ORDERS OF THE DAY

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I intend to introduce at this point, by leave, two motions related to the visit of the Governor-General next week.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader have leave to introduce two motions relating to the visit of the Governor-General? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), that the members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, invited guests and officers in the service of the Legislative Assembly are requested to take their places in the Assembly Chamber and the galleries thereof at 10:55 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4, to receive the address of the Right Honourable Romeo LeBlanc, Governor-General of Canada.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), that notwithstanding subrule 3(1) of the rules of this House, the ordinary daily sitting of this House on Thursday, October 5, shall commence at 2:30 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, would you please call Bill 2, Bill 5, Bill 27 and then the balance of the bills as listed in the Order Paper?

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 2--The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second readings, Bill 2, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, in many ways, I am sorry to have to rise on a bill that is destined to make Manitoba the laughing stock of the financial management world.

This is a bill that is designed, Madam Speaker, to take us back to the Dirty Thirties, which seems to have arisen out of some baleful memory of times long past on the part of the members opposite. I can just imagine that some time--about a year and a bit--ago, when the government thought it was facing defeat at the hands then of another party other than our own, they had to figure out some strategy that might appeal to the far right. So they said let us balance our budget, not only let us balance our budget, let us allow ourselves to sell our assets to balance our budget. Let us balance our budget every year, even if economic conditions are so bad that it requires that we go deeply into people's pockets and create more and more poverty. This is a bill from the 1930s.

I would remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the older ministers opposite that R. B. Bennett used to get letters from poor people on the prairies, including poor people from this province. He would get letters begging that something be done to relieve their deep, deep poverty, their starvation in some cases. R. B. Bennett was a wealthy man, and he used to take $5 out of his pocket, and he would put it in an envelope and send it back to the person who had written requesting some kind of assistance, at the end of their rope. He never seemed to realize that it was his preoccupation with balancing the federal budget at the time of the deepest depression since the l880s that was causing those letters to arrive on his desk in the first place.

The bill seems to ignore the fact that Herbert Hoover was driven from office in the United States for precisely the same kind of narrow-minded annual preoccupation with balancing the budget, that it was only when, under some significant pressure, President Roosevelt introduced the New Deal and began to invest in the people of the United States and began to allow them to pull themselves out of the depths of recession.

Like the Health minister (Mr. McCrae) opposite who would ask us to tell him about each case that is going wrong in the health care system so he can fix the case, on a case-by-case basis, the government seems not to realize that when you impose this kind of legislation you create hundreds of cases, and you cannot solve them case by case, you have to solve them with good public policy, and this bill, Madam Speaker, is bad public policy.

I am sad to have to talk about such elementary ideas as the business and financial cycle to my honourable friends opposite, but it seems that they have failed basic economics again and they need to repeat the class. The problem is for Manitobans that, while they may be bad students of economics, they also happen to be in charge of the public purse. So for a short while yet and perhaps through this baleful bill, they are going to do great damage to the province, to our people, our businesses and to the health and education of Manitobans.

* (1430)

Madam Speaker, through this bill, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and his wizard, the Finance minister (Mr. Stefanson), would try to stand on Manitoba's financial shores like some maniacal King Canute and rebuke the financial waves which characterize global capitalism. It is well known to even the most elementary student of capitalism that it is characterized by extreme booms and busts, but even its great defenders call for a moderating influence on the part of government to moderate those cycles so that the depths of despair are not so extreme as to cause the overthrow of the state, which is one of the points that a number of historical capitalist writers make.

The members opposite, Madam Speaker, would say to the business cycle--be still. They would say to the depths of poverty created by the business cycle--wait. But most fundamentally they simply do not seem to understand public finance. Opposite we have business people who have been more or less successful in their businesses. I would ask them to think through their own business history. Have they never taken out a loan? Have they never had a year in which they lost money and were unable in that year to balance their business's budget? Have they not met their farmer friends who had loss after loss because of world trading predatory policies of the United States and the European community?

Have they never understood that in order to make money as my Tory friends often tell me, you have to invest money? You have to go to the bank, that it is possible to pile up a very successful business, but it is almost never possible to do so without having years in which the losses overwhelm the revenues in which there is a need to make a substantial investment in new equipment or training for your workers or the plant in some form or other. It is simply not possible to manage major enterprise without cyclical investment and without from time to time having years which your banker gets kind of concerned about because you lost money.

Madam Speaker, we have ministers opposite who are partners in business, whether they are funeral homes or whether they are inns or whether they are farms, whatever businesses we see represented by members opposite. I would ask them to at least in the privacy of their caucus ask the Finance minister how you could run their business under this legislation. How could you make it possible to do business if you can never have a loss, you can never borrow money if it puts you in the hole, you can never have a long-term view of your business? How is it possible to stay in business?

Madam Speaker, Manitobans are often told by this government that government is like a family. It should balance its budget and live within its means. In simple terms, none of us would disagree with that. It is what I try to do every year. It is what I am sure you try to do and what other members opposite try to do. That is one reason, of course, why we left government and were happy to have a $58-million surplus in the year that we left, not of our own accord naturally, but nevertheless we left with a budget that produced the only surplus for provincial governments during the 1980s.

But unfortunately the government's balanced budget legislation would cripple most families if it applied to them, just like it will cripple the government's ability to meet our needs for health care and education and special projects like, for example, the Winnipeg floodway which could not have been built under this legislation unless the government resorted to a financial trick, that is to borrow the money for the floodway off budget. Is that what they are going to do? They are going to take whatever capital needs they have that cannot be accommodated within the annual cycle and suddenly we will find them being borrowed off budget so that they can continue to do what they want without being constrained by their own legislation.

Let us assume for a moment that both spouses in a family are working, and they have a small total income, only $30,000, which is not unusual for families today and the kind of poverty that families have to suffer under the kind of government that we have. A $30,000 income from two people working full time. One needs a car to do her job. One has got some student debts to repay.

So they borrow to buy a car. Not a big car, just a car. And they start paying off the student loan. Are these bad things? Your legislation would say so. Under the planned legislation our family could not buy their car. They could not have even taken out a student loan in the first place because their budget would not have been balanced in the year that they did it.

What happens if they decide to take a break from the work force and have a baby? What happens in that situation? Well, anybody who has had a child arrive in their home recently knows it is not cheap. But, after all, they are young, reasonably educated, committed to hard work. So for that year they decide that perhaps they are going to take on a little more debt. They are going to buy some things they need for the baby. They are going to buy a crib. They are going to decorate the kid's room. They are going to buy some toys. Do you know what? Their budget would not be balanced for that year.

So what are we telling them? Do not have any babies? Are we saying that you cannot go into debt to invest in your family? That is what this legislation would say.

