Manitoba Hansard — 14 April 1982 (Sitting 33, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-33

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 Time - 2:00 P.M. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. D. James Walding (St. Vital): Presenting Petitions ... Reading and Receiving Petitions PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Flin Flon. MR. JERRY T. STORIE (Flin Flon) : Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain Resolu tions and th ey've asked me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rupertsland, that the Report of the Committee be received.

MOTI ON presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions may I direct the attention of Honourable Members to the gallery where we have ten students of Grade 12 stand ing from the Elmw ood Hig h Sc hool. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Lyon and the sc hool is located in the constituency of the Honourable Mem ber for Elmwood. On behalf of all of the Honourable Members of the Legislature I welcome you here thi s afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. STERLING LYON (Cha rleswood): Mr.

Speaker, in view of the extremely unfortunate fire that occurred in Brandon yesterday resulting in the loss of a million dollar facility and several hundred head of beef cattle, a loss not only to the Manitoba Pool but a loss to the farmers of western Manitoba of its principle gath ering and auction point for cattle, I wonder if the Minister of Economic Development could advise the House whether or not she, or her department, have been in contact with the Manitoba Pool or wit h the City of Brandon to determine whether or not the good offices of the Government of Manitoba mig ht be helpful in alleviating and ameliorating, to whatever extent is possible, this loss to southwestern Manitoba which occurred yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Munici pal Affairs. HON. A.R. (Pete) ADAM (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are, of course, very disappointed and concerned about the tragic fire that occurred early this morning in Brandon whic h destroyed the Auction Mart and barn facilities of the Manitoba Po ol. Upon hearing thi s on the news this morning I immediately asked my staff from the Department of Co-operative Development to get in touch wit h the Poo l people to offer our assistance and to discuss with them any assistance that the department could provide, because of thi s serious fire.

Unfortunately, all the Pool people that were involved, management, were all at the fire and we have not been able to contact them, up to thi s point in time, but we are still trying to contact the people, the managers of the Pool who are involved. We will certainly make a statement to the House if one is warranted. I under stand that the facilities and the livestock are insured according to press reports, but we are attempting to have staff discuss wit h them to see what the province could do. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comment and would ask him , as a supplementary question which would involve his colleague the Minis ter of Labour, as to whether or not his Department of Municipal Affairs or Co-op Developm ent or the Department of Labo r, would be in touch with Mani toba Pool, as well , wit h respect to the loss of employ ment occasioned by thi s unfortunate fire of a fair numb er of full-time employees in Brandon who, of course, will have no employment until the facility is rebuilt? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Lab our. HON. VIC SCHROEDER (Rossmere): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the Departments of Lab our and Eco nomic Development are currently discussing specific responses to these kinds of situations. The Depart ment of Labour has not contacted the Pool Elevators at thi s point but someone from either my department or the Department of Economic Development will shortly be doing precisely that. 1462 MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. DAVI D R. (Dave) BLAKE (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I sh ould direct it to the Minister in charge of the Environment or the Minister of Co-Op Development.

My question would be, in view of the large number of animals that were lost in that unfortunate fire, will the rendering plant facilities at Brandon be able to handle thi s number of animals wit hin the time required or what other arrangements will he make to dispose of the dead carcasses? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of North ern Affairs. HON. JAY. COWAN (Chu rchill): Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. It's a good point

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 and I think the inter-d epartmental comm ittee which is involved in that area should address that issue as soon as is possible. So, at this time I'll take it as notice and report back to the membe r who requested the information as soon as is possible. MR. BLAKE: I thank the Minister for that answer, but in view of the fact that the temperature is now sixty some degrees, they'll have to do some pretty fast action before it becomes a problem with the carcasses. MR.

COWAN: Yes, I can assure him of the quickest action possible and I will get back to him as soon as we have more definitive information to provide to him. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Membe r for Turtle Mountain. MR. A. BRIA N RANSOM (Tu rtle Mountain) : Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government of Alb erta has seen fit to reduce royalties to stimulate the exploration and production of oil and natural gas in that province, can the Minster of Energy advise the House what steps he will be taking in Manit oba to encourage oil exploration? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Energy and Mines. HON.

WILSON PARASIUK (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I've been me eting wit h representatives of the oil industry over the course of the last four mont hs and I've never had any representation from them that they felt that they had to have any type of stimul us by way of tax or royalty reduction. But, Mr.

Speaker, I have an ong oing process of consultation with them and we are discussing ways in which we can promote further exploration and development of the oil in dustry in Manit oba, especially with a view to maintaining as mu ch of the wealth created by any oil development withi n the Provin ce of Manitoba, and that'll certainly be the subject of ong oing discussions . As the Membe r for Turtle Mountain knows, Manito ba's royalty rates had been lower than that of Alberta up to the recent announcement by the Premier of Alberta. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Energy and Mines could advise the House what neg otiations or dis cussions he has had wit h the Gov ernment of Alb erta wit h respect to possible financing of the Western Power Grid or Li mestone Station throug h the Heritage Fund. MR. PARASI UK: Mr . Speaker, that matter has been raised in the course of our discussions and neg otia tions with the Al berta Minister responsible for neg oti ations on the Western Power Grid.

The matter of financing has been said to be a topic that was separ ate from the neg otiations and they informed me had never in fact been discussed by the Mi nist erial Com mi ttee negot iating the Western Power Grid to this date. When we raised the matter of financing as being one of the very important matters in the Western Power Grid development , they said that matter hadn't been raised at the Ministerial Committee but they felt that it would be an appropriate matter to be raised with the Alb erta Government after the first set of neg otiations were concluded. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Energy and Mi nes can advise the House whethe r or not the Al berta people negot iating the Western Power Grid , on behalf of the Government of Alberta, have indic ated whether or not there is a deadline for decisio n-making wit h respect to the need to develop one type of electrical facility or another? MR. PARASI UK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been informed that the deadline for any type of final agr eement was two years; that they were hoping, as we are, that we could neg otiate an agreement in prin ciple and on principles sometime in the summer.

That is the sched ule to which we are worki ng , they are working and the Saskatchewan Government Minister is working and we are on schedule. Rig ht now we have a Saskatchewan election in progress which has indeed slowed down the Ministerial meetings somewhat but we hope that in very short order that we will be back with dis cussions at the Mi nist erial level on this and, indeed, we are proceeding in good pace. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, due to the fact that the Int erim Agree ment that had been recommended by the three Mi nisters of the western provinces last fall would have resulted in the early commencement of construction on Lime stone; recognizing that a final ag reement mig ht still have taken two years, can the Mi nister advise the House at this time how soon he expects construction on Li mestone to begin? MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, whatever was agreed to between some officials and some Mi nisters last fall was never ind eed presented to any of the Cabinets of the three prairie governments involved in those dis cussions.

When we took office and asked whether in fact this had received any Cabinet review and appro val we found that in no province had that been the case. So, Mr . Speaker, to say that there was some thing in place is to mislead the public of Mani toba. 1463 What we are in deed doing , as we have said we would do during the course of the campaign, over the course of the last year, Mr.

Speaker, we said we would proceed with the orderly development of Hydro and that entailed pursuing the developing of markets; that entailed pursuing the development of a set of plans so that Northern people could participate fully in the development of our Hydro potential in the North. Th ose thin gs are proceeding, Mr. Speaker. I can't predict the exact date that construction of Li mestone would take place but we are hoping that could begi n within a year, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D.M. (Doug) GOURLAY (Swan River): Th ank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have here a letter dated March 24t h, addressed to the Mi nister of Education from the Town of Swan River. I'd like to quote from it, part of it: "The Co uncil of the Town of Swan River is concerned about the large increases in the town's 1982 budg et"

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 POINT OF ORDER MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Gov ernment House Leader on a point of order. HON. ROLAND PENNER, O.C. (Fort Rouge): Yes, I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not in order for a Membe r of the House during Question Perio d, to start what mig ht or mi ght be a question by the reading of some document that is apparently, but not obviously, preparatory to a question.

He can ask the question in general based on the document, and if necessary refer to the document in paraphrase but you cannot read into the record, a document in ques tion period, on that basis. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Government House Leader has brought up a good point and without checking our rules or with Beausch ene, it would seem that the matter of reading a letter in question period could well be an abuse of the time of the House and probably not what question period is designed for. The Honourable Membe r for Swan River. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will abide by your judg ment in that case. However, I still have a question to the First Minister of this House. On March 24t h, the Town of Swan River wrote a letter to the Mi nister of Education rega rding the excess increases in sch ool levies in the Town of Swan River. Doll ar-wise the increase amounted to $240, 000, an incr ease of 23 percent. Th at letter was written on March 24t h. I checked wit h the Secretary-Treasurer of the town this mornin g; they have not received any reply from the Mi nister of Education.

I understand that the First Minister will be in Swan River on Monday and will be meeting wit h the town council, and in view of his wid ely publicized document before the elec tion, that the property tax burden would be eased, I'm asking the Premier, when he meets wit h the Town Council of Swan River on Monday what information he's going to provide the Council in view of their severe concerns of the excess of increase in sch ool taxes in 1982? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Mi nister. HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Selkirk) : Mr.

Speaker, I think any discussion that I have wit h the Swan River Council is one that I sh ould first have wit h the Council in fairn ess and courtesy to the membe rs of the Swan River Council. MR. GOURLAY: Well, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the First Mi nister will be faced wit h this particular ques tion, and certainly I would hope that he would be able to give some relief to the matter of the excessive increase in sch ool taxes. So, I'm sure that he will be faced with those concerns.

I have another question that I'd like to direct to the Minister of North ern Affair s, to see if he can advise the House at this time as to when we can expect the sig ning of a new Northern Development Agree ment in co-operation with the Federal Government. MR. COWAN: I had indicat ed to the mem ber when he asked this question a week or so ago, that I was at that time attempting to arrange a meeting with the Hon ourable Herb Gray when I was in Ottawa to discuss thi s matter wit h him. I did arrange that meeting and I was assured by Mr.

Gray during the course of that meeting that the Federal Government would stand by its commitments that it has made in the past in respect to the Northl ands Agre ement and in respect to the special AR DA Agre ement. We have decid ed that it would be appropriate for the Mi nisters to meet some time in late April or early May to discuss this at the ministerial level. I'm looking forward to that meeting as I assume Mr. Grey is, and I will be able to report back to the House at that time wit h more explicit detail as to where those neg otiations are going. MR. SPE AKER: The Hon oura ble Me mber for Roblin-Ru ssell.

MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin- Russell) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable First Minist er. I wonder, can the First Min ister advise the House if he or any of his government have had any discus sions or meeti ngs with CSP Foods at Har rowby, related to the serious problems the oil-crushing indust ry faces in western Canada before the Crow Resolution was placed on the Order Paper of this House? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to answer on behalf of the Mi nister of Transportation and the Mi nister of Agriculture. The y may very well have had dis cussions . MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Gov ernment Services. HON. SAMUEL USKIW (Lac du Bonnet): One of the points that the Memb er for Roblin-Russell mis ses is the fact that the same people that own the crushi ng facilities on the prairies are also the producers of other grains other than rapeseed. Th erefore, the tra deoff doesn't put any dollars in their pocket. If you give up the Crow you make it more attractive, Mr. Speaker, for the crushing industry but the net loss MR. SPE AKER: Order please. Order please. 1464 The Honourable Membe r for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. RANSOM: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the member was ask ed a question as to whether or not he had met with repres entatives of CSP Foods . The Mi nister is attempting to debate some sort of question that hasn't been placed before the House, Mr. Speaker, and I sug ge st that is an abuse of the time of the House. MR. SP EAKER: I'm sure it would not be the intent of the Honourable Minister to waste the time of the House. The Honourable Minister of Government Services. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that mem bers opposite would appreciate the fact that the question that is being addressed , and that has to do with how the Crow rate proposal and our response, how that

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 fits in wit h the canola industry. The fact is that the tradeoff on that issue is not beneficial to the produc ers of this province. MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Me mbe r for Roblin- Russell. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I regret very mu ch, I didn't ask the question of the Honourable Mi nister of Transportation, I asked it of the First Mi nister of this province. Has he met wit h the executive of CSP Foods? Yes or no? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Eco nor:,i.ic Development. HON. MURIEL SMITH (Osborne): Mr.

