Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise the House that yesterday's Hansards have not yet arrived from the printer. It is estimated that the Hansards will be arriving around 2:30 p.m. Once the Hansards arrive, they will be distributed to all the members.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs.

Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Culture, Heritage and Tourism, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I am sorry. I was stuck in the last term. It is the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism.

Mr. Robinson: I have a statement for the House, Mr. Speaker.

Prior to today's Question Period, I held a small luncheon in the dining room to honour and recognize one of Manitoba's and Canada's foremost filmmakers and his significant contributions to Manitoba's film industry. For the past 20 years, he has been making films in Manitoba and building a reputation that now exceeds well beyond the borders of our province.

Mr. Speaker, his films have won awards at international film festivals around the world. Last year his visually stunning Dracula: Pages from A Virgin's Diary, featuring the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, garnered several awards including two Canadian Gemini Awards, a first-place prize at the Golden Prague Television Festival and an International Emmy Award. This gentleman's accomplishments include seven feature films and eighteen short films. Recently, his latest feature film, The Saddest Music in the World enjoyed critically acclaimed premieres at two prestigious festivals, the Venice Film Festival and the Toronto International Film Festival.

Despite this international success, what makes his accomplishments so unique is his ongoing commitment to shooting his films here in Manitoba and working with many long-time friends and associates such as his screenwriting partner, Mr. George Toles.

This ongoing dedication to his film-making roots is a quality that truly distinguishes this gentleman and serves to further enhance our appreciation for his work. To demonstrate that our appreciation for his work is recognized by others, I would like to share with members the news that The Saddest Music in the World has recently signed a major U.S. distribution deal with IFC Films. As reference for the members, IFC Films is the company that distributed My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Soon theatregoers across North America will have an opportunity to enjoy The Saddest Music in the World. It is an exciting time for Manitoba's film industry. Last year there was $80 million worth of production activity in the province. This year we have already surpassed the $100-million mark and we are only halfway through the year. This success involves the combined sacrifices of many hardworking and dedicated people. Organizations such as the Manitoba Motion Picture Industry Association provide essential support to Manitoba film producers to ensure that the necessary infrastructure exists to help the industry grow and succeed.

* (13:35)

The Department of Culture, Heritage and Tourism, along with the tireless efforts of my department's agency, Manitoba Film and Sound and its CEO, Ms. Carole Vivier, are proud to play a role in supporting this phenomenal growth. The gentleman we have with us today is an important part of this thriving industry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now introduce him to the members, Mr. Guy Maddin, Winnipeg's most celebrated and accomplished filmmaker. Along with Mr. Maddin today are some of his friends, his family and colleagues from the film industry, including the co-producer of his latest film, Phyllis Laing of Buffalo Gal Pictures.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House too, we do want to offer our best wishes and success. Twenty years in any industry is a long time, and to put the time and effort that Mr. Maddin has put forward and included Manitoba in all of his productions, I think speaks very well for the province.

I also want to acknowledge the people at Culture, Heritage and Tourism for their devotion to the film industry. We, as a government of the day, introduced the access to film credits to encourage the industry and the province of Manitoba. I know that Carole Vivier has taken a very progressive, leading role in this industry, and I would like to compliment the Government on following that pattern and that process. I think it only enhances Manitoba's position in the world and puts the focus on Manitoba in many instances as a fact that we can produce world-class films. Through reputation, that will only continue to grow.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Maddin. You are truly our most celebrated and accomplished filmmaker. I hope and look forward to many more of the productions that you produce in Manitoba for people around the world.

The only concern I have, Mr. Speaker, is I regret that I was not invited to the dinner.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I ask for leave, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the minister's statement.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? [Agreed]

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the other colleagues in the House in recognizing Mr. Maddin and his accomplishments, his contributions to Manitoba and indeed, the contributions of the film industry which is growing in our province and in the economy of our province. Thank you.

Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to revert back to Tabling of Reports.

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable minister, for us to revert to Tabling of Reports? [Agreed]

Mr. Lathlin: I would like to table the Quarterly Financial Statement of the Communities Economic Development Fund for the Quarter ended June 30, 2003.

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today the Honourable Percy Mockler who is the Minister of Intergovernmental and International Relations of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. He is also the guest of the honourable Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr. Sale).

* (13:40)

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Gordon Bell High, Urban Life Skills, seventeen Grade 10 students under the direction of Mrs. Donna Antoniuk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer).

Also in the public gallery we have from the Maples Collegiate Institute, three Grades 9 to 12 students under the direction of Mr. Murray Goldenberg. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for The Maples (Mr. Aglugub).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, today is day 121 of this BSE crisis. We know that the Premier has just come back from a meeting with western governors and premiers where he was so unsuccessful in addressing the BSE and border issues that he did not even issue a press release.

Of course, one press release we would like to see is one where the Premier details the supposed spending decisions he said his Government was making every day in Treasury Board to free up money to deal with the BSE crisis, a crisis he acknowledges and a crisis that is making an incredible impact on Manitoba families.

When the media pressured him for details, some specifics, he refused. This is a serious issue affecting Manitoba families and deserves a serious response. If the Premier truly has been making spending decisions and program cut decisions to ensure on a daily basis that he is freeing up money for the BSE crisis, what are they?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thought that Premier Klein and the other premiers did an excellent job of speaking to the resolution that was passed at the mid-America Legislators' Forum in Madison, Wisconsin last week, and there was pretty strong recognition from all the governors of the United States.

In fact, the governor of Nebraska, who is also part of the resolution that was passed in Madison, stated that science should be used as a way of opening the border. The border should be open. The tracing of the cattle and the fact that the one cow was traced effectively, the food supply was safe. We also made the point that Canadian consumers have increased their consumption by some 60 percent in July.

So we had pretty strong commitment to the resolution that was passed by the mid-continent states. That includes, Mr. Speaker, the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and Wisconsin and, again, I think the job that the premiers from the other western provinces did in the presentations were exemplary in terms of dealing with the cattle producers.

I note today, Mr. Speaker, that Canada, the United States and Mexico are asking the Europeans to change the protocol of the seven-year banning of trade across the borders on the basis that science should be used to protect our food and enhance our trade, rather than the seven-year protocol. So I think that obviously there will not be anything such as good news until that border is open for live animals and all animals here in Canada to the United States market.

* (13:45)

The members opposite asked us to run and break the balanced budget law, to run a major deficit last week. We are staying the course.

Mr. Murray: What we did ask the Premier to do was to do the right thing and provide a cash advance. That is what we asked for and he knows it.

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): It was this Premier who last Thursday said that he was making spending cut decisions every day. We are not to fill a position. We are not to fund a program and we are not to proceed with projects, all in the name of supposedly finding money for the BSE crisis. All talk and no detail, just like his feed transportation program that was finally announced last Friday after constant pressure from this side and cattle producers.

Only a heartless Premier like this one could announce a program that was slim on detail just so he could hold another press conference at a later date that suited him. This Premier is playing games with the people's lives in the name of trying to spread out his media press opportunities. That is shameful.

Does the Premier not recognize that the feed transportation program is going to do little for the thousands of families who do not have the money to buy the feed to transport?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the low-interest program that we put in place is–[interjection] We know that that low-interest program is certainly comparable if not lower than other provinces that are offering interest rates and cash advances at 5 percent and 6 percent.

Secondly, we did for weeks ask and I said this in the House. We said this in the House when the House opened, we said it before the House opened, we have asked the federal government to join us in a federal-provincial transportation program related to BSE and the drought. Obviously with the situation of longer feeding for cattle with less materials available, because of the drought less feed stock available, we think this is related to the BSE. In the past number of years if there was a dry year, cattle producers could have affected their cash flow by selling or advancing the sale of their beef.

With the borders closed, we thought this should be one of the responses, with a federal-provincial program. The minister asked for this with the federal government. We did not get any answer. [interjection] If I could perhaps finish. Rudeness will not solve the problem.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An Honourable Member: You, of all people,should know that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members. I am sure that we all want to hear the questions. We all want to hear the answers. It is very difficult when there are communications going back and forth. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Mr. Doer: To continue the answer, we did announce on our own the transportation program last week. It was obviously a Plan B. We would prefer a Plan A. We would prefer to have a national federal-provincial strategy dealing with the income crisis. We would prefer to have a national federal-provincial strategy dealing with cash. We would prefer to have a national-provincial continuation of the slaughter program that was agreed to by the federal government but halted on August 31. We would prefer to have a national federal-provincial strategy dealing with the drought and its connection to the BSE. In the absence of a federal government with many of these programs, we have announced our cash for those producers that absolutely need it in these very, very real circumstances.

Mr. Murray: The Premier's refusal to provide specifics on what programs he is cutting and what projects he is delaying leaves Manitobans to believe that he, in fact, is doing none of those things, that what he has been saying he is not doing. The Premier refuses to scrap a very ineffective loan program for a much-needed cash advance program. He is closing their hospitals. He is abandoning rural Manitobans. What it comes down to is that this Premier's vision for the province of Manitoba is no hospitals, no help and no hope.

In 1997 that member opposite, Mr. Speaker, demanded the Government immediately flow funds to all affected families and worry about getting the repayment later. Why does he not look into the mirror today and do the same thing he was advocating then?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, most of the funds that we have forwarded to producers are coming from the rainy day fund and coming from the rainy day fund without any support from the federal government.

I just outlined to the member opposite, perhaps he was not listening, that we had asked them for a program on drought transportation. We had asked them to extend the August 31 deadline. We had asked them for a national federal-provincial cash program as recommended by 75 municipal leaders in Windsor some two weeks ago.

