* (1700)
Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that
"WHEREAS the farming sector is a vital component of Manitoba's economy; and
"WHEREAS the Manitoba farming industry has been the most severely effected of all the provinces by the Federal Government's decision to eliminate the Crow Rate; and
"WHEREAS Manitoba's farmers have continually shown their ability to respond, adapt and prosper through the opportunities that change creates; and
"WHEREAS value-added diversification results in the farming industry producing greater profit, creating more jobs and securing a stable sector of the international agricultural market.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the Minister of Agriculture in his continued efforts and initiatives to foster a farming industry in Manitoba that possesses a strong value-added diversification component."
Motion presented.
Mr. Dyck: I believe it is very appropriate that at this time of year, when farmers are out there and starting to put their crop into the ground, that we are discussing the resolution here regarding value-added diversification.
Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity this morning--in fact, it was six in the morning--to assist on our farm and help the fellows get ready for the week and to start off with the planting and the seeding of the crops for the year.
Diversification has been something that I, having been involved in agriculture, have been involved with for many years, and I believe that certainly it is something that has added to our community and I know to many of the communities within the province of Manitoba. Indeed, the agricultural sector is vital to Manitoba's economy, making an important contribution to the gross domestic product in jobs and general wealth in our province. The other factor, I think, that is important for us to realize as we look at diversification and value-added is that one in nine jobs in Manitoba is a result of agricultural production with approximately 60,000 individuals directly or indirectly employed in agriculture in 1996.
Madam Speaker, when I look at value-added, especially looking at the area within southern Manitoba, the items that come to mind in our area are specifically those to potato production, to wheat, to oats, to peas, dill oil and buckwheat, and those are just a few of them, but I would like to highlight just a few of these crops as they are grown in the southern Manitoba area and how value is added to these crops. [interjection]
Well, the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) asked about the crop hemp, another product that is, of course, new and is being looked at within the province this year and will also be added to production and the opportunity for producers to add value to their farms.
But, Madam Speaker, on our farm, specifically, in the last few years we have been growing oats, and this was not a crop that was commonly produced over the years, but with the value that has been added to it through our oat-processing plant within the province in Portage, certainly this has helped to add dollar value to the product, and so the buyers can become more competitive as they seek to buy this product and create different products out of it. So this is something that has certainly been beneficial to our area.
Madam Speaker, I mentioned that one in nine jobs in Manitoba is the result of agriculture production. If I could revert now to the potato industry within the area, certainly this is something that has helped to increase the workforce within southern Manitoba. Manitoba's potato acreage has steadily increased from 50,000 acres in 1991 to 72,000 acres in 1997. Most of this increase can be attributed to an ever expanding market for French fries. In 1991, farmgate value of Manitoba potatoes was around $51 million. By 1996, farmgate value had increased to $110 million and value-added estimated at greater than $206 million to $208 million. So just in the potato industry alone, we have added dollars, we have added increased value, and certainly this has been reflected in the area that I represent in the Pembina constituency.
Many of the potato producers that I know--and I mentioned the other day as we were debating another resolution--Kroeker Farms were the ones who originally started the production of potatoes within southern Manitoba. Of course, after that, it grew and has expanded to many different areas within the province.
Another company that I had contact with on the weekend was Southern Manitoba Potato Co. They are specializing in red potatoes and also in the chipping potato industry. They are adding value to their product by selling them directly to processors, who then of course process these and put them into vacuum packed bags and distribute them throughout the province, throughout Canada, and part of the United States.
This adding of value is something that is reflected in the fact that different types of machinery are needed to produce this crop, so therefore the machinery dealers are able to benefit from this crop. Also, the fact that being a high-intensity crop, of course more jobs are needed, in fact, that people are employed to sort potatoes. They are employed in the driving of trucks and of course in the planting of the crop. It is a labour-intensive crop and something that certainly we appreciate within the southern Manitoba area.
