PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 38--Western Grain Transportation Act
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that
WHEREAS the federal government, in its recent budget, eliminated the 98-year-old Western Grain Transportation Act; and
WHEREAS Manitoba grain producers are the most severely hurt as a result of the recent federal cuts in agriculture, facing the highest freight rate increase of any province, 300 percent, as of August 1, 1996; and
WHEREAS Manitoba producers will be required to make significant adjustments in their farming operations in a very short period of time, using a $300-million fund provided by the federal government budget; and
WHEREAS this fund is not sufficient to meet the demands of Canadian farmers.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the federal government to provide the majority of the $300-million fund to Manitoba in order to assist Manitoba farmers during this period of adjustment and transition.
Motion presented.
Mr. Dyck: On August 1 of this year, the Western Grain Transportation Act was eliminated. Federal Liberal Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale also announced this year that the Canadian Wheat Board would change its pooling structure so that the pooling points would be moved to require producers to bear the full cost of transporting their grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway to export positions. Madam Speaker, Manitoba's grain and commodities producers have accepted these changes with the same resolve and determination that they have exhibited time and time again. While the Crow rate elimination and Canadian Wheat Board pooling changes will substantially increase the costs to Manitoba grain producers, our farmers have recognized that these are evolving times in international trade, and they are willing to do their part.
Yet, when the federal government announced the distribution for the one-time $1.6 billion that would be available to prairie farm landowners and the probable distribution for the multiyear $300 million adjustment fund, it quickly became clear that Manitoba farmers were not to receive their fair share from the federal Liberals.
Madam Speaker, the increased freight costs that resulted from the elimination of the WGTA will be most severely felt in Manitoba. By 1997-98, the year in which the Canadian Wheat Board pooling changes come to completion, the negative impact on the major grain producers of Manitoba, as outlined in the Manitoba impact study on grain transportation reform, will be over $113 million annually. When we look at the total tonnage of major grains in Manitoba, we see that our farmers are faced with a $22.46 per tonne increase in costs for their product. This is substantially more than the $16.77 per tonne increase faced by Saskatchewan producers. It is also well above the $10.69 per tonne impact faced by Alberta and the $10.64 per tonne increase facing farmers in British Columbia.
Yet, Madam Speaker, based on the federal government's current plan for distribution of the $300 million adjustment fund, it appears Manitoba farmers will receive a much smaller percentage than they are entitled to, based on the impact they will face.
As well, Madam Speaker, the federal Liberal government has seen fit to provide Manitoba with only 16.1 percent of the $1.6 billion established to offset the anticipated reduction in land prices. Compare this to the 56 percent being given to Saskatchewan and the 27 percent being allocated to Alberta. This is an example of the new math that is being practised by our federal counterparts, a new math that is founded upon allocating funds based upon something other than fairness and equality. What we see from Ottawa is a government that operates on the premise that is not rooted in fairness and reality, but rather a Liberal government that has an agenda, a political agenda, that does not include the well-being of Manitoba farmers.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, this is not the first time we have seen the Liberals in Ottawa turn their collective backs on Manitoba's farmers. By buckling to American pressure and placing a cap on wheat exports, we have seen that, when it comes to standing up for the rights of Manitoba's producers, our Liberal counterparts cannot be relied upon.
The impact of the elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act has ramifications that go beyond the simple cost of grain transportation. The effects will also be felt on the federal transfers to safety net programs that our farmers, who work in an industry that is widely impacted on by circumstances beyond their control, reply upon. Transportation reform is expected to result in a lower farm gate price for grains and oilseeds in Manitoba. These lower returns to producers for eligible crops will result in reduced federal contributions to programs such as the Net Income Stabilization Account, or which is commonly known as the NISA program, which will most greatly affect Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Madam Speaker, the elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act will likely mean that more of the major grains are forced to be transported by means other than rail. As railways abandon branch lines that are no longer profitable following the elimination of the Crow rate subsidy, increased commercial trucking traffic can be expected. This will mean that there will be an increased cost realized by municipalities and the provincial government as roads are put under more stress and usage, yet these realities fall on deaf ears in our nation's capital.
While our province's farmers are accepting the fact that they must deal with realities in the international marketplace, all they ask for from the Liberal government in Ottawa is fairness. Our government believes that public policy in Canada should reflect equitable treatment of all provinces in any allocation of compensation or adjustment funding stemming from the reforms in the grain transportation system, yet this does not seem to be a belief of the legislators in Ottawa.
Madam Speaker, when the federal government announced that $1.6 billion would be available to prairie farm landowners, it was stated that these funds would partially offset the reduction in land prices that would result in the elimination of the Crow benefit. This was based upon the assumption that the value of the subsidy was built into the value of the farmland. Farmland values in Manitoba stood at $375 per acre in June of this year. A 10 percent reduction in land prices would result in an average farmland devaluation of $35.50 per acre in Manitoba based upon June's prices. This decrease is a result, as stated by the federal government, of the additional costs Manitoba producers will incur.
Based on the analysis and the Manitoba impact study on grain transportation, Manitoba and Saskatchewan will experience considerably larger overall losses in land values as compared to land owners in Alberta and British Columbia. Most notably, however, Manitoba farmland owners face the greatest loss of value per acre of their fields. Despite these facts, however, the mathematicians and policymakers in Ottawa have seen fit to allocate a mere 16 percent of the $1.6 billion capital payment to Manitoba farmland owners.
Madam Speaker, this is a shameful inequality. The impact study on grain transportation reform has determined, after taking into account such factors as long-term freight costs, long-term decrease in the federal net income stabilization account and the one-time decrease in land value, that the negative impact of the transportation reforms for Manitoba is in fact $107 per seeded acre.
The funding that Manitoba farmers receive from the federal government, $1.6 billion Western Grain Transportation Act payout and the $300 million adjustment fund only makes up for $34 of this impact. This leaves a $73-per-acre negative impact that Manitoba's farmers are forced to absorb. Yet, as disturbing as this may be, I believe that our farmers understand that sacrifices are needed to be made.
* (1610)
The same study, a joint study between the Keystone Agricultural Producers, Manitoba Pool Elevators and the Manitoba government, shows that every province is not subject to the same $73-per-acre impact. In fact, we see that Saskatchewan farmers only face a $57-per-acre shortfall between impact and federal funding. Also, Alberta and B.C. face only a $28-per-acre negative impact.
The farmers of this province are fair people who have accepted the reality that they should absorb a fair share of the negative impact that reform to the Transportation Act will bring. Yet the Liberal powers in Ottawa have not asked Manitoba farmers to take on a fair and equitable amount of the burden. Instead, the legislators in Ottawa have said to Manitoba's farmers that they are not equal partners in this reform and that they will be forced to suffer more than the other western prairie provinces.
It is this government's firm belief that the federal government's plan for distribution of compensation and adjustment dollars is shamefully unjust. When the per-seeded-acre impact of the transportation reforms are examined, it is clear that Manitoba's farmers are the most severely affected.
Madam Speaker, the farmers of this province are not pleading for an increase in the total amount of dollars being put forward in the compensation package; they are merely, and justifiably, asking for equal treatment. We realize that there are only so many dollars that are available, so all that we are asking for is that we be treated fairly and equally. Madam Speaker, I cannot imagine that the federal government, or any members of this House for that matter, are opposed to equality as it relates to Manitoba's farmers.
The farmers of this province take a back seat to no one. They produce the highest quality of crop in the world and should not be relegated to second status from their own federal government in Ottawa. Madam Speaker, it is clear that our farmers are entitled on the basis of equality to the majority of the $300 million adjustment fund.
Therefore, I ask all members of this Assembly to support this resolution. It is a resolution based solely on fairness and equality, qualities that all members of all political stripes should find reason to support. Thank you very much.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, we have a resolution put forward here that is addressing the change to the transportation assistance, the Crow benefit and pooling changes. Certainly these changes that have been brought forward by the federal government are going to have a very negative impact on producers across western Canada, and the impact will be felt most severely by the producers in Manitoba. [interjection] True, we can blame the Liberal government, because it was the Liberal government that did make the final changes, and it is unfortunate that farmers were sacrificed as the Liberals attempted to bring down the deficit created by other governments.