* (1440)

What about buying a home? That is a favourite thing that most people like to do. How many in this Chamber have mortgages? I venture to say, Madam Speaker, a good number have mortgages. The mortgage is likely much greater than the annual income of the family. Often it would be two or three times the annual income of the family. Could not do that under this legislation. Could not buy a house because there is no ability to borrow for capital under this legislation.

Under this legislation you have to balance your capital and your current account every year. Silly legislation. If you applied it to a family, families could not buy houses, could not buy cars, could not do any of the things that sustain and stimulate our economy that build employment, that build communities. Not possible under this legislation because it says you have to balance the capital and the operating account.

What about investing in education? What about if the family decides that their child needs a university education or a community college education or technical school education? What happens if they decide that, like a constituent in my area who happens in fact to live on Wellington Crescent, has a daughter who is totally deaf, profoundly deaf? He is putting $20,000 this year into that child's education so that she can go to Gallaudet college, the only university in North America that will deal with totally deaf people.

He could not do that under this legislation because he has to borrow the $20,000. He does not have the income. His budget is not balanced, so his daughter could not go to university.

If this legislation applied to families, they could not buy houses, they could not buy cars, they could not invest in their children's education. They would have difficulty taking time off work to have a baby. This is not good public policy.

Today, Madam Speaker, Manitobans pay only about 11 cents of each dollar of provincial income to service our accumulated debt. That picture has not changed much in the last eight to 10 years. It has been pretty stable. This government has managed its finances tightly. The previous government managed its finances tightly. We have not had a great escalation in the public debt in this province. We are not in bad shape, as the minister opposite likes to keep reminding us, but, in fact, we are second or third in Canada.

There is no debt crisis in Manitoba, Madam Speaker. There may well be in Canada at 38 cents on the dollar, and who accumulated those debts? Not New Democratic Party governments. Conservative governments and Liberal governments piled up that debt.

Madam Speaker, who piled up the worst debt in the province's history? This government--$819 million revealed last week in Public Accounts. The worst provincial situation in all of Canada was piled up by a Conservative government in Saskatchewan, the Devine experience of the Saskatchewan people. It piled up the worst per capita debt in Canadian history.

Madam Speaker, when a family's income rises, many families decide that they are able to expand their standard of living. Many of the families opposite, I am sure, have done that very thing. In fact, during this debate today, the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), the member for River East, stood up and said, when I was a child, I was poor. I lived below the poverty line.

Well, Madam Speaker, she does not live below the poverty line anymore. She has a house. She has a car, and she got those things presumably by investing an increasing proportion of her income. As her income rose, she was able to do more. She could service more debt. There is nothing particularly strange about a family deciding that it will invest more in its house or its standard of living as its income rises.

The Government of Canada, through Statistics Canada, makes available what is called the fixed capital flows in stocks. This is essentially the record of the public assets of Manitobans. It is not an overstated amount of money. It is stated on the basis of depreciated approaches, depending on your choice. You can have any one of three depreciated choices. But the gross fixed capital stock of this province in 1995 was $66 billion. Sixty-six billion dollars was the gross fixed capital stock in Manitoba, about 10 times the general purpose debt, about five times the total provincial guaranteed and general purpose debt.

We are wealthy, wealthy Manitobans, Madam Speaker, all of us. I would just recall the conversation that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the former Finance minister had on the occasion of our Leader's welcoming his new child into the world in which the former Finance minister talked about the burden of debt the child had inherited. Our Leader correctly pointed out and obviously knew these numbers, that there was also an enormous asset and that the assets far outstripped the debt.

Do we like to have more debt, Madam Speaker? No, we are not arguing for more debt, but we are also not arguing that investment in public infrastructure, investment in hospitals and roads and education--in fact, we would love to see some investment in northern roads. That would really be a new thing. We are not arguing that we should not invest in those kinds of things, as this legislation is arguing. It is saying that something is wrong with public investment. There is something bad about it.

Why is it that Tories, Madam Speaker, think that public investment is such a bad thing and private investment so good? What is this dichotomy that allows us to say public investment is evil, private investment is good? Do Tories not drive on public roads? Do they not benefit from public parks and hospitals and schools and universities? Do they not enjoy the same clean air that is secured by reasonable environmental standards and air quality protection? Do they not fly out of public airports with safety standards that are unparalleled anywhere in the world? Do they not enjoy the public infrastructure put in place by their and our taxes and use it and benefit from it? How can it be a bad thing to have public infrastructure, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, virtually every economist of any persuasion, even the most right wing, would understand that in a modern economy governments invest in productive assets and supports for their citizens so their citizens can invest and work creatively in both the public and private sectors. When it suits their purposes, the members opposite are very supportive of public-private co-operation. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) hosted an event this week at which eight or nine Manitoba companies of various sizes and ages came to try and find a way to meet with Manitoba capital so that they could expand.

Now, Madam Speaker, I assume the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism was promoting the idea that these companies needed access to capital. In fact, the minister has supported the notion that access to capital in Manitoba is inadequate, that the private sector needs to find ways of getting and keeping more of Manitoba's capital in Manitoba. We applaud that initiative and we support it. We spoke in our election platform of the need to find creative ways of keeping our pension funds in Manitoba. We see no virtue in allowing those who hold RRSPs to get a tax credit for 20 percent foreign holdings, investing their money someplace else than Manitoba or Canada.

Madam Speaker, it seems that when the government's agenda is served by having public-private co-operation, this is a good thing but whenever we talk about the need for the public to invest in Manitobans' education or their health or their roads, this is somehow seen as second-class investment, something not to be supported by legislation.

The fiscal cycle seems to have totally escaped the minister in proposing this legislation. Most economists would suggest that the fiscal cycle is somewhere between six and seven years long, five to seven, let us say. Occasionally it is a little longer, sometimes it is a little shorter, but it is certainly more than one year, Madam Speaker.

I would just remind him that we can see this fiscal cycle from the beginning of the Lyon government through to the present day. The Lyon government began in a time of relative buoyancy in 1977 and moved into a time of recession. When government changed in 1981-82, the Pawley government inherited from the Lyon government a $250-million deficit. So when the members opposite talk about how much debt was piled up in the Pawley years, let them remember that we started from $250 million in the hole.

Yes, there were debts added during those years. Canada was in a deep recession. Manitoba suffered the least, came out of it fastest, suffered the least loss of people and built some very important infrastructure, which these members are now enjoying the fruits of, namely, the exports from Limestone. They talk about the growth in exports, Madam Speaker; a good chunk of the growth in exports comes from the export of hydroelectricity produced by the Limestone Generating Station.