Speaker, we have met on several occasions wit h the CSP people and they've been explaining to us the nature of their problem wit h regard to transportation costs. Th eir problem is not solely related to the Crow issue. It's related to the policy of subsidy that is coming from the Al berta and the Saskatchewan Governments, which currently are subsiding the cost of railway cars. So, their concern is not ... they want a parity situation where they're not at a disadvantage wit h their compet itors. The y have not taken a specific po sition on the Crow question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Mi nister. MR.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable membe rs for their warm response. Mr. Speaker, I've have had discus sions wit h Mr. Siemens from the constituency represented by the Honourable Membe r for Rhi neland pertaining to the Harrowb y situation. My understanding in deed from Mr. Siemens is similar to that that is expressed by the Mi nis ter of Economic Development. I'd like to note, Mr. Speaker, that ind eed we have discussed the Crow wit h many Manito bans, some favourable, some opposed. I wonder, Mr .

Speaker, just how many Manit obans the Leader of the Opposi tion and other mem bers discussed their positions wit h prior to the Leader of the Opposition supporting a position to eliminate the Crow rate? MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Lead er of the Opposition. MR.LYON: Mr. Speaker, wit h your permission I'll be happy to answer the question. Unlike my honourable friend, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to answer questions in this House. I don't duck them and pass them onto the women in the House. MR.

SPEAKER: I'm sure the Honourable Leader of the Opposition would appreciate it would be an abuse of the time of the House to answer questions. Order please. Order please. Order please. The Honourable Membe r for Roblin-Russell. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. It's not in the record that the First Mi nister has met wit h Mr. Siemens. Now, can the First Minister advise this House of any assurances that he may have give CSP Foods or Mr . Siemens regarding the crushing indus try and the serious problems that they face at this time regarding the Crow rate? 1465 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I had discussions with Mr. Siemens and those disc ussions were not of a nature that I think that it would be proper for me to divulge today. Mr Siemens requested no assurances from the pro vincial government. Unlike the members across the way I don't think it ever crossed the mind of Mr. Sie mens or those that he represented that he wanted some sort of assurances from the Government of the Province of Ma nito ba. We had a very good, a very open, a very fruitful discussion and, Mr.

Speaker, in fact, I sensed that the question pertaining to canola was not necessarily directly related to the Crow. Mr. Speaker, I only wis h the honourable membe rs across the way would debate the Crow Resolution in this House. Why are we pussyfo oting around, Mr. Speaker? If they want to debate Crow, Mr. Speaker, we'll be pleased to call the Crow Resolution in a few minutes time, so we can have adequate debate in this House on the Crow. MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, now that the First Mi nister perhaps has regained his composure, has shaken all of the wet and rain off his little wet hen feathers and has go tten hims elf back into shape and is prancing about his own little chicken coop again, can the First Minister who has been loudl y declaiming about the speaking abilities or the speaking frequency of members on this side of the House wit h respect to a resolution that was put on the Order Paper a week or so ago, would he kindly advise the House as to when he intends to speak on the Crow Resolution and gi ve us his view on the Crow Resolution? Mr.

Speaker, is he going to speak before the Saskatchewan election on the 26th or is he going to wait till after? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I do admit to the Leader of the Opposition that I do feel strongl y about the Crow rate. I do feel strongl y pertaining to the future of transportation of grain in Western Canada. I do feel concerned as to what ind eed the elimination of that Crow rate mig ht do insofar as the farmers and others in the Provin ce of Manito ba. I make no apology for that, Mr . Speaker, I feel strong in connection wit h that particular issue. Mr.

Speaker, our position is well-known because we are the go venment that tabled the resolution. I didn 't thi nk there was any uncertainty as to the posi tion that ind eed the Government of the Province of Manit oba has taken. Mr. Speaker, there is uncertainty as to what position various members across the way are taking pertaining to the Crow. Mr. Speaker, we have heard conflicting noises from across the way. In fact, noises that must be somewhat embarrassing to the constituents of honourable members across the way. We do know where the Leader of the Opposition stands; he's made his position very clear. He's in

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 favour, Mr. Speaker, of getting rid of the Crow, but other members have been less certain as to their position. MR. LYON: Mr . Speaker, in the best of good spirit, I think which should accompany debate in the House on what is truly the first day of spring, and being warmed by the fact that I saw six flights of Canada Geese this morning and a couple of Mallard ducks, all of whic h, Mr. Speaker, is guaranteed to improve one's mood until one gets into the House and hears funny statements from the First Minister about our position on the Crow, which will be stated in due course. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to hear from the First Minister, who perhaps, and understandably, was not in his place last night when his Minister of Agriculture uttered a statement to the following effect; that private ownership of land has nothing to do with farm production. Would the First Minister of this province tell us that statement reflects the position of his government with respect to private ownership in this province now? eMR. PAWLEY: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. I think it's very very clear. The Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition appears to be desperate to duck debate on the Crow. Instead, Mr.

Speaker, he is gra bbing, indeed, on the basis of some statement he's taken out of context pertaining to something that was said by my Minister of Agriculture. Let that honourable member discuss the Crow. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a point of order on a statement that was just made by the First Minister, but I was here last nig ht and his Minister of Agriculture was here last nig ht.

The House and the record will sho w what his Minister of Agriculture said last night; not only about private ownership having no effect on production, but that the Soviet system would inevitably be the system that we would have in Mani toba. That's what he said. Mr . Speaker, far from taking his words out of context MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Does the Honourable Government House Leader have a point of order? POINT OF ORDER MR. PENNER: On a point of privilege, the Minister of Agriculture is not in the House. A serious allegation has been made about a statement attributed to the mem ber.

Tha t statement, to the best of my knowl edge, I was here for part of the time, was not made, nor would it have been made by the Minister of Agricul ture. When the record of the proceedings are availa ble, then if the Honourable Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a question of the Minister, the Honour able Leader of the Opposition may do so and the Minister of Agriculture may reply. Further, on the question tha t I'm raising, it is clear from Beauschene that it is not proper to ask, in the House, a question about what took place in commit tee when that committee has not reported to the House. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the 1466 Opposition on the same point of order. MR. LYON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the point of order, my honourable friend, who is relatively untutored in the manner in which Parliament conducts its affairs, says that committee was not reported upon. That committee reported when the Memb er for Flin Flan made the report and it was accepted here before the Question Period started today, Num ber one.

Num ber two, my comment on the point of order was with respect to this point: The First Minister indi cated, and I said I rose with hesitation, the First Minis ter in dicated that I was taking words out of context. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wasn't taking them out of context and I made a speech last nig ht as did a number of my colleagues, based upon this outrageous comment made by the Minister of Agriculture last evening.

So I say, Sir, I'm quite prepared, if the First Minister will withdraw the suggestion that there was any quot ing out of context, I'm quite prepared to wait until Hansard is in your hands, Sir, and then we'll see who was qu oting out of context and then my honourable friend, the First Minister, will have to answer on behalf of his government as to whether or not his govern ment subscribes to the rather outrageous views about private ownership, and to quote the words of the Min ister of Agriculture last evening, or to paraphrase them, Mr.

Speaker, the inevitability of the Soviet land tenure system coming into Mani toba. MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable First Minister to the same point of order. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, I'm anxious in fact to provide a response to the questioner or statement, whiche ver it is, of the Leader of the Opposition. What we do note on the part of the First Minister is the usual kind of ploy -( Interjection)- the Leader of the Opposition. Mr.

Speaker, I said that because I'm thin k ing of the kind of statements that the Leader of the Oppositi on, when he was First Minister of thi s pro vince, uttered during the last 10 days of the election campaign leading up to November 17t h. The Leader of the Opposition then, when recogniz ing indeed the desperation of his political situation, started to brush with the red paint. Again, Mr.

Speaker, we're noting this afternoon, when the Leader of the Opposition is anxious about the reflecting that is rig htfully taking place pertaining to their lack of posi tion in regard to the Crow, attempting to divert atten tion of this Chamber and of Manito bans from their lack of policy by engaging, Mr. Speaker, in a scandal ous attack upon the Minister of Agriculture. MR. SPEA KER: To the point of order which was raise d, it is quite true that the Hansard is not yet available of what was said in Committee. The Mi nister alleged to have mad e the remarks is not wit h us to clarify those remarks.

In the meantime, perhaps it mi ght be better for mem bers to wait until those remarks are in print and availa ble to all members. In the meantime, the Leader of the Opposition may ask his question. MR. LYON: Mr . Speaker, then I would ask the First Minister and I give him notice of this question. Will he,

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 on behalf of his go vernment. read the Hansard in question from the Ag ricultural Supply De bate of last evening and comment upon the two statements to which I have alluded that were made by his Minister of Agriculture with respect to, first of all, private owner shi p and secondly, the alleged inevitability of some thing akin to the Soviet system coming into Mani toba? MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I read all the Hansards as they come out, but I note, and it's rather interesting that the Leader of the Opposition is shi fting his gr ound; shifting his ground in the question he just uttered to myself in relations hip to the earlier question. Obviously, Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposi tion again , as I menti oned earlier, is desperately attempting to divert attention from the lack of policy that is demons trated by the Progress ive Cons ervative Party of Manito ba, by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition across the way, in that they appear to have no policy, no policy pertaining to the Crow rate; no policy and th erefore try to desperately attract attention to some other frivolous red herring. MR.LYON: Mr.

Speaker, will the First Minister take as notice the question that I have asked with respect to the statements, the outrageous statements, ma de by his Mi nister of Agriculture last evening in Committee and will he speak on behalf of his government with respect to its attitude toward private land holdings and farm ownership in this province in a clear voice, and if he finds that the statement, Sir, that we alluded to, as made last evening by the Minister of Agricul ture, are not in accord with the tenets and wit h the beliefs of his Party, will he ask that Mi nister to resign? MR. PAWLEY: Mr .

Speaker, the position of the gov ernment pertaining to the private ownership of land, in fact, is enhanced by the firm position that we're taking in connection wit h the Crow rate.

It is our very concern that the family farm and the private family farm ownershi p be retained in Manitoba, throug hout western Canada, that this government - and I'm please to say also, the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan, ind eed, all Opposition parties in the Province of Saskatchewan - appear to be supporting the Crow, unlike the situation that appears to be exist ing in the Province of Mani toba when we can't find out from the fluff across the way as to what position the honourable members are adopting pertaining to the Crow. MR.LYON: Mr .

Speaker, to ge t back to the first flurry of questions which apparently the First Mi nister has seen fit to disregard or to meander and red herring around, when, Sir , does he intend to speak on the resolution that his Mi nister of Transportation has introduced relative to the Crow rate? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the responsible Minister has already spoken; he is awaiting some debate in this Ch amber pertaining to the Crow. It's certainly my intention to engage in the debate pertaining to the Crow early next week after I've heard from some of the honourable mem bers across the way, quite frankly, Mr . Speaker.