Madam Speaker, I wonder where the Conservatives on the opposite side of the House were when Brian Mulroney started this whole process of reducing the Crow benefit. This is where this all started, and we saw nothing from this government when those reductions began. Clearly, it was a process started by the Conservatives and carried on by the Liberals, but I guess it is like two peas in the pod, not much difference, and it is not surprising that we see a process started by one government, the Conservatives, carried on by the Liberals.
When I look at this resolution, certainly Manitoba producers are the hardest hit, but why did this government not speak up more forcefully and ensure that this did not happen? Why did they accept that? When the decision was made that the Crow benefit was going to end, why did they not go to Ottawa and say, no, this is wrong, we need the Crow benefit to be in place? But we heard nothing, because this falls in line with exactly what they want to see, and now they are crying because the Manitoba producers are suffering. They should have taken a much stronger stand to ensure that this Crow benefit was not eliminated.
Madam Speaker, I hear members across the way talking about an agreement that was refused to be signed. I can tell you that I would not have signed that agreement because, in that agreement, this government says that this change to the transportation policy should have a positive effect on Manitoba's overall agriculture industry. So, in one hand, they are saying that this is bad for producers, but, in their statement, they were saying that this is positive for Manitoba producers. Well, this is anything but positive for Manitoba producers, and we should have heard much more from this government in that respect instead of now saying that we should get a bigger share of the $300 million.
In fact, I am surprised that the government waited until they had their Manitoba impact study done sometime in August, I believe, when people on this side of the House and producers in rural Manitoba were saying, this is wrong; this is going to hurt us. But this government would not take a position on that because they believe that the change to the Crow benefit--they believe in it. It is what they started, and this is part of a process they had started--[interjection]
I hear the member across the way talking about free trade, and definitely this ties in to free trade. I go back to listening to some of the comments that we heard when we were in the free trade debate, and people were saying: oh, no, do not worry; the Wheat Board is not going to be affected; the transportation subsidy is not going to be affected; our unemployment insurance is not going to be affected and neither is our health care. Well, here we are. We have a Free Trade Agreement, and we have all of these things. We have had our transportation subsidy taken away. We have caps on the amount of grain that we can ship into the U.S., and we have producers who are bowing to the American line and having the Wheat Board come to an end and moving to a dual marketing system.
I am very concerned about the impact of this change on producers and especially concerned for the producers in my part of the province, Madam Speaker, where the highest transportation costs will be paid, the highest costs. It is going to be very difficult for producers in that area of the province to continue to grow grain without this transportation support.
One of the things that we can work towards is to have the Port of Churchill maintained because that is one hope for Manitoba producers, to ship grain through that port. Unfortunately, again, we hear lots of lip service paid by this government when it comes to the Port of Churchill. We see them taking the opportunity for photo ops and signing agreement but very little action, much less grain going through the Port of Churchill, since we have had the Conservative--[interjection]
* (1620)
We should be working very hard, Madam Speaker, to have more grain going through the Port of Churchill, but I hear little, very little, from this government that is in power right now, to see that happen. If you look back at the records, when there was an NDP government in power, there was much more grain going through the Port of Churchill than there is under a Conservative government in Manitoba and a Liberal government in Ottawa, a Liberal government that promised that they would ship much more grain through the port, but that has not happened.
So, Madam Speaker, I wish that the members opposite who are supportive of this move to do away with the Crow would realize that the Crow benefit was put in place some 98 years ago when the Western Grain Transportation act was brought forward, because farmers realized that there was disparity between people in one part of the country and another one. Those closer to the port had a much cheaper freight rate and farmers recognized that in order for all of them to benefit they should share the costs. It was what the farmers wanted, and it has worked for many, many years.
It has brought equality to people across the country, and it was a big benefit to Manitoba producers, because they had the opportunity to get a fair return for the product that they produced, as well as the producers in other parts of the province. We should have had a much stronger position taken by the government, by the Conservative government here in Manitoba but, unfortunately, that did not happen. As a result, we are seeing now that people who live farther from the main lines are going to pay a much higher cost to ship their grain, and that is not fair. That is not what Canada was built on.
Western Canada grew because of co-operation. Farmers recognized that for them to be successful they had to co-operate. It is actions taken by, first, Brian Mulroney to begin the dismantling of the Crow benefit and now further the complete elimination of the Crow benefit under the Liberal government. Madam Speaker, that is the concern I have.
The other concern I have with the change to the Crow benefit, you hear the government saying that we want a bigger share. Well, the government has ruled on that. They are not going to give Manitoba a bigger share.
But what this government should have been doing when they were negotiating on this, there is a discrepancy. Certainly, we did not agree with the payment going to the landowner. We wanted the payment to go to the producer because, after all, it is the producer who pays the cost of shipping the grain. It could have been handled much more simply by using the Wheat Board permit books instead of creating another bureaucracy that will take a large chunk of money out of the $1.6 billion that is supposed to go to the producers. I am very disappointed that this government has not pushed harder to ensure that there are guidelines in place as to how the money should be distributed between the renter and the landlord or guidelines on how the appeals board is supposed to answer the questions when there is an appeal that comes forward.
I am also very disappointed, Madam Speaker, that we did not hear more from this government when we found that forage crops were not covered under the disbursement of the funds from the WGTA because, if we have a government that pretends that it is concerned about sustainable development and has encouraged farmers to put some of their land into hay as part of a sustainable practice, which I certainly support, then it would have been recognized by the people who were setting up the plan that forage as part of a natural crop rotation should not be excluded in an area that should be getting a payment. We did not hear this government address those issues.
We hear very little, and I guess I have to say that we hear very little from them on this issue because they believe the dismantling of the Crow benefit and the change to the pooling is a good move for producers and, unfortunately, we do not agree with them.
I think that we are not feeling the real impact of this change because of the higher grain prices. I am very pleased to see the higher grain prices because farmers are the producers of food and many times make very little for their work. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is here, and I am sure he will agree that farmers who grow grain are not nearly getting their fair share for the work they do. They should be getting much more, and they are many times gouged by high fertilizer and chemical prices.
We have got the change to the Crow benefit this year, but we also have higher grain prices, so we are not feeling the real brunt of it. I dread the day when the payment of the $1.6 billion is finished. There will be no more funds available there. We will see input costs continue to increase, and I hope, Madam Speaker, we will not see a decrease in grain prices.
It is long overdue that farmers should be getting a better price for the product that they produce, but can you imagine if the Crow benefit had stayed in place and farmers had been able to capitalize on the increased grain prices? Can you imagine what impact that would have had on the rural economy? For once, after many years, we would start to have a fair return, and we would see some farmers be able to pay off some of their debt that they have. Instead, because of actions taken by the federal Liberals, we are, in fact, going to see very little improvement in the rural economy.
So, Madam Speaker, although this resolution says that we should be getting a larger share of the pool, certainly we agree that we should be getting a larger share of the fund, because Manitoba has the most negative impact.
But this government has neglected to address the real concerns, and the real concern is why should the Crow benefit have been eliminated in the first place. If we were able to afford it in years when the gross national product of this country was much lower, why is it that now, at a time like this, we cannot afford to have supports in? Why is it that we cannot afford to do agriculture research? It is all being offloaded onto producers.
There is a lack of support for the farming community by the federal government, and it is a big disappointment, Madam Speaker. I wish that we would hear this government speak more loudly on that and try to get the federal government to--have this government take a stronger position rather than putting out press releases that say that this is good, we are going to see an increase in price.
What we should have seen is a provincial goverment that would have united with other provinces and said no, this is not acceptable, we will not agree to this, and try to work out something that was much better. There was much more money on the table when these negotiations first began, and I believe it was over $7.2 billion that was on the table. If that money would have been negotiated, we would have had an ongoing--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, you know, all of us have, over the past years, watched very closely every spring when the birds migrate to southern Manitoba and from there on north. The emergence of the crow--and the crow was of course one of the first birds to migrate out of southern United States back into Manitoba in the spring of the year. So we watch for this bird, that it flutters, hovers over our areas on its migration north to raise its young and to bring forth a new crop of birds.