Madam Speaker, the length of the fiscal cycle, if we think of the Lyon years starting in '77 from relative buoyancy to the depths of the worst of the 1981, '82, '83 recession, that is four and a half years into the recession, by the time the economy had recovered in '85, '86, '87, that was almost 10 years from peak to peak or trough to trough. There is simply no way that you can rebuke that financial cycle with a piece of provincial legislation.

Madam Speaker, let us take a look at the situation that this government inherited when it came to power in 1988. It inherited a situation which, through a combination of events including transfer payment changes, taxation changes, economic recovery, led to a surplus of $58 million. I am not claiming that we produced a budget with a $58 million surplus. I am simply saying that at the end of the year things had conspired, events had conspired, to produce a very substantial improvement in what was forecast, to the point where there was a $58 million surplus. They took that $58 million surplus at the end of a relative time of prosperity, and they ran it to an $819 million loss in 1992-93 at the deep part of the recession--that is, from their best to their worst they went $877 million in the hole. That is a record that no Manitoba government should ever be proud of, should ever want to repeat.

Let them not talk about fiscal probity, fiscal restraint, fiscal management. They are the government with the largest single deficit. They have managed to produce significant accumulation of debt on behalf of Manitobans.

Madam Speaker, there is in this legislation a promised referendum on various tax increases. Like Quebec's referendum, this is a phony referendum, a referendum based on false promises waged at great cost, but which is never likely to be heeded. As Monsieur Bouchard says, no simply means we will have another referendum. Does the government intend never to offload costs on municipalities as it has done for years now? Does the government intend to run a referendum when it harmonizes the PST and the GST? Does the government intend to run a referendum when it reduces tax credits again? Does the government intend to run a referendum when it broadens the PST tax base?

* (1450)

How many ways there are to raise revenue without raising tax rates? As a former civil servant who participated in the exercise, I can tell you there are many. The government has closed for itself some avenues which, in fact, might be very attractive to the government's own constituency, but it leaves open to itself some avenues which I think it would not want to defend to any reputable economist. For example, Madam Speaker, last year the government sold a Crown corporation, McKenzie Seeds. It then had the unmitigated fiscal gall to apply the proceeds of that sale to this year's budget. So we are going to sell off the family car, sell off the family house, and we are going to take the money into next year's income and call the budget balanced.

This government accumulated $140 million in a lottery sock, in a trust fund outside Volume 1 of the Public Accounts and said, this lottery sock will be useful, come election time. Indeed, it was because they proposed a budget which took the lottery sock and dumped it into 1995-96 operating revenue and said, presto, a balanced budget. And presto is the right name, Madam Speaker. These people are more akin to Preston Manning than they are to any Progressive Conservatives.

When you balance a budget using the English language in its normal meaning, you balance it with your current revenues against your current expenditures. You neither accumulate capital and pour it in; nor do you defer expenditures that have really already been made. That is why the Provincial Auditor has expressed a serious reservation on the books of Manitoba, has said that the books misstate the reality of the government of Manitoba, and this is the government we are supposed to take seriously about balanced budget legislation, about fiscal probity. I think not, Madam Speaker.

Does the government have any reputable economist ready to rise and defend the idea of annual balancing of the budget? Could the government find any reputable economist who would say that governments ought to balance their budget each and every year? It will be interesting to see if they can do so.

A responsible approach to budgeting would recognize that budgets can play an important role in stabilizing the provincial economy, in helping promote long-term growth of income, not short-term, long-term growth of employment. The stabilization function of budgets is important because private sector spending is notoriously unstable. That is the whole history of capitalism. It, by its nature, runs boom and bust cycles. Without the hand of government to stabilize that, the suffering that people endure in such a boom and bust economy is extreme. Governments can and should reduce those cyclical fluctuations by running budget surpluses during booms and by allowing deficits to occur during slumps.

This government came to power with the capacity to run surpluses, and it did not do so. Instead of letting surpluses be run in the first one or two years of its time in office, what did it do? It gave up tax breaks to its friends in industry. It gave up tax breaks to its friends in corporations, and it defended these tax breaks as investments in the economy. No doubt, but they have not been very good on the running surpluses side of the ledger, Madam Speaker. Their record speaks for itself.

Responsible approaches to budgeting would permit government the ability to stabilize the economy, to stabilize the level of employment, but government also has a responsibility, in our economic system, to provide human and physical infrastructure, without which the private sector, that they are so defensive of, they are such champions of, without that human infrastructure, the private sector would wither and die. Because all modern economies are based on an intelligent, educated workforce, all modern economies are based on a sound health care system, on sound environmental policy, on sound roads and bridges and infrastructure, clean water. There is not a modern economy in the world that does not depend on public infrastructure being excellent.

Madam Speaker, the role in providing that infrastructure requires that government make investments that have a lifespan of many years. In the case of the Winnipeg floodway, that is an investment which probably, save for the gaskets on the dams that come up out of the river bed, save for an occasional replacement of those gaskets, that is an investment that is essentially an eternal investment. That ditch will still be here after all of us in this House are long gone, and it will be protecting the people of Winnipeg from floods in a way that was achieved through a responsible government, a government led by a former Conservative Premier, Premier Roblin. He understood the need for long-term investment, and he made it when it was demanded.

The private companies, which are so much the beloved of the members opposite do not normally purchase their factories or buildings or infrastructure out of their current income. A rare few are able to, but usually not through their whole history as a company. They usually borrow. They usually issue debentures or stock. They do that because they know that the investments they are making are productive.

When we are talking about private debt, let us remember that the stock of private debt far outstrips the public debt, that the stock of consumer debt far outstrips the public debt. The public debt is the smallest of the three sectors, both in Manitoba and, in fact, in Canada. Manitoba does not have a huge debt problem.

This essentially is also deceitful legislation in that it proposes a Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which, by the way, does not exist at this point. It is virtually empty. The Fiscal Stabilization Fund is proposed to have a level of $250 million. It is a nice round figure; it sounds okay. But in one year the government of this province ran an $819 million deficit--in one year. What good would a $250 million stabilization fund have done for them in 1992-93? This government piled up over $2 billion worth of debt in its time in office from the late 1989 period to 1994-95--over $2 billion. What good would a $250 million stabilization fund have done?

Madam Speaker, we have estimated that it would be a minimum of over $700 million required to stabilize Manitoba's economy from trough to trough, and I do not think many economists would think that that was enough. The Fiscal Stabilization Fund is simply a symbolic stalking horse that allows the government to say that it recognizes the cyclical nature of the economy without ever having to really take it into account in a true macroeconomic sense.

The opportunities in this situation for playing games, as the member for Brandon says, are enormous. The reality of a $250 million stabilization fund is that in the first year of any reasonable economic downturn that fund would be entirely exhausted. So, Madam Speaker, we have to ask what the true purpose here is. I think it is clear that the true purpose is to so arrange the finances of Manitoba that further cuts to the public sector are inevitable, that they will say with great sorrow, the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is empty. We are constrained by balanced budget legislation. We therefore must cut our hospitals, cut our schools, cut our universities, cut our roads to fit our fiscal cloth.