* (1710)
Another crop that I would like to highlight today is the sunflower industry. A company in Winkler known as Keystone Grain, who are buying the product from farmers and are processing this product, in fact, what they are doing is they are dehulling the sunflower seed; then, ultimately, they are packaging it. They are putting it also into vacuum packed bags and selling it directly to the consumer.
As they are dehulling these seeds, in fact they are going two ways with the seed. The one side of it is the raw material which you can buy, which you can eat--it is an edible product--and I know that many of the consumers are using it as they bake their goods within the house. It is a high protein. It is a very healthy food, and I know it is being used extensively in the baking industry. In fact, our local bakery, Valley Bakery, is using it in the baking of his bread and also in some of the other commodities that he is producing.
The other area that I found very interesting--and this is the adding of the value to the product--is that the hulls, which several years ago were being thrown away and simply dumped and burnt, are now being sold to local people who are using this for a heat source. They have found out that the hulls from sunflowers can be used in a very effective way to generate heat and, in fact, a good friend of mine is using this. He set up a heating mechanism where, through the use of a stoker--and this of course is something that was used years ago heating with coal. He is now using this in a furnace that he has converted and is able to use this as a heat source.
So, rather than throw away the material and just burn it and put it into the landfill sites, they are using this product. So the total product that is being bought by Keystone Grain is marketed and shipped out the door, and I am told--in fact, I was in the plant just a week ago--that 100 percent of the product that they get is sold and is used in some way.
So this is another area of value-added diversification where everyone benefits by this. It is the farmer who is producing the product and selling it, and of course the consumer is benefiting by it as well because everything is saleable, and consequently this can be reflected in the price that they get.
In regards to other value-added areas, and again I think back to our own farm. We operate a cattle feedlot, and over the years we have been feeding, basically, screenings and straw, again products that at one point in time were--well, people felt there was no value to the screenings that were taken from the grain that was cleaned. What we have found over the years is that as long as the grain and the feed that is being consumed by these animals is analyzed and the protein levels are there, certainly this is something that can be fed to animals.
Again, rather than as has been done previously, the screenings thrown into some of the landfill sites and simply buried, we are able to add value to the product and put it in the form of beef, and of course ultimately the consumer picks it up and it is known as an edible food.
The whole area of being able to add value to the product in grain--of course, the grain is used initially, whether it be wheat or barley, but wheat is cleaned and sent out to the milling industries and the screenings are then used and used as a supplement in the feedlot industry.
Madam Speaker, I mentioned the word straw, which we are also using as feed and value in cattle, but the province has, of course, been very instrumental in luring and in tracking some industries into the province, and it reminds me of this pamphlet that I just received in the mail regarding the Isobord plant. Again, this is a resource that until now was looked at as something that farmers needed to discard, and in many cases they burned the product. Now the Isobord is being made.
In fact, I would just like to read a few excerpts here and that is, the Isobord is a revolutionary product made from wheat straw and a synthetic resin containing isocyanates. Within 50 miles of the plant at Elie, Manitoba, there is enough wheat straw to produce 144 million square feet of Isobord every year.
Then just a few sentences down here, Isobord is proud to be a part of a solution by taking 200,000 tonnes of straw off the land every summer to make a superior-quality composite board, and for the first time there is an alternative use for surplus straw. Three hundred and fifty farmers in Manitoba received additional income as a part of a co-op that guarantees the annual supply of straw needed to manufacture Isobord.
Now, I know that this has been an issue for a number of years where, in fact, the City of Winnipeg was very concerned with the smoke that was moving into the city as a result of the burning of straw, and it has been great to see how this company has been able to add value to that straw. Rather than burn it, they are now able to create a product that is being sought after by many people within North America.
Madam Speaker, I must move on. I realize I am running out of time, but the other area I would just briefly like to touch on is the production of beans within Manitoba. This is a product that 10 years ago there were only a few people within the province of Manitoba who were growing beans. I am talking about the edible beans, black beans, kidney beans, navy beans. There are a number of others, but these are beans that are used as edible products. It looks as though this year, with the production that we are seeing within the province, that we will be surpassing Ontario, who till this year was the highest-producing province within Canada in bean production. So it is gratifying to see that within Manitoba we will now be able to surpass the bean acreage that they had in Ontario. In fact, the prediction is that we will be producing approximately 120,000 acres of beans in this province this coming year.