* (1630)
Well, there is particularly one bird that has been doing this for the last 98 years, and the old Crow that we have seen became a rather sickly bird over the last two or three decades, because continuous levels of government, and you can include all of the parties, began taking shots at it, and the feathers that flew when the bird was hit were of such impact that it became very difficult for this bird to fly. It was not only Canadians taking a shot at it when it started migrating back in the south, it was our American friends, our European friends who took to 747s and came over here and started shooting at the bird.
But the bird survived. The old Crow survived. For years, it took this kind of punishment but it was a tough old bird until two years ago when we elected a new administration in Ottawa. Never before in the history of this country have we elected a Minister of Agriculture that was a greater hunter than we have now. Ralph Goodale, to his credit, had better aim and was better prepared than I believe, in all due respect to our Minister of Natural Resources and our Minister of Agriculture--I truly believe that he used steel shot and he brought the old Crow down.
Now, what does this mean? One can probably say this with a bit of tongue in cheek, but what does the death of the Crow mean to Manitobans, especially, and western Canadians? First of all, it means that a farmer in Alberta will see a net increase in direct freight costs of about $16 a tonne, and it will see a direct increase of roughly about $55 an acre to the farmers' cost of operation in raising and selling grain. In Saskatchewan the cost per acre will increase by about, oh, $91 an acre, and in Manitoba the cost increase will be about $107 an acre. That is the impact on a per-seeded-acre basis.
Now I ask anybody in this room, whether you are a labourer, a railway worker, or whether you are a teacher or whether you are a lawyer or a street repairman, who of you could withstand an increase in your cost of living of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 percent in one year? That really is what the farmers of Manitoba are being asked to absorb by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) taking a shot at the Crow and killing it. That is what the cost to the Manitoba farmer is.
Now, what do we do? Oh, Mr. Goodale was so absolutely distraught over having fired the shot and killing the Crow that he said well, I am sorry, I am going to pay you for it. He budgeted $1.6 billion, and he said to all the farmers in western Canada, I want to the see the Crow fly again, but I know that will not happen, because once a bird has died, it has died, but in order to bring a proper gift to the funeral, I will put $1.6 billion in a little pot, and I will bring it to the graveside and park it there and let you people fight over it--because that is what it really amounts to.
He said to the true farmers, the operators, you will not be part of this; you have no say in this. We will allow the landowners, the land barons, that either reside in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or England or Holland or Germany or France or Italy, wherever they might be, we will let them make the decision as to how much money the peasants of this province and western Canada will receive--that is what Mr. Goodale said--what we relegate the operators, the actual farmers, the operators to, because we will not let them be part of the decision-making process, nor will we allow them to receive any of the funding that has been put in place, because they, after all, will be the people that will bear the brunt of the cost of operations in western Canada.
So what has this done? Well, it has done two things. It has set up a two-tiered production system in this country. One, we recognize the fact that the cost of shipping grain out of the west coast ports for the province of Alberta is a lot less than Manitoba. We recognize that the cost of shipping grain out of the western part of Saskatchewan is much less than the cost of shipping grain out of the eastern part of Saskatchewan.
Similarly, the cost of shipping grain out of Manitoba will be the highest of any of the three prairie provinces anywhere.
Thirdly, we have designated the landowner, who need not be an operator, as the recipient of the $1.6 billion. They need not share that with their operators at all. So the leaseholders get stuck with the bill; the operators get stuck with the true cost.
Now, what does that mean? Well, as for Manitoba agriculture, our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) said, we cannot allow this to happen. So he formulated a committee made up of virtually the total industry, and they studied the impact, the true impact of the Crow benefit to farmers.
They made some very clear recommendations, and the recommendations are that further action should be taken to ensure that, No. 1, the operators receive the funding, and that Manitoba farmers are treated as all other farmers in relationship to the cost of shipping grain out of the province of Manitoba.
That, of course, would mean that you would have to increase Manitoba's share of the Crow benefit fairly significantly. As a matter of fact, it would have to increase by some $20-odd a tonne over the next three years to make up the shortfall that Manitobans have caused to take in this area.
Now, Madam Speaker, I find it absolutely astounding that farmers in this province have not rallied in huge numbers before the minister's offices in this province or that they have not mounted trains and planes and automobiles and headed in huge delegations to Ottawa to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the way the Crow benefit is being distributed.
I think it is absolutely astounding that the majority of grain farmers today still do not know what the true impact of what has been done will cause them on their own farms. I believe it will be at least two or three years before the true impact, the full impact of the benefit, is truly realized, the reason being that we have seen over the last six months a very dramatic increase in grain prices across the world for two reasons.
* (1640)
Madam Speaker, No. 1, there have been significant crop production decreases right across the world; and, No. 2, many of the countries have withdrawn from the subsidization of agriculture products across the world. That, of course, is kicking into place a truly competitive price in the commodity markets. That is beneficial.
However, when the grain prices in this country will start levelling off again into more traditional values, the impact of the Crow benefit and the distortions that have been created by the way the Crow has been implemented will truly come to bear in Manitoba, and that will cause this province some economic headaches. I think for that reason that it is important that the honourable Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, Mr. Goodale, should strongly reconsider his position.
That is really what the resolution speaks to, that we ask as a united front, from all members on all sides of this House, to support the significant changes that have been recommended by our Minister of Agriculture at numerous conferences that he has attended, where all the provinces have been present, and the case that he has made for a significant increase to Manitoba of the Crow benefit payment and that there be an ongoing recognition of the severity of the impact to Manitoba farmers.
Unless that is done, Manitoba grain producers will be at a proportionate disadvantage over the next number of years. Yes, Madam Speaker, I would say even into the next decade.
I think the concern that this resolution expresses cannot be overstated. I would suggest that all the members in this Legislature support this resolution, but not only support the resolution. I think we should take the opportunity as members of this Legislature and demonstrate at every public function where we have an opportunity to speak and voice our opinions, to clearly state the impact to Manitoba farmers of the dissolution of the Crow benefit and the $1.6 billion compensatory package that has been put in place.
If we do that properly, maybe there can be enough political pressure brought to bear by the general farm community, and I would even ask for support from the other sectors in the province, that they support us in this manner. In the long term, there is only one thing that will determine the success of the agriculture community in this province, and that is the fair distribution of a costing formula that can be and should be implemented equally through all the provinces in western Canada. Until we do that, we are going to be in a negative kind of position for a long time to come.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me this short period of time to put some of my thoughts on record on this very, very important matter.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I found the debate to be very interesting to say the very least and appreciate a lot of the concerns. No doubt, a good majority of the concerns that have been expressed are in fact very genuine and heartfelt, but not necessarily wanting to impute motives of any members, I find it very interesting that the Conservative Party likes to speak of itself as the party for free trade. The Conservative Party through Bill 2 likes to talk about the party that is there for deficit control. The federal government in Ottawa has come across and has expanded the whole concept of free trade not only to include the United States but the Asian Pacific, Europe, Mexico and so forth.
The other issue of deficit reduction, there was a commitment from the federal government to achieve deficit reduction, to do what it can to address the deficit, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says, Madam Speaker, that is not fair. Well, the province of Manitoba and the Prairies were not alone. There is no doubt that it is a very tough budget, and there is going to be a lot of political cost after you pay, but to try to say this is the federal government picking on western Canada and in particular the Province of Manitoba, like the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is saying, is just not true. That feeds into the principles of former New Democratic administrations that took great pride in slamming the federal government, realizing that they could score political points by scoring against the government that was in Ottawa knowing full well that New Democrats would never form government in Ottawa. This is the reason why they hold no cost at doing that.