They will use this legislation, they will cloak themselves in it, in order to continue their attack on the public sector which they have waged with great effect for the last six or seven years, unemploying hundreds of skilled Manitobans, thousands, cutting health care, cutting education, cutting universities, cutting infrastructure, all in the name of some mythical idea that cutting spending in the public sector is the way to health.

I remind the members opposite that those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. The history of governments attempting to rigorously balance their budget every year leads to stagnation and further decline of the economy. That is what happened in the '50s, late '40s under the Campbell government in this province, a very right-wing Liberal government. That is what happened in the '30s, in the Bennet and Mackenzie King governments of this country. When you try to balance your budget every year, the economy stagnates. That is not the role of government every year, Madam Speaker.

It is the role in good times. It is the role in balanced times; it is not the role in bad times. Balancing a budget every year cannot be defended on any economic grounds. Families do not do it, businesses do not do it, and the truth is, governments do not do it either.

This is deceitful legislation on another ground and a very important ground. That is that this government knows full well that this act does not even bind it. It cannot bind it because government cannot bind itself. Government, so far as we at least still have it in this country, is a representative democracy, and in this democracy government makes the rules, they make the laws. This law can be made, can be held up, but ultimately it is a paper law. If the government decides to ignore it or to repeal it or to change it, it can do so.

* (1500)

The Premier opposite has said at various times in the last several years, governments are elected to make decisions. Governments are elected to manage. Governments are elected to make tough choices. People elect governments in order to manage their economy. Now suddenly under this legislation such responsibility ends, Madam Speaker. The government goes on autopilot into an uncertain future. The people of Manitoba deserve better. They need a government that understands public finance, a government that understands the simple first-year university macro-economics of finance. This government does not apparently do so.

They need a government that does not try to rebuke the economic ways, the cycles of government, the cycles of the economy. If they want to balance the budget, Madam Speaker, they can do so. If they want to call this year a balanced budget, they can do so though that will not make it balanced. If they want to balance next year, they can do so. That does not require legislation. If the times require substantial investment in a floodway, they should do so. If the times allow a surplus to be applied against past debts, they should do so. If the times require investment in Manitobans because of a recession, they should do so, Madam Speaker. This legislation neither adds to nor detracts from their ability to manage the economy. It is simply a chimera. It is simply the appearance of something which is not real and they know it is not real. They are caught with an election promise they would rather not have to fulfill.

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that Manitobans are being asked to approve legislation which I think they do not understand, because I think the government opposite is not prepared to make it plain to them. I think the government would like them to believe that it is just balance your budget in general, that in terms of the broad structure of public finance we should balance our budget. Well, we should, but they are not telling Manitobans the truth about this legislation.

Let them tell Manitobans that if this legislation applied to companies or families, companies could not invest, could not lose money in a given year, could not buy a car, could not buy a house. Let them tell the people the truth about this legislation. Let them tell the people that they could sell one of their four new divisions of Manitoba Telephone System to Faneuil or some other off-shore corporation and take the money and put it into their operating income and call it revenue. Let the government tell the people of Manitoba what this legislation actually says and it says we can sell our assets for the moment. We can draw down those things that generations of Manitobans have built up and throw them into a Tory balanced budget. We can sell off the family assets to pay for food. This is bad legislation.

I would say to the members opposite, someone once said be not afraid and I think we need to say that. Be not afraid. Be not afraid to take your responsibility to make hard decisions. Be not afraid to balance the budget if that is what is called for, but be not afraid to invest in Manitobans if that is what is called for. You do not need this cloak. It is not a cloak that binds you and you know that.

Madam Speaker, the positive harm that this legislation is going to do will be seen in the future. The positive harm will take the form of further cuts to health care, cuts to education, cuts to our infrastructure. The people of Manitoba deserve much better and in time, in four years specifically, they will get much better. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

Bill 5--The Education Administration Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading Bill 5 on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), who has 16 minutes remaining, and standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), who has 19 minutes remaining.

Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

An Honourable Member: Leave.

Madam Speaker: Leave? Leave has been granted in all three names.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on an education bill today. This subject is something that affects almost all Manitobans because either we have children in the school system, or we are paying for other people's children in the school system through property taxes.

I did not have time to look up the government's throne speech, but I think there are many problems in society that this government should be addressing that have a major effect on education, and I would like to briefly dwell on some of those before I get into the bill, understanding, of course, that at this stage I cannot talk about the bill clause by clause anyway.

For example, what is this government doing about poverty issues? We know, for example, that poor children do not do as well in school, and there are many reasons for that. For example, in the inner city, many children move, and move frequently, including during the school year, and it is not uncommon for inner city schools to have a turnover rate of more than 100 percent. We know from studies on these children who move that, if they move more than twice in one school year, they almost inevitably fail that year.

We have many children who have moved 10, 15, 20 times. Now, that is very hard to believe for people who live in the suburbs or live in stable families or in owner-occupied homes, but we have a very large transient population, mostly children of parents on social assistance concentrated in the inner city and in public housing projects who are constantly on the move to find safer housing or better housing or cheaper housing or housing that does not have cockroaches or mice or other problems, like violations of the health act and the maintenance and occupancy by-laws of the City of Winnipeg.

This takes a toll on their education and their achievement in schools, and Winnipeg School Division No. 1 has instituted a program to follow these children. In fact, it is called something like a migrancy program, because the migrancy teachers assist the schools and the children by taking their work from one school to another, so that they do not have to be retested and to help these children to get integrated and get the services they need in the new school as soon as possible.

But in spite of this we still have schools that have more than a 100 percent turnover rate in one year, which is really quite amazing, and it may be that only 25 or 50 percent of those spaces are turning over, but they are turning over more than once, so that the total number of moves is greater than the school population in September.

This government has some very good recommendations that I referred to today in Question Period in a document called the Health of Manitoba's Children. It was the result of input from many people and many committees, but it is submitted by Dr. Brian Postl on behalf of the Child Health Strategy Committee, and it is dated March 1995. It has recommendations on poverty which I referred to today, saying that the food allowance for children should be increased, and the food allowance for infants should be increased.

* (1510)

We know that if children have adequate nutrition, it improves their brain function and brain capacity. This, of course, has a direct bearing on their education and on their ability to learn. There are things that this government could be doing to help with the education of children by, for example, implementing the recommendations of this very good report, a government-commissioned report.

