LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
November 20,
2006
PRAYER
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Bill 3–The Healthy Child
Hon. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Minister of Healthy Living): I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Lathlin), that Bill 3, The Healthy Child Manitoba Act; Loi sur la stratégie « Enfants en santé Manitoba », now be read a first time.
Motion presented.
Ms. Irvin-Ross: It is fitting that on National Child Day we are introducing a bill that sets out in formal legislation our strategy to work across government departments and with community partners to put children and families first. Bill 3 is based on our belief that all sectors must work together to support families and parents as they raise their children to reach their fullest potential.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill
200–The Personal Information Protection
and Identity Theft Prevention Act
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I move, seconded by the Member for
Motion
presented.
Mrs. Taillieu: Mr. Speaker, this bill governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by organizations in the private sector. It also establishes a duty for those organizations to notify individuals who may be affected when their personal information that the organization has collected is lost, stolen or compromised. Bill 200 is a step toward identity theft prevention as a very root of identity theft. It's the protection of one's personal information. Identity theft is an increasing crime, a crime of the future, and personal information has become the new currency. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Agreed]
Provincial Slogan
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.
The background to this petition is as follows:
That the NDP have authorized the spending of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to promote the new slogan, "Spirited Energy."
That "Friendly Manitoba" is a better description of our province.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider supporting the slogan "Friendly Manitoba" over "Spirited Energy."
To urge the Premier (Mr. Doer) and his NDP caucus to make public the total cost in creating and promoting the new slogan "Spirited Energy."
Mr. Speaker, that is signed by M. Quirante, R. Quirante, F. Aviles and many, many other Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Headingley Foods
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
The owners of Headingley Foods, a small
business based in Headingley, would like to sell alcohol at their store. The
distance from their location to the nearest Liquor Mart, via the
The majority of Headingley's population
lives off
Small businesses outside
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To urge the Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act (Mr. Smith), to consider allowing the owners of Headingley Foods to sell alcohol at their store, thereby supporting small business and the prosperity of rural communities in Manitoba.
This is signed by Brenda Schlag, Garry Schlag, Richard Dunn and many, many other, Mr. Speaker.
Flooding (Waterhen)
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an update to the House about the flooding in the community of Waterhen. In response to the flooding on the Waterhen River, a state of emergency had been declared in the community of Waterhen on November 16.
Flooding has been caused by frazil ice formations and has required emergency sandbagging. Dikes have been constructed to protect the community centre. In the period between last night and this morning, river levels have dropped nine inches south of Waterhen and half an inch north of the community.
The forecast for above normal temperatures
for the next two days may continue the unstable condition on the
Provincial resources include:
There are also 26 volunteer sandbaggers from Peguis First Nation, Fishing River Cree Nation and Skownan assisting with water protection in Waterhen.
Water Stewardship has deployed the Amphibex to Waterhen, and it was in operation last week and through the weekend.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to be in the community to tour the situation on Saturday, November 14, and I want to commend the community people for how resourceful they have been.
Provincial staff are monitoring conditions to provide flood fighters with the best possible forecast of river levels, and we are working with the volunteers to build dikes and protect homes and properties that may be at risk.
Once there is no longer a flood concern, we will be working with the community to evaluate the flood threat for the upcoming spring. Our government will continue to make every possible effort to support the people of Waterhen.
* (13:40)
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
I do want to thank the volunteers for their ongoing work up there and also the department staff that I know are working quite closely with the residents in that area. We do, on our side of the House, wish them all the best in the coming days and hope the weather co-operates in their endeavours. Thank you very much.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I ask leave to speak to the minister's statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Gerrard: As we all know, flooding can be a pretty serious problem in a community, and it is important that anybody who can, can rally around to help.
I would like to say a good word about the volunteers and others who are there trying to make sure that no more damage is done and that everything is as good as it possibly can be for the people in the area who are affected. Thank you.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral
Questions, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the
public gallery where we have with us Supporters of Early Childhood Development
in
Also in the public gallery we have from Selkirk Junior High 30 grade 7 students under the direction of Aiesha Mahmood. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Also in the public gallery we have from Samuel Burland School 50 grade 6 students under the direction of Janice Roch. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald).
Also in the public gallery we have with us today 12 fourth-year University of Manitoba nursing students. These students are under the direction of Linda West.
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.