These beans are, of course, exported throughout North America and overseas. I am also told in having marketed this product that the beans that are produced in Manitoba are some of the best and the highest-quality beans that are produced in the world. I guess if you are a connoisseur of beans and you enjoy eating them, certainly you would be able to determine a good one from a bad one.
So, Madam Speaker, I am extremely excited about the fact that we have been able to add value to many of our products within the province of Manitoba, which is beneficial to all people within the province as we need to create and, in fact, get more money in the province in order to support our education and our health care within the province.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, spring is always an exciting time in rural Manitoba when farmers are talking about getting out onto the land and discussing their plans, and they are discussing all the things that they are going to do over the course of the summer to try to make a living and to try to make rural Manitoba a better place in which to live and to raise a family.
For years and years and years, farmers have had the ability to grow and to adapt, to respond to changes. Farmers have always had that sense of how to turn a change into an opportunity. They have always had that ability to kind of roll with the punches, and over and over again, either through Mother Nature or through decisions made by Legislatures or governments in Ottawa or local decisions at times, farmers have always been able to land on their feet. They have got that ability. They have got that determination to work in rural Manitoba and do a good job at what they do.
So, Madam Speaker, it was no surprise to me this weekend when I spent some time at the Kinsmen Trade Fair in Dauphin, the morning of which was spent watching the rain come down--so there ended up being a lot of farmers in the trade fair who were able to speak with me about the issues that they are facing today in Manitoba agriculture.
* (1720)
Madam Speaker, the farm community these days--and I saw this at the trade fair on the weekend. The conversations were about how much seeded acreage each of the farmers would have. The discussion was about what crops they were going to grow on this acreage. The discussion was: How much am I going to plant in wheat? How much am I going to plant in canola? How much am I going to plant in barley? Am I going to just stick with grain? Am I going to expand the number of cattle that I have? Will I expand the number of hogs that I grow?
Madam Speaker, the discussions that I had on the weekend with farmers tell me that the farm community takes diversification very seriously. The discussions also told me that not only do farmers think that diversification on their own operations is a good thing, but they want to see the province diversified in a general way like we always have been in this province. This province, I do not care what government you have on the government side, this province should never take a second seat to any other province when it comes to diversifying not just their agricultural economy but our provincial economy as a whole.
Now, this could be as a result of several different factors, but nowhere in the country can other provinces brag that they have done any better job than Manitoba in diversifying either the provincial economy or the agricultural economy specifically. Certainly no farmer in any part of this country can claim that they are any better than Manitoba farmers at diversifying their own farm operations.
Madam Speaker, this statement that I have just made about our ability to diversify holds true whether you are talking post-Crow benefit or pre-Crow benefit. That spirit of diversification has always been there. I would say the same about value-added. It is my belief that the concept of adding value to the produce that we have, that we grow in this province, has always been something that the farm community and others have valued.
What we need to do, as well, is instead of debating over and over in this House the type of private member's resolution that we have today where the government simply tries to pat itself on the back for some political purpose, I suppose, we need to actually sit down in a framework of consultation and look at ways in which we can move towards actually adding value to the produce that we grow in this province.
I mean, it is all peaches and cream when this government stands and congratulates itself for the initiatives that it claims to be supporting and the support that it claims that it is giving farmers in Manitoba. Well, Madam Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to an attempt, I guess, on the part of this government to add value in the Portage la Prairie area. Last spring, Manitoba taxpayers were left holding the bag for somewhere in the area of $970,000. This occurred after a pea processing plant that had to be bailed out by the province in December of 1996 was sold at a loss.