* (13:50)

In the absence of the federal involvement in those programs, we have announced commitments out of the rainy day fund. I might say, when the member opposite talks about the fiscal challenges, last year we made a number of decisions in year's spending and at the end of the year were able to come in with a $96-million debt repayment in spite of the mining adjustment of some $100 million. We were still able to make a $96-million debt repayment, balance the Budget and we reduced the amount of money that we budgeted to take from the rainy day fund from a higher amount to $22 million. That, with the surplus of $3.5 million, indicates that we have paid down about net $75 million of debt as well as balancing the Budget last year with the measures we took last year and we are up for the challenge to do the same, meet some of those same real challenges of forest fires, drought and the BSE crisis. We are working as hard as we can to meet those challenges.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is cattle producers and their families in Manitoba in drought-stricken regions of this province still have no operating cash. In order for them to take advantage of any free transportation program, they must have cash.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Agriculture is: Since cattle producers have no cash, how are they going to buy the feed to put on the truck?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, we recognized the issue of need for cash for producers well before the member raised it here in the House. That is why we put in the $100 million in low-interest loans that makes available $50,000 in cash for producers to help them make those decisions to buy their feed, to pay their bills. That cash is there. It is available for them. Producers are taking advantage of that program, and I would encourage the members opposite to quit playing politics on this issue and really start to take a serious interest in the beef industry in this province, and let us–

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to once again ask the honourable members. We have guests in the galleries, and I have received phone calls from the guests we have when there are communications going back and forth that our guests cannot even hear the questions and answers. I was called more than once to try and keep order so that way at least our guests can hear the questions and answers.

If members wish not to, that is their choice, but the guests have asked me to try and keep decorum in the House so that way when they come here to view and hear Question Period, they are extended that opportunity. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the members opposite to start putting their efforts behind the programs we have in place and start looking at the federal government to support our industry as well. We have only received–

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Maguire: Does the Minister of Agriculture have no understanding of the crisis facing these cattle producers and their families in this province?

Mr. Speaker, even her Premier (Mr. Doer) acknowledges we are in a crisis. Farm families do not need more debt. They need cash. The Agriculture Minister's loan program has failed. Will she not listen to these Manitoba families today, admit the loan program is not working, work with the banks and flow cash immediately?

Ms. Wowchuk: In fact, we are flowing cash to producers. Producers are making applications for the low-interest loan program and cash is flowing. Those people who are making their applications are getting cash.

I would encourage the members opposite to start thinking about this as a national crisis and ask them to join us to get the federal government involved because, Mr. Speaker, here in Manitoba we have put in over $140 million and we have received only a little more than $6 million from the federal government. We have the best programs in the country, the best programs to make cash available, the lowest interest rate in the country. Money is available for producers. Alberta has a 5% interest rate, Saskatchewan's interest rate is at the prevailing, ours is at 3.25 percent and 2.25 percent for young producers.

Mr. Maguire: As pointed out by the NDP candidate in the Arthur-Virden recent election, one reason he lost the election, and I quote from the June 4 edition of the Brandon Sun, was that: I do not think the Government has been strong in agriculture in the last term.

Even her own candidate did not support her.

Will this minister immediately provide a cash advance program to these drought- stricken farmers of Manitoba, or if her Premier will not let her, will she do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I am pleased we allow in our party a full discussion of issues. I am pleased this time around we were able to win the Virden part of the riding, but maybe we have more work to do in the rural part of the riding. We will continue–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

* (13:55)

Mr. Doer: We do not let our candidates have to go to David Langtry to get the recommendations censored, where they go.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think we have the–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say, right across Manitoba on a daily basis, all of us in our caucus and in the Government side and all across the coffee shops, we hear constantly the great work our Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) is doing under the tough conditions. We are very proud of her work.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to once again ask the co-operation of all honourable members. I see and hear that a lot of members are wishing to have conversations back and forth, and I would just like to remind the members that we have two loges that are free. You are more than welcome to use them to have your conversation instead of trying to shout back and forth.

I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, even government members know that meaningful assistance programs are needed to get producers out of the challenges of BSE and drought. In a recent article in the Interlake Spectator, the Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff) stated and I quote: If the cattle industry dies, we will be looking at ghost towns up Highway No. 6.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture tell struggling producers when the transportation program will finally be delivered and now provide them a cash advance program so they actually have cash to buy the feed for the transportation program?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question before and I will answer it again.

We have the best program in the country. Our loan program is better than any other program. Whether you look at Saskatchewan or Alberta, our program has a better interest rate, and we extended the interest rate at a low interest rate for two years, Mr. Speaker.

The program is working. Cash is flowing to producers. I would invite members opposite to think about really standing up for the interests of producers. Look at that application form. Work through it with them so, indeed, they will get the cash that they need until such time as we get some additional help from the federal government. I would encourage them to ask the federal government to work with us, not only put a little over $6 million into this province.

Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, in the same Interlake Spectator article, the Member for Interlake also explained: That is all there is, is cattle up 6 line. It is clear a double whammy of BSE and drought has taken a heavy toll on families and communities in the Lakeside and Interlake constituencies, among others.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture do the right thing by announcing a much-needed cash advance program so that families will not go under and these communities will not become ghost towns?

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Member for Interlake who has been a wonderful spokesperson for the people of the Interlake, bringing forward their issues to this Government and talking about how important the industry is. By listening to the people in the Interlake and other people in the drought areas, we have developed a program that will help them with their costs of bringing their feed into these areas.

* (14:00)

I want to ask the member, from the way he is speaking about the program, I would ask him whether he is for or against the drought assistance program, Mr. Speaker. I would ask him to say: Are you for or against it, because it appears he is speaking against this one just like our loan program when their leader said in the Interlake, I might remind you, to put in a low-interest rate program.

Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, in the same issue of the Spectator, the member admitted, and I quote: We are talking about a breakdown of an entire region, the Interlake, a collapse of the industry.

Will the Minister of Agriculture admit that a cash advance program is the best solution for these desperate producers? Provide it now. Help prevent the collapse of our multimillion-dollar livestock industry.

Ms. Wowchuk: The member has to tell us: Is he for or against a drought assistance program? We put forward a program that we have built on the advice of the producers. We put in a loan program that their leader supported. Then when it came out, they were against it. So I ask the member: Is he for or against a drought-assistance program for the people of the Interlake? Because we have developed one, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, inaction by this Government to address priorities for families living in rural Manitoba is causing phenomenal levels of stress. It has gotten so bad that some people having to deal with the BSE crisis are talking about suicide.

Can the Minister of Health explain why he is not taking these suicide threats more seriously and demanding his Premier (Mr. Doer) give a cash advance to cattle producers, or does he intend to wait for a headline of the first suicide before he is going to act?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is very, very typical of the member's question, that it is basically a Hobson's choice, and I do not think it puts debate further in this House to put that kind of question to anyone.

Members opposite know–[interjection]

As I indicated from the day the crisis occurred, there were teams and organizations put in place, and I might add we put back in place. After members opposite had cut the rural stress line, we put it back in place and operational to be a contact, a connection, a community base, when members opposite cut it, so that it could be one of the components of a helpful program for all people outside of Winnipeg.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Health does not seem to recognize the seriousness of this situation. Rural families are also fearing for their health, their safety, because of hospital closures.

Can the Minister of Health explain why he is saying he will recruit more doctors from rural Manitoba to try to keep the hospitals open while his CEO of the Assiniboine Regional Health Authority is saying that recruiting doctors may have to take a back seat to other priorities in the region?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): In the last four years the Assiniboine Regional Health Authority has gained nine doctors. The Assiniboine Regional Health Authority has three doctors all ready to start working in the fall. In addition, it has four foreign-trained doctors who will start work in the region within six months following the successful pass of their examinations, a program I might indicate that was not put in place for 11 years and this Government put in place to train foreign doctors after 11 years of pleading of a former government.

Finally, the Assiniboine Regional Health Authority is interviewing two more doctors next week, which is totally contrary to the usual that I hear from the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Charleswood.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again I would like to ask the co-operation of all honourable members. I need to be able to hear the questions and the answers. The honourable member from Charleswood was up to ask a question, and if there is a breach of the rule or unparliamentary language I need to be able to hear it because I am sure each and every one of you would expect me to rise and rule on that. So I ask the full co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Mrs. Driedger: This Minister of Health and his Government do not seem to recognize the seriousness of this situation. This Minister of Health's actions are not good enough. He is not doing all that he can to prevent suicides and he is not doing all that he can to keep rural hospitals open. When will this Minister of Health listen to these cries of help from people in rural Manitoba, or is he really prepared to have blood on his hands?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, that question is typical of the Member for Charleswood, and I am sorry that she offers that kind of question in this Chamber. I might add that we have had a team of interdepartmental officials working on this. We put in additional resources in the regions, and we have identified three regions in rural Manitoba that need additional help and we have put those in place.

I might also add that suicide is a very serious issue, and we have been part of the interdepartmental group working on suicide and, in fact, we sponsored some seminars that I note the Member for Charleswood did not seem to care about at that time, to instruct all Manitobans about it and participated in plans regarding suicide prevention. No matter where it is, yes, suicides take place unfortunately in this jurisdiction. Fortunately we have programs in place to deal with that.

With respect to the specific issues, we have taken action, and I might add the member talks, but they cancelled the rural stress line. We put it back in place. We have teams that are working. That is action, not words.

Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Yesterday in Estimates the Minister of Education finally confirmed that he flowed $428,000 to Sunrise School Division last spring to end a strike. Can the minister explain why he flowed the $428,000 to Sunrise School Division?

Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Education and Youth): Mr. Speaker, just on that note, it is regrettable any time a job action or strike takes place or a lockout, and certainly it is in the public's best interest that government be known and know what is going on with regard to any kind of strikes or lockouts. In this particular case, talks broke down and we were in discussions and received correspondence to look at the area with regard to finances and so on. I know that it is noted in Prairie Rose as well, there is a current job action that is taking place, and we are monitoring this very closely.

Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, School Board Chairperson Eleanor Zieske said in a newspaper article the same day the strike vote took place to end the dispute in Sunrise School Division that no formal request had been made of the Doer government for financial assistance to help end the dispute. I would like to ask this Minister of Education: If no formal request was made for the $428,000, why then did the money flow to the school division?

Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, the chair of the board certainly was in contact with my office prior to the strike and sent correspondence along where she expressed the discrepancy, the huge discrepancy with regard to wages from the old Agassiz compared to the Transcona School Division. It was so unusual compared to the rest of the province and such a high difference with regard to wages, and maybe this has something to do with the former government increasing the taxes there by about 149 percent when they were government in that school division or approximately about $343 per $80,000 household when they were government.