I'm anxious to hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr . Speaker, the former Mi nister of Ag riculture. I'm very very anxious to speak after I've heard some comment from across the way that I can respond to, Mr. Speaker. Unlike honourable mem bers across the way we are keen and our position is on the table; it's open to all Manito bans. Wh ere's yours? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker. well that of course leads me into another line of qu estioning, given that the Hon ourable First Minister's position wit h respect to the Crow is on the table , with respect to the resol ution tabled by his Mi nister , the Minister of Transportation, will he make sure then, Sir, that the position of his gov ernment vis-a-vis private ownershi p which goes to the heart of freedom in this country is also on the table after he reads Hansard and reads the outrageous statements of his Mi nister of Agriculture of last evening. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I say to the honourable member that insofar as the private ownership of farm lands, the position of the New Democratic Party, the position of the Government of the Province of Mani toba is well-known. It is our interest, indeed, in streng th ening and giving added support to the family farmer in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, it is unfor tunate in deed that private ownership and family farms in Manitoba has been weakened, weakened in deed by policies that have been contrary to the family farmer, that have been pursued indeed by the previous admin istration in this province.

I don't thi nk th ere's any mystery. Mr. Speaker, I do not find any mystery wher ever I travel in Manitoba as to our position in connec tion wit h private ownership of farmland. I do find mystery in Manitoba wherever I travel as to the posi tion of honourable members across the way on the Crow. 1467 MR. LYON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, now that we're getting in dribs and drabs from the First Minister's statements that are apparently in conflict with those statements of his Minister of Agr i culture of last evening, would the First Minister now go a step further and tell us that if he and his party, who so strongl y believe in the family farm as they say in all of their publications and as they say in the speeches he makes to the Brandon Cha mber of Commerce and elsewhere, why then, Sir, did his government suspend, No. 1, loans by the Mani toba Agr i cultural Credit Corporation for young farmers to buy farmland and, No. 2, why did they suspend the program that was in place of permitting Crown land to be sold to private farmers in Manit oba for private ownership?

MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, because we had instan ces, ind eed, where, in fact a large amount of land in one case, 21 quarters, and other instances where there has been inequitable distribution of funds insofar as farm programing is concerned. Mr.

Speaker, if we are indeed to protect the family farm in the Province of Manitoba the policies that must be devised by a Mani toba Government must be such as to benefit family farms, in ge neral, not just a few large r farmers but the general farm population in the Province of Manitoba, so we do not find land being gobb led up by a few agr ib usi nesses, but indeed that we strengthe n the position of the family farm in relationship to agribu si-

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 ness in the Provi nce of Manito ba. MR. LYON: Well , Mr.

Speaker, given the fact that there are in excess of some 30,000 farmers in Ma ni toba. a good numbe r of whom had applied duri ng the past four years to buy leased Crown land which they had leased from the government for many years, and gi ven the rather odd caveat that has been applied by the First Mini ster with respect to why he has sus pended those sales of lease Crown land, and no answer as to why he has suspended loans for the purchase of Crown land, would the First Mini ster tell us, in his wisdom and wit h the full flow of his ideology, what he regards as a proper number of quarters that could be sold to the average farm family in Mani toba?

What is his Socialist idea of how big a farm sh ould be in Manito ba? MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, what we are deali ng wit h is a quest ion of equity. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand the meaning of the word equity. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition mig ht want to check with his dictionary as to the meaning of the word "equity." It is my under standing the Mini ster of Agricu lture, indeed, has been di scussing this in comm ittee, Mr. Speaker.

I fail to understand why the Leader of the Oppositi on again appears to be so anxious to divert attention from what is the real issue that is before us , and that is the Crow. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorn ey-General. MR. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the the Honourable Membe r for Turtle Mountain, the Opposi tion House Leader, asked me a questio n about the number of bills yet to be introduced and I'm happy to be able to respond to that questio n. Of course, this is just an approximati on.

It is my estimati on now that there are approximately 22 other bills coming up the pipe of which about six or seven are major, the others are relatively mi nor. I realiz e, of course, that words lik e, relatively mi nor, may be placed like any other tree on the boulevard of broken dreams, but that's the estimati on I have at the time. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon oura ble Me mbe r for Robli n-R ussell. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have another questio n for the First Mi nister, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder can the First Mi nister advise the House if he or any of his Mini sters have had any meetings wit h the Federal Mi nister of Transport or the Government at Ottawa regardi ng Ottawa's well- known and lo ng standing assurance that discrimi nation against the oil seed processing ind ustry in this provi nce and across western Canada would be termi nated and that pro cessed oil and the raw seeds would gain equal trans portation rig hts wit h eastern Canada? Have any meet ing s been held wit h Federal Transport or the Gover n ment of Canada regardi ng these matters. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would have canvass each of the Ministe rs. I know there have been dis cus sio ns wit h Federal Mini sters, as to whethe r that par ticular topic was di scussed I don't know. I certainly know, Mr. Speaker, that my Mini sters have disucssed wit h Federal Mini sters the questio n of the Crow and our concerns pertaining to the Crow. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Membe r for Morris. MR. CLAYTON MANNESS (Morris): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to offer a question in li ne of questio n ing of the Member for Roblin-R ussell and I'm wonder ing, in view of the fact that his governme nt is totally opposed to any change in the Crow rate, and knowing full well that the Provi nces of Saskatchewan and Al berta have go ne on record as being prepared to sub sidize the moveme nt of canola products, is this gove rnment prepared to do that? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of policy.

I could, indeed, be mu ch more enthusiastic about answeri ng the question if we had been left wit h larger sums of money by the government that we replaced. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions havi ng expired. I can inform the honour able members that a transcript of last night 's Hansard sh ould be available later this afternoon for mem bers wis hing to see it. It will be available in my office. The Honourable Membe r for La Verendrye. COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker , before the Orders of the Day I'd like to make some sub stitutio n on Commit tees.

On Public Utilities the Membe r for Robli n-Ru ssell for the Leader of the Oppositio n; and on Privil eges and Elections the Memb er for Ass inibo ia for the Membe r for Turtle Mountain. 1468 MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. (Ag reed) The Honourable Government House Leader. ORDERS OF THE DAY ADJOURNED DEBATE ON CROW RESOLUTION MR. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would you call the adjour ned debates on the Crow Resolution standing in the name of Mr. Enns. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed Resoluti on of the Honourable Min ister of Government Services. The Honourable Membe r for Lakesid e. MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakesid e): Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the Resolution before us; it's a Resolution that deserves to be before us, Mr . Speaker. I wis h to thank the Honourable Mini ster of Government Services and Transportation for providing this forum for debating this Resolution. You see, Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the grain transportation, gr ain rates, move ment of grain, while it's always been in the back of everybody's mi nd, but not being nearly as clearly

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 understood, not nearly as clearly appreciated, how fundamental it is to all of what makes Canada tic and, of course, particularly Western Canada, Mr. Speaker. So I have to compliment the Minister for providing us with a forum for dis cussing the subject matter of the Crow and I thi nk we can refer to it. The fact that we refer to it as the Crow in itself tells you how far we have moved the consid eration, the concern for grain movement into our everyday language. When we now speak of the Crow most people, even our urban cou sins, recogn ize what we're speaking of.

So the Minis ter of Transportati on, as I indica ted, needs to be com plimented for allowing us that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, let's also keep very mu ch in mind what we are talking about is the movement of grain, the movement of grain off farms into port facilities and to the off- shore markets of the world. That's really what we're talking about. Mr.

Speaker, I can assure you at the outset that the Cons ervative Party hi storically, traditionally and, in particular the Conservative Party and the gr oup that I'm part of now, has possi bly sh own a gr eater concern than has ever been demon strated, particularly by any provincial organization, during the past 16-17 years that it's been my privi lege of having had some participation in public debate on the matters of agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I would also want to say at the outset, and I thi nk it needs to be said to express a very genuine degree of confidence in the person of Dr.

Clay Gi lson who has been designated to deal wit h the matter. Dr. Gi lson, of course, is no stranger to Manit obans, no stranger to the agriculture community across this country and Dr. Clay Gi lson has in many, many ways contributed in a very substantial way to the betterment of agr i cultural policies, not only in the Province of Manitoba but, ind eed, for all of Canada. I take thi s mo ment out to, first of all , acknowl edge the difficult task that Dr.

Clay Gi lson has accepted and to appreciate his particular capacities as having been a person that I've had the privilege of, from time to time, working wit h; who has been a builder of many of the better agri cultural programs that have been intro duced for the benefit of the farmers in Manitoba. So, I can't find anything wrong wit h the Federal Govern ment's selection of Dr. Clay Gilson to fulfil I this very important task. Mr.

Speaker, I ind icated earlier, and I'm sincere when I say this, that I compliment the Minister of Transportation and Government Services, my friend the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I was in the House when he introduced the Resolution and have had the occasion to reread his speech. I thoug ht he presented it in a very responsible way. He avoided rh etoric that often accompanies this subject matter. Oh, Mr.

Speaker, he did not lose all his fine-h oned sense of politics to take a few well-d elivered jabs at anybody that was stand ing around and listening but, all in all, when you read throug h his comments, digest them, I do compliment the Mi nister for both his style and the way in which he handled the subject matter. Mr. Speaker, any disc ussion of the Crow can't avoid a discussion of the CPR and the Minister quite rightly took a good deal of time in the presentation of the Resolution, in discussi ng, ind eed, giving us some his torical background of the CPR. Mr.

Speaker, I can't find fault wit h too mu ch of what the Minister said about the CPR. The CPR, of course, has been the subject matter of a gr eat deal of rh etoric here in the prairies; some of it justified and some of it not. I recall, perhaps the most recent expression about that age old prairie habit of kicking the CPR when there was nobody else to kick was perhaps best demonstrated by a CB C drama production that was produced just a few years ago sponsored and supported by the Nato nal Farmers' Union.

It was not a bad play, by the way, it played in various rural towns here in Manitoba , it hit the road to Esterhazy and to all the cultural hig hlig hts of the Province of Saskatchewan, that province that gave birth to Sarah Binks the great literary poet that we, of course, appreciate with such genuine affection here in the prairies. But , Mr. Speaker, what the Minister said about the CPR was accurate, I believ e, I haven't particularly checked the historic record to see whether all the i's were dotted or whethe r all the t's were crossed.

But there is no question when he indicates that hist ori cally the Government of the Day - by the way, Mr. Speaker, our go vernment that made thi s country of ours, John A. MacDonald's government of the day - he took them to task slig htly for haven chosen the route that they chose to do what he acknowledge s was nation building but throug h the vehicle of a pri vate company. Again, Mr.

Speaker, there is no ques tion of the Minister's facts which indicates that the CPR did receive the very substantial benefits, both in cash, in land and in certain taxation privileges, all of which the Mi nister points out in his opening com ments with respect to this Resolution. Mr . Speaker, I want to talk about this point for one moment because I don't dispute the facts at all that the people of Canada, through th eir gov ernment, gave substantial amounts of money to the CPR at that time to build this country. What I wonder about , Mr.

Speaker, is will there be a legislator or a parliamentar ian a hundred years from now standing up in an Ass embly like this, or in the House of Commons, that will have the same kind of comments to make, and to be able to make some of the comments I am going to make about the CPR , about the $2 billion investment in Petro-C anada. Will it? I'm hoping it will on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, we are told that that is a mod ern day requirement in nation building. 1469 Mr. Speaker, my hope is that 100 years from now that will be proven true.

