and particularly with their philosophy of some day getting into a national hog industry or a national hog supply , because the history of setting up national supply programs , usually they've used the last five-year average of production. So here we were reducing our hog numbers in the province and Quebec increasing theirs, putting our hog producers . . .

If they did follow through with their philosophy and their policies, we would in fact have been the net losers all the way around . We, Mr . Chairman, could not have afforded to go along with that particular way of thinking and the producers of the province of Manitoba , they lost 2.75 million through the Japanese hog contract because we buried our head in the sand and said that Japan was going to come in and pay more money for Manitoba hogs than they would for other Canadian hogs, or for hogs from other parts of the world. They came in, Mr .

Chairman, and took advantage of a government that didn't know what it was all about it . And I follow through with the supply management ideas of the members opposite . Why would we enter into a supply management program, Mr. Chairman, when we've seen our hog numbers reduced? Mr . Chairman, I have suggested that we could produce a lot more hogs in Manitoba on a long-term basis . I do not want to encourage the producers of hogs in this province to get into the business and lose money. That's why , Mr.

Chairm an , I firmly believe we need a national stablization program to protect our producers against down turns in the mark etplace. It has to be national so we don't have the discrepancies ·develop between our Quebec hog producers and our Manitoba hog producers. As far as I am concerned, we are a Canadian nation. We should be producing for that domestic market. The federal government should have the responsibility of overseeing the fact that we should have an overseeing government that provides a bottom line stabl ization for those producers. If you get involved 3490

Friday, 9 May 1980 as a province, individually, then you have provincial treasuries competing against one another and because of the natural flow of product - and the members know that the rights of this country; The BNA Act allow a product to move freely back and forward across the provincial boundaries - you can't restrict that, and I don't think we want to . But where you do create the problems is where you put in false incentive programs in one province or another that distorts the natural competitive advantage that provinces and Manitoba have. I think we have to, Mr .

Chairman, and I've said it before, we have to give our producers a form of stability through a national stablization program . I'm strong on that and the member says why am I taking advantage of a federal announcement. I am not, Mr. Chairman. I am suggesting that they should be the people that are doing these things and I'm supporting it, and we want to make them work better.

That's the concept that I'm advancing and I think if the federal government make an announcement that we should acknowlege that they've made an announcement and we shouldn 't say, well, take a shot at them and say it isn 't good enough or wherever. Certainly there will be people that won 't be satisfied with it and are asking the province to get involved, but I do not believe it 's in the best interests, Mr. Chairman, that the provinces do continue to distort the natural advantages that we have in this country.

I believe we have to look at a combined effort of producers, government, and industry, to look at the world markets that are available to us, the same as we have done in our grain industry, and that's why the concept of a Canadian Pork Institute has been promoted, that we have to tell the people in other parts of the world what we have here in this country as far as our meat and meat products are concerned.

I firmly believe that we can go into the markets of southeast Asia, and we can go into the markets of Mexico; we can go in as nation selling product, through a program that can be provided by the federal government and supported by the provinces . I think that we have to again commend the Hog Producers Board for working towards and accomplishing their objective . They've done that under the three years that the member says that I have been in office. I don't take the credit for it; I give the credit to the producer board, but, Mr .

Chairman, if we hadn 't worked with them and helped through our policies, then we wouldn't have removed the difference between the Toronto pork price and the Winnipeg pork price . I could have said that everything is okay the way it is and we won't work co -operatively with you to take advantage of that but, Mr . Chairman, they have done the job . We have tried to provide . the environment and when we say we work towards creating an environment or an economic climate that is conducive to growth and development, that 's the kind of thing that happens. Mr.

Chairman, I just want to say that I think that the hog producers in this province have an tremendous opportunity, that we are in period of depressed prices at this particular time but I believe it will be very short lived . I think that all signs point to a strengthening hog price in the third quarter of this coming year, and we are not too far away from that. The people that are having the most severe problems or the most difficult times are new entrants into the production of hogs. They are having some difficult times. They've build new barns, bought breeding stock and are paying high interest rates.