They just hammered education when they were in government in the 1990s. As a government, we care about the children in Agassiz and now Sunrise School Division, and we cared about it in March and in April. We also care about it now with regard to all school divisions, and we intend to monitor any job action very closely.

Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Education explain what criteria he used to determine the amount of money to be given the Sunrise School Division to help end the strike if no formal request ever came from the school division?

Mr. Lemieux: I appreciate the question from the Member for Tuxedo. The collective bargaining process, we have a great process in Manitoba. This process has worked, whether it is conciliation or mediation that is involved. Trying to work out issues, and I know in this particular case they worked very, very hard to try to get a deal and they worked extremely, as I have said, very, very hard amongst all parties to try to solve this and in conversations certainly with MAST and also with CUPE, trying to work through all those difficult issues, they are coming to Government asking us for possible assistance.

* (14:10)

Mr. Speaker, now Sunrise School Division received $50 per student and that amounted to around $246,000 over a three-year period to assist them in any kind of areas that might be affected as a result of amalgamation. They pose–[interjection]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, the answers of the minister are quite incredible. We know there was no paper trail from the Sunrise School Division requesting financial help. Yesterday in Estimates the minister was unable to explain where this money came from in his department's expenditures. Can he provide for the House and for Manitobans today the information that we requested yesterday?

Where did almost half a million dollars come from that was flowed to the Sunrise School Division?

Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Education and Youth): Mr. Speaker, just to be accurate, it is $112,000 this year; $158,000 next year and $158,000 the following year. The $428,000 is far different than half a million dollars, just to be accurate, because the member opposite from Russell often puts things on the record that are not accurate. I just want to be sure that we are accurate with regard to spending.

Also in that vein, to show that we are wanting to be accurate, I want to state that the first year's allocation of 112 occurred after the Government Budget was introduced. Therefore commitments had to be found from within the existing budgets. We were able to identify the funds from within the Budget through the usual process of reassigning priorities.

That is a priority for us, as school and children will continue to be a priority for us as long as we are the Government.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Premier (Mr. Doer) thinks of the answer we just heard, but I am sure he has to be somewhat concerned.

Yesterday in Estimates the minister was unable after repeated questions to provide any documentation with regard to this transaction. This is almost half a million dollars of taxpayer money, money flowing without a paper trail, without criteria.

Is this minister now prepared to table the documentation with regard to the transaction and where the money specifically came from?

Mr. Lemieux: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the question, and I will try to answer it. With regard to the finances, I mentioned that certainly within our budget, we are certainly prepared to re-assign priorities within our budget. This occurred after the Government Budget was introduced, and, therefore, we have to look at the commitments that we have.

Taking a look at those priorities, we are certainly willing to reassign dollars accordingly within that $1-billion budget.

Mr. Derkach: Yesterday repeatedly we asked the minister to point to the Estimates book and to show us where he took the money from to flow to the Sunrise School Division.

On the eve of a provincial election, we have the Minister of Education flowing $428,000 to a school division that has not formally requested it. This was done to end an embarrassing labour dispute.

I want to ask the minister: Was this simply done to help the NDP candidate in Lac du Bonnet during the election campaign?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Russell just asked a supplementary question. I think it is incumbent upon all members to offer him the courtesy to hear the answer. When the people are shouting back and forth, it is very, very difficult to hear. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, no is the answer, but it is ridiculous, the question itself. We have correspondence from the school board that is certainly wanting to speak to us and talk to us about their challenges. Also, CUPE and MAST have been in conversation with us looking for assistance.

In that particular school division, amalgamated division, they have just a huge gap with regard to salaries from the rural portion of the new division to the Transcona part. So we have also Louis Riel School Division that also had a contract expire recently as an amalgamated division, the old St. Vital and St. Boniface, and they have settled it without asking for our assistance.

So I just want to say that with regard to Sunrise School Division, they are talking to us and they asked for assistance at that time and certainly we are prepared to work with all school divisions any time.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Today we learn in the Free Press that a noted university professor, William Leiss, is saying that we are likely to have more cases of mad cow disease in Canada. If this occurs, this will happen in at-risk animals over 30 months of age. I have written to the federal Minister of Agriculture to urge national testing of animals over 30 months of age at the time of slaughter. I see a need for the Province to act if the federal government does not.

My question is to the minister of consumer affairs. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. There is no minister of consumer affairs. It is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) who has it as a sideline. I ask the Minister of Finance: Will the Province support consumers and require and fund BSE testing of all cattle over 30 months old in Manitoba?

Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The member of River Heights, as a former member of Parliament, will understand that food testing is a federal responsibility under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. So I am disappointed that he would like to download that responsibility onto the province like he did with health care cuts when he was a member of Parliament, like he did with social service cuts when he was a member of Parliament, like he did with legal aid cuts when he was a member of Parliament, like he did with daycare cuts as a member of Parliament. Is he working for the people of Manitoba? If he is, he would be requiring the federal government to do their job and do proper food inspections in this province.

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I have made the effort to approach the federal government to do this but the fact of the matter is that the majority of slaughter plants in Manitoba are provincial and there is a provincial responsibility here. So I would pick up on what was said last week by Dr. Allan Preston, that there are probably more cases of BSE in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial testing of all cattle slaughtered in Manitoba is important to ensure the highest level of consumer confidence in the safety of Manitoba beef. I ask the minister responsible for consumer affairs to provide a guarantee that Manitoba beef is BSE-free, as I asked last week, and provide testing of all cattle over 30 months slaughtered in Manitoba to ensure this.

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): This is an important issue and I think it is really unfortunate that the member from River Heights is fearmongering now and implying that there are more cases of BSE.

What we need is a national plan. We need national leadership. We need the federal government to live up to their full responsibility on this issue and the number of animals that are being tested for BSE is being increased under the direction of CFIA.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the cattle industry in this province will not be happy that the member of River Heights is now saying that we likely have more cases of BSE. His timing is terrible.

Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to put my second supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave?

* (14:20)

Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. The honourable Member for River Heights, with his second supplementary question.

Mr. Gerrard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was not me. It was senior staff in the minister's department who raised this at the EMRAC last week. It was a professor from Alberta who raised it yesterday. This is an important issue. We are talking about, not only food security, we are talking about a marketing advantage for Manitoba beef, a guarantee that Manitoba beef is BSE-free. Surely Manitobans deserve no better than this.

Does the minister responsible for consumer affairs believe in the Ralph Klein approach to food safety: shoot, shovel and shut up, or will the minister, on an urgent basis, institute BSE testing of cattle in Manitoba slaughtered, all those cattle over 30 months?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thought the Premier of Alberta did an excellent job of pointing out the irony that when you have a situation where science is allowed to detect the cow, when science allows you to trace the cow, to reject the cow, to have a system where the science works and the cow never got into the food system. He was making the point that having science work should be the way we go, not the opposite way. He was trying to use irony to make that point.

I thought Premier Klein did a great job with the governors. I think we should start getting together to work to get the border open not to try to make short-term political points in this Legislature. The border has got to be opened.

Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put a few words on the record about a significant event that took place in my constituency this past spring.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 25, a celebration at the Great Falls Community Hall marked the official opening of the newest addition to the Trans-Canada Trail, namely, the Blue Water Trail. The Blue Water Trail showcases the transition between the Canadian Shield and the Prairies. It pays tribute to the beauty of the Winnipeg River, the boreal forests and the mammals, fish and birds that thrive there. It promotes the diversity and the cultural- and heritage-related aspect of the small towns in our area. It exposes people to the unique beauty that we call Manitoba.

I would personally like to thank the many volunteers who have worked to make this event a reality. More than 75 volunteers have constructed, cleared and chipped five kilometers of trail in the Broadland and Pine Creek areas. It has been the perseverance and the dedication of these individuals who have made this section of the trail possible. One such person who, in particular, deserves much of the credit is Mr. Ed Forsyth, the project leader who organized, planned and recruited to make this dream a reality.

Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Canada Trail is noted for being the longest recreational trail in the world and, when completed, it will join the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. This unique trail is already proving to be the perfect setting for a variety of outdoor activities including walking, cycling, horseback riding, cross-country skiing and power tobogganing.

The new Manitoba addition, the Blue Water Trail, highlights the connection of the Prairie to the Shield. It will be a natural classroom for our students and is sure to attract hikers from our province and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the wonderful accomplishments and contributions of all the volunteers who made this addition to our province a reality.

Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): I am very pleased to congratulate an exceptional young person from the Constituency of Radisson. I presented the Member of the Legislative Assembly Peacemaker Award to Jennifer Roeland at the Windsor Park Collegiate graduation ceremony Wednesday, June 25, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, the MLA Peacemaker Award has been presented to students for over 15 years. It is awarded in recognition of the admirable citizenship, leadership and outstanding participation in student government. Jennifer Roeland, who graduated this past June from Windsor Park Collegiate, was highly involved in the school activities throughout her time as a student at Windsor Park Collegiate. Jennifer achieved academic success and demonstrated leadership in the school activities. She was chairperson of the Social Action Committee selected to attend the Women in Science Conference and played a leading role in the school musical. Jennifer is well known to the community as a talented peer counsellor in the Natural Helper program, a program involving 15 peer-selected students who provide guidance and conflict mediation counselling.

Jennifer Roeland is yet another positive example of Manitoba's excellent public education system, a system that encourages students to be involved in their communities while achieving academic success. It is an important part of the education system that encourages a student to seek leadership skills and interests. I believe young people should be recognized and commended for the enthusiasm and dedication with which they pursue their academic and non-academic interests, including social consciousness and leadership interests. We must provide opportunities for their community leadership to be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Ms. Jennifer Roeland for receiving the MLA Peacekeeping Award, and I wish her all the best as she begins her first year of post-secondary studies at the University of Manitoba.

* (14:30)

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): This past July, I had the pleasure of attending the ceremonial sod-turning for the park and tourist centre that is being developed just east of bean town at St. Joseph, Manitoba, and at the museum that was created thanks to the effort of the Perron family.

Mr. Jean-Louis Perron, supported by his wife Marie-Laure, has spent over 60 years gathering a collection of farm and household antiques and close to 30 years turning his backyard into a replica of a pioneer-era village, the St. Joseph Museum. Since 1974, the museum has been co-managed and built up by a board of volunteers and some antiques have been donated or loaned by others, but about 80 percent of the artifacts were the property of the Perrons.