Surely we sh ould get more out of a $2 billion public tax-supported investment than perhaps to have computerized robots fill up our gas tanks, even if they are bilingual, they probably will be at that time, and/or fine looking red and whi te gas oline stations. Not producing an extra quart of oil, mind you, but simply dispensing it. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because what the Minister did not quite indic ate, I thoug ht quite fairly, was the contribution that the CPR did , in fact, make to the nation building of this country. Mr. Speaker, that railroad built this country and that's not too much of an exagg eration.

I won't repeat the hist orical background that the nation faced wit h respect to holding onto its Northwestern Territories but all our history and our education about early parts of our country supports that point of view. Mr . Speaker, the CPR, of course, went on to become one of the outstanding big corporations,

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 companies, employers of many thousands of Canadi ans. And I would think that for a moment, even just a moment, members opposite can forego their prob lems when they talk about big companies, that even at this particular time they will recognize when jobs are important that that is a contribution; that that is a benefit to the people of Canada, yes even a hundred years later after having been given substantial bene fits by the people of Canada in the first place. Mr.

Speaker, the CPR, of course, did many other things that were above and beyond their government charter; they were a very fundamental tool in the set tlement of the prairies. Mr. Speaker, allow me to speak - I very seldom speak about personal matters - but it was by virtue of the CPR extending credit to my family that my parents came to Manitoba. In the 20's, Mr. Speaker, 1923, 1924, 1925 people like my parents who, by the way, had suffered through and lived through the upheavals, the social upheavals, the revo lutions of the USSR, partly, Mr. Speaker, because they were social democrats.

They believed that they could nonetheless find a way of working in that sys tem. But then along came kindly people like our pres ent Attorney-General's father and decertified them as teachers.

My parents were both teachers and in 1926 they were both still teaching in the USSR but were asked at that time by the State to sign a document that adhered to their atheistic point of view, from a gov ernment point of view - my parents being of a religious background refused to sign that document - their teaching certificates were decertified and it was a very fast way of becoming unemployed and without an occupation in that country. So my parents were among the last, during the years of 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, of a substantial number of Mennonites that came to Canada. Mr. Speaker, how did they come to Canda?

Two gentlemen that I well remember, elders of our church, a Mr. Friesen and Mr. Toews, nego tiated with the management of the CPR, here in Win nipeg and in Toronto, for the extension of credit - because there were no dollars - the extension of several millions of dollars of credit to bring a group of some 25 to 3000 Mennonites into Manitoba at that time.

We used to call that the Reise-Shuld (travel debt} and I can always remember as a child my parents talking about the "Reise-Shuld," that they and several thousand Mennonite Settlers incurred and were owing to the CPR when in the mid-twenties they came to this country from the USSR. I'm sure my colleague, the Member for La Verendrye, as well as Mr. Schroeder, the Finance Minister, parents experienced the same, probably had the Reiseschuldt too. But, Mr.

Speaker, what I'm saying is that it took that group of Mennonite settlers some 15 to 20 years to pay off a travelling debt of some $2 million that was extended to us, not because we were rich and power ful and influential people, we were penniless immi grants that couldn't speak the language, that were prepared to come to settle in the prairies, prepared to work on the farms, very often on rented farms. But, Mr. Speaker, that was also the kind of role that the CPR played in the nation building of this country. I thought, Mr.

Speaker, that when the Honourable Min ister dealt with it - he indicates on page 1092 of Hans ard that - Mr. Speaker, one should not miss the point and he is speaking about the benefits granted the CPR, this was all in the context of nation building and at the time it was a deal that was struck that would, hopefully, benefit Canada as a nation. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was moved to make the remarks that I just made in my personal case, in the case of making it possible for my parents and many other people that left the USSR at that particular time.

It was a very substantial benefit to have credit extended to me and several thousand others of my background to be able to come and settle in this free country. So, I took exception to the rather light way in which the Honourable Minister suggested that hopefully there might be some benefits accruing to the country by this extension of land grants, credits and cash to the CPR. Mr. Speaker, I'm no apologist for the CPR; the CPR doesn't need any apologists. The CPR deserves to be kicked when it needs to be kicked; the CPR has been kicked a lot, sometimes not always when it deserved that.

But I simply say that when we debate an issue such as the Crow, which spans virtually the life span of this country, that one should at least take the time to acknowledge both the privileges and benefits received by a donor or by a receiver as well as the benefits that have accumulated and come back to the nation as a result of those privileges granted. I repeat, Mr.

Speaker, I hope that there will be a legislator or parliamentarian that can stand up in a chamber like this a hundred years from now and say that the people of Canada will get as good a deal, as good a return, as good a benefit, out of the $2 billion that we pumped into Petro-Canada; I hope they can. That's looking in the future, I certainly can't foresee that but I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's not an unfair analogy to make, to express that hope; just as there were no doubt those persons who criticized Sir John A.

MacDonald when he granted the CPR $25 million in cash or when he gave them several million acres of land; and just as the Minister that introduced the Resolution suggested that possibly wasn't the way certainly he would have gone about it had he been in Sir John's position. We know how they would have gone about, Mr. Speaker, they would have gone about it as their friends and supporters in Ottawa are going about it in the $2 billion investment in Petro-Canada. I hope it pays off, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of Canadians I hope it pays off.

But I say I think we deserve a little better than simply the few benefits that I can currently think of that might accrue to us. Well now, Mr. Speaker, let's get onto the subject matter of the Crow. I can't say too strongly, at the outset, that no Conservative politician, no Conserva tive member need ever apologize to anybody, least of all honourable members opposite, about our position on general matters that concern the agricultural community period.

I say this and let's understand, in this particular issue, of course, we are talking, as we often talk when we talk about agriculture, we are talk ing about federal problems and federal matters. I have to remind honourable members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that, unfortunately to the detriment of western farmers, there hasn't been that many Conservative administra tions in Ottawa in the last 60 years. Bennett, for one short term; Mr. Diefenbaker for a short five-year period; and Mr. Clark for a nine-month period. 1470

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 Now. Mr. Speaker. this subject matter is up for debate for one reason, because they and their allies got together with the Liberals and put the present Pri me Minister into office and that's why we're debat ing the Crow. So, let's not have the m come and talk to us about our position. the party of John Diefenbaker; the party that has brought in progra ms of such great significance like the ARDA progra ms of the 60's; the party that has always responded to the legitimate concerns of western agriculture. Mr.

Speaker, there is not a worthwhile agricultural program in place that a Conservative administration, either federally or pro vincially, has not initiated; not a single progra m. Name the m. I can name you a few that other parties have tried to initiate and we had to get rid of in a hurry. Do you rememb er that LIFT Program that we had a few years ago where the Federal Government was going to solve the grain problem by having us sow alfalfa all over the fields. Western farmers got X nu mber of dollars to sow the fields, fill the acres of Canada and western Canada with alfalfa.

That was the then Liberal Government's response and sugges tion as to how to solve the problem of grain movement. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know the kind of progra ms that emanate from honourable memb ers opposite. Mr. Speaker, it's been tried in so many different juris dictions, they obviously believe that they can eat their way out of the grain proble m through their beef pro gra m. Again, I hope they succeed, Mr. Speaker.

I doubt it, it's been tried in so many different jurisdic tions . it's been tried with so many different nuances to the kind of progra ms that the Honourable Minister of Agriculture is now introducing. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the point has to be made very clearly - and I say this with an absolutely clear conscience - that no Conservative at any time, on any platform, needs to embellish his record, the party's record with respect to its long- term concern, it's long- term attention, its long- term dedication to the farming proble ms of western Canadians. That is a matter of record, Mr.

Speaker. a record that I'm very proud of. Mr. Speaker, speaking of that record,- and I don't want to detract from the comments that I know my colleague. the former Minister of Agriculture, will want to make, he can, better than I, tell you about this particular group's record in recent years, in the four years that we had the privilege and responsibility of doing so mething about the movement of grain in Manitoba and in this country. The Minister has spoken about it ; I' m sure he'll speak about it again. Mr.

Speaker, that was a particular effort on the part of our First Minister, on the part of our Minister of Agriculture, that was unequalled in recent ti mes with respect to the effort. I can only liken that, Mr. Speaker, to our friend, the Prem ier of Saskatchewan's la me-d uck effort at bring ing together so me forces recently. He finally found out that nobody really wanted to come and he had to call it off. That was not what took place, Mr.

Speaker, in the cold January months, a short time after we took over office in '77 , because we were concerned, in January about the proble ms of grain movement in this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, having mentioned Pre mier Blakeney, what does Premier Blakeney say about the Crow; the godfather to honourable memb ers oppo site who, particularly on most matters, they still like to concur with. I have just a few quotes from the Hon ourable Premier Blakeney and I would like to put them on the record, Mr. Speaker.

When the Federal Gov ernment was introduced, the Premier of Saskatche wan suggested this: "Ob viously they," meaning the Federal Government, "wish to have the matter debated and for that I do not criticize them. I think that the issues involved should be better known." I agree with the Premier of Saskatchewan and that's what I said when I originally rose to speak. I think the service that the resolution is doing, in making the whole question of grain movement more familiar with more people, is extremely im portant and for that the Minister of Gov ernment Services has to be congratulated.

So, the Premier of Saskatchewam concurs with that com ment by saying that a number of these issues have to be resolved and he encourages the ensuing debate. He goes on to say that: ''The perception of our Government" - speaking about the Government of Saskatchewan - "really is that the farmers ought to keep the benefit of the Crow rate." Well now, Mr. Speaker, if I haven't heard my colleague, the Memb er for Arthur, say that once, I've heard him say that a dozen ti mes.

Do you want to go back in Hansard and find how many ti mes that particular expression has come from the then Minister of Agriculture, the now Agriculture critic? I repeat, and this is what the Pre mier of Saskatchwan says: "The perception of the Saskatchewan Government really is that the farmers ought to keep the benefit of the Crow rate." Mr. Speaker, he also says: "We must make another nar row point. In this discussion it is very im portant to distinguish between the current level of the Crow rate and the principle of having a statutory rate." 1471 Mr.

Speaker, obviously the Premier of Saskatche wan recognizes that there may well have to be some movement, that there may well have to be so me con cern. But again, I think I share that position with the Saskatchewan Pre mier that I'm concerned about a statutory rate and about its maintenance in that form. Going on to quote the Premier on one further ite m, he says: "Some people take the position that there ought not to be a rate for the movement of grain set by the Government of Canada. With that position we are absolutely and unalterably in opposition." Well, Mr.

Speaker, I am sure that when the deliberations that are currently under way with Dr. Clay Gilson's group, and I believe that we are not talking months or years, I think, if my memory serves me right, he has been asked to have that report in on or about the 1 st of May which is just about upon us, another 15 days or 16 days, that those kind of fundamental concerns will be built into that report. Certainly I'm not prepared to move in any direction until I start seeing what they are talking about. All I can tell you, Mr.

Chairman, is that the positions, the concerns, that Premier Blakeney has expressed on different occasions; the concerns that my colleague, the Member for Arthur, has expressed on different occasions with respect to the Crow. The si mple fact is that this party, my group, certainly would not stand for additional penalties being placed onto the grain farmer at this particular time would be totally unacceptable to us. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have had the opportunity of speaking on this Resolution. I think the Resolution will provide for some interesting comm en-

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 tary from different spokesmen both on that side and on this side. I express, I reiterate my confidence in the kind of work that I know Dr. Clay Gilson is capable of providing on matters such as these and I remind the honourable members opposite that it is a responsibil ity of theirs if they choose to use the resources of the government, as the Minister has indicated, to send out the troups, send out the Department of Agriculture to promote various points of views. We can't stop them from doing that, Mr. Chairman, nor is it our desire nor is it our will. Mr .