Also, there are recommendations about teen pregnancy. For example, No. 11 of the recommendations is on teen pregnancy. It says that renewed emphasis should be directed to the prevention of adolescent pregnancy. This is something that is a problem in the educational system because, first of all, many adolescents when they become pregnant drop out of school or, as is more and more common now, there are daycare centres in the school and the teenagers are having their babies with their education, either at the parent and adolescent centre run by Winnipeg No. 1 or in many, many different schools in a number of school divisions. Of course, there is an increased cost to their education, and it is very difficult to balance one's obligations as a student to study and one's obligations as a parent to raising a child.

It is rather interesting, Madam Speaker, that in a report I received from the Children and Youth Secretariat, and I would like to thank Mr. Reg Toews for this, there are requests that he has received. One of these requests was for a River East community workshop. The reports says, this is a Family Services' initiative to develop local responses to teen pregnancy and parenting. Is it not interesting that this request comes from the same neighbourhood, even by the same constituency name as the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson)? Of course, she has talked many times about her concern for teenage moms.

There is really a need for the Children and Youth Secretariat to co-ordinate a program for all communities in Manitoba, not just the community in which the Minister of Family Services happens to represent in this Legislature. We hope that, as the result of Family Services being a part of the Children and Youth Secretariat, she will not get services and programs that are not made available to all members of this Legislature or all communities in Manitoba.

We also have a very high dropout rate, and we think that the government could be doing more to stem the flow of students dropping out, particularly before they have finished Grade 12 and even Grade 12 is not sufficient these days. I have talked about this with my son who graduated from Grade 12 at Sisler High School last year, and he was the valedictorian. I presented an award to two students at Sisler High School. They had a safe grad, as most schools have a safe grad, and my wife and I as parents volunteered for security at the Fort Garry Hotel where they had their dinner and dance. Their dinner tickets cost about $40, and some of the students including, I am embarrassed to say, my own son, rented a limousine and many students rented tuxedos.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

At his graduation I wanted to stand up and say, before I presented my award, I think that having this kind of a celebration for the graduation of Grade 12 is really quite unnecessary because this is not the end of your formal graduation. This is really only the beginning. Education is a lifelong learning process. I do not think that the kind of celebration that people have at the end of Grade 12 really reflects that. It suggests to me that a lot of them do not intend to continue with their education.

I was going to say that when I presented my award, and my son said, please do not, you will embarrass me, Dad. So I had decided I would not. But when I presented my award, the ceremony happened to be at Calvary Temple, and I stood up and I said, this is a pulpit, and I am a minister, and I feel a sermon coming on. And then I said, just kidding, son. Poor Nathan almost had a fit. But he got in a good shot at me before he gave his valedictorian address. He got up and before he even addressed the audience, he said, this is going to be a short speech, unlike my father's long and boring sermons. He got an even better laugh than I did.

But the dropout rate of children in high school in Manitoba is really a disgrace. We really need to work on that. But what is this government doing? Well, one of the things that they did was, they eliminated the Student Social Allowances Program. This was an excellent program, because it allowed students who might otherwise have dropped out to stay in school. For example, students who could no longer live at home because the home life was either violent or disruptive or they have been kicked out or for some reason qualified for social assistance were allowed to rent an apartment get a small amount of money to live on on the condition that they were still enrolled in school.

This provincial government eliminated that kind of funding, and I would really like to know what happened to those students. Did they drop out of school? My guess is that many of them probably found it far too difficult to work part time and continue in school and at the very least became part time students.

Adult literacy--I think this government could be doing a better job in adult literacy. It is something that I know a small amount about, because I am on the advisory committee for Open Doors Adult Literacy Program at King Edward School in my constituency. It is really quite wonderful to be involved with adults, many of whom have been out of school for 10 or 20 years and have now gone back to school in adult literacy programming. Some of them are immigrants. Some of them are people for whom English is not their first language, including from Manitoba. Many of them are individuals who did not do well in the educational system when they were enrolled there as children, but now they have got the motivation, they have got the desire to learn. They make very good students because they are keen. But we need to get many more adults enrolled in literacy programs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill has I believe three main parts to it. It refers to a definition of a role for principals, and it talks about teachers, and it talks about advisory councils. So I would like to deal with each of those in turn.

This bill defines the role of principals. This is something new, and principals obviously have a very important role in the education system, particularly in the schools where they are principal, because they are leaders and they set the tone for education in their local school.

My father was an elementary school principal for 25 years. Even when I was a student I had a lot of familiarity with principals because I spent a lot of time in their office. In fact, I can remember in Grade 6 being called into the principal's office for a consultation. I remember there were many complaints from myself and other students about a particular teacher in Grade 6, and the principal asked me if he thought that the teacher was being too strict. I remember my response was to quote Scripture and say, spare the rod and spoil the child, not something that I would agree with today even though it is Scriptural. I would say, spare the discipline or the structure and spoil the child, but I would not say, spare the rod and spoil the child.

In high school, I also became familiar with several vice-principals since they were in charge of discipline. I remember quite well the policy in my first year of Grade 9 was that every time you got sent to the office you got one detention which was not really a very effective deterrent, but the next year they changed it to a week's detention for every time you got sent to the office and consequently there was a deterrent, and I got sent to the office many fewer times, I must say. [interjection] .

The member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) observes that I have trouble obeying rules. Maybe he has a point there. Perhaps also I have redeemed myself. I have reformed because now I have a very good relationship with principals including my father. I think he was quite proud of me because I eventually did graduate from high school and from university with two degrees.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I had a few little problems myself.

Mr. Martindale: Probably the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) and I are not the only ones who had problems in school. Now I enjoy a good working relationship with a number of principals in Burrows constituency and in the north end.

An Honourable Member: Did they teach you to tear up paper for public coverage? Is that what they did, did they teach you that? To throw a tantrum?

Mr. Martindale: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) probably would not understand what it is like to represent poor people not only for five years in the Legislature, but to work on their behalf in the community for ten years, and to knock on doors and visit them in their homes, in their kitchens, and in their living rooms and to hear their stories and to have them phone me every day with their problems that they are having on social assistance and with Child and Family Services and other agencies. I do not think the Deputy Premier gets phone calls like that, but I wish he would. I always encourage people to phone the government caucus with their problems so that they know what is happening on the ground on a day-to-day basis.

In this bill the power of the minister has really been increased over principals, and there is an appearance in this bill that more control is given to local schools and to parent councils, but in fact by defining the role of principals and by being able to write the regulations there is an increase in the power of the minister. There are a couple of other examples that I will come to later, but they really amount to a decrease in the role of local authority.

* (1520)

This bill establishes advisory councils in schools; however, about 80 percent of schools in Manitoba already have advisory councils. In Winnipeg School Division No.1, 100 percent of schools have advisory councils and this is based on a policy--the document for which I have here, it is dated June 1, 1988, and I have been a member of a number of those advisory councils--the Winnipeg School Division policy establishes and supports advisory councils in schools, and it gives them some interesting roles.