This government has proven in recent history that it is prepared to take a stand even when the federal government is of the same political stripe as it is when it makes a bad decision, and, Madam Speaker, I supported them doing that then and I support them doing that now. That is why when I look at the resolution and I read the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, you know, sure $300 million, I believe Manitoba should get more than the Province of Saskatchewan and the Province of Alberta. A majority is what this resolution is advocating. [interjection] Well, I am not entirely convinced of a majority, but I do believe that Manitoba should get its fair share.
The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) talked about, you know, why was there not an uproar in the public? Why were farmers not rallying and going to Ottawa and phoning? And we are having rallies in front of the Legislature and so forth. Well, Madam Speaker, what I found interesting was how the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) answered his own question. He said, well, the farmers do not know about it; no problem, we as Manitoba legislators should go out into the communities and just tell them how bad that federal government is and that this is a bad program.
I am not entirely convinced that the member for Emerson is right on on this particular issue. Madam Speaker, I believe that farmers in rural Manitoba are a lot smarter than what the member for Emerson implies. I believe that they are very much aware of it. I have never been one to defend the status quo. I will leave that up to my New Democratic friends. What concerns me is the apparent attempt from some of the Conservative caucus to defend the status quo. I look at the dean of the Chamber. The dean of the Chamber, as a man of integrity, has, on several occasions, talked about the Crow and the benefits and the flaws of the Crow. I am sad to see that the Crow is in fact leaving. I am encouraged to see that in fact there has been money put in place to compensate.
A good Progressive Conservative government, I know a Liberal provincial government, would ensure that Manitoban farmers are going to be equipped to take as much of that money as possible that is being offered and to diversify. The hog industry has wonderful, fantastic potential in the province of Manitoba. The Minister of Agriculture has commented on that. Madam Speaker, there is no reason why we cannot see the hog industry, the cattle industry and many other agrifood industries prosper as a direct result of seeing this money being put into the province. If we had more of a government that was prepared not to take the political cheap shots of trying to say that the federal government in Ottawa is doing a bad job, but rather to try to take a more progressive approach, a more aggressive approach and try to say, here is how we as Manitobans, in particular the farmers, can benefit through change.
I hope that this is not a rut that the Conservatives here have fallen into, that of defending the status quo. I hope that that is not the case, because, Madam Speaker, I have listened to many different debates and have participated on either side of that debate on the free trade. There are some individuals within the Conservative ranks, in all fairness, who had talked about the western grain and the Crow rate. The Wheat Board--just the other day, I was talking to the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). The New Democrats will say, well, do not change the Wheat Board; there is no need to change the Canadian Wheat Board. Well, once again, they proved a point that they are there for the status quo. It is not a question of slow death; it is a question of global economy--
* (1650)
An Honourable Member: We have had a global economy for 300 years.
Mr. Lamoureux: Three hundred years of a global economy--I will disagree with the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) on that particular point.
Things change, and New Democrats have to realize that you cannot put up a wall around the province of Manitoba, that there is that need for change. I encourage the New Democrats--actually, I do not want to encourage the New Democrats to change the status quo because, if they keep on this course, the Liberal Party will come back to life in the province of Manitoba in a very significant way. So you go ahead and defend the status quo, but I digress somewhat.
The Wheat Board--the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) and I had an interesting discussion and dialogue the other day. The member for Emerson brings up a valid point when he talks about the price of wheat on the boards just across our border and some of the frustration that some of the producers are experiencing when they have to sell their wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board at a set price, and I believe it is somewhere around $2--[interjection] It is higher than that. I do not want to say that I am an absolute expert at it--in around $4. You know, I do believe--now I see some thumbs going down--between $2 and $4. I guess it can fluctuate somewhat and a lot depends in terms of the actual selling of that commodity, and then the Wheat Board will quite often give money back depending on how much they sell it for.
No doubt there has to be some frustration when a farmer sees how much money is being paid over in the United States for that bushel of wheat, given the amount of time, effort, energy and resources and just downright commitment to producing that product and to see what they are actually receiving.
That in itself should at least allow elected officials the ability to look and see if there is something that we can do to appease some of those concerns. It does not mean that we have to get rid of the Wheat Board. I believe personally that the Wheat Board has a wonderful future in the province of Manitoba, that in fact selling our wheat to countries throughout the world is very important to our farmers. Hopefully, we will see that continue.
To address the issue of parity, we like to believe that every government has to do some changes. Some of those changes we are not necessarily going to agree with. We are always going to want to get more, but I do take exception to when politicians inside the Chamber try to give the impression to Manitobans that a decision is targeted to a particular region and that region is being treated unfairly.
I am wondering about the Atlantic freight subsidy that was also being eliminated. I would hazard a guess that there were a lot of people in Atlantic Canada that would have been upset, and no doubt a lot of elected politicians and so forth. There was also feed freight assistance subsidies that were called into question. There was the dairy industry and some changes in that area. There have been changes that have had an impact, a real hard impact, no doubt, on Canadians throughout our country.
Was Manitoba singled out by the federal government and additionally penalized? Well, I disagree with the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), Madam Speaker. I believe that if we take a look at some of those numbers--you know, every day I hear the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) point out, well, the federal Liberals have cut $220 million out of our health care budget. [interjection] Well, look in your own book, '95-96 Estimates, it is $4 million. A moment of silence on the other side of the benches.
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt some legitimate concern that is raised, and this resolution addresses a lot of those concerns. I support the first three. I do not have any problem with the first three WHEREASes, but then it says "this fund is not sufficient." Well, what would be sufficient? Given the context of deficit control, something in which this government likes to take great pride in, all we need to do is to look. [interjection] And the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is saying it, in essence, equal treatment. Yes, that is what we have to fight for. We have to fight for equal treatment, and that is the reason why I am not going to say that, look, I am not going to be standing up in defence of the federal government at every opportunity that I get.
There is no doubt, there are some things in which I do not support what the federal government has done, and I have no hesitation in saying some of those things, Madam Speaker. Equally, I do not expect--I should not say I do not expect. I expect to see a certain amount of what I have classified as fed bashing, but at times it gets somewhat excessive.
You know, in Quebec there is a referendum, and I often wonder in provincial politics we see a lot of effort where you try to pry additional power and authority from the federal government or the national government. Well, Quebec politicians in part have used the question of sovereignty in order to try to gain more of that power and authority. Manitoba politicians, and we have seen that through the Charlottetown and the Meech Lake, also tried to get more or the Meech. [interjection] No, you are talking about the task force, but, again, you are taking me off topic. I only have about 30 seconds left, so I am told, and, unfortunately, with an issue such as agriculture, which is so very important, I could spend the next 40 minutes talking about the importance.
An Honourable Member: Go for it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I see the New Democrats, my good friends, are offering me leave. If the Conservatives are prepared to give me leave, I am quite content to continue to talk about agriculture in the province.
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, well, not wanting to push it--after all, one of the things I did say to my constituents is I was hoping not to be a long-winded politician, and 15 minutes is an appropriate amount of time on this particular resolution.
But, Madam Speaker, I would have loved the opportunity to have been able to talk about so many other aspects of farming in the province of Manitoba, primarily because I think that farming, the family farm has so much to offer to Manitoba well into the future, and the Liberal Party supports the farmer.
Point of Order
Mr. Penner: Could I seek leave from the House to continue the debate on this important resolution? I know there are a number of speakers on this side of the House and maybe on the other side of the House that would want to continue debate, so I seek leave of the House.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave to continue the debate on this resolution after five o'clock? No? No. Leave has been denied.
* * *
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, just in the few minutes that I do have left to speak on this motion, I want to rise in concurrence with what the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) said. I want to try to inject a little bit of common sense into what we have heard from both the blue Tories and the red Tories in this House today.
Let us cut to the chase here. This is not just one private member's resolution--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Dauphin will have 14 minutes remaining.
* (1700)
The hour being 5 p.m., as previously agreed, time to give consideration to a new resolution, Resolution 39.