Government Initiatives
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I just want to briefly put on the record
my thanks to the thousands of volunteers who made the Grey Cup celebrations
over the past week such a tremendous success for
Mr. Speaker, I know that certainly the political leadership of the province gets their fair share of attention, but it is appropriate, I think, to give attention to those many Manitobans who played such a prominent role in making this such a great success.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is as follows: After seven years of neglect in agriculture, after failing to respond in a timely and an effective way to the crisis in our beef industry, after the contradictions to the pork industry, after their inaction in getting results for Manitoba grain farmers, after dropping the ball in getting value-added investment and activity in Manitoba with the loss of a canola crushing plant to the province of Saskatchewan, after seven years of neglect and mismanagement in the area of agriculture, why now, on the eve of an election, is this Premier attempting to play politics with the Wheat Board? Why, after seven years of neglect, is he embarking on a campaign of division within rural Manitoba? Why will the Premier not apologize to Manitoba farmers for seven years of neglect? Why will he not lay out for Manitoba farmers, if he has one, his plan for making life better for Manitoba producers?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay tribute to the volunteers that again made Manitoba very proud. I want to congratulate the fans. The stadium was sold right out. I understand the last Grey Cup made approximately $30,000; preliminary reports indicate about $2.5 million in revenue.
I also want to
congratulate Kevin Walters who was the major staff representative on the Juno
Awards, who also worked on this event. The event was co-chaired by Gene Dunn
and David Asper, and, of course, Lyle Bauer, who was responsible for the
selling out of the stadium. But, certainly, a credit to all Winnipeggers, all
Manitobans for this great event. Tom Wright, the outgoing commissioner of the
CFL, is also a great, great volunteer in his own right. He is the president of
the Canadian Special Olympics, and he is an individual who was in
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said: on the eve of the election. I just want to confirm the election won't be called tomorrow.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, after seven years of neglect of agriculture that is the best the Premier can do.
What we are asking for today is that after seven years, which includes dropping the ball for the wheat industry; missing an opportunity for value-added agriculture by losing a canola crushing plant to Saskatchewan; failing our grain farmers in terms of making policy changes to the programs that provide long-term hope and opportunity for young grain farmers in Manitoba; after sending contradictory issues to the pork industry in terms of policy where, on the one hand, we've got $28 million for a massive corporate operation in Winnipeg while we clamp down on smaller rural operations; after seven years of failing within his areas of responsibility in the area of agriculture, he wants to pick a fight in an area of federal jurisdiction.
Why will the Premier not today take the opportunity to apologize to Manitoba producers? Lay out for those producers his plan, his government's plan, to make amends for seven years of neglect.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest the member opposite take a trip to Ste. Agathe. There is a canola
crushing plant there. I also know that if he got out of the city of
Members opposite, when they were in
government, said no to the
* (13:50)
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the Premier wants to take credit on the functional foods initiative for a project that was initiated by Mr. Enns, the former Minister of Agriculture under the last government, and it seems shameful, this self-satisfied attitude, when it comes to agriculture in Manitoba.
I can tell the Premier that I was in
Souris on Saturday morning. I've spent time in rural Manitoba. I can tell you
that I've been in rooms across
Why will the Premier not today stop
looking backwards, stop trying to take credit for things that were initiated by
other governments? Why will he not today apologize for trying to deflect
Manitobans on to issues within federal jurisdiction? Why will he not lay out
today his plan for the future of agriculture in
Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, the one and only person who has hired Don Orchard to be his futuristic guru and hatchet man in constituencies, that's looking way, way backwards. Let the member be accountable for that.
Secondly, why is the member opposite
standing up for the government of
We don't need a member in this House standing up for Alberta. We need people in this House standing up for Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question.
Government Position
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): On a new question, Mr. Speaker. The Premier knows that our position, and I have written to the Prime Minister of the country and we have indicated to the Prime Minister of Canada our party's position, that farmers should have the say. The Prime Minister listened. They're having a plebiscite on barley. They're not moving ahead with wheat.
There is no action, there are no changes
being made to the marketing of wheat in this country, Mr. Speaker. Now, the
Premier, and I know he spends a lot of time south of the border, and maybe this
is where this is coming from. Now he is attempting to play U.S.-style wedge
politics in rural
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier):
Well, Mr. Speaker, we now see the
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier has a keen interest in history. He is obsessed with the 1980s and the 1990s. I don't know if he thinks he is still running against Gary Filmon and Sterling Lyon, but if we are going to talk about history then let's at least get the facts right.