On June 28, nearing his 85th birthday, Mr. Perron and his wife Marie donated the vast collection to the museum run by a younger generation of volunteers represented by the Perrons' son, Georges, volunteer Lea Barnabé and museum president Ron Parent. The handover took place as part of the annual Festival du patrimoine Montcalm Heritage Festival.

Jean-Louis and Marie-Laure truly have community spirit. They have donated their vast collection to their community, this province and their country. These artifacts were used by our forefathers in developing this part of the world, turning tall grass prairie into the bread basket of the world. The community is richer for it and we thank you.

I would also like to thank Ron Parent and his committee for taking the museum to its next level, adding a ball park, hiking trail, trees and a future tourist centre. You are helping St. Joseph show everyone what the community and the Perron family are all about. They are true dedicated Manitobans.

Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to bring attention to a very special event which occurred in the Interlake on September 3 of this year. I am referring to the grand opening of the school at Pinaymootang First Nation which has undergone extensive renovation and expansion over the past year.

The new facility which includes well-equipped classrooms specializing in fields such as home economics and industrial arts will provide a positive environment for the children, thereby increasing their chances of finishing high school and moving on to post-secondary education. The school has also been blessed with a new gymnasium which will be a catalyst for more sports-oriented physical activity. Maintaining a healthy body is the first step toward building a healthy mind.

I want to commend Chief and Council of Pinaymootang First Nation as well as members of the local school board and staff of the school for all their efforts in making the opening of this new facility a reality. Strong, well-focussed leadership is a must when lobbying government for improvements such as this. In today's complex, high-tech society an advanced education is essential if a person is to achieve his or her full potential, and this all begins at the local community school level.

I want to congratulate the children of this community on the opening of their new school, and I encourage them to make full use of it in the days and years to come as they develop into productive citizens of our society.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I would call on the Government to provide an interim financial report and I would explain why.

We heard yesterday in Estimates the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) is calculating that the $52 million he was going to get from Manitoba Hydro this year in the excess-profits tax probably will not be coming in. Therefore, that number of $52 million of revenue may well be zero or close to it. Today we will be discussing Interim Supply, which is an additional request for revenue of $68 million. When one adds up the total of the shortfall in revenue and the increased expenditures, we are looking at a $120-million gap.

I understand that these are extraordinary times, that we have had forest fires and the mad cow crisis but, Mr. Speaker, this is all the more reason why the Minister of Finance should provide an interim financial report to make it clear how he is going to meet the needs of a balanced Budget under these circumstances where his revenue is dropping and his expenditures, it would appear, are significantly increasing.

I call on the Minister of Finance to provide this interim financial statement to show where this $120 million is coming from, where he is going to cut back in expenditures or increase revenues, whatever his plans are. I would say this is even more important because this year the Minister of Finance has a line which is $85 million of in-year savings of end-of-year lapse, and when you add this as well, it is a $205-million gap that needs to be explained and accounted for.

* (14:40)

Mr. Chairperson (Conrad Santos): Committee of Supply will come to order, please. We have before us for consideration two resolutions respecting Interim Supply.

The first resolution reads as follows:

RESOLVED that a sum not exceeding $3,470,050,000, being 49 percent of the total amount to be voted as set forth in Part A (Operating Expenditure) of the Estimates, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2004.

Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) have any comments? None? What about the Opposition critic? Do you have any comment, please? Is the committee ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the resolution be passed?

Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): I am sorry, Mr. Chairperson, I did not hear your opening remarks. Are we still on first reading?

Mr. Chairperson: No, we are in committee. For the benefit of the Member for Fort Whyte, this is the proper forum to ask questions.

Mr. Loewen: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. With regard to the Committee of Supply, the minister had four special warrants issued, one on March 19 for $1.8 billion; one on June 13 for close to $1.6 billion. With regard to the interim supply bill, the minister's warrants have been issued through Treasury Board on March 19 and June 13 covering what would appear to be the normal expenditures required by the Government. There is also an indication that a warrant was issued on July 16 for $15 million and August 13 for $25 million. I would ask the minister if he could give us more breakdown of what those, the warrant for $15 million and the $25 million, were to be used for?

Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Yes, both of those were related primarily to the disaster events occurring in the province this summer. As you know, it has been the second worst year on record for fires, and additional authority was required to address that. Then, of course, the 25 relates to the mad cow issue and putting in place authority to provide resources for the slaughter program, the 60-40 program that the federal government negotiated with the provinces to get that rolling as well. It is a combination of the mad cow, drought and forest fires, those warrants.

Mr. Loewen: Just for clarification, was the $15-million warrant issued July 16 strictly forest-fire related?

Mr. Selinger: It was issued to relate to all the pressures on us; forest fires, mad cow were the two biggest ones. Then there is the element of the drought worked in there as well. It was a general purpose amount put in place to address all the concerns that were arising.

Mr. Loewen: Mr. Chairperson, would the minister have any further breakdown of that $15 million in terms of how much for each one? They have announced a number of programs. I am trying to get a feel for which one it was.

Mr. Selinger: At the time, it was not broken down. It was just to ensure that there were additional resources in place to address the pressures. All of those pressures were in process, and the quantification of resources needed was not absolutely determined at that time. We know that we needed the money and the final allocation of that money, for example, we now know that we are projecting about a total of $55 million for forest fire relief. We know that we needed up to $37 million for addressing the issue of mad cow and drought. Those warrants were intended to allocate enough money to deal with the totality of all the pressures on us during that time.

Mr. Loewen: The $25-million warrant, was that related to all three as well?

Mr. Selinger: Yes, the monies were put in place to deal with all these pressures that were occurring. I know the Member for Fort Whyte can imagine the fluidity of that. We are in the midst of forest fires, there was a lot of movement going on, trying to respond to the pressures in the mad cow disease crisis. The global amounts were put in place and then each–the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), for example, announced the portions of it that would be used for hers. We had to make money available for the forest fire situation as it continued to rage on during the summer.

Mr. Loewen: Just for clarification, I would ask the minister, just to make sure we understand each other, what I am looking for is out of that $40 million, how much was anticipated would be needed for forest fires, how much for mad cow, how much for drought?

Mr. Selinger: As I said, at the time the number was uncertain because we did not know how long the fires were going to continue. We knew they were serious, we knew they were severe, and the member might know that we are entirely responsible for it. There is no federal cost-sharing program on fire disaster relief.

We also knew that the mad cow issue was still pressing forward and there was feedback starting to roll back to us that the slaughter capacity was not available in Manitoba. Our producers were not getting access to slaughter facilities in other jurisdictions. We started moving from what the federal and provincial officials and ministers originally agreed to. We started to shift that to a feeder program. All of these things were fluid, and we just wanted to make sure we had enough money to address all of those things as we went forward.

It was not specifically allocated at the time. It was a global amount to make sure we could cover all of those contingencies.

Mr. Loewen: I am just a little curious because I would have thought the natural course of action would have been that the ministers responsible for those two issues in particular, the Minister of Agriculture with regard to BSE and the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Ashton) with regard to forest fires, would have at least had some breakdown in terms of what they were asking for that totaled the $40 million.

Is the minister saying that there was just on two occasions a general consensus that they need $15 million for some relief and a month later they need $25 million for some more relief without any sort of anticipation in terms of which department those funds might flow to?

Mr. Selinger: No, there was a sense that the forest fire situation was not abating as had been hoped, weather conditions, et cetera. As I indicated, I believe in Estimates we now believe the forest fire bill will be at least $55 million. We also knew we needed money, the $15 million, the original $15 million was also to be part of the federal-provincial commitment on addressing mad cow and then more money as we went along.

At the time everything was fluid and we knew we were coming into the Legislature to debate the Budget this fall and if we needed additional authority we could do it by the procedures we are going through now. So it was not necessarily intended to address the totality of that but it was to provide cash flow to keep us going, without the Budget having been passed. The special warrants were to ensure the cash flow to address those problems at the time when the money was needed.

* (14:50)

Mr. Loewen: The minister has indicated that the Province is on the hook for the bill for fighting the forest fires, which I realize but he has just indicated part of the money in those warrants was flowed on the basis of federal-provincial contributions. I am just wondering is he expecting some of that money to come back into the provincial Treasury as a result of payments at some point down the road by the federal government, or is that strictly the Province's share.

Mr. Selinger: We were budgeting for our share on the original federal-provincial agreement and we were in the process of trying to secure federal commitments on the programs as they innovated. For example, the feeder program, we had hoped the federal government would cost-share that but they had not signed on to that necessarily. Similar with the drought assistance transportation relief program announced last Friday.

All of these things we believe are cost-sharable with the federal government and we are still in ongoing negotiations about that but we wanted to make sure we had sufficient resources in place to aid the producers at the time when they are experiencing the greatest pain.

It was our share but, as the member knows, other than the original agreement, the federal government has not yet shown the flexibility we have to respond to this crisis. They have not come up with a willingness to take that $500 million for the country and adapt it to the real needs of producers.

Mr. Loewen: I appreciate that. I guess what I am asking the minister is if at some point before March 31, 2004, it would be his expectation that some money would flow from the federal government that would again come back into the provincial Treasury to offset this $40 million that has been set aside this summer.

Mr. Selinger: Yes, as the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) indicated today, so far the only flows into the province out of the federal-provincial agreement have been $6 million. We would like more to flow. It has been indicated to us there is the possibility that more money could flow, but nothing is certain yet and it is not clear whether that will offset the resources we have put in here, given the magnitude of the issues going forward, or whether it will be just enough to cover the total need out in the communities. That is still very much in flux.

Mr. Chairperson, we have put our portion on the table. We do not necessarily expect this money will be recovered from the federal government, but we would like to see a broader envelope that would provide more support to those producers.

Mr. Loewen: I think what I am trying to determine here is whether the federal money, in the minister's view, will flow through to the producers or whether in fact it will end up in a situation where the federal money that does flow eventually will in effect be clawed back by the Province, saying: We have given more than our share. We are going to take that money into our kitty as opposed to distributing it to the families in crisis in Manitoba.