Res. 39--Selkirk Water
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli)
WHEREAS concerns have been expressed by Manitoba Health with regard to the use of the Red River, north of Winnipeg, as a source for a municipal water infrastructure system; and
WHEREAS concern has been expressed by Manitoba Environment with regard to the depositing of lime sludge from the treatment of the municipal water supply into the Red River; and
WHEREAS 80 percent of the citizens of the town of Selkirk have expressed a concern with regard to any possible use of the Red River as the source for the municipal water supply system; and
WHEREAS to address these and other concerns about the utility infrastructure of the town of Selkirk, the Town of Selkirk and the provincial and federal governments entered into a tripartite agreement to improve the utility infrastructure within the town of Selkirk at an estimated cost of $5 million in a two-stage process; and
WHEREAS Stage One has now been started.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the provincial government to consider continuing support for its share of the agreement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the federal government to consider maintaining its share of the agreement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly direct the Clerk of the Assembly to forward a copy of this resolution to the federal minister responsible for Western Economic Diversification.
Motion presented.
Mr. Dewar: As all members would appreciate, this resolution is very important for the community of Selkirk, and, in fact, all communities downstream from the city of Winnipeg. I urge this House to support the town of Selkirk in its attempt to end its reliance on the Red River as an emergency source of drinking water.
As all members know, Selkirk from time to time requires water from the Red River to supplement its drinking water supply. The blend is between 35 and 40 percent water from the Red River and the remainder from existing wells. The water, of course, is treated; however, it does not go far enough I would suggest to convince the residents of that community that the water supply is safe to drink.
In 1991, a well pumping station broke down in the town of Selkirk, and at that time we were forced to use the Red River as a supplement to our drinking water supply. At that time, the blend was about 35 percent treated Red River and the remainder from our wells. Because of the dry conditions of this past summer, the situation occurred again when once again, unfortunately, we needed to rely upon the Red River to supplement our water supply.
This situation, as members can appreciate, puts the residents of Selkirk in a very unenvious position of drinking water from one of the most polluted waterways in Canada. So you can sense the urgency of resolving this issue once and for all.
There are times when the fecal coliform count is 10 times the acceptable level, Madam Speaker. The provincial level is 200 organisms per 100 millilitres of water and at times, unfortunately, that level has gone up close to 2,000 and over that, as a matter of fact, when water is tested in the town of Selkirk.
The City of Winnipeg, from time to time, discharges nondisinfected sewage. They treat it, Madam Speaker, but it is not disinfected and, because of this, the bacteria is not destroyed.
In fact, I have called upon the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) both in the House and in the Department of Environment Estimates to work with the City of Winnipeg to resolving this problem. I consider this to be a very modest request considering the end results. We know we raised this issue just this past session about the high levels of bacteria found in Lake Winnipeg. This, of course, affected the water quality at Manitoba's beaches.
These are some of the concerns that we are raising in regard to this issue. As the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has told me, she in fact went swimming I believe at Victoria Beach and was diagnosed with pinkeye.
So it is fairly obvious to all of us on this side of the House and we would like to mention, once again, that it is a very serious concern. In fact, when the Red River approaches the city of Winnipeg, the levels of the fecal coliform are quite low in relation to how it leaves the city of Winnipeg.
I am reading from the State of the Environment Report, 1995. On average, it is around 10 to 20 organisms per 100 millilitres but, when it leaves it goes as high as, well, it has been recorded as high as 4,000. You can imagine. This all occurs as the Red River flows through the city of Winnipeg. These are some of the concerns that we face in the town of Selkirk when at times, and the times are rare, granted, but nevertheless it does happen when we have to reply upon the Red River as a source of emergency drinking water.
So, Madam Speaker, you can appreciate, I am sure, as all members do, the negative effects this would have upon the growth of our community, whether it is tourism or business growth.
This situation, well, let us face it, we are the brunt of some very unpleasant jokes at times from different individuals concerning the situation in Selkirk. However, I was very pleased, Madam Speaker, that the town was able to receive funding under the now-expired agreement that was called the Partnership Agreement on Municipal Water Infrastructure. It was signed in the spring of 1993. It was an initiative of all three levels of government. I want to applaud the Town of Selkirk for pushing forward this initiative to ensure that we no longer have to rely upon the Red River as an emergency source of drinking water. It was designed to end Selkirk's reliance on the Red River.
The project was divided into two phases, and total project costs were about $5 million. Phase I, which represented $3 million--which is nearly completed, I might add--included the construction of an underground storage facility. Now this underground storage facility was designed to increase the town's water capacity almost sevenfold. The idea, of course, was that, in times of drought, in times of mechanical breakdown, Selkirk, instead of relying upon the Red River, could use the water that was stored in this chamber.
Phase II of this project, a number of different aspects to it, but included the funding of a new well, and the well was designed to fill the storage facility which under normal circumstances would be sufficient to keep the town off the Red River, in particular, during dry periods as we had this past summer. In fact, had this project been completed prior to this summer, we would not have had to rely upon the Red River for our emergency source of drinking water. So Phase I was basically the construction of a storage facility; Phase II was to dig a well to fill Phase I.
* (1710)
Originally, all levels of government said they would fund their share of Phase II. They all, at the time--the province, the Town of Selkirk and the federal government--signed the document saying that we would honour both Phase I and Phase II, but it was brought forward last summer. It was indicated by federal officials that the federal government would no longer honour the second phase; in fact, they are withdrawing $30 million from the project, from the complete program. Because of that withdrawal, there would be no funds available for Selkirk to finish this much-needed project. In fact, this action by the--
An Honourable Member: $30 million?
Mr. Dewar: Well, the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) is questioning my numbers; I am sure he will have the chance after I am finished to correct me. But it was a substantial financial withdrawal from the federal government that jeopardized Phase II of this project, so no funds were available for Selkirk to finish this much-needed project in our community.
This action by the federal government created a great deal of uncertainty in Selkirk; in fact, it put this project in jeopardy, but thanks to the concerted efforts of residents of the town and pressure from the town and from this side of the House--as members opposite would know, we raised the issue in Question Period, we raised it in the Estimates and in fact we raised the issue during the election campaign this past spring.
We were very pleased, because of the pressure that we were able to put on the federal government, that the federal government finally succumbed to that pressure, and in September of this past year they did what was right and they gave notice that they will honour the 1993 agreement. In fact, the project should be completed by this fall, and it should give us the capacity in Selkirk to no longer rely upon the Red River until the year 2011. Of course, between now and then, we will have to look at alternative sources, perhaps a pipeline, perhaps expanding or improving upon the current system.
Even though the issue that we dealt with in the resolution was more or less resolved, I still want to urge all members of this House to pass this resolution, No. 1, to continue the pressure on the federal government to remind the federal government of their commitment to Selkirk and to serve as well as a testament to all the hard work of the town of Selkirk, the mayor and council and the people of Selkirk over the last number of years to really put the pressure on the federal government to honour their agreement.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
They signed this agreement with the province and with the town of Selkirk to upgrade our water supply, then for some reason they reneged on that agreement, but because of the pressure that we were able to put on them, we are reasonably convinced now that they will honour it. They apparently have issued the cheque, so hopefully it is as good as done.
As well, I urge members not only to support it for that, but I also urge members to pass this resolution as a commitment from all members of this House to ensure that all Manitobans have a safe drinking water supply and as well a commitment from all members of this House to clean up our polluted waterways.
So with those few comments, I just urge the members of this House--and I do not see why the members opposite will not support this resolution. It places the blame clearly on the federal government. So with those few comments I would just like to urge passage of this resolution by all members of this House so that the community of Selkirk will no longer have to rely upon the Red River as an emergency source of drinking water, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much.
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I am pleased to be able to rise this afternoon and address this resolution that has been put forward by the opposition and the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). I would like to say that this particular project is one that is of fairly significant importance to the community of Selkirk and for the water supply for that community. As members of this House know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the water source for the community of Selkirk, from time to time, has been the Red River, which is certainly a concern to the residents because of the pollution of that water source and the problems that arise because of the condition of the water.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, back in 1991, there was an agreement signed, a tripartite agreement on municipal water infrastructure between the federal government, the provincial government and municipalities, and, in total, the agreement was for $90 million. Each level of government would then be contributing $30 million to the agreement.