On the one hand, Madam Speaker, I am willing to say that nothing ventured, nothing gained. I am willing to say that you have got to take a little bit of a risk sometimes in order to encourage along the agricultural sector in the province. But this does not add up when you look at the rhetoric that this government spews out to the people of Manitoba.
On the one hand, this government brags about its laissez faire, hands-off kind of a policy. We are going to set the proper environment so that the farm community can take off. On the other hand, I suppose maybe they should have that attitude, because when they try to get involved, you end up with the results like we had with the pea processing plant in Portage la Prairie. Again, here is a situation of this government being stuck with $970,000 because of the interference of this government.
The money for this pea processing plant was originally paid after the processing company defaulted on its Grow Bonds. It is our belief that the loss could have been avoided if the government had followed proper procedures in assessing the risk to begin with.
Now, Madam Speaker, I realize that you are not going to hit the ball out of the park every time. You are not going to succeed every time, but you have got to give your chance to win every now and then. You have got to give yourself that chance to hit the home run. In this case, the government was never in the ball game. The government did not have the bat in its hands to hit it out of the park, and it ended up costing Manitobans almost a million dollars.
So it is fine for this government to spew out the rhetoric about adding value and spew out the rhetoric about diversification, but at some point it has got to step up to the plate and hit that ball out of the park, and it sure did not on this occasion. Now, I know the government will talk about all kinds of other different plans and different strategies and dreams that it has for this province in the area of adding value onto the products that it produces, and that is all fine and well, but I want everybody to remember that on this occasion with the pea processing plant, this government botched it up. There are some real opportunities out there for Manitoba farmers. The member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), I do want to congratulate for bringing forth a private member's resolution to deal with this important issue, because it is an issue that is an opportunity for Manitoba farmers and for all those people who depend on the agricultural sector for their employment.
The one area that I am especially interested in is the move made by the federal government in the decriminalization of industrial hemp. This is a plant that I think represents a lot of opportunity for Manitoba farmers. The amount of research that has gone into the uses of hemp, not just the uses of hemp but the amount of research that has gone into developing a strain of hemp that could be decriminalized without the ability of allowing people to get a good buzz on, the amount of research that has gone into the uses of hemp, I think, has really progressed in a very positive manner.
There is a group of my constituents who are very much interested in the production of hemp for legal purposes. I am positive that this group of constituents that I represent have nothing but the best intentions with the hemp that they intend to grow. I may add, Madam Speaker, that if their intentions were not good, they would pretty much have to smoke the whole quarter section of this hemp in order just to get a buzz on. [interjection] So the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), knowing that the minister knows the research that has gone on and the improvements that have been made, understands that this hemp is not of the same category as the illegal hemp that he refers to.
* (1730)
Another area that I think is prime in our province, another area that I think we really should be taking seriously is organic farming. This government has done nothing, I mean, at best very little, to promote the growing of organic produce in the province of Manitoba, and Manitoba, I think, is an excellent place in which to start getting serious about organic farming. I do not expect that the majority of farmers would go into organic farming. I do not expect that the majority of hectares in our province would ever become seeded to organic produce, but there is a market out there for organic produce in Manitoba. It is something that I think if we do not move seriously on soon, we are going to miss out altogether. It is an opportunity, and there are people who are trying to get started in the field of organic farming. There are some hurdles that organic farming has to overcome. Some of them are very natural. Some of them make sense. Others do not. But a hurdle that makes sense is the amount of time, the period of time that a farmer has to prove that he is organic, that he is chemical free, before he can become certified to grow organic farming.
The years have changed from one figure to the next. At one time it was six years. At one time it was five years. I understand that it is somewhere less than five years now, two or three years, that it takes to become certified to grow organic produce.
Madam Speaker, I think there is a role for this government to play in bridging the gap between a farmer going from chemical dependence in growing his produce to a point in which he can grow organic produce and still collect the bonuses that come along with organic farming.