Chairman, our job, as the Opposition, is to judge the kind of programs that are being put forward from time to time, whether it's a provincial program or, to a lesser extent, a federal program, and then to pass our comments to try to influence decision-m aking with respect to amending them in such a way that they become more acceptable to the constituents that we serve and to the constituents that know we serve them best. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Gov ernment Services. MR. USKIW: Yes, would the honourable member permit one question? MR. ENNS: Yes. MR.

USKIW: Is the Honourable Member indicating support of the Resolution? MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, the Resolution that's before us has a great deal that comme nds itself to me. I will await the kind of debates that are going to take place in this Chamber; possible changes of mind that the Minister may have on some of the issues as they are debating the issue, but certainly that is the purpose and reason for debate, particularly on a resolution of this kind; and more importantly, Mr .

Speaker, as I mentio ned, I suspect that before we vote on this Reso lution we will have heard from several important sour ces that could affect positions on this resolution. (

a) We can be having initial reports in from Dr. Clay Gil son and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I place more reli ability on the work of Dr. Clay Gilson than I do on all the agriculture experts that the Minister of Transpor tation has behind him ; secondly, Mr. Speaker, as has already happened, there is new information, even on this subject, coming up from different sources. We had a situation, whi ch the pool organizations brought to the attention of Dr.

Gilson just last week, that indi cates a very substantial error in one of the earlier reports, the Snavely Report, having to do with some $200 millions that may well alter the support that the pool organizations are taking on this. Mr. Speaker, it's not the kind of an issue that you simply take a black and white position on. The issue is far too important for that. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. ADAM: I wonder if the honourable member would entertain another question? 1472 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dauphin. MR.

JOHN PLOHMAN (Dauph in): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this very important issue, an impor tant issue I believe facing Manitoba and Rural Mani toba and particularly the farmers of Manitoba.

I am, frankly, shocked by the lack of concern that has been shown by this Opposition since that Resolution has been introduced, frankly shocked by it; by the party that says they speak for the farmers, that is now sitting back, notwithstanding the rhetoric that was thrown around just a few minutes ago by the Member for Lakeside, they are now sitting back and they want the farmers to sink or swim on the issue of the Crow rate, Mr. Speaker; that's where they are right now. I think it is one of the gravest issues, Mr. Speaker, to face the Manitoba farmers and rural communities in many years here in Manitoba.

It is, to a certain extent, Mr. Speaker, very clear what is happening, what is being proposed and it is a very grave issue for the rural communities in Manitoba, notwithstan ding what the Opposition says about it. The farmers in my area know what it is going to do to them and I have arrived at my opinion from meetings wit h them, from talking to individuals, from letters and calls and every kind of information that you can think of.

I believe I' ve arrived at a decision on the Crow rate that is based on what the people of my area believe in and the people of Mani toba need and that is much more than we can say for the fence sitters over on the other si de, Mr. Speaker. The very existence of many of our small farms in rural communities may be threatened by the pro posed move of the Federal Government to change the Crow rate and to abolish the statutory Crow rate. I fear that such a move could be disastrous for Manitoba and I believe the past record of the Federal Govern ment and the CPR gives us very little to feel secure about.

There is very little sense of security that we can have if the Crow rate is abolished.

As recently as June 6th, 19 78, the then Honourable Otto Lang stated : "The Federal Government is main taining the statutory rate on grain as the traditional right of prairie farmers." And yet barely 3-% years later, on February 8, 19 82, the Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin says, speaking on behalf of the Federal Government, the Government of Canada believes that the statutory rate on grain causes the railways to suffer heavy losses on the movement of grain; and that consequently the railways do not have sufficie nt financial resource to undertake the large scale investments required to expand the railway system; that parliament should pass a law to assure that the railways will be paid adequate compensation for mov ing grain; and that the new framework should pro mote increased efficiency and economy in the opera tion of the grain transportation system, Mr.

Speaker. So what he is saying, that they would replace a law that protects the farmer with a law that protects the railways. So muc h for the traditional rights of prairie farmers, Mr. Speaker. In the interests of farmers and the rural communi ties, Mr. Speaker, all of the mem bers here must take a tough stand on thi s vital issue. We must not yield to the CPR and the Federal Government. Manitoba farmers are being bomba rded from all sides at this

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 time with increased costs, interest rates, lack of return on products, machinery costs, fuel and land costs. I thi nk that is borne out if I refer to a CP story entitle d: "A rden, Manitoba ," where a Mr . N. E. Jensen, an agri cultural engineering consultant, who has recently updated a 1977 study to reflect the Ottawa-Alberta Agreement said that "for every $1 increase in the price of crude oil the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel goes up by 1 cent a litre or 3 cents a gallon; the cost of nitrogen fertilizer goes up 1. 8 cents a kilogram; phos phate up .5 cents; and potash .4 cents.

The cost of pesticides goes up between 7. 5 cents and 15 cents a kilogram. " He also said that "for every $1 increase in a barrel of crude a farmer's cost of production goes up 50 cents for each finis hed hog, $3.20 for each beef animal, $10 for a dairy animal, 1. 2 cents for each broiler chi cken and .6 cents for a dozen eggs." That's what he said about costs.

And he also said that by 1986, when crude prices for old oil have increased by $39 a barrel, it will cost the farmer $27. 30 more to raise a hog, $124. 80 more for a beef animal, $390 more for a dairy animal, 47 cents more for a chi cken and 23 cents more for a dozen eggs. That's what it's going to cost and that's only on fuel alone. As well he said that by 1986 it will cost farmers $39 more an acre to grow grain on stubble and $18 more on fallow, and that's only on fuel costs, Mr . Speaker. A farmer from Ar den, Manitoba, Mr. Jim Deveson said that many small farmers already have made efforts, Mr.

Speaker, to become more efficient and remain viable. They've acquired bigger equipment to get more work out of a litre of gasoline and applied more fertilizer and chemicals to produce more grain. But when you look at the price of thi s bigger equip ment $1 00, 000 and up for a combine, Mr. Speaker, you get a little concerned about the economics and thi s is what Mr. Deveson said, even a

section of land isn't going to be anywhere big enough to carry the cost of thi s high -priced mac hinery. He said actually it is not so muc h a matter of refusing to be ris k-takers in the terms of farmers but that they'll be bankrupt and we'll be hearing more about that all the time. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Member for Lake side on a point of order. MR. ENNS: Mr . Speaker, simply, I wonder if you could ask my unruly colleagues here to do some of their talking elsewhere I'm having difficulty in hearing the member. MR.

PLOHM AN: I would agree wit h the Honourable Member for Lakeside that his colleagues are being very unruly and it's very difficult to hear in here and to speak. You know, it is interest rates, then, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers are being bombar ded with, lack of return on products, machinery costs and fuel costs, land costs and the opposition knows thi s.

I believe that the opposition knows this, they tal k all the time about the problems; every day they talk about mil k and cheese and beef and hogs, problems that they say have come upon thi s province in the last five mont hs because they did nothing to solve them over the last four years. Mr. Speaker, they ignored them or else they could not see them throug h their acute pro tracted restraint 19th Century doctrine. So they could not see those proble ms, suddenly they are here. But where do they stand on the Crow, Mr. Speaker.

Despite the fact that the Memb er for Lakeside just stood up on the Crow, he didn't say anything on it. Are they going to keep their heads in the sand, Mr. Speaker, until the Saskatchewan Provincial Election is passed because the Conservative Party in Sas katchewan has joined the ND P there and come out that they are in favour of retaining the Crow rate. Is thi s group going to stand now against the Crow and be afraid to stand up against the Crow to sho w their true colour because they don't want to embarrass their counterparts in Saskatchewan is that what they're trying to do?

Is that why they sit on their hands, this party that says they're the saviours of the farmers in Manitoba, they sit back on their hands now because they're afraid to embarrass the Saskatche wan Conservatives. I suppose maybe your true colours will come out, Mr. Speaker, after the Provincial Elec tion in Saskatchewan. I want to examine for a moment the Crow rate, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the history a little bit, the CPR and certainly what it did for farmers in the CPR over the years. The Member for Lakeside says that Mr. Uski w's presentation was free of rhetoric.

I know we cannot say the same for the Member for Lakeside in his statement but I hope he will bear wit h me when I discuss some of the history of thi s and, in his terms, it will probably be termed rhetoric but I certainly feel that those facts are necessary when talking about thi s issue, Mr.

Speaker. 1473 The CPR was formed in 1880 to build the trans continental railway whi ch it completed in 1885 and it completed it wit h the assistance of the Federal Government, in terms of $25 million at that time, 25 million acres of land - not several million as the Member for Lakeside said a few minutes ago - 25 million acres of land, 12 million of which the mineral rights were retained by the CPR, tax concessions, monopoly privilege for a number of years, tariff duty exemptions on construction materials for the rail line and exemptions from all taxes on all stations, station groun ds, workshops, yards, rolling and capital stock.

Mr . Speaker, too often people talk only of the benefits that the farmers got from the Crow rate and they ignore what the railways got out of the deal. And those benefits I mention, Mr. Speaker, were only the original subsidies received by .the CPR. That is not taking into consideration the billions of dollars in subsidies they have received since that time and there have been billions, Mr. Speaker. After the completion of the railway it was apparent that the farmers could not afford to use the railway because of the high cost.

Professor Ada m Sho rt is quoted from 1894 saying "so high are the freig ht rates on Canadian Pacific Railway that the old system of freighting wit h horses and wagon was revived in direct competition wit h the railroad" and thi s was in 1894 "and is reported to be a profitable enterprise." It was also observed at about the time that in order to promote settlement of the prairies it was necessary to devise some means whereby the Canadian grain pro ducers growing grain in the heart of the Canadian country, could compete wit h their major competitors in the other parts of the world, countries that were muc h closer to the seaboard, or were subsidizing the

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 growers, the grain producers in their countries, Mr. Speaker. So, there is two major reasons why the Crow rate was necessary initially. Manitoba farmers were lar gely the benefactors of the Crow Agreement because the original 289 shipping points included in the origi nal Crowsnest Agreement were located in Manitoba, because Manitoba, of course, was settled before Sas katchewan and Alberta. So, most of the points were in Manitoba. So, we have a right now, I believe, for tradi tional reasons to be particular indignant about changes in the Crow.

When the Crowsnest Agreement was suspended in 1918 and then reaffirmed in 1922, it was applied by the railways only to eastbound grain through Thunder Bay from all existing shipping points and only to the original 289 shipping points on grain being shipped to the west coast. In 1925 the most significant turning point in the history of the so-called Crows nest freight rates took place, Mr. Speaker, because at that time Parliament unilaterally imposed a national policy by statute or law against the term statutory rates was born, but at that time in 1925, only applied to east bound goods.

It wasn't until 1927 that the Crowsnest Law, as it now was, was extended to cover once again ex port grain going to the west coast as well as the east. Now, 55 years later, Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic that the Federal Government says that the Crow rate must be abolished for all grain both to the east, to the west. to the Port of Churchill in order that the railways will have more money to upgrade the facilities and the rail lines to the west coast only.