Mr. Selinger: Mr. Chairperson, as I indicated on the first program for which there was agreement, it was a 60-40 cost-sharing formula and we have received only $6 million off that so far. Any of the program adaptations we have made since then, there is no federal agreement to cost-share them so we are picking up the whole tab.

Will there be any offsets? It is absolutely unclear yet whether they will show the flexibility the Province has shown in adapting programs to the needs of producers and it is also unclear what the total magnitude of the need will be. These are demand-driven programs in a sense. The slaughter program, how many animals can you get to the slaughter facilities? The transportation program, how much transportation subsidy will be required to get feed to the producers? We are putting the money out there with the first priority of serving producers up to the need that is expressed. That need has not been totaled yet because the total demands have not been put forward to Government. We put the resources in place to give them the comfort that there is support. When the total bill comes in, we would like that to be cost-shared with the federal government. Failing that, our resources will still be there.

Mr. Loewen: Just for clarification, because the minister did mention 60-40 program, 60 fed, 40 Province?

Mr. Selinger: That was the basis of the original slaughter program, which we discovered was not serving our producers because the facilities in the main were outside the province, which is why we then shifted to the feeder program. Yes, 60-40 is the formula that seems to be used in these disaster relief programs. The ad hoc nature of these disaster relief programs, 60-40, that is our minimum expectation from the federal government.

Mr. Loewen: The minister indicated that $6 million has come from the federal government. Was that strictly for the slaughter program?

Mr. Selinger: Mr. Chairperson, I am working off what I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) say today. She said only $6 million has come in. I think that is only for the original agreement that the provinces and the federal government signed on to. They have shown an unwillingness to adapt that envelope of money they made available for that agreement to new program needs, as we have. I think the $500 million that they put in place nationally has only resulted in $6 million flowing into Manitoba, if I understand the Minister of Agriculture correctly, and I believe I do.

Mr. Loewen: I thank the minister for that, and I hope he can bear with me here. There has been a myriad of programs announced in terms of relief, some of which some claim are working, others would dispute that, particularly the cattlemen.

What I am trying to decipher here is if the $6 million that came in from the federal government was strictly involved in that one program, that slaughter program.

Mr. Selinger: That is my understanding.

Mr. Loewen: Correspondingly, then, given that it is a 60-40 program, is it safe to say that $4 million has flowed out of Manitoba's funding towards that slaughter program?

Mr. Selinger: That is my understanding. It might be slightly higher but it is in that range. This is strictly the logic of what the formula would imply. If it is 60-40 and $6 million has flowed federally, then at least $4 million provincially would have flowed. As the member knows, this is a moving target. It is possible that the Province has flowed more of its money and the federal government has not caught up with it yet on this program because the Province is being more responsive in providing these resources. The feds are being somewhat recalcitrant in the flows that they are making available to the Province.

Mr. Loewen: Mr. Chairperson, would the minister be able to tell me how much of provincial funds has flowed to the slaughter program at this particular time?

Mr. Selinger: Of that original $15 million, it was the 60-40 formula as indicated. That would imply $6 million from the federal government, $4 million from the Province. There is a feed assistance program for an additional $4.7 million. That starts to indicate that money was not matched by the federal government, the feed assistance program.

I think there has been further activity since then. There is a steady although not sufficient stream of slaughter activity going on with the facilities that are available. I think that we have gone beyond the $4 million now, but I do not have a precise number. There is a number bouncing around in my mind that we are up around $4.85 million now. I do not have confirmation, other than what the minister said today, that the feds have gone beyond the $6 million at this point.

Mr. Loewen: Just for clarification again, I apologize to the minister for this, but there are just so many programs and so many numbers floating around, he just mentioned the numbers $6 million, $4 million and $4.7 million of the $15 million. Was he talking about the $15-million warrant on July 16? Or was his mention of $15 million another figure?

Mr. Selinger: Mr. Chair, I want to separate the warrant amounts put in place from the program announcements. The warrant amounts were total amounts of money, of cash we made available for all the disasters occurring in the province in the summer. Then there were program announcements. So one $15 million is not equivalent to the other $15 million, all right.

* (15:00)

Mr. Loewen: I appreciate that clarification and just for further clarification I will take from what the minister has already said that the $6 million in federal money is not looked upon by the Province as a repayment that will go back, charged against its warrant. It is an amount the minister feels will be distributed to the families suffering through this crisis.

Mr. Selinger: I want to be careful here. The money I have made available to producers will be according to their needs. If they demonstrate the need for the money on the slaughter program our full 40 percent will be provided and the full federal 60 percent will be provided within the envelope the federal government put in place. They have a cap on that.

Then, after that, we have made money available for a feed assistance program. We have said we will use our first $15 million that we allocated fully for both of those alternatives.

We are not intending to necessarily claw it back if there is real need expressed for the resources. The resources have been made available to respond to the need. If the need turns out to be less than the resources made available and the federal government is available to offset it, that would only be considered without hampering the need of the consumers or the producers.

The 60-40 formula was one agreed to by the Province and the federal government on the initial slaughter program. We are there up to the cap the federal government has put in place. Then any additional resources we have made available for a feeder program that the federal government has so far not been willing to cost-share.

We are hopeful the federal government will be willing to cost-share that as we go forward because we have proposed to them, and this is the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) that has done this, that this is a realistic program that responds to a real need, whereas their program has not done the job.

Mr. Loewen: We will come back to that issue when we deal with the $68-million request in the Supplementary Estimates.

Just to finish off with these Interim Supply bills, will the minister just confirm that the March 19 warrant for $1.847 billion and the June 13 for $1.582 billion were strictly for budgeted amounts?

Mr. Selinger: Yes, it was for budgeted amounts. It was to make money available to handle the Budget which has not yet been passed. That was the purpose of it. That is what the motion says here. It is just to provide the cash flow to keep Government going until we can get to the decision-making process we are engaged in here.

Mr. Loewen: I appreciate that. I am just asking the minister to confirm there is nothing extraordinary in those initial two warrants outside of the Budget.

Mr. Selinger: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. Loewen: I thank the minister for that clarification. I would like to move on to Part A of the Supplementary Estimates of Operating Expenditure, I guess in particular dealing with the request for $10.9 million for the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Chairperson: We are not dealing with that yet. It depends on the Minister of Finance, if he wants to answer, but that is not yet covered by our proceedings.

Mr. Selinger: I thought we were only dealing with The Interim Appropriation Act here, and then we were going to deal with the Supplementary Estimates separately. I think the Chairperson is trying to give us guidance that we should not be jumping into this one, because it is not officially in front of us right now.

I can answer it, but I think in both of our interests, we should follow the Chairperson's advice and wait until it comes up on the agenda.

Mr. Chairperson: Does the honourable Member for Fort Whyte have other questions dealing with the subject matter at hand?

An Honourable Member: Jack, do you have any questions? [interjection]

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I wonder if the Finance Minister could identify for us the programs that have so far been announced by his Province, whether he could identify all of them for us. I would like to write them down when he identifies them.

Mr. Selinger: First, the member will note the MACC, the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation loan program. It is a $100-million program of low-interest loans to producers. The interest rate is 3.25 for all producers, except for those under 40 where the rate is 2.25.

The program has now been announced for the first two years of the loan. Those low interest rates will apply. The cap in that program is $50,000 per producer. So that is program one.

The second program is the BSE recovery program, $15 million in funding for the BSE slaughter program and the feed assistance program. The slaughter program has the 60-40 cost-sharing element to it with the federal government.

Mr. Chair, the third program is the drought assistance program. That is $12 million in transportation assistance to producers transporting feed to livestock or livestock to feed. Then there is the BSE slaughter program. This is $10 million to extend the slaughter component of the BSE recovery program.

We have also extended the availability from animals on feed as of May 20, '03, to all ruminants that go to slaughter after September 1, '03.

There is also the Manitoba Beef Fund of $2 million to help build Manitoba slaughter capacity. Then, of course, we have moved and signaled to the federal government our interest to sign the Agricultural Policy Framework, which will allow $43 million in funding to be available to Manitoba producers under the Canada Agricultural Income Stabilization program.

Mr. Penner: Can we go back to the second item that you identified? I am not sure I caught that.

Mr. Selinger: Mr. Chairperson, the first one I mentioned was the MACC loan program. The second one was the BSE recovery program. I said $15 million. That included the slaughter program and the Manitoba feed assistance program. The slaughter program has the 60-40 cost-sharing in it with the federal government. That was the original federal-provincial package.

Mr. Penner: Then there was a $12-million drought program?

Mr. Selinger: Yes–

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Finance. Sorry, gentlemen. The Hansard has to be recorded.

Mr. Selinger: Yes, I am doing my best to follow the bouncing red light here.

Mr. Chairperson, it was $12 million in the transportation assistance to producers program. That is the drought assistance program.

Mr. Penner: And the next one was the BSE slaughter program? That was how much?

Mr. Selinger: The BSE slaughter program is a $10-million program. It extends the slaughter component of the BSE recovery program.

Just to complete the list again, there was the Manitoba beef fund, $2 million to help build Manitoba's slaughter capacity.

Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, the minister just in response to our critic, Mr. Loewen, indicated that under the federal-provincial cost-shared program that was announced by the federal government, which was roughly about a $500-million program that was announced, the Province of Manitoba received roughly about $6 million of federal money and roughly about 4.7 was expended by the Province. Is that correct?

Mr. Selinger: Yes. The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) just indicated today during Question Period that about 6 million of the federal money has flowed. That implies at least 4 million of provincial money to meet that formula would have flowed. I am going from memory, so I cannot be absolutely certain of this, but I think we may have gone beyond that 4 million in the order of magnitude the member has mentioned, but at least the 4 million has been put in place.

* (15:10)

Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, could the minister tell this House under what premise the Government of Manitoba signed on to the slaughter program when it was first contemplated that the Province might be asked to participate in a program such as this? Was it the Government's view that they would receive a proportional share of the funding that would accrue, give an amount of money to Manitoba under the auspices and the terms of the agreement? Was that the understanding of the minister?