The facts are as follows: The federal
government was proposing to move ahead with changes to the way wheat and barley
were marketed in
We are not moving ahead
with changes to the way wheat is being marketed. Now, the Premier, in order to
play politics with
When I was in Souris on Saturday morning,
producers in
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, it wasn't former Premier Lyon
that wrote about a single desk for the Canadian Wheat Board. It wasn't the
former premier who argued that we should remove the single-desk feature of the
Canadian Wheat Board. It was you, sir. You are the ones that are now proposing
the same position as the
Now, Mr. Speaker, the issue isn't wedge. It is whether the Conservatives are going to speak with weasel words, or are they going to take a stand. We're in favour of the single-desk marketing system for the Canadian wheat producers, the Canadian Wheat Board. Where do you stand?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind honourable members that we have a lot of guests up in the gallery here. They came all the way down to hear questions and answers, and I think they should have the right to hear the questions and answers. I think a little better decorum is wanting here, so I ask the co-operation of all honourable members.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Speaker, the contradictions between the Premier's positions on these issues are absolutely unbelievable as he attempts to talk out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he says, let the producers decide; on the other hand, he says it is single desk or nothing. What does he stand for? What does he believe in? If he believes in giving producers a vote, he shouldn't take the position of jamming one position down the throats of producers.
He should listen to what producers are
saying, as we are. What we know today is that there are many producers in
Now on the one hand the Premier says, let the farmers decide. On the other hand he says, it's single desk or nothing. Which one is it?
* (14:00)
Mr. Doer: We've always
stated that the vote of the wheat producers in western
Government Initiatives
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why
the voice of farmers was not equally important when farmers called a plebiscite
on implementing the mandatory compulsory $2 checkoff on
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong again.
The cattle producers came to us and they said, will you hold a plebiscite, or will you make the checkoff refundable? That's what the producers said. I have quotes here from the Manitoba Cattle Producers where they said they were happy with the results of going to a voluntary checkoff.
So, Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Cattle Producers asked for two things. They said either hold a plebiscite, or go ahead and make it refundable. We listened to the producers. Members opposite are not listening to producers when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, issues related to the Wheat Board fall under the federal jurisdiction, including their decision to call a plebiscite on barley marketing in the new year. Will the minister stop playing divisive politics with an issue that is not provincial responsibility and finally get on with addressing the problems that Manitoba farmers face since she ignored seven long, dark years?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to talk to his leader. If he thinks that this is federal policy, why did his leader write to the Prime Minister to ask for a vote? Why would he do that? I don't tell the member who we're listening to.
Mr. Speaker, we are listening to producers. We are listening to farm organizations. The farm organizations are saying that the Wheat Board is our organization, and we are the ones that should have a say. Farm organizations have asked for a vote on wheat and barley. If the federal government won't give it to them, and I believe the federal government should listen to producers, we will give them a voice.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is on public record with regard to wheat remaining under the sole jurisdiction of the CWB. He has indicated a plebiscite will be held on barley before any changes are made.
Will the Manitoba NDP government abandon this wrong-headed decision to waste tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars on a plebiscite that has nothing to do with the mandate and responsibility of the provincial government and which has no legal effect, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker,
I would never regret giving our producers a voice. It is what the producers
asked for. When the farm organizations from
The members opposite should remember their position on the Crow when they were so happy to get rid of the Crow because it was going to help farmers. It didn't help farmers. We are speaking out to give farmers a voice on the single best powers of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Bridge Replacement
Mr. Ron Schuler (
Will the minister live up
to his government's commitment to
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): I am pleased certainly to tell Manitobans that currently we have a 1-in-90 flood protection, and we are going to have by this coming summer a 1-in-300 year flood protection for Manitobans. By 2010, we will have a 1-in-700 year flood protection.
Mr. Schuler: In 1997, a new twin bridge over PTH 59 south was built for $8 million dollars. Now, in 2006, the same PTH 59 south bridge is being replaced again for $18 million. Thus we have, and it is a good thing you are sitting, Mr. Speaker. This government is replacing a new bridge, yes, with a new bridge. Yet, PTH 15 which is unsafe and out of date, basically, gets a new coat of paint. Where is the logic in this?
Mr. Lemieux: I am pleased
to answer the question by responding this way. Just a couple of days ago we
announced our new capital budget for 2007. We just announced that the
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, taxpayers want a bang for their buck. Instead of having a new bridge replace an unsafe and out-of-date bridge, this NDP government has replaced; yes, a new bridge with a new bridge.