One of the communities that was a part of that agreement was Selkirk, and the project that was undertaken in Selkirk was actually a two-phase project, one which included the construction of a reservoir for the community, and this was a $3-million project. That project did proceed and was completed, and the second phase of the project involved drilling of wells to extract ground water, and this part of the project was worth a million and a half dollars. Again, that part would be shared by the three levels of government.
However, the federal government announced in 1993 that it had plans to withdraw some of the funding from the tripartite agreement. The member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) indicated that the federal government withdrew $30 million. That was an error, because, in fact, the federal government withdrew $3 million from the agreement which, in essence, meant that the total $90-million agreement would be reduced by $9 million.
What it did to certain communities, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was it perhaps stopped projects halfway through, and, in the case of Selkirk, what happened in their case was that the second phase or the drilling of wells could not be proceeded with.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to indicate that from the very beginning, when we learned about the reduction on the part of the federal government to this program, we did take action as a government, a provincial government, and we immediately began to dialogue with the federal government to try and encourage them to uphold their share of the agreement.
Letters have gone back, and I have a bundle of letters in my hand now that date back to 1993, which were written to various ministers of the federal Crown asking them to reconsider their position and fund this very important infrastructure project in the province of Manitoba.
My first letter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, went to the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy back in September of 1993. That letter, again, expressed concern about the withdrawal of funds from the PAMWI program, urging the federal minister to look at our province as one that had need of these kinds of projects and to encourage his cabinet to reinstate the $3 million that they were withdrawing from the program.
Between that time and now, members of our cabinet met with various ministers, and I can tell you that the issue was raised at each and every occasion that we could to try and reinstate this funding because our funding and the municipal funding was in place, and we were prepared to move ahead with the projects.
In late 1994, I did meet with the Honourable Art Eggleton who was minister responsible for the Treasury Board. We did discuss the issue with him directly. He did receive us very positively and did indicate at that time that he would be addressing this issue with his counterparts.
Later, in September of 1995, I again wrote to, this time, the Honourable Art Eggleton, again following up on our conversation and seeking some assistance from him to fund this project but also to reinstate the funding for other projects as well.
I think it would be fair to say that we worked very co-operatively with PFRA who were the administering body for the program to try and reinstate the funding that was taken away from our infrastructure program. I must say that on September 29, 1995, my department received confirmation that the federal government would indeed be fulfilling their contractual obligation by providing the one-third funding to two projects: one being the project in Virden, Manitoba; and the other one in Selkirk. The Selkirk project would be funded to its original commitment of $1.5 million.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find this resolution somewhat redundant today because indeed the funding is already in place to go ahead with the project at Selkirk, and the community of Selkirk will indeed receive the wells that they were promised and will have fresh water in the near future.
Although the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) tries to take credit for them, I have a host of letters here that were written to various ministers in the federal government, but I do not have one written by the member for Selkirk, unfortunately. But I must say it was this government that worked together with the federal government that indeed did put the pressure on to make sure that this project was completed and that other projects like it would also be completed as well.
* (1720)
I would like to say also that our government believes in the use of partnerships on a number of fronts, whether it means building consensus on key issues, establishing an economic framework for Manitoba or successfully undertaking the cost of the infrastructure development in our province. I think that a perfect example of this was the infrastructure program that we entered into with the federal government throughout Manitoba, where we were one of the first provinces to move ahead with the projects and to complete many of the projects across this province.
The approach that we took was a partnership approach where we invited municipalities to bring forward their programs. We invited the Union of Manitoba Municipalities as well as the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities to the table. Members from their organizations then were charged with the duties of selecting the projects that they thought should qualify under the infrastructure program.
I would have to say that the experience in Manitoba has probably been one of the most successful experiences under the infrastructure program across Canada. I think it is characteristic of the approach that this government has taken in that we believe very strongly in working with other levels of government. Whether they are the senior federal level of government or the municipal levels of government, we feel that they are partners in developing our province, both economically and socially, and it is for that reason that we work very closely with them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it is worth mentioning that, by using this approach, we have been able to successfully complete some fairly important economic development initiatives in rural Manitoba. I simply want to mention a couple, and the first one is, of course, the McCain expansion in Portage la Prairie, where McCain will be spending something like $75 million to expand their potato plant in Portage la Prairie.
Along with the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government, we will be providing the infrastructure for the project. In addition to the expansion of their sewage treatment system, we will be investing another $15 million to make sure that the infrastructure for the expansion is there and is adequate for the expansion that is going to be taking place.
We are also inviting a new partner to the table, and that is the private sector. We are asking the private sector to also come into the picture to ensure that some of the infrastructure that is so badly needed in our province is addressed in perhaps a creative or an innovative way. I only need to mention the construction of the Charleswood Bridge, which is now complete or very close to being completed--I guess the official opening was just last week--where we have a partnership of municipal levels of government, the federal level of government and also the private sector to ensure that an important infrastructure is in place for Manitobans. [interjection]
Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hear a little noise from the opposition. I really do not know what that means except to say that they are probably opposed to even this kind of an arrangement in our province, and that is so unfortunate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to also make mention of the $55-million creation of the Canadian agriproject at the Interlink Industrial Park in Ste. Agathe. Again, this speaks to the partnership approach of putting infrastructure into our province because here, once again, we have a private company, the municipal government, the provincial government, and, yes, we are hoping that the federal government will come to the table to ensure that a project like this is completed, as well.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that throughout Manitoba we have demonstrated as a provincial government that we are serious about providing the kind of infrastructure for Manitobans that will not only serve the needs of the current population but will also allow them to build on the infrastructure that they have to be able to attract new industries, new development, into their communities. This is also true when we talk about the provision of natural gas to rural Manitoba. We entered into an agreement where communities that do not have natural gas today will soon be able to access natural gas because of the partnership approach that I speak about that was taken by the three levels of government.
When we look at the Selkirk project, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that we can be proud as a provincial government that we have done everything we can to ensure not only that the people of Selkirk have an adequate supply of water, but, indeed, that all partners did come to the table in an appropriate way. We were very pleased that the federal government did, in fact, see fit to live up to their commitment of $500,000 to make sure that the second phase of the Selkirk project did proceed.
So let me say I am pleased about the lobbying efforts of our government, and I think that we can continue with this approach in other projects as well. Thank you very much.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the resolution put forward by the member for Selkirk. I am pleased to support any resolution that would advocate better water protection, particularly in the area of drinking water but also in the case of any water quality protection.
It is interesting, though, when I listen to the debate in the House and--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member. If the honourable members want to continue on with their discussion, as we will call it, they can do so out in the halls.
The honourable member for Radisson, to continue.
Ms. Cerilli: I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have to recognize that this resolution is advocating for water treatment in the community of Selkirk so that they do not have to rely on Red River water for drinking water. They want to have the provision of additional well capacity so that they can have drinking water that is not going to be of the quality of the Red River, and they want to be able to treat the water that they have.
* (1730)
It is interesting, if we look at that as the end and the solution--because it is not going to solve the problem--of the fact that the Red River is horribly polluted, and the real answer to this problem is going to be dealing with that fact and dealing with the problems that are causing the pollution in the Red River. We know that Winnipeg is largely at fault here. Winnipeg continues to have only primary treatment of sewage. The sewage from Winnipeg is not disinfected, so that is one part of the problem. The second part of the problem is that we still have sewers that put raw sewage into the Red River in the event of heavy rains and when the sewage capacity in the area where the sewers are combined is overrun.
So those are two of the problems, but there is also the problem of agricultural runoff, which is causing problems along the river watershed, all the area that feeds into the river, including the Assiniboine River.
Members of the House may remember a couple of years back a little canoe trip that me and a couple of environmental friends took. It was amazing to see all along the river the kinds of impacts and the kind of drainage from industry and other municipalities and lagoons flowing into the Red River basin. So those are a couple of the other areas that have to be dealt with if we are really going to address the drinking water needs of populations all along the Red River.