Mr. Selinger: Well, the member will know that I was not at the table on those negotiations so I was not privy to the conversations that took place. It is difficult for me to indicate clearly what the understandings were at the time, so I am not trying in any way to pretend that I knew the assumption at the table because I was not there. I think you can see from our subsequent efforts that we assumed we would get a proportionate share and there would be some reasonable flexibility on the federal government in how that would be applied if the original definition of the program was insufficient to respond to Manitoba needs.

We all know that the original slaughter program really did not help Manitoba producers as much as it was helping producers in other jurisdictions where they had the primary slaughter facilities. So we quickly moved off that to try to use that same envelope of money, the 60-40 formula included to have the feeder program.

The federal government, I was informed by the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), did not respond to that adaptation we made to respond to Manitoba producers and that is where we were left holding the bag for 100 percent of that. So, you know, it is not unreasonable to think that we should get our proportionate share of that federal resource although clearly that has not been the case up to now but negotiations and pressure continues to get them to be reasonable in this regard.

Mr. Penner: Thank you to the Finance Minister for that answer. If the Province of Manitoba would have negotiated, I think, in a prudent manner on behalf of the producers, the livestock industry in the province, it would appear to me that they would have insisted that a formula should have been developed to ensure that at least a proportionate amount would have accrued to the Province.

I want to ask the minister whether it is his view that when the Premier announced that they were going to pull $17 million out of the fund that he had indicated would be designated towards the provincial portion of the federal-provincial program, whether the Premier was a bit premature in pulling the provincial money out of the fund instead of going back to Ottawa and arguing for its provincial portion and thereby accruing an amount of $47 million to the livestock producers, federal and provincial money that would have occurred under the program had a proportional amount been established based on the number of slaughter cattle that we annually produce in this province for the slaughter industry, which the cattle producers have said would be in the neighbourhood of 12 percent of the total amount. That would have, according to my calculations, accrued roughly about $47 million in total to the Province.

Is it the Finance Minister's views that we were a bit premature in Manitoba in pulling our money out of the program, because the federal government, according to my information, had not yet indicated that the program was fully subscribed when we did that.

Mr. Selinger: I do not think you can say our Premier (Mr. Doer) or our Agriculture Minister was premature in anything. They were the first to the table to bring this issue up at the western premiers' meeting. Our Premier put it at the top of the agenda, this issue, and made sure that it was addressed by the western premiers in terms of the problem that was clearly emerging.

So our Premier took a leadership role as did our Agriculture Minister, and I do not think it is appropriate for the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) to try to hang on our provincial ministers the inflexibility of the federal government. That is really where the problem has been. They have tried to reduce their exposure by sticking to a very strict set of their self-determined guidelines, as opposed to working co-operatively with the western provinces to adapt that resource envelope to the needs of producers, and that has resulted in Manitoba having to go it alone to make sure that producers were not left in the wake of federal-provincial negotiations that were not generating results.

It is not either-or. Manitoba continues to press the federal government to take up their responsibilities in this regard to provide disaster relief and at the same time has gone ahead to make sure producers have the resources they need.

So, Mr. Chairperson, I do not want the member to in any way interpret my views as negative with respect to the Premier or the Agriculture Minister. They have done a terrific job in bringing the issue to the attention of other levels of government as well as other jurisdictions and provinces in Canada to ensure that the federal government plays their role. I think the Member for Emerson would agree that the federal government really should be the primary leader in providing disaster relief.

Mr. Chairperson, the federal level is really the insurance policy for the country because when the provinces are suffering from problems, whether it is the '97 flood or the BSE crisis or drought, they are the ones that are experiencing all the pressures financially and all the need in terms of their own citizens. It is the federal government that has the broader base of resources that they can bring to bear to allow for relief, and when they do not respond quickly enough, it puts pressure on the provinces.

Mr. Chairperson, all three western provinces have experienced this, as well as Ontario, where they have to go out front with the resources they may or may not have or use their Fiscal Stabilization Fund to be responsive to their own producers and their own citizens and not being clear whether the federal government will be there with them as a full partner. That has been the dilemma that the Province has experienced. I know the Member for Emerson understands that.

Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, I am not going to get into an argumentative mode. I just make the case that because of poor negotiations, this Province gave up on behalf of its producers a number totaling roughly about $30 million that should have accrued through the federal-provincial program to the producers of Manitoba.

I think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) knows that, and I think it is important to note, on behalf of the livestock producers in this province, that they are the ones that are suffering now because of a lack of that kind of support.

Our feedlot industry is a fledgling industry at best in this province; they are the ones that really took the hit because they could not access the marketplace. We had back in the late seventies and eighties an NDP government that was not able to hold on to a slaughter industry that slaughtered at that time a half-million head of cattle. I should be more realistic. I should say that it slaughtered between 300 000 and 500 000 head of cattle during that period of time, any given period of time during that period, and we gave that up because we allowed Swifts, Burns, Canada Packers to fold in this province and Alberta to build on that vacuum and void that we created in this province.

* (15:20)

I want to say to the minister again that was a detriment to our primary producers because we did slaughter up to a half million head of cattle in this province—just a wee bit more than that—during that period of time. This time around again we did not pay proper attention, and we allowed a federal-provincial agreement to be drawn that gave up $30 million of federal funding that should have flowed to the producers of Manitoba without question. That money, I would suspect, because it was fully subscribed after a while, went to either Ontario, Québec, the Maritimes or the other western provinces. Manitoba farmers were the brunt of not being supported, and I think that is what is causing a significant amount of difficulty now in our feedlot industry. Many of the producers that have either e-mailed me, written me or phoned me, the feedlot producers, will tell you that they were the ones that were left holding the bag on this.

I bring this to his attention because I think in future, he and other members of his Cabinet and Treasury Board need to be more vigilant in their prescribing to programs that will not benefit the producers of Manitoba, or else the Province did it deliberately, knowing full well that they would not have to spend the whole $17 million that they would have had to spend had the money flowed to producers. If that is the case, then the Minister of Finance and the Premier (Mr. Doer) have something to answer for.

Mr. Selinger: I think the member is incorrect, and I understand where he is coming from when he says the minister and the Government gave up. That is certainly not the case. The Government was the leader in bringing this attention to the table and has been very vigorous in pursuing it. When a federal government shows inflexibility and does not respond, you should not blame the victims of that which are the provinces and the producers that do not benefit from their lack of responsiveness.

These negotiations are still going on. Nobody has given up. There is no white flag flying over on this side of the House, and I wish there were not one on the other side of the House when they go so negative. This is what the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) has been saying is that with a stronger unified voice out of this Legislature, we would have more ability to influence the federal government as to the necessity for them to, sort of, flow that money in a more responsive manner to livestock producers. If the federal government sees the Legislature divided, then they just sit back. I think the member understands that, as a long-experienced member of the Legislature.

That is why we have done two things. We have not, for one minute, blinked on identifying to the federal government their responsibility to be a 60-40 partner in disaster relief and show flexibility in how that relief can be tailored to meet the specific needs of producers in this province. If slaughter capacity is insufficient in the province and you cannot get in the queue in other jurisdictions, then a feeder program makes sense. A transportation program makes sense as well. That is why we think the federal government still has to consider that, and active negotiations are still going on, as far as I understand it. Other provinces are experiencing the same problem in the West. They are not getting the responsiveness they need either, and they are continuing to work on this. So I think the member mischaracterizes the situation with the words he has put on the record, and I have to correct that.

The issue of slaughter capacity within the province is a very important issue. All I can say to the member is that greater slaughter capacity in this province would really help resolve the issue, no question about it. That is why the $2 million was put in place. We do have some abattoir capacity in this province. Some of that could be ramped up and some of that is going on as we speak. The member knows full well that he was the Government for 11 to 12 years and the slaughter capacity did not dramatically grow during that period of time, so I do not think he can skip that period of Manitoba political history and who was governing during that period.

Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that the cattle producers of this province have clearly stated publicly as well as privately that they did not receive their fair share, and I think that the minister knows that full well, of the federal-provincial portioning of the program.

Had a significant effort been made by this Province to indicate clearly that the slaughter should take place on a proportional basis, then I think our cattle producers would have been defended in that respect, yet that was not done. All I am saying to you, Mr. Finance Minister, is that you missed the boat. Who suffered the consequences? Our cattle producers did.

Mr. Selinger: I know where the member is coming from and that is exactly the frustration that the Government has had with the federal government. The provincial government does not miss any boat. The federal government was insufficiently responsive and that is the experience that other provinces have had as well.

The negotiations have been very vigorously carried by this side of the House and I think the member knows that and, you know what? They are not over yet. They are not over yet, either. This process continues to unfold and, like any good producer in this province, you prepare for the worst and you hope for the best and you work hard to make sure the best occurs.

We are not finished yet negotiating with the federal government on this. I do not believe and I do not control the books for the federal government, but I do not think there has been the full take up of the $500 million. I do not believe that has occurred. That creates the opportunity to press them to continue to be responsive to the programs we have put in place and to carry their share of that responsibility.

Mr. Penner: Well, thank you very much and I am not going to pursue that any further. I think I have made the point that the cattle producers have expressed to me that they feel that they were left holding the bag on this and they have felt let down by the provincial negotiating process. They also feel let down by the federal Liberal government.

They clearly acknowledge that as well and the Minister of Finance is right. We have had very, very little consideration, true consideration from the current Liberal government on any issues dealing with the crisis in agriculture and specifically on matters pertaining to the current crisis. I think that is unfortunate, but that is what we have to live with.

Mr. Chair, there was a $12 million new drought-assistance program announced. What portion of that or are there any prescribed limitations under that program such as mileage distances and those kinds of things? Can the ministry enlighten us a bit about that drought-assistance program?

Mr. Selinger: Yes, I do not want to pre-empt the Department of Agriculture, which is working out the program details, but there will be obviously some guidelines that the program has to operate within on items that the member recognized. The details have not been finalized by that department. They are trying to design it in a way that does the job and addresses the greatest need out there. That will come forward very shortly once they finalize that.

Mr. Penner: The Government of Manitoba announced a $15 million, at least that is the way the announcement read, a $15-million slaughter-assistance program, I believe it was called, and then later on it turned out to be a $10-million program and the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) told us in Estimates that the previous amount under the federal-provincial slaughter program had in fact taken up a portion of that 15 million that they re-announced again, and a portion of that was still outstanding.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us today how much of the remaining 10 million that the Minister of Agriculture said had been re-announced for the slaughter program provincial portion now, and only provincial, and then I think there were some comments made that they were still expecting the federal government to come on board. Can you tell this House how much of that $10 million exactly has been paid out?