Will this NDP government now do the right thing and replace PTH 15 bridge, as was originally promised, a bridge that is 44 years old and doesn't have the luxury of being replaced by a new bridge like PTH 59 south was? Will they do the right thing, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Lemieux: First of all, the Highway 15 bridge is not unsafe. It is absolutely safe. With regard to the bridge over Highway 59, it is now at a 1-in-700 year flood level, as opposed to before. So, Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of the different structures in this province, and we are also aware of what our engineers have told us with regard to the studies that they've done and looked at with regard to the hydraulics related to flooding. We are very much aware of all these stats and the information provided to us, and we made decisions based on that.
Members opposite continue to talk about bridges and roads. The reason why we referenced back to the 1990s, they truly let the infrastructure crumble in this province. They raised gasoline taxes by one and a half cents, and then raised gas taxes, again, by a cent, Mr. Speaker, and did nothing with those funds that they raised.
* (14:10)
Specialist Retention
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker,
I'd like to ask the Minister of Health: Why was she not able to retain this MS specialist, and where are Dr. Melanson's 1,500 patients supposed to go?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I am very pleased to address this question raised by the member
opposite. First of all, I would like to correct for the record some
misinformation, perhaps, that the member opposite put on the record regarding
specialists. I think it is really important to know that we have in
Sleep Apnea Testing
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, this government is short almost 100 specialists, and to those MS patients that answer was no comfort to them at all.
Mr. Speaker, waits for sleep apnea testing
have reached critical levels. In June, over 3,300 patients in
Can the Minister of Health tell us why her government allowed this wait list to grow to such an unacceptable and dangerous level? How is eight years of a waiting list for sleep apnea testing better care, sooner?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): Again, Mr. Speaker, to continue on with my answer concerning
growing doctors and bringing doctors to
I would support, certainly, what the member opposite is saying about Dr. Melanson's patients and her patients caring for her very deeply. We regret that Dr. Melanson has made the decision to leave. We can assure those patients, however, that the WRHA has secured a neurologist to take care of her patient load.
Specialist Retention
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, we wrote to the Minister of Health in August; we sent
several letters. We have still not had an answer back on any of those letter
regarding Dr. Melanson, who is an expert in her area and is not easily
replaced. Now, Dr. Meir Kryger, the medical director of the Sleep Disorders
Centre, a world-renowned expert on sleep disorders; Harvard has tried to hire
this doctor because of his expertise. Tomorrow he is leaving
I would like to ask the Minister of Health to explain why she was not able to retain this sleep disorder expert. Is she going to lose any sleep over losing this specialist?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): At the risk of making a joke about people that are having illnesses with sleep, I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker, that does give me sleepless nights. It's the notion of members opposite not making health care a priority, of saying in public that, well, you know, there's a lot of money spent on health care; we give up.
There's a lot of concern that I have about a leader of an opposition who wants to take a calculated risk with Manitobans' future when it comes to health care. What we know is that when members opposite don't make health care a priority, they fire 1,000 nurses; we lose over 200 doctors; we lose seats in our medical school; our medical infrastructure goes to shambles. I certainly lose some sleep over that, and Manitobans do as well.
Moratorium
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
Can the Minister of Ag indicate how long this pause she has mandated is to last?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely crazy that the leaders opposite have abandoned their responsibility when it comes to water as much as what this Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) has done. Water for generations in our province has been–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Struthers: I know they are touchy about this, Mr. Speaker, but they should listen. Water in this province for generations has been absolutely paramount in our ability to move forward. In building communities, in building farms, in building families, it is essential. So to abandon their responsibility in protecting water in our province is absolutely despicable.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker,
millions of dollars have been invested in hog barns built in this province with
environmental protection foremost in the minds of
Mr. Struthers: Mr.
Speaker, since 1999, we have been moving very swiftly, working very hard, to
make sure that we put in place regulations and rules that protect
Mr. Eichler: We will give
the minister another chance. Mr. Speaker, the final decision on the hog
moratorium for
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Again, Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to do a little bit better research before he puts his question forward.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a moratorium. There is a pause. I can tell the member that we have been in discussion with the specific referral to the Clean Environment Commission. I can tell the member opposite that the agriculture industry has been very involved as we develop phosphorus regulations, as we develop water quality management zones, and I can tell him we met with them this morning to talk about all of these issues.