I would also be remiss, in talking about the provision of well water for Selkirk, if we did not also look at the fact that we have a number of industries that are threatening the underground well water sources in and around the capital region, including Selkirk.
I am very concerned about the livestock intensity growing in the area threatening aquifers when we have hog operations of this size and magnitude on sensitive ground water hazard areas. We have to be cautious that we are not, on the one hand, going forward with economic expansion that may be very costly for us as a province, on the other hand, when we have to look at dealing with the impact on our drinking water sources.
So again we have to look carefully at all of the kinds of development that are going on to ensure that we are going to protect our drinking water sources. So when we are looking at drinking water treatment, we have to be very careful with moving forward with any alternative that is increasing the reliance on chemical water treatment.
We know that there are studies coming forward that draw a relationship between chlorine water treatment and organic chlorines and cancer and other illnesses in the population. So if we are moving to more reliance on chemical water treatment, we could again be in the long run having a greater cost in health care, because we may be, rather than solving the problem and making sure the water sources do not get polluted in the first place by simply introducing chlorination into the system which binds with organic matter in the water, we may indeed still be having adverse health effects. It would not be the same as the bacterial contamination that would occur if we did not chlorinate the water in the first place, but there still may be long-term health consequences.
There are new alternatives such as ozonization as a water treatment source that are being tried in a number of different places. These are the most environmentally advanced kinds of water treatment systems.
I think all of us are very concerned in Manitoba when we know that there are many communities that do not have equality of condition in terms of either water supply or sewage treatment. We not only have to look at communities like Selkirk but all the other communities in northern Manitoba that do not have adequate water supply and water treatment, and I think that these are issues that we have to look at very seriously.
It is disconcerting when we look at the fact that a community like Selkirk relies at times on 30 to 40 percent of their drinking water coming from the Red River. What this ends up encouraging is more and more reliance on bottled water, and that becomes a huge cost for individual families.
Families are very concerned, I think, that there is a lead problem with drinking water. Some people are very concerned about fluoride in drinking water, and then, as I said already, people are also concerned not only about bacteria and fecal coliform but also concerned about the chlorination that is used in treating drinking water, and studies are now showing effects of that on health.
One of the other things that I wanted to mention in terms of projects like water supply for Selkirk is, we cannot have the kind of offloading that has occurred onto municipalities for treatment of water, for dealing with provision of waste disposal. We cannot have local municipalities bear the brunt of providing the costs for those kinds of environmental and public health responsibilities.
That is why I think this resolution is so important. I think that the agreement that was undertaken to provide for the water supply for Selkirk is so important because it was a tripartite agreement, so there was a recognition that we cannot offload all of the costs for environmental and public health protection onto municipalities, which have the least ability to generate the tax base and the revenue to pay for those very important public projects.
I think that, unfortunately, we have, for example, the balanced budget legislation being brought in by this government. It is related to this issue, because as we have used as the example so often in the House, projects that are in the interests of the common good of the public like the floodway, like the sewage treatment for Winnipeg's sewage that goes into the rivers in Winnipeg, like the provision of a water source for Winnipeg from Shoal Lake and the improvements in the aqueduct that we need, those things would be very difficult to do under the regime, the financial regime put forward by this government with Bill 2, the balanced budget legislation, because those kinds of capital expenditures would need to be financed with borrowing over the long term over many, many years. We are very concerned on this side of the House that those kinds of projects will not be given the priority that they deserve right now in the long-term vision that we need to have for Winnipeg.
I see that the members opposite are nodding and seem to be listening to what is being said on this side of the House at this time, and I wonder how they plan to finance the kind of water treatment and water supply that we need, not only in Winnipeg but in a number of communities around the province, when they have put us in this financial straitjacket. These are significant issues, because, as I have said, municipalities do not have the ability to finance these kinds of projects on their own, and they need the support of the provincial governments and they need the support of a federal government that has a larger capability of supplying funds for major infrastructure projects such as water treatment and water supply and sewage treatment.
The other thing that is a factor in this issue is urban sprawl and the effect that urban sprawl has as well on consumption of water and the provision of water. I know when we were dealing with the Assiniboine diversion that this was a concern, and we still are concerned about the provision of water for large centres that are mushrooming around in the capital region. It is a problem. It is a problem for many of these municipalities, and I am very concerned that in a lot of cases we have not had the proper regulations in place to protect ground water.
I have seen myself a number of situations where I had brought to my attention just recently in an area in rural Manitoba--it was in Gilbert Plains, I believe--where a housing development has been put in place in an area that has had, some people believe, contamination by Hydro, and the ground water in that area has been threatened and also the soil. So I think that we have to make sure that we are going to protect ground-water sources so that communities like Selkirk are going to be able to continue to rely on ground water and well water.
* (1740)
I guess in conclusion, I just want to conclude by saying it is a great concern that the federal government was hesitant in providing the funds for this project. The federal government has cut by 50 percent the funding for the federal Department of Environment in the last budget. We cannot continue on this track because in the long run all of these environmental and public health issues are going to come to bear on the economy of the province not only on the huge costs that eventually will have to be paid in terms of health but also in the long run that we will not have the water that is so important for economic development in so many different areas.
So I would encourage the resolution--the government to support passing on this resolution to the federal minister responsible for Western Diversification so we will continue to have a federal presence involved in funding water protection for rural municipalities. Thank you very much.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I quite enjoyed the remarks from the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I did listen to the member for Radisson very intently, and as a member who represents the Selkirk and district in this Legislature I kind of found it a little bit ironical that the New Democratic Party would be rising today to speak about issues of water quality in Selkirk and the need to secure a water supply, because that constituency was represented in this Legislature for a period of nearly 20 years by a former premier of this province.
An Honourable Member: Who was that?
Mr. Praznik: The Honourable Howard Pawley.
I can tell the members opposite, having grown up in and around the town of Selkirk, attended school there, have spent most of my life in this area, that the issue of water quality in Selkirk is not a recent or new issue. It has been an issue that has been there for decades. In fact, it was a pressing issue through all the years that Mr. Pawley was MLA and through the years in which he was the premier of this province. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was an issue, a great issue to the town of Selkirk when Mr. Pawley sat in this House and revenues to this government were increasing at 10, 12, 15, 16 percent a year, and throughout that period nothing, absolutely nothing was done by the New Democratic Party in government and by its MLA to solve the problem. It was not, quite frankly, a priority of the New Democratic Party government and its MLA, Mr. Pawley, other than in words. It was a priority in words but never, never in deeds, never in deeds.
I have to tell the member for Radisson if you go back over the years in Selkirk, even I can remember the time when Selkirk, vaguely as a young person, hosted a bottling plant for Coca-Cola, and one of the reasons that was lost to that community was because of water quality. Jobs lost, and that is something that has been known for years in the town of Selkirk.
I have to tell my colleague, the member now for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), one of the proudest moments as an MLA for that area, although I do not represent the town of Selkirk, my riding comes very close to it on the other side of the river, and it comes--
An Honourable Member: Does it come to the bridge?
Mr. Praznik: Well, the member for Roblin Russell (Mr. Derkach) asks if it comes to the bridge. Well, the bridge connects the great constituency of Lac du Bonnet with the great constituency of Gimli. It links us together, and I must admit that that bridge today is used by many of our constituents, but one should never forget the way in which that project came about, the way in which it was planned, the way in which the site was selected, I understand by the Premier personally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, led to a great deal of public debate and a great deal of ridicule by the people in those surrounding areas at the way it was managed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, to get back precisely onto topic, about water, one of the proudest moments of my career in public life in that community was when some years ago I attended on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Rural Development, an announcement under I believe it was the PAMWI plan to improve water quality in the town of Selkirk, and the member for Selkirk was there at that particular meeting. I have to give him credit that at least he was able to attend that function even though his party in its years of representing that community had done nothing in fact to resolve that issue.