* (15:30)

Mr. Selinger: I am not exactly clear on the question, but there are two elements. There was the original BSE recovery program, $15 million, 60-40 cost shared with the federal government; $4.7 million of that $15 million has been used for the feeder assistance program; $4 million has been matched by the federal government's $6 million to provide a $10-million program. Once the cap was hit there, we announced an extension program, a BSE slaughter program of $10 million. I do not have a number on how much of that has been taken up yet, but that was intended to provide further support to producers once the original program cap had been reached. So it was an extension program.

Mr. Penner: Would there not be some provision made to report to the Department of Finance and/or through to Treasury Board, an accounting on a daily/weekly basis, to ensure that there was some accounting of that on an ongoing basis, or how did this Government work on those matters?

Mr. Selinger: The departments administer the program and the flowing of the cash from that program once they receive authority. They do not report back on a daily or weekly basis. They will report to us in a timely manner about how the program is going. The most important element was to get the program in place and then to let it respond to the demands that producers are bringing forward. I am confident that has happened when I have discussed it with the minister and her officials, that the program is providing resources as needed to extend the slaughter program. As the member knows, there are some efforts going on by some of the abattoirs and slaughter facilities in the province to expand their capacity and to extend their capacity to accommodate the real needs of those trying to get their animals slaughtered.

Each producer makes his own judgment as to whether he wants those animals to go to slaughter or not. Those judgments are, as the member I am sure knows better than I do, complex judgments about trying to forecast what is going to be available in terms of market opportunities in the future. All of this, as we know, hinges upon opening up the border. We have seen a partial opening up of the border for shoulder cuts. Will the border open up rapidly? One can only hope that it will.

Mr. Penner: It appears to me that there has been either a bit of a double announcement here–I do not know why that was done in the way the Government did it–or the subscription under the first announcement of the $10 million to extend the slaughter component on a provincial basis, which I understand has not been nearly subscribed to yet, has been terminated. Can the Minister of Finance tell me why this would have been terminated when it has paid out less than $4 million so far?–or around $4 million, I will give it the round number. Why would it have been terminated and then a new $10-million program announced again last week? Can the Minister of Finance tell me why that would have been done in that way?

Mr. Selinger: Once again, it is difficult to speak for the department administering the program. You have had a full opportunity to discuss that with the minister during Estimates. So I am not going to speak for the minister or the Department of Agriculture when I am not directly responsible for it. All I can say to the member is that that was a joint cost-shared program, 60-40, between the federal and provincial governments.

Mr. Penner: I think the minister is a bit confused here, and so are we, quite frankly. That is why I am asking the question. I think the minister would like to say that the provincial portion of the federal-provincial program was in fact a total–should have been accrued $47 million to the Province of Manitoba, should have accrued if the number of cattle, the percentage of cattle that Manitoba, in fact, had in the feeder designation would have been fully subscribed to or would have been allowed to fully subscribe to or brought to slaughter, but they were not. They were not able to bring them to slaughter because there was no provision for a percentage of our cattle to be brought into the slaughter facility. If the minister does not know that he should have, they should have had this discussion in Cabinet and I think in Treasury Board to ensure that we would get that percentage.

Secondly, they then took 10 million or $15 million they announced that they would take out of that program, and an additional $200 million that would be accrued to the slaughter enhancement program, the made-in-Manitoba-beef fund I think they called it, so the total amount that was drawn out of that program was $17 million. But $15 million was announced as an assistance program to Manitoba producers, which we later found out, 4.7 million was actually the first subscription that had accrued to, under the federal-provincial program. The second portion now, I understand, has paid out just over 4 million and was terminated and a third one was announced of $10 million which we do not know yet exactly how that is going to work.

Mr. Chairperson, could the Minister of Finance at least describe for us the third announcement and how that will be delivered and how he sees that being flowed to the producers.

Mr. Selinger: The member started off by asking me to list the program components and I listed those very clearly for the member–[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable–

Mr. Selinger: No. No, hold it. I am not finished.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Mr. Selinger: Yes, Mr. Chair, I am continuing. I very clearly listed the program elements that we have put in place, some of them in co-operation with the federal government. Now the member has reconstructed that in his own framework which quite frankly is not easy to follow. I was very clear in laying out the program elements. I am sticking by those because that is the information and that is the actual programs we have put in place.

All of these programs, under the best-case scenario–and the other thing the member has done, he had done just an enormous number of hypotheticals in terms of what the program amount should be.

Mr. Chair, the negotiation was for a 60-40 federal-provincial slaughter program. That program, because facilities were outside of our jurisdiction and outside of our control, was not allowing all of our producers to get access to it on a timely basis. The provincial government then took that information into account and adapted to a feed assistance program, as requested by the cattle producers in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk). So everything was done according to a proper consultation and dialogue between the Government and the producers.

In addition to that, the minister moved on the Agricultural Policy Framework in order to free up money under the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program to make that money available to producers and move very effectively to make sure that money was available and there was no encumbrance to that money flowing because we have budgeted for that and the federal government ought to have budgeted for that. Those resources should be coming out in a timely fashion to meet the needs of producers.

I also indicated that a loan program was put in place with low-interest rates, 3.25 percent and 2.25 percent for producers under 40. The federal government has not been part of these announcements and has not been responsive in the same way the Province has.

The Minister of Agriculture also announced a drought assistance program of $12 million and an extension BSE slaughter program of $10 million and as well the Manitoba beef fund, or increasing Manitoba's slaughter capacity for $2 million.

All those programs have been clearly articulated by myself. I quite frankly find the way the member reconfigures some of those numbers not easily understood, but I stand by the numbers we have put out here.

All of these announcements have been made to respond to producers in Manitoba while ongoing pressure is being put on the federal government to be a full partner in these programs and provide their share of the resources. Unfortunately, they have not been as responsive as this Government has been to the producers of Manitoba. The member fully knows that and understands that.

Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, let me then indicate to the Minister of Finance, on June 30, I will put dates to this, on June 30 the federal-provincial BSE recovery program was announced, $460 million jointly funded by the provinces and the federal government, which was later enhanced by roughly about 30 some odd, $38 million or $32 million, I am not quite sure, that the federal government increased that funding by, which brought it to roughly about half a billion dollars. Correct? That was on June 30.

Mr. Selinger: I have to take the member at his word. He has the information in front of him there. I do not have that information in front of me. I understand the total federal envelope is in the order of half a billion dollars, yes.

* (15:40)

Mr. Penner: On July 31 you announced a $15-million feed assistance program. Is that correct?

Mr. Selinger: The program that was announced was the one I identified earlier, the BSE recovery program, $15 million in funding for both the BSE slaughter program and the Manitoba feed assistance program.

Mr. Penner: On that same day you announced a $2-million slaughter enhancement program or made-in-Manitoba beef fund. Is that correct?

Mr. Selinger: Yes. As I indicated earlier, a Manitoba beef fund. I do not have the dates here. I am just telling you the program elements. The programs elements were $2 million to help build Manitoba's slaughter capacity, the Manitoba beef fund.

Mr. Penner: Mr. Chair, on September 3, you re-announced the made-in-Manitoba beef fund of $2 million, added some details to it. Then on August 6, you announced a $100-million loans program. On September 12, you announced another slaughter component, BSE recovery program and the drought assistance program, which was $12 million for drought assistance, for transportation of feed stocks into the drought area, and $10 million to extend the slaughter component on the BSE recovery program to assist livestock producers. Is that correct?

Mr. Selinger: That is consistent with the information I have provided the member. He has the dates there.

Mr. Penner: Then, to top it off, you announced a $43-million commitment under the Agricultural Policy Framework.

Can the Minister of Finance tell me the total amount of government announcements that have been made to the province of Manitoba and the beef industry, or the livestock industry, not just the beef industry, the livestock industry in this province to be fair? How much in total have you announced so far?

Mr. Selinger: I think I was very clear on this in response to the first question from the Member for Emerson. There is the $100-million low interest loan program, 3.25 for producers over 40, 2.25 for producers under 40, access up to $50,000 per producer, and the reduced rate of interest for the first two years of the loan; the BSE recovery program, $15 million, with elements of the slaughter program and the feed assistance program; the drought assistance program of $12 million and transportation assistance to producers, transporting feed to livestock or livestock to feed; the BSE slaughter program, $10 million to extend the slaughter component of the original BSE recovery program and the $2-million slaughter capacity program, or what we have called the Manitoba beef fund.

Those resources total $182 million that have been put in place to respond to this crisis among livestock producers. I said that right up front.

Mr. Penner: The reason I ask the question, I wonder if the Minister of Finance knows how much the total is. According to my numbers, the total amount of programs that have been announced so far are $156 million that the Province of Manitoba has committed to the livestock industry.

The next question that I want to ask the Minister of Finance, can you table today the amount of money in total that has been paid out to the livestock producers of this province, either through your loans program or through your multitude of assistance programs for slaughter or for feed assistance and whatnot? How much money have you actually paid out, sir?

Mr. Selinger: In response to the member, my total came to $182 million, not 156 or whatever you want to call it.

Mr. Chairperson, it was a $100-million loan program, the commitment to get involved with the Agricultural Policy Framework, which has an element of support to livestock producers through the Canada Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, the BSE program for $15 million, the drought assistance program for $12 million, the BSE slaughter extension program for $10 million and the beef fund or the slaughter capacity program of $2 million.

The cash flows on that I do not have available to me here. Those cash flows are under the control of the agencies operating the program for the department and the Agricultural Credit Corporation, but we said in the House yesterday that 170 loans had gone out. We have indicated here that at least $4 million under the BSE recovery program has been made available to match the $6 million of the federal government. The feed assistance program can be up to $4.7 million. I do not know how much of that has flowed at this stage of the game, and then, of course, last week we announced a drought assistance program of $12 million and the slaughter program, the $10-million extension.