I am very certain that if this government was serious about diversifying the agricultural economy then it would look very much more seriously at helping out those who want to become organic farmers, those who want to fill that market that is out there. If not, I think we are going to miss out on an opportunity to provide more revenue for those out in rural Manitoba who are into the agricultural sector in Manitoba.
So with those words, Madam Speaker, I am very glad to be able to put a few remarks on the record concerning agricultural diversification and value-added.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I can defer if we can have a vote on this excellent resolution that is brought forward by my colleague for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). Well, I will try and convince the members opposite that we should vote and vote the right way of course.
I think it is not only important to speak to the question of diversification, why it is essential. I think it is important to put a little bit of history on the record as to why we are where we are at today and some of the things that have taken place in the last few years as it relates to the removal of the Crow rate. Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any question that in the long-term interests of economic development in western Canada that the removal of the Crow rate was needed, it was necessary, and it was essential. But I think it is also important to put on the record how it was done, by who, and what situation it has caused for some particular individuals.
First of all, Madam Speaker, when I first gave one of my first speeches in the Legislature some 20 years ago, one of the things I was told by my father when I came in here as a representative of the agriculture community was to fear the Lord, and secondly was never talk about the Crow rate or the removal of it or it would be the end of my political career. Well, I still fear the Lord, but I did talk about the Crow rate. In fact, it was on several western Canadian premiers' agendas, and we talked and we of course realized that some of the problems in the movement of grain off of western Canada was the sheer fact that the railroads were not being paid adequately for the movement of grain off of the Prairies.
In fact, that was a major initiative by the Lyon government to bring together all the participants right here in this Legislative Building when a man by the name of Otto Lang was the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, when Premier Lougheed and Bennett and a man by the name of Blakeney from Saskatchewan all came with the industry and, quite frankly, broke the logjam to get on with some of the activities. In fact, at that particular time, Alberta made a commitment to buy several hundred hopper cars. I think they bought a thousand. Saskatchewan bought a thousand. I could not, quite frankly, see, Madam Speaker, why the Province of Manitoba had to buy any hopper cars. We did not. We, in fact, filled the short-term gap with hopper cars by leasing some from the United States, so the Province of Manitoba does not have a long-term investment in hopper cars or did not, but the Province of Saskatchewan and Alberta do. Of course, I think it is wrong that the taxpayers should have to invest in rolling stock.
Another point I want to make, Madam Speaker, is that under Charlie Mayer, who was, I think, an excellent representative for western Canadian agriculture, did, in fact, propose the removal of the Crow rate, but he advocated it with a payment of $5 billion to the farmers of western Canada. The Liberal government got elected without even talking about the Crow rate, came along and they bought the farmers of western Canada off with $1.2 billion or $1.5 billion, a substantial shortfall.
Madam Speaker, one of the issues and one of the problems and concerns that I have is I am not against the removal of the Crow; I am upset that the farmers and western Canadians did not take the offer of Charlie Mayer. Another concern that I had--and this is where the NDP have to carry some of the responsibility--is that the wrong persons were paid the shortfall. The Crow shortfall should never have been paid to the railroads of western Canada. It should have been paid directly to the farmers. That would have given the farmers an opportunity to build into the infrastructure, to build into their farm operations an investment in diversification at that particular time, but what we have seen for at least 10 years was $700 million a year paid to the railroads.
That adds up to $7 billion that went to the rail companies of this country, Madam Speaker, and what do we have for it today? We have railroads being rolled up throughout western Canada. We have not maintained a rail system. We have not got low-cost freight rates; we have high-cost freight rates. We do not have a rail system other than the main lines being maintained, and I do not think the railroads really, quite frankly, thought it was the right way to do it either, but when somebody puts $700 million in front of you, are you going to refuse it?
I maintain that that money should have gone directly to the farm community, and over the last 10 years we would have had $7 billion distributed throughout the western Canadian agriculture farm community, and they could have been prepared for the day when they would have lost the Crow rate, but, no, the federal Liberals gave $1.2 billion, a $20-per-acre payment three years ago, let the increase in freight rates go up and now--and the price of wheat was not bad, Madam Speaker. Nobody felt the shock the first year.