It is important that parents in particular, not just teachers and principals, feel that they have responsibility, because if they do not, there is no reason for attending parent council meetings. In fact, many schools have very poor attendance at parent council meetings. I think the reason is that they are not given any real decision-making power.

Fortunately, in Winnipeg No. 1, they are given some power, and one of those powers is to interview and to assist in the hiring process of principals. I have been involved in that process, and parent council certainly appreciate being consulted on that. Now, we do have a problem in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 because the date at which principals resign is too late in the school year to allow for adequate consultation. I understand that in Fort Garry School Division they requested a number of years ago that the date be moved up, and that was done. I believe Winnipeg No. 1 has made the request and are still waiting for a reply from the Minister of Education.

Another example of the role of advisory councils in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 is to have input on capital building projects. In fact, when I was on the parent council of Ralph Brown School, parents met with the architect to talk about the design of the new school, and I remember what I said. I said, since this is an English-Ukrainian bilingual program school, why do we not take some of the architecture from Ukraine and see if we cannot incorporate it into the school. I also suggested that most schools look like cardboard boxes and shoe boxes and they are quite unattractive; why do we not design something more attractive? Why do we not have a school with a pitched roof, for example? I was quite surprised, when the school was actually built, that some of the--[interjection]

Well, the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) talks about money. That is really quite irrelevant to my example because the architect could only spend the amount of money that he was allowed by the provincial--what do you call that?--Public Schools Finance Board. They tell the school division how much money they have for the school, and the architect has to design the school within the parameters of that amount of money. In this case, the architect did. He listened to the parents that he consulted with. The architect, Dudley Thompson, listened to the input from the parents, and that was reflected in the design of the school, If you are to drive down McGregor or, even better, to drive by the front of the school on Andrew Street, you would see a very attractive elementary school that was completed about 1989, I think.

The Winnipeg School Division No. 1 policy also refers to consultation with native and ethnic groups, that there should be liaison with native people and with their organizations. There is a great need for this input, because Winnipeg School Division No. 1 has a lot of students who are First Nations or aboriginal. We also probably have the highest proportion of immigrant students of any school division in Manitoba. So we have a Multicultural Advisory Committee, and they play an important role in advising the trustees and the administration. So when the advisory councils are given responsibility and when they assume this responsibility and when they are taken seriously, then they have a reason for participating in advisory council meetings, as many of them do.

In fact, people have to get elected to local advisory councils, and so I was a representative from Isaac Newton School to the St. Johns Advisory Council. One of the things that we did was we reviewed the budget information that was put before the trustees. I have here with me the pile of documents that was handed out to all the parents and the staff representatives and the support staff representatives on the St. Johns Advisory Council, and we were expected to read this and to review it before we went to the advisory council meeting, which we took seriously. Our recommendations were written up and went before the trustees, and it is a very interesting process because the results of these budget consultations determined how much people's property taxes would go up or down or stay the same.

The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and I have both attended parent council meetings at Sisler High School, which my son attended for three years and now our daughter is in attendance at. We quite often discuss province-wide educational issues, for example, the school boundaries review, and we also discuss bills that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) tabled in the House.

That was an interesting experience, because we had a chairperson who did not really understand the role of the government and the role of the opposition. On several occasions she said she pointed her finger at the member for Inkster and myself and said, you guys did this, what is the matter with you?

I interrupted her on one occasion and said, Madam Chairperson, I had nothing to do with this bill. I was not consulted about this bill, neither was the member for Inkster. We had no input into this bill. We did not see it until it was tabled in the House, so please understand the difference in the role of the government and the role of the opposition.

Many people do not understand that. They blame the opposition for things that are really a government's responsibility. Of course, we feel--[interjection] The chairperson, Emily, is a nice lady, as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says. The member for Inkster and I have gone with the legislation to the parent council and helped to facilitate the discussion. It is interesting to have two roles: to be there as an MLA having a little broader understanding of the legislation that is before the House; and to be a parent and be very concerned about the quality of education.

The final thing that I would like to comment on this bill is that it authorizes teachers to suspend a pupil from the classroom. This is a departure from the bill that was before the House in the Sixth Session of the Thirty-Fifth Legislature, I think it was, where the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) wanted to give teachers the power to suspend students from the school, not just the classroom.

We are glad that the Minister of Education occasionally listens to the opposition parties, that occasionally she listens to parents, that occasionally she listens to school trustees. On this occasion she listened to the public and all the input that she got, and when she tabled a new bill in the First Session of the Thirty-Sixth Legislature, lo and behold, here was this change.

We should give credit where credit is due and say, we are grateful that the minister for once listened to the public and listened to the opposition, because the old clause was really quite unworkable, because it would have led to terrible inconsistencies across the province. There would have been ad hoc rules depending on who the teacher was and how strongly the teacher felt about a particular issue.

I understand that, in spite of this change, it still does not say why students can be suspended from a school. Apparently, the old bill used the expression, for the welfare of the school and the community, and perhaps that should have been left in. I would be interested in knowing what the rationale of the minister is. I guess I will have to read her speech to see if she referred to why that change was made. Perhaps it will be apparent when the regulations are made public as to why that change was made.

* (1530)

From time to time, there are requests from principals and from teachers. For example, I am a member of the Selkirk Avenue police advisory committee, and they say they get calls from schools where people come into the building who are intoxicated, either on alcohol or on sniff, or who are violent, and the school wants to phone the police and have them removed immediately. In the past, there has been a problem with inadequate authority, so we hope that the bill may address that problem.

With those remarks, I will conclude my speech on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), and the honourable members for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

Bill 27--The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 27, The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association des éleveurs de bétail), standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). Stand?

Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]

An Honourable Member: What are you holding this up for? Get it passed.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): The member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) wants to know why we are holding up this bill. I want to tell him we are waiting to hear his comments, when he is going to stand up and put some comments on the record on his position on where he stands with supporting farmers, because we have not heard it from this government very well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 27 is the bill that deals with the compulsory checkoff legislation for the cattle producers and also with a clause with vendor insurance. This bill is very similar to Bill 15, which I spoke to earlier on with regard to the checkoff for farm organizations and for commodity groups.

In both bills the checkoff becomes compulsory. The funds go to the organization, in this case, the Keystone Agricultural Producers, and the farmers then have to apply back for their funding. This is a negative option checkoff legislation. It is legislation that has not been petitioned to the farmers to see whether they want it, and it is not legislation we can support.

I want to go back--a little bit of a history on these bills. Although I am speaking on Bill 27, I will refer to both bills that are agriculture bills. Going back to the predecessor bills, that is, Bill 29 and Bill 28, which is the agricultural producers bill that was introduced in 1988, I believe.