We, at this particular time, have not, and this policy hasn 't changed. The Manito ba Agriculture Credit Corporation, to this particular point, have not lent money on hogs. If a farmer came in and wanted to give the MACC hogs as collateral, they would not accept them as collateral. That, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say today, is going to change, that in fact MACC will from now on be going to take hogs as collateral. I've met with the Chairman of the MACC board.

We've talked to the Producer Board to see if they will work with us to make sure that when the hogs are delivered, if there is a money owing to MACC, a commitment there, that they will work with us to help collect some of those funds. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have worked with the producers to help them through what is difficult times. Now the longer term hog producers in this province who have enjoyed reasonably good returns since 197 1 are in what they would consider tough times in the short term, but over the long term they have enjoyed a good business in the hog industry.

I think that is the way we have to, as government, look, is on the long term basis, and we 've seen some positive things happen and we will continue to work with the board to see that the producers have got all the advantages that are available to them, both at the marketplace domestically and in the international market. MR. URUSKI: The Minister indicates that it 's his government that has assisted the hog industry and they have progressed as a result of the stability this government has brought in . Mr.

Chairman, there is no doubt that the decline in hog prices has some impact as a result of the acceptance of some of the recommendations of that study. The Minister indicates that he does support a national marketing or a national stablization plan, in terms of the marketing of hogs . I would hope that he has read the comments of the present Minister of Agriculture from Ottawa, who came out very clear and told not only farmers, I would have hoped the Minister had listened to his words, that farmers better get their shop in order if they are going to receive any assistance or help from the federal government. Mr.

Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister understands those kinds of statements, and where does the Minister stand; what is his government's policy with respect to the federal government's approach to national marketing in this country? I would like to know where he stands. All he has said is that he wants to give incentives to producers to produce . Producers now at the present time are in a low price cycle in terms of the hog producti on .

We know that one way that the problems that have been identified in the hog industry, going back all the way 1973 , that problems were identified as late as when we were in government at the Conference of Western Economic Opportunities. One of the issues was that there was a lack of centralized approach, or a marketing system, that facilities forward contracting of pork exports from the west. That was one of the 3491

Friday, 9 May 1980 bases for the development and the establishment of Export Canada West at that time. Mr. Cha irman, the Min ister doesn't want to look at what had happened before and study some of that, although he wants to say that we would like to have export sales for Man itoba hogs and for Canad ian hogs. The only way that can be accompl ished, Mr.

Cha irman, is if the hog industry is fully organ ized to the best poss ible way and that producers are not compet ing aga inst one another, that they are as producers of th i s country , not of Man itoba versus Saskatchewan or versus Alberta, that they are as one un it. What we are find ing , Mr. Cha irman, by the present Minister of Agriculture in Man itoba, who wi ll I'm sure, drag his feet unt i l he is dragged into some marketing scheme, can only, in the long term, harm the producers of hogs in th i s prov ince, there is no doubt .

I'd like to know hi s pos ition wi th respect to nat ional marketing of hogs , whether he intends to take up the offer that's been made by the federal Mi nister of Agr iculture or whether he's go ing to cont inually say, look we want nat ional stab ility, we want stab i lizat ion plans , wi thout any reference to how many hogs we 've produced in th i s country, whether we've produced till they're com ing out our ears, or whether or not we are go ing to organ iz e right across th i s country as one un it. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Cha irman, the Member for St. George, I thought , knew my

part icular pol icy on whether we should get involved wi th a supply management system across Canada. He has mentioned the federal Mi n ister has been desirous of that. He was desirous of putt ing it in place for some many years before he was on what he calls his sabbat ical leave for the last . . . He was away for a sabbat ical leave, he sa id, for about nine months. He has returned from that leave and he hasn't had really any different th inking injected into him wh ile he was away . I'll make it very pla i n to th i s comm ittee, as I've made it very pla i n to the federal Mi n ister.

He's not go ing to push me into a nat ional supply program on hogs or beef cattle. I, Mr. Cha irman, want to make that very pla in, that I believe that the producers in Man itoba of hogs do not support and wi ll not support a nat ional supply system for hogs , a nat ional program that I don't th ink is in the best interests of the producers of hogs in Man itoba to , in fact , belong to.