It is ironic too, because the rail lines do not need to be upgraded to Thunder Bay at this time and 95 percent of Manitoba's grain is transported to the east through Thunder Bay. Therefore, it is immediately obvious, Mr. Speaker, to anyone, I believe, that the major federal argument and the argument of the CPR has no basis in fact, and it does not apply. If the Federal Government insists on abolishing the Crow rate, one of their main arguments is totally irrelevant for Manitoba particularly. The least that Manitoba could expect is that the statutory Crow rate to Thunder Bay should not even be consi dered, Mr.

Speaker, on the basis of their arguments be considered for change. Using the Federal Govern ment's own statement of variable rates taken in its broadest sense, that rates do not have to be the same for equal distance in various regions of western Can ada, a principle that we on this side of the House do not accept, Mr. Speaker.

But, using that argument of variable rates which they put forward and they're initiating, a principle that we do not accept as I said, and using the 1925 precedent which applied to Crow rates only to grain moving to the east, the way could be paved and the case could certainly be made for retention of the Crow rate to Thunder Bay, even if it is changed to the west. But, certainly the Federal Gov ernment could not oppose that change in principle. The mere fact that this case can be made, Mr.

Speaker, with their own arguments demonstrates the illogical way that the Federal Government is proceed ing in this matter. I merely point that position out. I, as with all members here, I hope and I believe insist that the principle of equal rate for equal distance does, indeed, continue on grain travelling to the east; grain 1474 travelling to the west and grain travelling north to the Port of Churchill in Manitoba, and that it continue to apply that statutory rate and that equal rate for equal distance at the existing statutory rates. Let us look at the CPR, Mr. Speaker.

The original CPR Company has grown to be Canada's largest cor porate conglomerate; largest, CP Limited with inter nally generated investments and profits made from hotels, from airlines, mining, manufacturing and so on, of $2 .3 billion. Yet the CP Rail, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, does not have access to these investments and to the profits from these investments.

It has denied access to the millions of dollars of profits earned from investments from diver sification that was allowed by the Federal Govern ment and the people of Canada, in exchange for a statutory rate and a secure rail transportation system in Canada. That was a trade-off. But now the railways and the government want to change one half of the deal, the farmer's side of it. Why should Manitobans and Manitoba farmers be asked to subsidize to a greater degree, CP Limi ted, that giant conglomerate with all that money?

In addition to the original subsi dies the CPR has already been subsidized all through history; 8,0 00 and more hopper cars from the Federal government, the people of Canada and 600 million to 800 million in the form of branchline rehabilitation, as well, of course, as billions more in the form of direct subsidies to the CPR. So, what should be happening now instead of rais ing the Crow rate? The Federal Government should be taking steps to enable the CPR to tap into those millions and billions of dollars of profits in CP Limited. That's what should be taking place now.

But what does the Federal Government do, supported by Joe Clark and the Conservatives in Ottawa, what does he do? -(I nterjection )- Yes, I'll tell you what he does - the same Joe Clark Conservatives ... I should say that we were just hearing from the Member for Arthur last night and the Member for Lakeside saying that they were the saviours of the farmers, that they were the synonymous with the Crow rate and what is best for western Canada and with the farmers. But, where are they now? Where are the Federal Conservatives now? Why are they not making a noise about this to the Federal Government?

Where are they right now? They are just laying silent with their heads in the sand just like the provincial Conservative Party here in Manitoba. You know what they're advocating? They want to dump the bill on Manitoba and western farmers and ask the farmers in the small rural com munities to subsidize CP Rail. That's what they're doing. But, why do the CPR and the Federal Government , Mr. Speaker, say that the Crow rate must go? Why?

Because they say that they have to upgrade the rail lines to handle increased capacity, but the facts are they do not have to upgrade the railway to haul grain; they have to upgrade the railway to haul coal and sulphur and potash to the west. The export of these commodities will increase tremendously over the next number of years to 1990; as a matter of fact, 250 percent for coal alone. They are the major cause of the projected under-capacity of the rail lines, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, the rail lines must be upgra ded, but the Federal Government should require that it be

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 done wit hout a gun to their heads at this ti me. It should be done now and it should be done by allowing the CPR to tap into those huge corporate profits of CP Li mited , or alternatively the government is to put in the money if a subsidy must be paid as it has been over the years by the people of Canada, then the people of Canada must receive some direct equity in the CPR. We must get somet hing for our money out of it. It is my contention that the Crow rate is as neces sary now as it ever has been.

One of the major reasons why it was first imp le mented, why it was necessary originally, was to assist farmers, Mr. Speaker, to be competitive wit h grain producers in other countries. Certainly that holds true now, more so now than ever before, when other major producing competiters of ours, other major producing countries like Argentina and Australia, provide subsi dies to the grain produc ers and the USA subsidizes the Missippi/Missouri water system. In addition, the grain producing regions in these countries, Mr. Speaker, are much closer to water transportation which is much cheaper than rail.

Th is gives Canada's major competitors a distinct competi tive advantage in the sale of their grain. Wit h the rising cost of fuel, as I said earlier, machi nery costs, interest rates and relatively lower produce prices, it is a si mple matter of dollars and cents, Mr. Speaker. Manitoba farmers can simply not afford to pay more for the transportation of their grain. That is the simple issue here. It's a si mple matter of dollars and cents they cannot afford to pay anymore. The Tyrchniewicz Study sho ws how farmers in the parkland region of Manitoba would be affected if the Crow rate were removed.

The Tyrchniewicz Study sho ws that and I use that as an exa mple, Mr. Speaker, the parkland area. The most relevant case study or scenario sho ws that at four ti mes the present Crow rate, whic h would be about $2, 000 or more per aver age permit- holder in the parkland area, and wit h the 1985 rail configuration and production wit hin 20 per cent of the present level, that net losses for small parkland farmers - net losses under 240 acres - their net losses would increase by $562 ,000, about 26 percent per farmer and I say net losses would increase because they are already in a negative position.

The medium-sized parkland farmers between 240 to 759 acres would lose $1,60 6, 000, Mr. Speaker, or their net inco me would decrease by 47 .7 percent, almost 50 percent loss, cut, in their net inco me, Mr. Speaker. Larger farmers over 760 acres would lose 28.6 percent of their net inco me, of their profits. Thi s would result in a net loss to the parkland area farmers of over $6. 5 million per year. The Honourable Memb er for Morris apparently quoted in the Free Press just last week that the Tories would support an attempt by all parties involved, to come to the table to see if a compromi se can be struck.

Well, four ti mes the Crow rate is already a compromise because if the Federal Government were to adhere to the Snavely Report's recom mendations of 25.4 percent profits for railways - and of course we have just heard that the Travacon Study recently commissioned. shows that they are overestimating, that the Snavely Report overesti mated the losses of the CPR by over $200 million - but if they were to adhere to the Snavely Report's recom mendations of 25. 4 percent profits for railways, the rail transporta tion rates would be much higher, indeed 1 O to 13 ti mes the Crow rate.

So four ti mes the Crow rate is a compromise, Mr. Speaker. I say that we cannot and the farmers of Manitoba cannot afford that kind of compromise, four ti mes the Crow rate. So what kind of a compromise is the Hon ourable Mem ber for Morris giving us? What is he proposing? Are they proposing to sacrifice the farmers of Manitoba in a compromise? How much do they want the farmers to shell out for increased rates? Th ey don't say, Mr. Speaker, and yet he also said, "we will not be so stupid as to sell out our birt hrig ht." Well, what birt hrig ht is he talking about? Is he cal ling the Crow rate a birt hright?

If he is, Mr. Speaker, then he's saying he's prepared to compromi se his birthright and I'd like him to explain that. These kinds of ambiguous statements, Mr. Speaker, are all we're getting from the Opposition, from the official spo kes man from the Conservative Party in Manitoba it seems, the Honourable Me mber for Morris. He isn't -( Interjection )- well he's the only one who made a quote, Mr. Speaker. That's what he said rig ht in the Free Press. I want to go back to the Tyrchniewicz Report, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to the spin-off effects that would result in a net loss of 238 jobs in the parkland area, $9.4 million in lost incomes and $10. 3 million in lost gross sales in the parkland area. That's at only four ti mes the Crow rate. Mr. Speaker, the losses in the parkland area would be staggering according to the Tyrchniewicz Study, nothing short of disastrous and thi s is only at four ti mes the Crow rate. Thi s is only the parkland area of Manitoba, it is not the whole pro vince, Mr. Speaker. 1475 In addition, wit h the advent of variable rates whi ch the railways and the Federal Government seem to want, Mr.

Speaker, there would be further nig htmares , nightma res for regions like mine and all areas of Mani toba. Branch lines would fall victim quickly; branch lines suc h as the Winnipegosis subdivision which has already been proposed for abandonment and that we are attempting to save. That would be a victim first, Mr. Speaker, as railways offered preferential rates at choice locations. Small communities in Manitoba teetering now because of business failures and closures, high inter est rates, lack of doctors and recreation facilities that we've seen in the last four years in Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, and the closing down of many family farms under the previous administration, the small rural communities that are teetering now would certainly go under. The ir very existence which is already threa tened, the very effect of these negative factors could be accumulated, that they would go under at thi s point, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe the honourable memb ers want that. I don't believe that they want that, Mr. Speaker. (I nterjection )- No, we don't want that over on thi s side of the House, I don't believe they want that, Mr.

Speaker, so we must stand together and that's what I'm asking these people, we must stand toget her. Tha t is our only choice. No variable rates and no increase in the Crow. We must stand together for strong revital ized rural areas in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. That's what

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 we stand for. What do you stand for? There's rhetoric all over, Mr. Speaker, there's all kinds of rhetoric but no facts and they don't say where they stand. The Tyrchniewicz Study shows clearly that significant crop diversification will not take place if the Crow goes. Significant crop diversification will not take place because market conditions will determine the degree of diversification. Changes in the Crow rate, Mr. Speaker, will not improve the market situation for special crops. Even though the Member for Pembina - well, I won't refer to that - advocated last night, Mr.

Speaker, during the Department of Agriculture Estimates here, even though the Member for Pembina advocated increasing the Crow rate to improve crop diversifica tion, production of special crops, that's a backward approach that they take. That's the kind of backward approach the Member for Pembina uses in this House. He said, Mr. Speaker, stick it to the farmers and that will force them to diversify, that's what he said. He said he was going to stick it to the farmers and make times tougher; then they'll diversify; then they'll grow these other crops. That was the extent of his logic last night, Mr. Speaker.

We don't go for that on this side of the house; that logic doesn't go here. And, Mr. Speaker, there would not be significant crop diversification and not significant increase in lives tock production, the Tyrchniewicz Study shows that. Let us not fall for the Federal Government red herring that increased rates, Mr. Speaker, are indeed needed to improve the transportation system. How can they justify removing the Crow rate to Thunder Bay, when two-thirds of the entire western statutory grains move through the Thunder Bay ports, and 95 percent of Manitoba's grain flows that way?

There are more contradictions in the federal prop osal, Mr. Speaker. On the one hand they say that in order to export grain it is necessary to upgrade the railways to improve the transportation system. They say to do this they need higher rates, full compensa tory rates to do that. On the other hand they say higher transportation rates will keep the grain in Manitoba and thus lower the domestic cost and, of course, improve livestock production, and increase livestock production in this province. Which do they really want - increased exports or lower domestic prices?

And as a matter of fact they may not have either. One study, the Harvey Report, recently sug gests that the grain production will actually decrease in the western provinces and Manitoba. And neither of the objectives of greater exports or lower domestic prices will be realized to any degree. They cannot have both, Mr. Speaker. Their argu ments simply do not hold water. I don't buy it and none of the honourable members on that side of the house should buy it, Mr. Speaker.