The actual cash flows I do not have at my fingertips, but these resources are available to producers. Some producers, most producers would not take advantage of these programs unless they absolutely had to. I think the member would agree with that. Most producers are pretty proud and like to go on their own resources as much as possible, but they want to know it is there if they need it. They will not use it just because it is there. They will only use it if they absolutely need it because that is the type of people they are.

They are Manitobans who try to make their operations work on their own resources, but they take great comfort from knowing the resource is there if they have to access it, and we have seen over 170 individuals access the loan program up to now because they really needed it. We have other producers who may or may not need it depending on how the situation unfolds and how quickly the border opens up, but they take comfort from knowing the resource is there if they have to draw upon it.

Mr. Penner: I appreciate the Minister of Finance's comments and I think he is absolutely correct. However, I want to say this to you, Mr. Minister, as Finance Minister you do have an obligation and your Premier (Mr. Doer) has an obligation and so do all of your Cabinet ministers, and that is if and when you create the perception in the general public–and whether it is $180-some-odd million or $199 million is immaterial. Mr. Chairperson, you have created a perception amongst the general public that you have flowed hundreds of millions of dollars to the cattle–[interjection] Well, sure you have.

You have announced a $100-million loan program. You have announced a $12-million program, a $10 million twice, a $2-million program, a $17-million program, a $15-million program and a $43-million program to accommodate the APF. Those are the news releases that you have put out, sir, I am sorry. You have created the impression amongst the general public that you have flowed hundreds of millions of dollars to the cattle producers of this province, and there are many farmers and cattle producers, livestock producers, that will tell you they simply do not qualify for the criteria you have laid around those programs, and, therefore, the numbers that you have created are huge. That is why I asked you for the cash flow. How much money have you actually cash-flowed to the producers of that almost $200 million that you have announced?

The deception, I think, is what these producers are most concerned about and is creating the emotion out in rural Manitoba, which is clearly identified by the director or the manager of the stress line. The human cry that is going out there to you, Mr. Finance Minister, and your Government is real. The pain is real. You need to recognize that you should not create or cause false expectation. That is far worse than not creating any expectations at all. It creates a tremendous emotional stress on the general farm population of this province, specifically the young people that we depend on for continuation of food production in this province.

You have, Mr. Minister of Finance, been part of a portrayal of an assistance program that you have not or cannot deliver under the criteria that you have laid out for these programs. I think it is unfortunate that you and your Cabinet colleagues have created that kind of an aura around this that will leave the other general public to believe that you have actually done tremendous work when you have really created a model for disaster. You will have to answer for that at some point in time.

* (15:50)

Mr. Chairman, I think it is imperative that this Government and this Minister of Finance apprise this House of exactly how many dollars have been flowed until now. The people of Manitoba have the right to know. That is why we are into this kind of an exercise to get the Minister of Finance to put on the record what is real and what is perceived.

I ask you again, Mr. Finance Minister, put on the record the exact amount of monies that the Government of Manitoba has flowed, not what has been announced, but what has actually been paid to the producers until now.

Mr. Selinger: I think the member from Emerson is really trying to have it both ways. I regret that he behaves this way in the House.

Mr. Chairperson: A point of order being raised?

Mr. Penner: I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) owes this committee an apology. Behaves, I have behaved nothing but in an orderly fashion in this committee. Have I been emotional? Yes, I have been.

Minister of Finance, I want to tell you one thing. I have not been nearly as emotional as many producers have been in dealing with this matter with me and my colleagues.

Mr. Chairperson: Order. If the member is raising a point of order, it is addressed to the Chair. The Chair considers a point of order asked by relation of the proceedings and rules of the House.

Mr. Penner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will abide by that process.

Mr. Chairperson: Is the member raising a point of order? State the point of order, please.

Mr. Penner: I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance owes this committee an apology, I think. I have done nothing but portray with emotion the emotions that I hear on a daily basis, either by phone call, by e-mail or by letters and by listening to people, to grown men cry in public when they describe their own financial situations. I have attended many public functions and listened to many of these young couples and some more elderly describe the financial stress they are under.

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister of Finance needs to come with me some days and listen. I say to you he owes this committee an apology for the terminology that he has used for the manner in which I have conducted myself. I am only speaking on behalf of the distressed livestock producers in this province.

Mr. Chairperson: On the same point of order, the honourable Minister of Finance.

Mr. Selinger: I do not believe that is a point of order. I see no citation as to what procedure is not being properly followed. I do not think it was a point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: Technically, there is no point of order here. Being passionate is not a sin. It is part of politics. We can be as passionate as we can, but we should also consider being very civil and polite to each other. That is why rules are made and people like us are expected to observe the rules.

A difference of opinion, no matter how serious the problem is, is not a point of order.

Mr. Selinger: I thank you for that ruling, Mr. Chairperson. The member seems to think it is a one-way street, that he can be passionate about his views and it is inappropriate for other members to be passionate. We hold with great passion the responsibilities we have here and we take them very seriously.

When the member starts saying we have tried to create a misperception by the resources we have put in place, I take great offence to his comments. They are completely inappropriate.

It was that member, among others on the other side of the House, that stood up and demanded resources. Now that the resources have been put in place–[interjection] I would hope the member would try to be polite and respectful. I listened very carefully to what he said. I ask him the same courtesy at this time. He is a senior member of this House. He has been here far longer than I have. I will look to him to set an example on proper behaviour in this Legislature.

He has been ruled incorrect on his point of order. I hope he will respect that and politely listen to my response as I did to his remarks.

As I was saying, we take our responsibilities very seriously, which is why we have put these programs in place. There is no misperception being created by putting those resources in place because they are real. Those resources are available to Manitoba livestock producers.

So for the member to stand up in the House every day and demand the resources to be put in place and then to belittle the fact that they have been put in place I think is inappropriate behaviour. I stand by that comment. That is a comment directed to the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). The producers have real needs. That is why these programs have been put in place and he knows that.

Now, as to the programs themselves, the demand on those programs is driven by the producers' willingness to access them when they need them. As I said earlier, producers that have need will access these programs. The Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation is a corporation in good standing in the agricultural community. I am sure the Member for Emerson would agree with that. They have good capacity to identify the needs of producers through the application processes that are made and flow cash in a timely fashion.

I am informed by the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) that they have been putting an extra effort into making sure those resources are available to people. I know they will continue to do that.

The Agricultural Policy Framework, we all know, is not a perfect instrument, but it does provide resources, income stabilization resources to producers, which is why we have decided we have to move on that. That movement on the part of this Minister of Agriculture and this Government we hope will prompt the federal government to start flowing the resources they have identified under that agreement in a timely fashion, simply for the purpose of benefiting producers, to make sure they have cash.

The BSE recovery program, originally signed on with the federal government, it is the federal government that has been inflexible–the member himself admits that in his own remarks–in not allowing that program to continue to adapt to the needs of producers. We have, unfortunately, had to go it alone. We would prefer to have a federal partner but we have gone ahead of them and adapted that program to meet the needs of producers in terms of feed assistance.

In addition, we have announced a drought assistance program relating to transportation needs of producers. We would like the federal government to be with us on that. They have unfortunately not responded to that yet as well. We have extended the slaughter program as well as put resources available to increase slaughter capacity within the province.

Along with the $100-million low interest loans, and as I understand it the $100-million low interest loan program was a program that people were calling for in other provinces and other provinces were not making it available. We were the first to make that program available.

When I put my remarks on the record I speak with the same passion and interest to see positive results for Manitobans as the member opposite does. I respect his desire to be passionate about his concerns. I hope he is equally respectful of our desire to see positive results for producers. If he wants to play politics around that then I feel obligated to defend our position, because we have moved all summer long to make sure that we could target resources to where the needs really are for these producers, livestock producers in this province.

* (16:00)

I have heard the member stand up in this House and call for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not think there is any member in this House who has worked harder this summer to respond to the needs of producers than this Minister of Agriculture. I defy the member opposite to challenge the work ethic and the responsiveness and the concern that this Minister of Agriculture has shown. She has gone to meetings, sometimes to the same community twice in one week to listen to the concerns and to bring those concerns back and to find practical, efficient, effective ways to respond to those needs. I do not think you can deny that. I know that this member has worked extremely hard to respond to the needs of producers. The Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff) has acknowledged that. He feels a lot of the pain up in the area and among the producers that he represents.

We take it seriously. We have responded. We think in a rapid fashion to the needs of those folks. We have not been able to get the federal government to come along with us on the creativity needed to respond to these producers. Other provinces have had the same frustration with the federal government and their lack of ability to come along with them as well. But in spite of that lack of a full federal partner we have moved forward to put resources in place, to respond to these producers. That is part of the reason that we are here having this discussion right now, because it is important that we get these resources in place and make sure that producers have access to them.

Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): I am a little offended at the Minister of Finance trying to provide a moral overtone to this. The response to the BSE issue in this country has been in the main too little too late from many levels of government.

This Government signed on to the federal-provincial agreement that with a little bit of background it became pretty obvious that it was not going to work. When people began screaming from the rooftops that Manitoba cattle could not be put into a slaughter position, then they adjusted it.

So far, so good. But then at this late date they are now announcing feed assistance, when all along the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) indicated that there was a green feed program, simply portraying the fact that she did not understand what the farmers were talking about when they said they needed to have a green feed program in place because there is no use cutting it after it has reached maturity and trying to harvest it. Other jurisdictions historically have moved very quickly during drought processes to allow those farmers who have green feed opportunities to access them early and access them often.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance: When he puts money into MACC, this particular fund, what level of risk does he assume that that money is at? He will have to set aside some write-off or MACC will. Ultimately, he will be responsible for that. I would like to know what level of risk he sees that money at.

Mr. Selinger: The Member for Ste. Rose is correct that when you put a resource in place for loans you have to have some form of provisioning for that within the books. The provisioning was recommended to us by the agricultural officials. I believe the provisioning is in the order of 15 percent. That will be reviewed depending on what the further movement is on keeping the border shut. The normal provisioning requirement that we put in place for this programme was 15 percent. That, as the member fully understands, is directly connected to how long the border stays closed and to what degree it stays closed. So we have put a close watch on that. If there is a need for additional provisioning it will be provided. That will be something that we will rev