I've sa i d I believe there is another mechanism ava ilable and that's through the stabl izat ion program and, aga in, I th ink that if the federal Mi n ister were to talk to all the prov inces in the light of what we are talk ing here on stab ility, rather than supply management, and forc ing it down our throats like he suggests he is go ing to try and do , or the Member for St. George, I should suggest says he is go ing to do, then I don't support that.

I believe that we have to work together, as prov inces and federal government, to give the producers of hogs and beef what they want and help direct them in that manner, not suggest it is either/or, one or the other. With that kind of th ink ing I would suggest we could far better talk of pos itive th ings and stab ilizat ion, rather than forc ing supply management. If I haven't made myself pla in, I wi ll right now, that I do not support the federal government, or the federal Mi nister, in his desire to implement a nat ional supply management program on our hog producers or our beef producers. MR.

URUSKI: Thank you, Mr . Cha irman. I wonder if the Mi n ister then could tell us what move wi ll he make in the event that the federal government indicates to producers, as the Minister has already done, that if you don't clean up your own shop, there wi ll be no further ass istance. What pos ition is the Man itoba government tak ing? What ass istance wi ll the Mi n ister prov ide to the hog producers of th i s prov ince wi th the poss ib ility of the federal government mov ing out of stabl izat ion unless there is a managed supply of hogs? The Mi n ister has been clear on that. MR. DOWNEY: First of all , Mr.

Cha irman, the federal Mi nister has not sa i d that he is go ing to get out of the stabl izat ion program. We have a federal stabl izat ion act cover ing hogs at th i s

part icular time. He has not , at any time, indi cated that he is prepared to wi thdraw that stabl izat ion legislat ion. In fact, at th i s

part icular time, our staff are meeting wi th some of the federal government staff and we wi ll be discuss ing it very thoroughly over the next few weeks to talk at the federal-prov inc ial meeting in July in Toronto on stab i l izat ion; that, in fact, we have sat and not taken an aggressive enough role over the past few years on these kinds of th ings, and I th ink that it is time we move before, aga in, what could happen is the implementat ion of programs or systems imposed on us when it is too late. That is why , Mr.

Cha irman , I th ink it is time to move aggressively and put together the best parts of the programs that have been introduced in other prov inces and introduce them at a nat ional level. Now if the federal Mi nister, and I have a little more conf idence in him than the Member for St. George, I believe that the federal minister wi ll sit down and discuss object ively stab ilizat ion, and I th ink that he wi ll cont inue to say that the interests of the producers can be looked after best by a nat ional supp ly management program.

I don't agree wi th him, many of the other prov inc ial Min isters don't agree wi th him. There are other mechan isms to use to support the producers and I th ink we wi ll work in that direction. I would hope that the federal minister looks upon it in that

part icular light and I am sure he wi ll. MR. URUSKI: Mr . Cha irman, what conf idence can producers have in the prov ince of Man itoba, those who are fac ing hard times, for another cycle, wh ich we are seeing in hogs and wh ich wi ll come aga in, as it is com ing aga i n in beef, if there are no pr ice guarantees for product ion of their product. I th ink bas ically that is the fundamental problem that agr iculture has faced histor ically, is that producers have not received adequate returns based on the cost of product ion .

They are in a cost pr ice squeeze, everyone down the line, and the Mi n ister says let the market, let the free market, let the open market take its course and we wi ll see what happens . Mr. Cha irman, that is a very very la issez-fa ire att itude towards the producers of th i s prov ince. Many producers in the process wi ll go bankrupt , many of them wi ll have to leave agr iculture. All we 3492

Friday, 9 May 1980 have to do is look at the statistics of the decline in farmers, and by just sitting here really saying, well, I support a national sta bilization scheme, but I am not prepared to do anything else about sta bility of income to farmers, and let the market take its course. Mr. Chairman, last night was a perfect example of the Minister and some of his colleagues agreeing that there is a helluva pro blems in the marketplace insofar as beef.

The Mem ber for Rock Lake, the Mem ber for Gladstone agreed, and the Minister agreed, that there was a pro blem in the marketing of beef in this country , the same kind of a pro blem, similar pro blem, that we have in terms of low prices, but the beef industry is totally unregulated. To define the pro blem, it was like picking up a set of darts and taking you to the wall and every one that you threw would have pinpointed some portion of the pro blem, but everything was scattered all over the place and no one could determine what the solutions of the pro blem were or what we were going to do about it. Mr.