Well, I will tell you, they are feeling the shock today because, I will tell you, every farmer who hauls a load of wheat to the elevator, if you haul three loads of wheat, you have to give one up to ship, transport the grain. It means one-third of a wheat cheque today has to go to the movement of grain, the elevation and the shipping. No one, Madam Speaker, no one is that wealthy or is able to maintain a business in giving that kind of money to the system to pay for the movement of grain.
The grain industry, Madam Speaker, is in an extremely difficult situation. So what are the alternatives? I have to take a minute to talk about a recent meeting that I was informed about in my constituency. The alternative is for people to diversify, to create markets in their home communities, whether it is the development of feedlots, whether it is putting the pulse crops in their land or going into the hog industry.
There is a so-called, self-proclaimed expert by the name of Harold Taylor who sat in this Legislative Assembly who was defeated by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). If there is one thing that I compliment the member for Wolseley on, it is that she defeated that individual, but I am not so sure she did the country a favour by allowing him to have the time to go around as a self-proclaimed expert scaring and using misinformation about the development of the hog industry.
* (1740)
I have to ask him the question--first of all, he is a Liberal, defeated in this House, the same Liberals that took away the Crow rate from the farmers of western Canada, so we, in fact, are losing money growing grain. He is the same Liberal vintage or the same Liberal stripe that disallows farmers moving their grain for the higher value into the U.S. market forcing farmers to have to pay a third of the cost or a third of the income they get for barley or wheat into the transportation system, again forcing them to lose money. Yet, when it comes to responsible development of an industry under strict regulations under the Environment department, he is out there denying by innuendo and without fact, scaring these communities as to what the hog industry will do.
I ask individuals like that, what are the alternatives for these communities? Does he want them to continue to lose people, to have to move out of those communities to larger centres, to erode those communities? I do not know what he would say, but I know that the communities are going to start to pay a lot more attention to the kind of irresponsible presentations that they are made.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes and take the members for a little tour around Manitoba as it relates to some of the diversification and some of the things that are happening, because I think it is important to do so. When one looks recently at the development in Manitoba, and of course this has happened over time, we have, for example, two operating canola crushing plants. They have had some very difficult times. When the Crow rate was there, they were competing against subsidized transportation of whole canola seed being moved out of the province. As that has changed, the economies now of moving processed oil and product from those plants make it a lot more efficient, and we are seeing the improved health in the CanAmera crushing plants at Harrowby.
Again, I go back to say I was pleased to be the minister when that was initially built in 1977 to '81, but importantly, it adds security to the plant at Altona, which again is a very major part of the development of the oilseed industry in our province.
To see Manitoba's first flour mill in some 40 years being built at Elie, Manitoba, is a tremendous compliment to the people who have some vision and to see in the long term that we will in fact be able to add value and process product right here in our province of Manitoba. Again, there is a new oilseed processor at Ste. Agathe that is in the process of becoming commissioned in the next short while using a nonchemical process. It is using a cold press system to extract the oil out of the meal, again a $40-million to $50-million investment creating many jobs in that community.
The most recent announcement of Maple Leaf Foods in Brandon to put in a $112-million plant will have a significant impact on the employment for the people of Manitoba, for the spinoff jobs. In fact, I believe there is something like--well, we know there are 2,200 jobs going to be directly in the plant. There will be thousands of additional jobs in the feedmill industry, in the development of the infrastructure to support that kind of an investment. Those are the kinds of things we are seeing take place when we talk about value-added processing.
I can tell you there are numerous farmers and farm corporations and companies that are establishing themselves as processors of pulse crops. As farmers diversify from the traditional cereal crops going into other activities, there are the needs for the expansion of the processing of pulse crops. Those are all major shifts that are taking place because of the removal of the Crow rate.
It is also important to point out that as these kinds of developments take place, it causes again a responsibility to the taxpayers of Manitoba to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place, whether it is natural gas, which, by the way, we are seeing that development taking place in many communities to support the processing of the goods that are in fact grown and the further processing of them.