Plebiscite
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Is the Premier prepared
to do more than just hold a provincial plebiscite in defence of the farmers'
right to vote? Is the Premier prepared to bring opposition leaders on board for
an all-party delegation led by him to
* (14:20)
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Well, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we can deal with the resolution that is on this in the Order Paper. Hopefully, we can speak with one voice. Hopefully, we can vote as a Legislature.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, there are two major issues here. One is supporting the already elected producers that are pro single desk. The resolution is before the Order Paper here today. Hopefully, we can have a vote and, hopefully, people won't filibuster the resolutions because they do not want to be wedged into making a decision, Lord forbid. I think that would add a lot more strength to our views. If we can get one voice from this Legislature, certainly we believe the federal minister has heard us calling on a federal vote. He has called a vote only for barley, which, of course, two out of three barley producers reside in Alberta. This is why we believe, so far, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) and the federal Conservative government has an Alberta-centric position rather than a position that is consistent with the majority of wheat producers in western Canada.
Mr. Gerrard: What is very clear is that the lower level meetings between Ag ministers and a provincial-pseudo plebiscite aren't going to do it. We have a federal government so openly hostile to the Wheat Board that it is prepared to sacrifice the democratic rights of Manitoba farmers to get what it wants.
Mr. Speaker, that kind of co-ordinated attack on Manitoba farmers calls for unity from this Legislature. I am glad the Premier today is prepared to reach out to find a way for Manitobans to speak with one voice in defence of the rights of wheat farmers.
Will the Premier support my call today for an emergency debate this afternoon to hammer out a unified position in defence of Manitoba farmers?
Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope the member opposite will support a resolution that is on the Order Paper; properly put on the Order Paper a few days ago to be properly able to be debated as early as today. It requires people to go yea or nay to the single desk. There is a second resolution calling on the national government to have a plebiscite. Certainly, we would like the federal government to have that, but we are not sitting on the picket fence like some members. We have a position.
Diagnosis and Treatment
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
I ask the Minister of Health: Why did she repeatedly refuse to support to Dr. Melanson's call for better treatment, better facilities and better clinic space for the people who need it for multiple sclerosis diagnosis, prevention and treatment?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): While the opportunity to once again query the member opposite about his proposed conflict of interest that he raised some days ago, I will let that pass, Mr. Speaker, and certainly speak to the member opposite concerning issues on doctors, issues on multiple sclerosis and work that the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority has done in assisting Dr. Melanson in endeavouring to stay here.
We certainly do support the work that neurologists in Manitoba are doing with their patients. In fact, we have tangible support in that regard in the establishment of the MS clinic in 2001.
Again, Mr. Speaker, as we work with the doctors in our region to ensure that appropriate diagnosis, treatment, assessment and counselling occurs, we–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Winnipeg Wrestling Club
Ms.
Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate the three young athletes from the Winnipeg Wrestling Club
who competed in the Frank Harchenko Memorial Cup. The competition took place in
They left for
Kyle was the first to compete on September 30. He placed seventh
over all, a great accomplishment at his first international competition. It was
also
Throughout the two days of competition, the hot commodities were the
pins and T-shirts the Canadian athletes had taken with them to give out.
Mysteriously, the team's water bottles and lanyards also disappeared. Due to
the amazing results and the excellent conduct and sportsmanship displayed by
the team, the Winnipeg Wrestling Club has not only been invited back to
We can be proud to have such excellent
athletes representing
Words of Appreciation
Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman):
I thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to express
my gratitude to you, Sir, and say thank you to an institution that I have come
to respect and cherish. I, too, believe in the democratic process, but I cannot
condone collusion within the democratic process. I will elaborate on this at a later time.
En tant que député, j'ai réussi à travailler avec tous les partis politiques pour le bien de toutes les communautés que j'avais la responsabilité de servir comme élu, et j'en suis fier.
Translation
As an MLA, I was successful in working with all the political parties for the benefit of all the communities I was elected to serve, and I am proud of that.
English
I especially want to thank the Premier (Mr. Doer) for his kind words about me in the Legislature and also for always providing me with the air time that I needed to discuss all the different issues that arose in the Carman constituency and abroad. To the Leader of the Conservative Party, you, sir, will recall our commitment on both sides pre-your-leadership when we met at the Pancake House, and I have fulfilled my commitments.
To my colleagues on both sides of the Legislature I sincerely want to express the privilege that I have had working with most of you on behalf of all Manitobans.
Et rappelez-vous toujours que si vous avez un rêve, il faut le protéger et ne jamais laisser personne dire que vous ne pourrez pas le réaliser.
Translation
And always remember that if you have a dream, you must
protect it and never let anyone say that you cannot achieve it.
English
Finally, to those of you who have sent many words of encouragement, I would like to tell each and every one of you right now that I have not reached any conclusion at this point in time on the future, and many options right now that are being made available to me. I want to thank each and every one of you for those who gave me the time. Thank you.