Chairman, that has been the government's approach insofar as hog marketings in this province of Manito ba. The Minister says, yes, producers as a whole are not in favour of national marketing and supply management. Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister will have to admit that the cycles then, he is prepared to allow the boom and bust cycles to continue, and if he is prepared to allow the boom and bust cycles to continue in the hog industry, then there will be many more, as sure as I am sitting here, there will be many more producers that will have to leave the industry in the future.

Because with the higher costs of money, the added capital investment that is taking its toll in terms of farming expenses, farming is now capital-intensive , it is not la bour intensive as it was many years ago. Farmers require huge sums of capital to begin farming. The Minister well knows that, I need not tell him. To be able to amass that kind of capital there has to be some long -term surety of income to producers to be able to operate.

Without that kind of assurance we will continue to see the boom and bust cycles in the hog industry, as we see in the beef indu stry, and producers can only, many of whom will only go out of business. What will we see, Mr. Chairman? We will see in Manito ba what is going on now. We will see the influx of who? Many large grain companies going into the contracting of production. The Minister says he supports the family farm concept and he is determined to allow that to continue, but, Mr.

Chairman, he has done nothing, he has absolutely done nothing to control vertical integration in the hog industry in the province of Manito ba. He has allowed the Cargill Grain Company in this province to come into this province, set up contracts in terms of sow operations, the production of hogs, and he says, I am in favour of it but he is not prepared to lift a finger and say to Cargill, it is our government policy that there should be no corporate intrusion in the hog industry or any industry of producti on , of primary production in this province. Certainly, Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister of Agriculture came out with a statement like that to the Cargill Grain Company or any corporate sector in this province, then I would venture to say that they would listen to the Minister of Agriculture and say to him , yes, we will then divest ourselves of vertical integration , if we want to continue in the feed business we will continue and let the producers themselves operate the hog industry. That is the kind of statement and leadership we should be having from the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, but we had nothing.

We have had statements saying, well, I am in favour of the family farm, but if producers want to go along that line it is okay. Mr. Chairman, the long term goal of Cargill is really to take - or any other company , I pick Cargill because that is the Manito ba scene today, Mr. Chairman. Do you know what Cargill has done recently, Mr. Chairma n, in the country of England? I will read to you. Mr. Chairman, Cargill Incorporated said it plans to purchase a controlling interest in Sun Valley Poultry Limited of Hereford, England, for about 34 million.

The company said Sun Valley directors have agreed to terms whereb y Cargill Al bion Limited, a su bsidiary of Cargill , will acquire up to 90 percent of the ordinary shares of Sun Valley at a price of 111 a share. Do you know what the Sun Valley Corporation in England gross? This Sun Valley Corporation had 1979 sales of 125 million and earnings of 4 million. It produces about 25 million chickens and 2 million turkeys a year in the country of England, Mr. Chairman. We have mem bers, the Mem ber for Gladstone saying, get them into the turkeys. Mr.

Chairman, the entire industry of poultry and chickens in this country, the turkey industry in Ontario and many other provinces is totally integrated. It is owned and operated by the large feed companies. They have their hatcheries, they have the feed mills, they have the processing plants, and they have the retail outlets. Although it is organized, it is organized in the province of Ontario the same way as we have organized our broiler industry in the province of Manito ba, for the benefits of the industry. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Manito ba supports -( lnterjection) supports this kind of intrusion into primary production by Cargill. Certainly he could have gotten off his rear end and said, enough is enough, we are not prepared to allow this kind of intrusion into primary production in the province of Manito ba. No , he has mealy-mouthed and he has sat quiet, Mr. Chairman, he has totally sat quiet. If it wasn't for the hog producers . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Honoura ble Minister on a point of order. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, at no time have I said I support that kind of a concept. In fact, it has been very much the opposite and I said it here today in the Committee that I did not support companies such as Cargill getting involved in the primary production of agriculture commodities or products. I have said it and I will say it again, I do not support Cargill in the primary production of agricultural goods. Mr. Chairman , tl ie Mem ber for Ste. Rose is suggesting that I should ask them to back off.