The Federal Gov ernment says that they will demand performance gua rantees, that seems to be the crutch of the argument here, movement of grain and they need performance guarantees. The Federal Government says that they will demand performance guarantees in return for compensatory rates for the railways.

Let me quote from the Honourable Sam Uskiw in his letter on March 26, 1982, to the Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin, he said : "I must admit that I'm very skeptical about performance guarantees by the railway corn- panies, whether that relates to service, investment, rate adjustment or disclosure of costs and revenues.

The Government of Canada has always had and has today, all the statutory instruments and administra tive machinery required to demand performance in the railways." What has been lacking is the political will; it is lack ing not only by the Federal Liberals but by the big brothers in Ottawa, Joe Clark's Conservatives as well; the political will to exact that performance from the rail road; the record speaks for itself.

The history for passenger services, branch lines, boxcars ; the supreme indifference of the railway companies to the obligations placed upon them by Parliament to serve the needs of the Canadian communities is legendary. The plain fact is that with the approval of the Govern ment of Canada both CP and CN Railways are operat ing with the aim to make profits. It is also a fact that time and again, the profit motive comes into conflict - that is the key - with the need for service, as seen by the communities. There is nothing wrong with profit, we're talking about the conflict that it causes.

The experience from one end of the country to the other has been that such conflicts are resolved in favour of the profitability of the railways. By insisting that the railways receive adequate compensation for everything they do you make performance guaran tees superfluous and hence meaningless. The rail ways will perform when it is profitable to do so and if the service is not profitable performance will slip. So, where then do we get our guarantees, Mr. Speaker, that the proposition talks about, that the grain will move if the Crow rate is abolished? "The verbal con tracts that we get from the CPR, Mr.

Speaker, are not worth the paper they're written on," in the words of the Honourable Member for Minnedosa. Mr . Speaker, our farmers cannot afford a comprom ise in this issue. Any negotiating and compromise should be done by the railways.

It should be done to force CP Limited to provide access for CP Rail to its credit rating and its $2. 3 billion in internally generated investments; it should be done to determine the equity position that people of Canada should take in the CPR for the billions of dollars of subsidies it has received over the years, for the billions of dollars more that it is asking in the years to come, an equity posi tion. And failing that, I feel, Mr. Speaker, negotiations should take place to take over the CPR and place the responsibility for the rail transportation system under one rail authority in this country.

That is where negotiations should take place, Mr. Speaker, but not for the farmers, no. It should cost them not one penny more, Mr. Speaker. Let us not allow another bad deal for the west, let us stand up together here. All of you on the other side, Mr. Speaker, the honourable members on the other side, let them stand up. The Memb er for Swan River who is in the Parkland area and who is not speaking up for the farmers there who realize what it's going to do for them, and the Honourable Member for Roblin-R ussell, Mr. Speaker. Where are they standing on this particu lar issue?

They have said nothing on this issue. And all the members of the opposition - they can stand up on the metric question, Mr. Speaker, but they can't stand up on the Crow. And the Member for Lakeside he spoke today but he didn't say anything about the 1476

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 Crow. He said. "We will caucus on that situation," a week ago. Well I say, Mr. Speaker. let them caucus all they want but the farmers they represent just as the farmers I represent. Mr. Speaker, are counting on us on this issue and we must stand up toget her, Mr. Speaker. We cannot accept the ch ange in the Crow rates. Our rural com munities cannot survive. The Crow rate must stay, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEP UTY SPE AKER, Jerry T. Storie (Flin Flon): The Honourable Me mber for Morris. MR.

MANNESS: As the Memb er for Lakeside submi t ted to a question I' m wondering if the Memb er for Daup hin would do also. MR. PLOHMAN: Mr . Speaker. I assume that the Hon ourable Memb er for Morris will make his case when he speaks and I'd be happy to see him do it. MR. DEPUT Y SP EAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Roblin- Russell. MR. McKENZIE : Mr . Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Me mb er for Mi nnedosa that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPE AKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Health. HO N. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Would you call No. 16 now. please.

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND RE ADING BILL NO . 16 -AN ACT TO AMEN D THE FATALITY INQU IRIES ACT MR. DEPUTY SP EAKER: On the proposed Motion of the Honourable Attorney - General . Bill No. 16-An Act to amend The Fatality Inquiries Act. MR. DEPUT Y SPE AKER: The Honourable Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G.W.J. (Gerry) MERCIER (St. Norbert): I have no objection as to this Bill proceeding to Co mmittee. QUE STION put, MOTI ON carried. MR. DEPUTY SP EAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR. DESJARDINS: No. 17, please. BILL NO . 17 -THE PROCEEDS OF CONTRACTS DISBURSEMENT ACT, 19 81 MR.

DEPUT Y SP EAKER: No. 17 on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Government Services . Bill No. 17 - The Pro ceeds of Contracts Disburs ement Act. standing in the name of the Hon ourable Member for Virden. MR. HA RRY GRAHAM: Th ank you. Mr . Deputy Speaker. One of the basi c rules of debate on Second Reading of bills. Mr. Speaker, is it gives you the oppor tunity to talk about the phi losop hy and the purpose of the bill without referring to the particular sections in that bill.

In this particular bill I have to question why the Minister would want to bring into the Legislature a bill of this nature? I really don't know why the Leg isla ture is dealing with a bill of this type. Apparently there is some money that the province has not paid to the contractor for work that has been done for the pro vince. and I would suggest to the Honourable Minister that money should be paid. If there are outstanding clai ms against it that is a problem for the courts. The Legislature. in my opin ion, Mr. Speaker. is a court of last resort. not the court of first resort.

I would suggest to the Honourable Minister that the affairs that he is dealing with in this bill should probably be handled in a court rather than in this Legislature. It causes me some concern, Mr . Speaker, because if we start to establish a precedent. and I realize that it has been done on two or three occasions in the last hundred years, we have at odd ti mes broug ht in bills of this type.

But I suggest that by doing it this way there is probably going to be a greater tendency on the part of people involved to say, well, if we have any trouble we'll just submi t a.bill to the Legislatu re, and we will end up very shortly doing the work of a court if thi s continues. So, I am somewhat concerned about why this probl em has been brought to the Legislature to be solved. I thi nk there are other avenues where it could be solved and probably solved in a better manner •• than by mem bers of the Legislature passing a bill of thi s nature.

I know that when we are finis hed debate it will go to Com mittee and then we can ask more detailed ques tions. We only get one opportunity here to ask ques tions of the Mi nister . and when he replies he is closing Debate. So I just pose these as questions to the Mi nis ter. He obviously must have some pretty valid reasons whi ch, so far. he has not given us in his opening statement. In reading his statem ent. he did not indi cate that there was any dire emergency that the courts couldn't solve in this thi ng. In fact.

I think maybe he said the opposi te; he said that the amounts involv ed were rather small, in one case it was less than $2,000, and he thoug ht that possibly all that money would be eaten up in lawyers fees. Well, Mr . Speaker. I don't thi nk that should be a concern of the govern ment. The pri mary concern of the government is to pay the money that they have held back and it's a debt they owe; they should pay it. If it's a holdback on a contract and they don't know who to pay it to. then pay it into court and let that decision be made there.

Here we are taking from the court a decisi on-m aking power which I belie ve. belongs to the court and we are attempting to solve that problem in the House. I suggest to you that should not be the role of this Legislature. So when the Mi nister is closing debate, or when this goes to Com mittee. there may be further consideration given to the suggestions I am making at this ti me. 1477 I th ank the House for the opportunity of these few minutes. MR. DEPUT Y SP EAKER: The Honourable Minister of Government Services.

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions that have been posed by the Member for Virden. how ever. I would like to advise him that the procedures that are now in motion through thi s bill are proce dures as a result of the recommendation from the Attorney-General's Department as to the met hodol ogy of dispursements of holdb ack funds.

In essence, what the bill does is puts the funds into the hands of a Trustee and the Trustee will then make a decision wit h respect to the distribution of th ose funds after a period of time where claimants have had an opportu nity to make their claims against those funds. Th ere is still an opening for anyone to challenge that decision or the decision and distribution of th ose funds to the courts. So the courts are still going to be involved if it is the course ch osen by any of the clai mants, but the method ology here is pursuant to a recommendation of the Attorney-General's Depart ment, Mr. Speaker.

QU ESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Health. MR. DESJARDI NS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture that 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 Membe r for Flin Flon in the Chair for the De partment of Agriculture and the Honourable Member for The Pas in the Chair for the Department of Co-operative Development CONCU RRENT COMMITTEES OF SU PPLY SUPPLY - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM MR.

CHAIRMA N, Harry Harapiak (The Pas): We'll call the Committee to order. We're on Economic Development and Tourism, Page 40, 1 (b) , Executive. The Honourable Minister. HO N. MURIEL SMIT H (Osborne): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. It's indeed a privilege to be here to pres ent the Estimates of the Department of Econom ic Development and Tourism to thi s Committee of the Th irty-Second Legislature. I would remind the hon ourable members, Mr .

Chairperson, that thi s is my first Session sitting as a member of the Legislative Assembly and I would hope that any errors of proce dure or privilege would be credited to thi s fact, rather tha n deemed a discou rtesy on the part of the government. The re's a consensus that the present state of the economy is poor in Manitoba as well as generally throug hout the industrialized world. I suspect, Mr. Chairperson, that thi s consensus now includes even the honourable members opposite.

I would have liked my presentation of the Estimates to reflect fully my department's response to thi s now acknowledg ed deterioration of the economy; however, the time between the formation of the present government and 1478 the presentation of Estimates has been too sh ort to all ow a compreh ensive review and assessment of existing programs and the re-direction of resources, staff and funds to the new iniatives planned.

Neit her was there time to assess the total effort to be directed at the government's Economic Development objec tives or to id entify existing resources throug hout the government and determine what additional resour ces, if any, mi ght be required. As a result, Mr . Chair person, the Estimates before us are Estimates that have been tailored for a process of transition wit hin the Department of Economic Development and Tour ism. That transition is underway.

We're in the process of making the transition from one approach to eco nomic policy, an approach whic h, incidentally, is being increasingly discredite d. to an alternative approach to economic policy; a new, energetic and activist approach; an approach far more in tune wit h our times and our present economic problems. I want to make it quite clear that suc h a transition cannot be made overnig ht, not if it is to be accomp li shed in a responsible and humane manner. We are not working magic. Neither are we putting on a flas hy public relations show with great flare but no sub stance.

We are undertaking the serious task of re organizing and re-directing the resources of govern ment in line with a new set of Econom ic Development initiatives, and thi s process will take some time. The process has begun. The requisite reviews are in pro gress in consultation with numerous publ ic and community groups. The process will continue during this Session and it will lead up to the 198 3-84 Esti mates preparation in the fall of '82. We are well underway but we will not be able to undo the damage done to government's planning capacity over the past four years within four months.

We must evaluate our present capacity, redirect where appropriate, build up capacity where necessary and lay a sound foundation for a new economic policy in thi s province. Wh at I propose to do in thi s review, Mr . Chairper son, is to begin by bringing the Comm ittee up to date on the organization and policy change s that have been made to date and then open thi s review for questions from members. The department has an expanded responsibility to lead government initiatives in Economic Develop ment.