Polish Gymnastics Association Sokol
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, in September 2006, the Polish Gymnastics Association Sokol celebrated their 100th anniversary in Winnipeg. The word "sokol" is Polish for a falcon which symbolizes strength.
The Sokol organization
was originally formed in Poland 130 years ago to train young people to fight
oppression and the occupation of their land.
* (14:30)
In 1906, a group of Polish immigrants
brought Sokol to
On September 15, Sokol presented a gala concert at the Centennial Concert Hall that featured many of the talents developed throughout the organization. This outstanding and professional level of performance–rich, colourful and dazzling–offered a program of challenging and enjoyable pieces that reflected the performers' pride in their Polish culture and heritage.
The Sokol Ensemble, consisting of both
choir and dancers, truly shone, as did students and alumni from the
Sokol's centenary
celebration continued into the next evening with a banquet at the Sokol Hall. A
highlight of the evening was a presentation of a white-gold falcon pin and
Polish medal from the Sokol association in
Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to finish the last sentence?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has leave.
Mr. Martindale: Their work in the promotion of the Polish language, culture and
history has made a lasting impact on the Polish-Canadian community and an
invaluable contribution to
Marcel Odiel Taillieu
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of my recently deceased father-in-law, Marcel Odiel Taillieu, who died peacefully on September 30, 2006, at the age of 86. He was a man of great character, of great accomplishments and one who enjoyed life and lived it to the fullest. A farmer, contractor and businessman, work was both his life and his hobby. His motto was, "A man does not cease to work when he gets old; a man gets old when he ceases to work."
Although his school education was minimal, he was an avid reader, a brilliant businessman and a strong political supporter to those he believed in. Although successful in everything he pursued, farming always remained his passion.
Marcel was born and lived
on
From there he moved to
his present location on
In the late l940s, when farming became unsustainable, Marcel went land clearing with one small tractor, an International TD9, and then a TD18; that was the beginning of Taillieu Construction Ltd.
His accomplishments over the years were many: founder of Taillieu Construction Ltd. in 1961; councillor and deputy reeve of the R.M. of Charleswood, 1954 to 1964; member of the Greater Winnipeg Town Planning Commission, 1954 to 1964; member of the Manitoba Trucking Association since 1952; member of the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association since 1951, and president from 1969 to 1970; member of the Manitoba chapter of the American Public Works Association, and president in 1971; chairman of the Manitoba Development Corporation in 1987 to 1991; chairman of the Manitoba Housing Authority, 1992 to 1995; vice-chairman of the Manitoba Transportation Board, 1996 to 1997.
In 1992, he received the
Governor General of
It is a tribute to Marcel and sons Wilf and Roger that, in 2006, Taillieu Construction had 22 employees each with over 25 years of service.
Marcel was proud to call
former Premier Duff Roblin, former Premier Sterling Lyon and former Premier
Gary Filmon friends. I believe he would also call some of the current
government ministers friends as well. He had the ability to make friends
wherever he went. His idol was Henry Ford, so he made it a point to go and meet
Henry Ford Jr. Because he spent many of his winters in
He will be remembered as
a man of great generosity to family, friends and community, and for his many
accomplishments in business, politics, farming and life. He enjoyed a great
many friends. He was large in everything he did. He was a great story teller, a
mesmerizing personality, a charmer. He inspired and gave great loyalty, and we
shall miss him very much. Thank you.
Denis
Rocan
Mr. Tim Sale (Fort Rouge): Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi de dire quelques mots concernant mon grand ami le député de Carman, un homme très courageux, très passionné dans ses croyances concernant cette Assemblée législative.
Translation
Mr. Speaker, allow me to say a few words about my good
friend the Member for Carman, a very courageous man, very passionate in his
beliefs concerning this Legislative Assembly.
English
Denis, the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan), has been a passionate worker for his constituents. On many occasions he approached many of us representing concerns. He is one of those people, Mr. Speaker, who believes in this Assembly and the traditions, the values, the history, the precedence in this Assembly.
When he was Speaker, he occupied your position, Mr. Speaker, with tremendous courage and absolute impartial rulings, which some of us might have regretted from time to time, as well as some of the members of the then-government.
He has taken leading positions in supporting the needs of the people of his constituency for economic development. He celebrated their success in gaining the first wind farm in Manitoba, for example, Mr. Speaker, and worked with them to make sure that that dream came true.
He also has defended the French language passionately in this Legislature when he believed people were being inappropriately dealt with or, perhaps, even made fun of because of their inability to speak our beautiful second language appropriately, and I certainly share that problem, Mr. Speaker.