At that time, commodity groups, if they wanted to have checkoff funding, they had to petition their members, and some 60 percent of the producers of the commodity had to have voted in favour of it.

That is going to be changed in the present legislation, on the agricultural producers bill, but the predecessor of Bill 27 is Bill 29, the cattle producers bill, and in that bill when the government introduced it they gave a checkoff to the cattle producers without having first canvassed their membership. So they had two bills on the record, one in which a commodity group had to have the support of the members before the group could have their checkoff, and then the cattle producers had the legislation which contradicted the other bill but gave the cattle producers the opportunity to have checkoff at point of sale.

* (1540)

Farmers over the past few years have spoken very clearly on this bill, because they have taken the option that was given to them and they chose not to pay their membership fees at the point of sale. That has been quite clear. Now, the government is bringing in legislation which will make it compulsory, again without canvassing the farmers, the cattle producers, whether or not they want this. Now when we talked to the cattle producers about this we said, you know, there should be a vote by the farmers. We talked about the same thing to the canola growers. We said, you know, if you want this kind of legislation there should be a vote by the farmers. They said, well, you know, if we do that it is going to cost us a lot of money, and they said, well, which farmers should have the vote? Is it farmers that have been raising cattle for a few years or is it farmers that have been--whatever.

Well, I think it is quite simple. If you are going to collect their fees, they should have a vote. There should be no problem with that, and I think it is very undemocratic to legislate that people have to support a particular organization without having first had the opportunity of having had a vote on it. That is the real problem with this legislation.

We have talked about this to the producers, and we have talked about it to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). I have discussed this with him, and I have informed the Minister of Agriculture that we will be bringing an amendment into the legislation that, when we get to the stage where they can be heard, will allow for farmers to have some say, in particular if there is a percentage of the farmers--we are looking at these amendments now--if there are a certain number of farmers, say 30 percent of them, who choose to have their funds taken back, that is an indication that they do not support it, then it should go to a vote. Perhaps if farmers get a petition and a percentage of them again, 25 or 30 percent of them, say they do not support this, then the organization has to take it to the vote of the membership. I think that will bring back some democracy into this, because as it is right now, this legislation is not democratic and would not apply to other organizations. They would not be able to have a checkoff or collect dues or fees to their organization without first talking to the people that are involved in it.

We have heard, and I have to agree, that farmers do need a strong voice. In the farming community people are going through a very difficult time right now; we are having some dramatic changes in the agricultural industry. Certainly, I agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), there is a challenge there and we have to work with producers to meet that challenge, and we will see very, very great changes over the next few years in agriculture.

When I talk to producers, they say that they need a strong voice when it comes to lobbying on different issues with the federal government, and I agree with them. I agree with producers. There has to be a strong voice, but that voice has to be the choice of the producers. The producers have to have some say in it, and that is what we have, but what this legislation is doing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this legislation is forcing auction marts to do the work of the cattle producers and that is collect their membership fees, just as the other legislation is forcing grain companies to do the work of the farm organizations, and that is a problem. They are being forced to collect the membership by legislation.

Grain companies do have a concern about this, taking money from grain producers; the auction marts have a problem with this. The government sees the way of addressing it is by forcing it through by legislation. My feeling is that if a farm organization, if a commodity group such as the cattle producers is doing a good job in representing the cattle producers of this province, that the producers will voluntarily pay their membership dues.

As it is right now, there is obviously a problem because producers are opting out. They are taking the option of not funding the organization, so that organization has the responsibility of going out there and talking to the membership, talking to the cattle producers and listening to what it is that they want, and in that way build a strong base, just as any other organization would. They build a strong base and then they will have built the organization that farmers want, but obviously there is a concern there right now that has to be addressed. Certainly, we feel that commodity groups should have the ability to collect fees to promote their organization.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the second part of this legislation deals with vendor insurance, and what is being suggested is that part of the fees that will be collected from the checkoff money will go towards buying what, according to the minister, will be an insurance policy that will go towards topping up the bonding provision. What we have right now is a bonding requirement for livestock dealers.

There have been a few incidents in this province where livestock dealers have bought cattle and then they have not paid the money to the producer, and as a result the person who did the most work ends up with the most money out of pocket. There certainly has to be--and there is in place a bonding policy right now, but this is going to require farmers to pay an insurance. I question that because, does that mean that every other person who sells a commodity has to take out an insurance to carry it through to market after it has left their hands? Do the grain producers have to take out insurance to carry them through? [interjection] The member says they are bonded, and that may cover it off, but I think that the cattle buyers should be the ones that should be bonded to the full degree to cover this off.

Now, if this policy will cover some extra insurance, that is fine, but we have to be sure that it is not a policy that is being put in place that will let the cattle buyers off the hook. We have to have insurance in place. The cattle buyers are the ones that are buying the livestock, and the insurance should be in place at a level that will cover all the purchases that they make. We should not be bringing in legislation that will reduce the responsibility of the cattle buyers who are the ones who have been at fault in a few cases here in Manitoba and left the farmer, the livestock producer, out of pocket money.

I want to mention a couple of things here as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I spoke the other day I made reference to this, asking where next the government would go as far as checkoffs went, and I referred to this. I made a comment, and I do not have my comments in front of me here, but I said, you know, what is the next thing the government is going to do? Are they going to then say that everybody has to belong to a particular political organization? And I offended them.

From a letter I got, it appears that I have offended the Keystone Agricultural Producers, and I wanted to put on the record that I was not implying that they were a political organization, although there have been many comments that have been made saying that, you know, the philosophy of the Keystone Agricultural Producers is quite right wing. My feeling is that if people want to change the philosophy of that organization and want to get involved, they should get involved and bring their views to the table. So if the Keystone Agricultural Producers took offence to the comment that I was making about forcing Manitoba citizens to join political--that this amendment was similar to forcing Manitobans to join political parties, it was not meant in that way. I was using it as a comparison of where I could see legislation should be going, where the government was going on some of its legislation.

Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the concept of farmers or any producers having to join an organization by legislation does not sit well.

An Honourable Member: Does that apply to unions as well?

Ms. Wowchuk: Now, the member across the way--I have just been waiting for the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) to get into his rant about unions--he always gets on this rant about unions. I do not know why he has such a bad feeling about unions, because what are unions? Unions are representatives of working people. Working people make a decision that they want to belong to an organization, and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they have a vote. If 51 percent of them vote for it, they have an organization to represent them, but this government is scared to take that vote to farmers. They are scared to give farmers the vote because they are afraid the organization that does hold their views, the organization that promotes right-wing philosophy, is not going to win that vote, so instead of giving the farmers a voice, they are going to legislate it.