Madam Speaker, another challenge that we have, and one would read the Free Press today, the challenge that we have as it relates to the road infrastructure, and I cannot help but lay this at the foot of the federal government that if we do not have some support for them, we are going to continue to see the deterioration of our highway system. Can you imagine the federal government take $180 million--$180 million, I believe, the figure is in road tax off the fuel, off the people of Manitoba, and do not invest any of that money back into our province? Not one penny.
So I would hope that the members opposite, based on the fact that, yes, we have to diversify, yes, we have to work together to get money out of the federal government, that they would vote on this resolution and support it. To deny a vote on this would put the New Democratic Party in opposition to what I am saying that they do not support us in getting money from the federal government to pay for the roads. If they do support us, then let us vote on this, because if they do not, it is a clear indication that they do not support the farmers of western Canada and of Manitoba particularly.
Madam Speaker, do I have five minutes left? Just two minutes? Or is that 20 minutes? Two minutes.
One other point that I will say, and I am talking about roads and finances, I have recently heard a proposal come from the president of the United Grain Growers that when the federal government sell their hopper cars--and, quite frankly, I do not think many taxpayers know that they have a lot of money tied up in hopper cars. Saskatchewan have, Alberta have, and the federal government have, and the Canadian Wheat Board have. You know, quite frankly, we have given $7 billion to $10 billion to the railroads to haul the grain, and they do not own any equipment. I mean, they own the locomotives, they have to pull those cars, but, quite frankly, it has been all loaned by the producers or the taxpayers of western Canada.
The president of United Grain Growers has advocated that the money from the hopper cars go into the road system. That is an interesting proposal and deserves serious consideration. Again, those are the kinds of issues that I would hope would come forward, because if we do not get the kind of support for road development, if we do not get the kind of support for the infrastructure development for all of the diversification that is going to have to take place, we are not going to have the survival of a farm industry.
No one, and I will conclude with this, no one can lose a third of their grain cheque today when they take it to the elevator to have their grain shipped to Thunder Bay or to the West Coast. No one can lose that kind of money or pay that kind of an expense, so diversification has to come. So I would ask the members opposite to put aside their political rhetoric at this particular time and support the resolution that was very timely brought forward by my colleague from Pembina (Mr. Dyck) and very well thought through, and we would appreciate putting the question now so we can get on with the task of helping the farm community.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, of anything of interest that we heard from members opposite as part of this resolution that they want us to support, and we do support the idea of what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) said about the road taxes and the fuel tax that is being taken out of this province and not put back in, but lest he forget that this government has ignored the roads and highways of this province for the last 10 years, totally ignored them.
Mr. Downey: I wonder if the member would submit to a question, and the question being that: Is he aware that it was the NDP, prior to us getting in, that cut the highways budget from $100 million to $80 million as a New Democratic government? That was the budget in 1988, Madam Speaker. I would hope he would deal with the facts, not with fiction.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism does not have a point of order.
Mr. Clif Evans: In responding to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, we are now living in the 1990s under 10 years of this government that has done absolutely nothing, regardless of what happened before. We thought about supporting this resolution for about two seconds, and the reason I say that is that this government seems to always want to be able to pat itself on the back for things that they allegedly say that they have created. Well, that is not the case. The producers, farmers in this province, are put in an awkward and terrible position with the elimination of the Crow rate. We all know that, and we all support the idea of having to now go into diversification, value-added and other products that we have seen our producers and our farmers in this province have to go through for the last few years.
* (1750)
I listened with interest to the minister when he talked about diversification and how infrastructure was an important part for the producers of this province. What we have seen is a lack of co-operation, and I say a lack of co-operation by this government in providing the infrastructure in areas that farmers can get into value-added products, can diversify. We have seen a lack of support.