Thi s responsibility goes bey ond the previous restrictions to industrial small business and tourism development. In thi s lead role the department will be responsible for identifying opportunities across the broad spectrum of the economy to ensure that none are lost because of gaps in departmental jurisdictions or because a comprehension process for screening all potential opportunities available to the province is not in place. Accordingly, several changes in responsibility and emp hasis are being implemented.

Responsib ility for Strategic Planning and Economic Development will be assumed by an Assistant Deputy Minister. Th is function will develop planning systems, along with rigorous evaluation techniques and practises, to be followed by all line divisions wit hin the department. In addition, the new function will search out and identify all opportunities available to the province for eco nomic development and propose an appropriate stra tegy mix for public and private participation.

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 The Economic Research and Analysis Branch, for merly Economic and Operations Research, will assume broader research responsibilities to support the activity just described and to provide the valid data and assumptions needed for decision processes. The Manitoba Bureau of Statistics will expand the Manitoba Business Assessing project to include Industrial Services.

In addition, the Bureau will initiate work on developing a set of Manitoba economic accounts to provide more timely and accurate provin cial data on production income, spending by sector and for co-ordination within the Department of Finance on policy simulation impacts. The responsibility for Trade Development will be combined with Industrial Development. This branch will now concentrate Trade Development activities on the market of some 80 million people living within 1,000 miles of Winnipeg.

The Regional Benefits Branch, formerly the Indus trial Benefits Branch, has been charged with ensuring that all activity, not just major capital projects, will lead to the highest Manitoba content and participa tion. In addition, a new government procurement pol icy will be proposed by this branch to ensure that purchases by government services and agencies are used as instruments for both economic and social development consistent with good purchasing practises.

In the Small Business Development Division, con sulting services offered to small business will be upgraded and advanced in keeping with the tougher economic climate and new developments in sound business practises. There will also be increased emphasis on cash management and on seeking out trading opportunities. Consulting services will include formal analyses and documentation. Systematic follow-up procedures will be instituted for review to assist with implementa tion and to confirm the effectiveness and success of the actions being taken. In addition, Mr.

Chairperson, I want to emphasize that we regard the location and distribution of eco nomic development within the province as critical. This is an important part of our government's objec tive, that the benefits and costs of economic devel opment be fairly shared by all Manitobans. Consistent with that goal we feel that support for eccnomic development initiatives must be widely spread; must involve as many people as possible; must be commun ity based; must come from the bottom and work its way up. To that end, additional support for the Regional Development Corporations was announced in the Throne Speech.

There will also be a study of the role of the RDC's, the first I am advised since 19 73, which will lead to recommendations on their future development and support req uirements. This will be part of an ongoing commitment to public outreach and consultation on economic development matters to which this government is dedicated.

Travel Manitoba has also completed a comprehen sive planning training exercise and has developed a 1982-83 operating strategic plan designed for match up with Destination Manito ba, the Federal-Provincial Tourist Development Sub- Agreement said that the Capital assistance provided for in these programs can go forward. Turning now to a review of policy initiatives since the Legislative Assembly last met, Mr. Chairperson, the most widely-k nown initiative is no doubt the Small Business Interest Rate Relief Program. While this program is not large, Mr.

Chairperson, and might in fact require additional resources, an additional value, which may be overlooked, is the value of the review itself by the principle, the lenders and the department consultants. I am optimistic that the program itself and this consultative process will prove effective in reducing the incidence of failure whether closure or bankruptcy. One other initiative, we will proceed with the second part of a two-p art Industry Development Fund recommended by the horse- racing industry. This will channel an additional 5 percent of exotic wagers to the industry for improvement.

The last phase of a three-y ear grant to the Faculty of Engineering will be made. This support will be pro vided for the Faculty through the Manitoba Research Council to strengthen it in the areas of industrial and computer engineering and also microelectronics. Again, through the Manitoba Research Council, we will authorize new initiatives in the applications of biotechnology and computer- assisted design and manufacturing.

The technology services offered by the Industrial Technology Centre will be more sharply defined and focused for improved match between the services offered, the needs of clients and avoidance of services that just duplicate those already available from private consultants. A cost- recovery

schedule has been developed which will ensure that govern ment funding requested is consistent with the abilit y to satisfy clients and reduce the need for public sup port. The services offered by the enterprise develop ment centres will also be audited by an outside con sultant to identify strength and effectiveness.

The report will help federal and provincial governments to reach informed conclusions as to what directions to take under a new or extended agreement or separ ately when present agreements expire. 1479 I've outlined already some programs this govern ment will be continuing and as well some specific initiatives that have been taken. But I also indicated, Mr. Chairperson, that both our review of the programs of various departments and the formulation of our policies is far from complete. Nevertheless, I do want to report on the broad outlines that our policies will take.

A major change in the context of which provin cial economic policy will be implemented is federal provincial relations. In this area, I can say that we recognize there are economic and political strains being generated in Confederation. This is not new and we see the ongoing definition and resolution of such strains to be the substance of federal- provincial relations. We are not interested in administrative competition or in setting up win/lose situations, rather, we want to see reponsibilities so allocated as to maximize the effectiveness of the programs, both the development and delivery for Manitobans.

Then, of course, fiscal resources commensurate with these responsibilities must be similarly allocated. While, of course, different Ministers hold different views on what the appropriate allocation is, the impor tant point is that this is negotiable in the context of the principles of confederation and is, in fact, not a threat

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 to confederation, but an exercise in what confedera tion is all about. I am convinced that technology will be an increasingly important element in economic development and I have already outlined some mea sures that will be continued and strengthened and some new initiatives that have been approved. More broadly, the government will seek a more sig nificant and active role for the Manitoba Research Council. It will be charged with reviewing broadly what is happening in science and in the dissemination and application of science here and elsewhere.

It will examine the role of the post- secondary institutions, the different levels of government and the private sec tor for recommendations as to how science can and should be adapted to serve Manitobans and the Mani toba economy. Capital formation is another critical element in Economic Development, Mr. Chairperson. It deter mines the kinds of livelihood we will have, where in the province and the level of technology that will be applied. Capital formation cannot be left to the wash of market forces or the whim of large corporations. The government intends to participate significantly in capital formation.

Limited fiscal resources means that subtle incentives cannot be relied on exclusively, Mr. Chairperson. Rather, we intend to participate directly by means of Crown corporations, joint ventures and encouragement to the private sector in a conscious strategy for growth under a mixed economy. I want to assure this Committee, Mr. Chairperson, that it is intended that the public ventures will be run as suc cessful businesses, either by a Crown appointed management in the case of Crown corporations, or by private management in the other cases.

Accountable enterprise is our objective and acceptance of respon sibility for both economic and social performance. Now, answers to questions, Mr. Chairperson. MR. CHAIRMA N: Member for Minnedosa. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. To start off with there's a large number of staff. I wonder if the Minister might introduce the staff to us so that we might know what departments they represent. MRS. SMITH: I would defer to my deputy to do that, honourable member. MR. CHAIRMA N: Committee approves. (Agre ed) Deputy Minister introduce them then. MR. DEPUTY MINISTER, R. S.

Thompson: Seated behind me, Bob Mc Fee from Finance Ad ministration; Wally Mialkowski, Director, Finance Ad ministration; Bill Cruse, Director, Economic Research and Analy sis; Will Falk, Director, Manitoba Bureau of Statistics. Further along: Ian Bli cq, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Planning. And at the back we'll start with George Hayes, Assistant Deputy Minister, Industry and Trade Development; Dave Sprange, Director, Regional Benefits; Bob Yuel, Assistant Deputy Minis ter, Travel Manitoba.

Across the aisle: Bill Barbaza, Director, Development for Travel Manitoba; Tom Gilmore, the new Director, Interest Rate Relief Board Branch; Les Tough, General Director, Small Enter prise Development; Hugh Eliasson, Director, Inter- 1480 Agency Negotiations, Liason; Ted Dupley, Director, Rural Incentive Program under Enterprise Manitoba.

Across the aisle: Brendan Carruthers, Travel Mani toba; Bob Bridge, Director of Marketing, Travel Mani toba; Neil Nixon, Senior Planner for Travel Manitoba and Development; Neill Allison, senior analyst in the Strategic Planning Branch; Bruce Docking, Director of Small Business Development. MR. CHAIRMA N: The Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek. MR. J. FRANK JOH NSTON (Stu rgeon Creek): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Minister for a very good outline of the department.

I must say that the areas that are new within the department that the Minister has mentione d, such as the Strategic Plan ning Branch, was well on its way to being established and I compliment the Minister for putting that for ward.

The Strategic Planning Branch is one that can be of tremendous amount use to the department and to the government if the proper analyzation is done as to the industries that would suit Manitoba geographi cally and would suit Manitoba's best needs, as far as employment is concerned, and also be able to identify businesses that may think that Manitoba is the best place to be, but is not. That certainly is not something that we like to admit but Manitoba is not the most suitable place for some industries to locate. The Stra tegic Planning Department will be exceptionally in this respect.

I noticed that the given breakdown of the depart ment in the Estimates is slightly different from last year although the funding, in total, is a little less when you take out the grants to the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission. I would say now that I will be asking for, and possibly because of the change, if the Minister could supply us with a structure of the department as it now stands. The Minister has come forward and said that there are going to be energetic and activist approach to economic development in the province and said it can't happen overnight.

It will be some time before these policies are in place and they will be built on a sound foundation. I would also mention that the Min ister has made reference to Crown Corporations and that indicates to me that there are going to be more Crown Corporations than we had presented to us in the Throne Speech Debate. If the government's inten tion is to go into the manufacturing industry or go into being the employer in the Province of Manitoba in a large way, I would suggest that we are taking a very drastic step backwards as far as the building of the economy of the Province of Manito ba is concerned.

It has never proven successful in this province; it hasn't proven successful in other provinces to any great extent; and it has not been as good as working with established people in the marketplace. I notice the Minister has mentioned joint ventures. Joint ventures can be good if they are with people who understand very thoroughly the indu stries that you are going to go into joint venture with and understand the markets.

The government does not have - and I repeat -d oes not have the expertise to operate these busines ses, and they do not have the experience behind them that is requ ired to be into the marketplace in this day and age. The competition at the present time is such that

Wednesday, 14 April, 1982 you need experienced people, and you need to work with experienced companies. The Minister has said - and again I repeat - new policies, energetic activist approach. I think that there's certainly a necessity for the Minister to explain to this Committee and to the people of Manitoba just what these approaches are going to be; what these policies are going to be; how they are going to be put in effect.

And to say it's only four months is not good enough, because obviously there has been some work done in the last four mont hs deciding the direc tion and policies that the government is going to take. The remarks that we have heard regarding the capital which would be put in place or used to encourage industry to come to Manitoba, would only be on the basis that the company would go where the province thinks they should go and that's a very desirable thing, but it just won't happen.

It will happen if the government decides to put most of the money in; it will happen if the government has the control over the business. But it won't happen when you're dealing with industries who will take their time and use their research, which in many cases is more extensive than the.government has available to them; they will say, "I f we have to go to that particular place in the province we will not participate. " I can assure you that there are other provinces very willing, waiting and eager, Mr . Chairman, to entice businesses to come to them. We're in a competitive market today.

All around you wit hin Canada and Uni ted States we have countries competing with coun tries, states competing with states, provinces compet ing with provinces and if the Minister has had the time to go through the files and take out the information that is available to her, and read the amount of incen tives that are being placed by other provinces before the manufacturing industry today, she will find that you are in an extremely, as I said, competitive market. The

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-33
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 33.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fe71bab47ea40878cff409e556d7a78280401139

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