Well, my goodness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure there are many other groups of working people across this province, across this country, who would like to have that kind of legislation but then that is not the way democracy works. The democratic process is that people who want to belong in organizations, people who want to become organized, workers who want to become organized come together, put their policies together and have a vote. That is what we should have here, but for some reason this government is afraid of that, and instead they are choosing to dictate what it is.

Now, the minister has said that he feels it is quite democratic because the farmers are having a choice because they have the ability to opt out. [interjection] My colleague for Transcona (Mr. Reid) raises a very good point, the farmers do not have the opportunity to opt in. They are being given a negative option. It is a negative option, and it does not work. You will see that farmers will be opting out because they are being forced. I guess on this legislation, as well, I would like to encourage the minister, as I did on the previous bill, to hold hearings on this bill in rural Manitoba.

This is legislation that does not affect the people in the city of Winnipeg. I think it would do the government a lot of credit if they were to recognize us and listen to the people. [interjection] The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) wants to know whether they should get more credit. I would give them credit. If they would take the hearings on this legislation out to rural Manitoba, I would give them all the credit that they deserve for going out there and looking.[interjection] The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Downey) says this is more expense. Has he considered the expense this is going to be to farmers at a time when farmers are facing real difficulty because of changes that were begun by the federal Conservatives and carried through by the federal Liberals, changes to the Crow benefit, cutbacks to research and agriculture? Farmers are having a really tough time.

Now they are going to have a checkoff, that they have a hundred dollars for the organization, which will be Keystone Agricultural Producers. They are going to have a hundred dollar checkoff for canola growers. They are going to have a hundred dollar checkoff for cattle producers, if they happen to raise cattle as well. You wonder what other commodity group is going to be next that this government is going to legislate that farmers have to become members of without any say.

They have not consulted; they are legislating. This is very undemocratic. I say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that he would do a great service to the farmers if he would make a commitment that he would hold hearings in rural Manitoba and take the suggestions, or if he does not want to take the hearings to rural Manitoban, then just give them a vote. Let them vote, whether or not they--I would say that that is pretty democratic. Give them all a say, and they are going to say this costs too much money. How much money is it going to take into the hands?

* (1550)

When we look back, when the checkoff was in place, before the checkoff, the cattle producers used to get some $20,000. With checkoff legislation, they were getting some $200,000. That is a lot of money being drained out. When you look that only about a quarter of the producers belong to the Keystone Agricultural Producers, so there is another maybe 15,000 producers who are going to be paying out $100. That is a lot of money going out of the rural economy.

The canola growers, I believe, said that their membership is not even a quarter of the producers. Again, that is going to be a lot of money. Farmers do have to have a responsibility of contributing towards research and even more so now since we have had the cutbacks in research by the federal government and lack of commitment from this government towards research in agriculture. Farmers do have the responsibility to addressing some of those, but, again, it has to be by their own choice. They have to decide who it is, that they want this organization, and they want to have input.

Now, we hear them say that they have held meetings, and this issue has been taken to the people, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been at some of these meetings, and the attendance has been very low. People are not aware. I have called many producers in this province, and they are not aware that this government is bringing in this legislation. They are not aware that they are going to be forced to belong to an organization--completely undemocratic.

Again, I want to say that we do not support the legislation in its present state because it is undemocratic. It assumes that all farmers have the same philosophical views and want to belong to one organization. It does not give the farmers a choice. So we believe that, if there is going to be a checkoff for commodity groups such as the cattle producers, then a vote should be taken. We do not accept the excuse that it will be too expensive to hold a vote because, if the farmers vote in favour of it, if this organization is so confident that this is what the people want, the producers want, then they will have a checkoff in the end, and they will not have to worry about the expense of sending out letters to every producer. So that is a weak excuse to say that it is too expensive to cancel the membership. If this is what they want, they should move forward and have a vote on it, and it is wrong that the government is making changes to legislation to bend to the will of a small number of people who have not taken the initiative to canvass all the members.

We do believe that commodity groups do have the right to have a checkoff but, first, have a voice taken, have a voice. We do believe that the government should go out to rural Manitoba with this legislation and hear the views of farmers. If they are not going to go out to rural Manitoba, then I would encourage them to hold off hearings on this legislation to the point where farmers--as you realize, farmers are very busy at this time of year trying to make a living bringing in the harvest, which is very important to the economy of this province. I would hope that they would hold the hearings off until such time that farmers can participate in the hearings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the minister will consider the amendments. We have had some discussion on this with respect to what opportunities the farmers will have, cattle producers, canola growers, with the other legislation, what opportunities they will have to opt out. We are drafting those amendments, and I hope that he will consider them seriously. Again, I want to say that with respect to the vendor insurance, we feel that the--it is our view that the vendor insurance should be strengthened. The bonding requirement for livestock dealers should be strengthened so that farmers would not have to carry their own insurance on livestock.

So with those words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the government will consider the suggestions that we are making and will consider the fact that this legislation is undemocratic. It is taking away the ability from farmers to have a choice. Most certainly, we support the idea of any group of workers to be able to organize and have an organization speak out for them. There is need at the present time, considering all the changes that we have gone through, that we do have a strong voice to speak up for us. When I read this letter from Keystone Agricultural Producers, again, they talk about the need for a strong voice, and I agree with that. We do need a strong voice. We need somebody to lobby on behalf of farmers, but the organization that speaks up for farmers has to be chosen by the farmers. We have to recognize the diverse view of farmers that we have. Not all of them have the same view. We have to recognize the diverse views of different commodity groups that we have, because there are different views that have to be recognized, and farmers have to have that ability to choose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this--[interjection]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River has the floor.

Ms. Wowchuk: There are many commodity groups who have organizations that represent them, and those farm groups have benefited, but, in each of those cases, the farmers who were involved in that organization had the ability to choose the organization that would represent them. They had a choice in whether or not they wanted to fund it. That is not happening here. They are being forced to have their funds checked off. They have to apply back for their funds. This is a negative option. They are not given the opportunity to opt in if they so choose, and this is wrong.

As I say, this is important legislation, and we have not heard the government members speaking on it. I have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we heard very little about this in the election. Someone said it was in the platform, but I have to say that was not the case. The only place I heard about this was in one debate I believe in Brandon, but I saw no literature in my constituency from the Conservatives when they were running, saying that they were going to impose legislation that would force people to join organizations.

* (1610)

I think that if that is what this government's policy was, if this was what they were proposing to do--they say the people voted in April and this is what they gave them the mandate to do--that is not true, because this was not in the platform. They did not take this to the people, and they have the responsibility to go to the people and hear what they have to say. It is very important that the legislation be improved on, that we have the opportunity to hear from farmers on this. I hope that the government will--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 4 p.m., now is the time for private members' hour.

When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 12 minutes remaining.