What I have said to the Committee here today, and I have said it since Day One, producers have the power to control the production that is produced on the hog farms through the marketing system; all hogs have to go through that system. It isn't any different than 3493

Friday, 9 May 1980 Manito ba Pool Elevators, a few years ago with a program to help producers with their breeding stock. I am concerned about the fact that if Cargill were to move and to get more directly involved in the production of primary goods -( Interjection )- Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a point of order, because the member has made accusations that I support it and I do not support that kind of a concept, and I am not afraid to say it in front of Committee.

I have said it many times that they don 't have to be in that business because it is the primary producers that should be in it, so it is a matter of a point of order, and I want that on the record, it is misleading. The Mem ber for St. George cannot get away with that kind of statement. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister certainly has given us some indication of where he feels, but his actions, Mr. Chairman, speak louder than his words. His actions have spoken very loudly in the last six months with respect to what has happened in the province of Manito ba.

I haven 't heard a statement until today, Mr. Chairman, that we have pushed the Minister to the limit and have accused him of doing nothing and have accused him of allowing vertical integration in the hog industry in this province, then we got a reaction from him. Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, his actions speak louder than his words, and if the Minister is not prepared to take the hog by the tail, then, Mr. Chairman, he deserves -( Interjection )- He has had to take the hog by the tail, Mr. Chairman, or by the snout. MR.

DOWNEY: That shows exactly what he knows about farming business, he takes the hog by the tail. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman , that is the only portion that the Minister is able to gra b on, unless he wants to gra b the hog 's ear. MR. DOWNEY: If you are going to lead them you have to take them by the snout, Billie. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. Order please. , MR. DOWNE i: Typical ND P farmer, . . . by the tail. MR. CHAIMAN: (e)- pass - the Mem ber for Ste. Rose. MR. A. R. (Pete) ADAM: Is the Minister prepared to advise people like Cargill, the corporate sector, that the government doesn't approve of this?

They will back off, I know the corporations will say, fine, if this is the policy of the government, we will back off. It has been done in past and it can be done again. The Minister can speak in this Committee and say that, after being goaded for an hour and a half - (Interjection)- sure, we did it with La batt's - and after being goaded for a num ber of hours, then he finally comes out and says that he believes that there should not be vertical integration. MR. DOWNEY: That's right. MR.

ADAM: But let him get in touch with those people who are involved and say our policy is not that you should be involved in this, and we would appreciate if you back off. Is the Minister prepared to do that? I say that he is not, because yesterday he was suggesting that I didn 't have the gumption to get up at a meeting that he organized, his own meeting, that I had no business even to be there, but I was. MR. DOWNEY: I didn't say that at all. MR. ADAM: Okay. He organized the meeting and he said that I didn 't have the gumption to get up.

Does he have the gumption to stand up today and go to the corporation and say , we do not approve of this policy and we would prefer no t to see you in it, and I am sure that they will back off? We have done it when we were in government and I am sure that he can do it. Why doesn't he do it? As far as the differential in price between Winnipeg and Toronto, what happened before .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The hour being 12:30, Committee rise. SUPPLY - COM MUNITY SERVICES AND CORRECTIONS MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): This committee will come to order.

I would direct the honoura ble members' attention to Page 20 of the Main Estimates, Department of Community Services and Corrections, Resolution No. 29, Clause 3. Community Health and Social Services, Item (

c) Home Care Services, (1 ) Home Care Assistance pass - the Honourable Minister. HON. GEORGE MINAKER (St . James): Mr. Chairman, I have the list of the different grants that have been given out to the external agencies for this year. Could I have those handed to the Honoura ble Mem ber for St. Boniface? He requested them last night. I haven't had a chance to review, with the staff, his request for the details on the waiting list for home care.

The information with regards to personal care home placements and waiting lists as requested last evening, the total num ber assessed and reassessed by panels for personal care home placement in 1979, for hostel, there's 59 5; personal care 635 ; and extended care, 50 3; for a total of 2,

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-55
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 55.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e99d89e6fab29188997cc6967c6ed0c732649b8f

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