So I want to thank him for his years of service, for his courage and for his passionate belief in this Assembly, its precedents, its traditions, which I think he treasures as much as you do, Sir.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for River Heights and seconded by the honourable Member for Inkster that under rule 36(1) the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the immediate future of the Canadian Wheat Board as it affects Manitoba and the decision of the federal government to deny Manitoba wheat farmers their right to a fair and transparent vote on the future of their wheat marketing system.
Before I recognize the honourable Member for River Heights, I believe I should remind all members that under rule 36(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance, and one member from the other parties in the House is allowed not more than 10 minutes to explain their urgency of debating the matter immediately.
* (14:40)
As stated in Beauchesne's Citation 390, "urgency" in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not of the subject matter of the motion. In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interests will not suffer.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this matter of urgent public importance, because I think that it is clear to all members of this House that the future of agriculture and the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is very important. I believe there is also a need for a vote by farmers on the future of wheat marketing by the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as for the barley market.
Let me make the case why this is of urgent
public importance. The Canadian Wheat Board has provided major benefits to
farmers. Numerous studies have shown that the Canadian Wheat Board has provided
increased income for farmers. There are, clearly, major increased benefits to
the city of
As Liberals, we certainly believe that the Canadian Wheat Board can be improved, and we believe that farmer-elected directors are proceeding with improvements in a steady fashion, for example, improving the development of processing industries on the Prairies, as well as improving development of the nutraceutical and functional food industries, which were mentioned earlier.
I would correct the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) and tell him that I was, as a person who had been working in both the medical and food industries, talking about nutraceuticals and functional foods long before Harry Enns even knew what the terms meant.
I would also correct the Premier (Mr. Doer). The Premier cannot boast very strongly of his own efforts to help the nutraceutical and functional food industry–
An Honourable Member: What has that got to do with the Wheat Board?
Mr. Gerrard: It has got a lot to do with it when the placement of the OlyWest hog plant in the St. Boniface Industrial Park is creating a major headache for Vita Health, one of the industries which is positioned to grow as a result of the development of nutraceutical and functional food industries here.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to have a debate on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is time to see if there are ways in which we can bring all parties together, and have a group of political leaders from each of the parties search for a common ground and move toward the development and the implementation of an all-party task force to meet with Prime Minister Harper and to convince him that it is time to have a vote on wheat as well as on barley.
Clearly, all of us would recognize that
industries, whether it is the farm industry, whether it's the businesses which
depend on the Wheat Board, or the many associated grain-related industries need
some stability in the vision of what's going to happen in the future. Right
now, there's a great deal of instability, depending on the future of the way
that the vote goes on barley, and what happens in terms of the marketing of
wheat. We need the stability of knowing that the Canadian Wheat Board will
continue to market these two grains, or, on the other hand, that the Canadian
Wheat Board will no longer have a monopoly market, a single-desk market. There
needs to be a clear way ahead so that businesses and farmers can plan. Clearly,
for both businesses in
We also need a much better view from the Conservatives, I presume, of what will happen if the Wheat Board no longer had a monopoly. The cooked-up four-week plan that was presented to the federal government clearly didn't give much of a vision of what would happen without a single-desk Canadian Wheat Board, and if the Conservatives are not going to support a single desk, then they should be there with what will happen in Manitoba, how Manitoba should adapt and what will happen to things like the Port of Churchill.
Clearly, this debate is badly needed today. I believe this resolution states it fairly. The federal government has denied a vote on wheat at the same time as barley. That's the essence of one of the components of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that all parties agree
that we have a debate, a full debate on this resolution, and that we can build
a consensus of party leaders to be able to go to
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): I was trying to defer to my friend, the Government House Leader (Mr. Chomiak). I notice he didn't want to get up and speak which is probably the first time I've ever seen him not want to speak on a particular issue. I look forward to his comments as well after.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat
passing strange that the independent Member for
I wondered, for example, if they'd ever
brought forward one on the sponsorship scandal. I know at one time there was a
very, very significant–I would say it is still significant here in the province
but also throughout Canada, whether or not they'd ever raised that particular
issue about going to the federal government, having all three leaders go to
Ottawa to try to deal with the sponsorship scandal and get to the bottom of
that mess. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't find one, and I would rely on the
Member for
I looked further. I didn't see any sort of
a matter of urgent public importance on the issue of the long-gun registry when
they were going to farmers, when his colleagues in
But I thought maybe this was sort of a, I
don't want to use the term "converted on the road to Damascus", as
used sometimes, but I thought maybe this was a more recent sort of conversion
for the member. So I looked to see if there was any sort of matter of urgent
public importance on Bill C-9, the issue that today is being discussed in
What's the connection, Mr. Speaker? I
think it has to do with the fact these are federal issues. I'm not sure.