All this resolution does, Madam Speaker, and if I may quote from it: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the Minister of Agriculture in his continued efforts and initiatives to foster a farming industry in Manitoba that possesses a strong value-added diversification component." If this resolution had said THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the producers and the farmers and the people of this province of Manitoba, then we would consider supporting this resolution, but it does not. What the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) took the opportunity was to be able to take the opportunity and pat himself, his government and his minister on the back and tell us all about the wonderful things that are happening.
Yes, there are good things happening in the farming industry, but we on this side cannot support a member bringing forth a resolution that emphasizes the fact that a specific member of cabinet or a specific member of his party is the cause of this whole wonderful thing that is happening, that he is the one that went out with--he, himself, King Harry himself, went out with a vision. The same minister that when people want to get some much-needed assistance because of flooding on their haylands, because of elk depredation on their haylands, the same minister does not support these people. Not everybody can diversify or get into diversification or get into producing a product that could be used for value-added production. Not everybody, not every producer in this province--and the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) should know that, should know that everyone in this province is different when it comes to the availability and the opportunity to be able to grow the types of grains or do whatever that is able to get into value-added. He should know that, but he talks about the wonderful things happening that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) initiated.
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, had this member and had the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey)--as a matter of fact if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism had suggested that we vote on this resolution with an amendment, the amendment that I said, that I suggested, and that was: support the people and farmers and producers of Manitoba whose continued efforts and initiatives, the iniatives and efforts of the producers and the farmers and the people of this province. It is not an initiative of the minister of this government; it is the people.
Let me just say a few words about some of the things that are diversifying in my communities. We are in the process now of attempting and working with--and the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) is a part of this and the member for Lakeside, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). Hopefully, we will have his initiative and his support in the initiative to have natural gas brought into the Interlake.
Madam Speaker, what the member for Pembina has said is partly true, partly. But what I am saying and what we are saying on this side is there are other ways and means that this government and this Agriculture minister should be helping and supporting these initiatives that our producers and our farmers in this province have implemented. Natural gas: farmers, producers, cattle ranchers, grain farmers, hog producers--I even use hog producers--are all in support, are all in support and have worked very hard to get natural gas into the Interlake area, hopefully, and what we need from this government is a resolution and support that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba encourage the Minister of Agriculture and the government of the day to support and provide the resources for natural gas in the Interlake area, so that the producers in those areas would be able to have that opportunity with natural gas to diversify and get into products that are value-added. [interjection]
I am sorry, the Government Services minister, I did not quite hear what he said, but I am sure it was positive to my comments. I am sure the Government Services minister would not say anything not positive to any comments that I would make. But, Madam Speaker, what we have in areas--and I must say some of the specifics that the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) indicated and read out that are positive, I cannot say that I would not support, not for one minute say that I do not support what these people have been able to provide and do for the farmers and for the producers of this province, not one bit, but, again, it is our belief, my belief, that it is the initiative of farmers, the producers and the people.
A good example that natural gas will provide for us, it will provide for us the opportunity for a group of farmers and producers, grain producers, who have formed a co-operative for a dehydration plant--actually they are hoping to start sometime this fall, hopefully, but there, Madam Speaker, I am saying it was not the initiative of the Agriculture minister to go to them and say I have a vision again; why do you not build this plant.
An Honourable Member: And they will come.
Mr. Clif Evans: The Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) says they will come. Well, they will come. They will come. But it is them, the producers themselves, who got together to get this initiative going, not the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and not this government, not this government either.
Madam Speaker, the other important alternative that we have in our area that natural gas will provide is the peat moss industry. The peat moss industry just north of Riverton will provide and has the availability and the capability of providing 75 years of peat moss. Seventy-five years. Two hundred jobs. Two hundred jobs for 75 years.
There is diversification, but one of the problems is that we need the infrastructure, not only for the peat moss industry, not only for the dehy industry but for industry and economic development as a whole, that this government is not listening to people. To be able to have all these value-added products and to be able to grow all these, to be able to transport the grain, Madam Speaker, we need infrastructure. We do not have that from this government.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) will have four minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).