We were there with our dollars on the table under that agreement to make the most significant improvements in water quality in the town of Selkirk in decades, and we did that because it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do. In fact under the original PAMWI agreement I do not know if Selkirk--where it fit in, but through efforts of myself and othersy, we ensured that was carried through. It is with great regret that, I understand, what happened was the federal government, and I look to the Minister of Rural Development, Mr. Fewchuk, the member of parliament for that area--no, it was Mr. Bjornson, the Conservative, who made sure that Selkirk received the water. In fact, the irony of it, it was a Conservative member of parliament and Conservative MLAs--my colleague, the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) was there--who made sure Selkirk was included in that program and that it went ahead and that the money was there to improve that program.
Yet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we elect, the people of that area return a Liberal member of parliament and a Liberal government who campaigns on jobs, jobs, jobs and infrastructure. What do they do to fund their program? They cut that out of the PAMWI agreement and they return some of those dollars to the town of Selkirk, not to fix water, not to improve the quality of life for the citizens of Selkirk, not to provide good clean water for economic development, but what does Mr. Fewchuk and his Liberal friends, Mr. Axworthy, do? They build sidewalks. [interjection] Well, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says what do you have against sidewalks? I will tell you. If the member has ever tried to wash his hair on a sidewalk or drink sidewalk, he will appreciate the need for good quality water in a community.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) today comes back, has to come back, to this Legislature with this resolution to solve a problem which neither his party nor with the help of the federal Liberal member of parliament and his cohorts in Ottawa--in fact, actually stole the money from the good people of Selkirk that they required to fix their-- [interjection]
Now, the member for Selkirk points to the newspaper clipping, and we remember it well, Mr. Fewchuk having to explain why the dollars that the federal Conservative government had set aside for the town of Selkirk were stolen from the people of Selkirk for a campaign gimmick. It defies logic.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the member for Selkirk rises with this resolution today I can say, yes, the town of Selkirk needs that problem solved, yes, this administration was there to solve this problem, yes, the federal Conservative Party was there to solve that problem, but 20 years of inaction by New Democrats who had the resources and the money and the political will to solve the problem did nothing. Then when the problem was solved the Liberal Party comes on the scene, and keeping with the tradition of 80 years in western Canada, stole right from underneath us, to the great detriment of the citizens in the town of Selkirk. So today we are left with the problem unsolved because of the failure of New Democrats to act and because of the tradition of Liberals to steal from western Canadians.
So we say to the people of Selkirk when they analyze this issue, when they analyze and look to this issue they know only Conservatives in Ottawa and in Manitoba have stood by the people of that town on that most important issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, not that I will ever be accused of being partisan, my colleague the Minister of Rural Development, who, in the most difficult of times, left to us by those who have rung up the debt of this province that has to be paid, in the most difficult times, he and my colleagues around the cabinet table, the Treasury Board table continued to find the dollars to put into infrastructure programs for the people of Manitoba, wherever they may be.
Yes, we got some money back from Ottawa, but the accounting about how much has been stolen from us has not yet been done. It has not yet been done.
* (1750)
I want this message to go to the people of Selkirk today, that they should remember that even though we did not represent the seat provincially we have always stood by them and we have delivered and we will continue to fight those in Ottawa who will take away the drinking water from the people of Selkirk, and we will stand with the citizens of Manitoba yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad I have a few minutes to talk about the resolution as proposed by the member for Selkirk, and I am really pleased that he brought this resolution here because it is important because clean water, first of all, is important to a community and important to a community such as Selkirk.
I have a certain interest in this resolution also because my constituency starts at the north boundary of Selkirk, and I have the Red River then and the Red River flows into Lake Winnipeg and I have a lot of tourists--[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member for Gimli. It might be my hearing.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was just commenting on the importance of the river that runs through Selkirk and also the importance of clean water and, as I said, my constituency starts at the north end of Selkirk and flows into Lake Winnipeg; I have a certain interest in the Red River. One of the major industries in my area is the tourism and one of the biggest fishing spots in Manitoba is just north of Selkirk.
An Honourable Member: Remember that big fish somebody caught there?
Mr. Helwer: That is right, channel cats. That is right.
An Honourable Member: Who was that?
Mr. Helwer: That was the Premier, of course, caught the biggest channel cat at Lockport, actually, in your constituency.
I was commenting on the importance of tourism to the area, not only to Selkirk but to the area north of Selkirk, Petersfield, Winnipeg Beach, Gimli, all the area along Lake Winnipeg. It is important, this Red River.
One of the main issues about the river, and one of the reasons why the town of Selkirk needed an alternate supply of water is because of the contamination in the Red River. This has been an age-old problem that has taken place over the years, for the contamination of the river is becoming more and more. That is affecting the town of Selkirk and the communities north of Selkirk which I represent.
The problem is the water that comes into Winnipeg from the south in the Red River, it is perfectly clean on the south end of Winnipeg. By the time it gets through Winnipeg and comes out north of Winnipeg into Lockport and Selkirk, that river is contaminated.
I know that our Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) and the department have been doing many things to try to clean up that river. [interjection] That is right. The Lieutenant-Governor was even cleaning up the Seine River. Well, that is all part of us cleaning up the river system which flows into the Red River. That is the most important part of this debate on this resolution is the cleaning of that Red River.
I wanted to commend our Minister of Environment for working very hard on this, and, first of all, getting the industries along the river, such as the University of Manitoba and a lot of the other industries, to clean up their act, including the city of Winnipeg, of course. They have to clean up their act also to prevent the contamination from flowing into that river and creating the problems that it has for the town of Selkirk over the years, because Selkirk's water problems have gone back many, many years.
As the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) said, the prior government, the former MLA there, Mr. Pawley, who represented that area for many years, did absolutely nothing to improve the quality of water for the town of Selkirk. Finally we came along, and this government together with the federal Conservative government, Mr. Holtmann and Mr. Bjornson put together this PAMWI agreement and finally recognized Selkirk as important, that the water system of Selkirk would have to be cleaned up.
We can thank--[interjection] That is right, but it was this government and the former government in Ottawa that brought in the PAMWI agreement. This has cleaned up the water in Selkirk, the sewage lagoon in Gimli, the sewage lagoon in--or we call them waste treatment centres, not sewage lagoons, sorry. These are important to the communities.
I should mention that just a couple of weeks ago we had the opening of one of these programs under the PAMWI agreement in the Teulon area to serve that community, so that they can have proper disposal of their sewage in that area. This agreement was important to Selkirk and Gimli, many communities in the area.
Just getting back to water for a minute for Selkirk, and I am really pleased that they are going to drill wells and try to come up with a new system, a new supply, but we have a water supply just west of Selkirk in the Oak Hammock area where we have a number of flowing wells. As a matter of fact, the Department of Natural Resources has drilled a number of relief wells in that area to relieve the flow of the water pressure, so it does not come up in the fields or one thing and another. That is a fact, we have relief wells, we do. These wells run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and this all goes into the creek and into the river, but all this water is going to waste.
There is an excellent alternate supply of water for the town of Selkirk that could be tapped into within about six or eight miles west of Selkirk, they would tap into this aquifer there. Instead of this water flowing down the ditches, it could be made good use of in Selkirk. That is just some excellent water, an excellent supply of water. I do not know why the engineers have not looked at it prior to this, but finally and I am sure they will find good wells there, they will be able to drill water there. They will drill to get the water.
I just want to mention, since I only have a couple of minutes left, when we talked about the importance of a good clean water supply, how important that is to a community, if you look at Selkirk, just in the last little while, how some of the industries that have taken place there and how they are expanding.
One of the newest industries there, Sterling Press, now have two Grow Bonds. They have expanded twice. One of the reasons they are doing this is because this PAMWI agreement is in place to give them fresh water. Sterling Press, Black Cat Blades right on the boundary; Black Cat Blades is right on the boundary between the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) and my constituency. We have some excellent industries, such as the Manitoba Rolling Mills there, the steel foundry. All these industries that they have in Selkirk need good clean water and that is important.
Selkirk actually is a progressive town and has some very good industries.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have six minutes remaining.
The hour now being 10 p.m., as previously agreed, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. (Tuesday).