Perhaps in
* (14:50)
We heard in Question Period, Mr. Speaker, discussions about health care and the loss of specialists. Instead of debating that issue which may, in fact, be a matter of urgent public importance if the member wanted to raise it, instead of debating that issue, instead of the New Democrats, the government, be onside in debating that issue, they want to have this great big diversion, to go down some sort of other trail.
I suspect that the Government House Leader (Mr. Chomiak) will say that this isn't urgent because there is further debate that might be happening this afternoon. It sort of speaks to the fact that even they didn't seem to think this was urgent. This Legislature sat in darkness for almost five months because we couldn't get the Premier (Mr. Doer) to come back and debate issues that are important to Manitobans here in the Legislature.
He was often in
When the Premier was in
Yet we will see this afternoon this
strange sort of machination that is going on now with the NDP, where they want
to have a plebiscite but determine the outcome of that plebiscite. Perhaps
instead of the New Democratic Party, they should be called the "selective
democratic party". They're trying to select where it is that they can have
their own way, Mr. Speaker, and I think that that is very, very troubling when
we deal with issues here in
What a contradiction to try to say we're going to have a voice for farmers and then try to predetermine the outcome, to try to put words in those farmers' mouths, to try to put a position into those farmers. That's not respectful to democracy, (a), but it certainly isn't respectful to farmers, (b), and I would caution the members opposite on that.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we won't support
this resolution. If the Member for
I would say to the member opposite, the Government House Leader, caution him on the type of a division that he is trying to bring into rural Manitoba with this sort of maneuver, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I don't have to talk at great length with respect to this issue, but I just want to start out by saying how tragic and how mighty and how fallen the old Progressive Conservative Party has become.
Mr. Speaker, there was a time in this
Chamber when the old Progressive Conservative Party would stand up for
something. They would stand up for rural
The leader of the independent party I think inaccurately, talked about one Harry Enns. Harry Enns, Mr. Speaker, would almost be rolling in his grave, if he was in his grave, if he could hear the comments of the members of the old Progressive Conservative Party who've now become the Conservative right-wing party. It is pretty sad to see how far that party has fallen–how far that party has fallen.
Mr. Speaker, on the substance of the issue, we have had a resolution on the Order Paper since Thursday. It's now Monday. That's five or six days since a resolution has been on the Order Paper to deal with this substantive and important issue. We admit, we agree with the Liberal Party, this is an important issue.
Mr. Speaker, it's not just, as the Leader
of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) tried to indicate, a federal issue. Good
heavens, the Leader of the Opposition tried to say that we had no business
being in the business or talking to farmers. What would the old Progressive
Conservative Party have to say about that? It's hard to believe but this new
slick right-wing, we're-going-to-talk-about-wedge-issues, GOP-type party has a
whole different kind of approach to the issue. These right-wingers don't care
about the issues. They don't care about the farmers; they don't care about the
farm; they don't care about the farm gate. All they care about is the market
and their friends on
There has been a resolution on the Order
Paper since Thursday. We've had opportunity in Throne Speech debate to discuss
this issue and, in fact, it was mentioned. We talked about these issues in the
budget. The member has an option of agreeing with it, but more important, Mr.
Speaker, the advantage of delaying with this in the House, dealing with our
resolution, that it will come up next is we can vote on the issue. We can take
a position. The Manitoba Legislature can take a position to
We won't have the weasel words. We won't have the wedgie. We won't have the old, oh gee, oh, the Alberta party wants us to do this; Stephen Harper wants us to do this; we can't do anything; we are not going to do anything; we can't do that. We have to vote. That's what this Legislature puts you here for; to vote, to take a stand, to take a position, not to weasel your way out. We have got the chance this afternoon. We have a chance to vote, to make a decision, to support farmers, to support the Wheat Board.
You don't have to do that. You can vote against it but at least you'll take a position. You can't say, oh, Stephen Harper doesn't want us to say anything on this. We can disagree. You can disagree with your federal cousin. You can do it. Don't worry, you can disagree with them. They're not always right. I agree with some of the things they're doing but I don't agree with all of the things they're doing.
I agree with some of the things but not
all the things, and I think what they're doing on the Wheat Board is wrong. We
have the chance in the resolution that's coming forward to talk about it. You
have a chance in the Throne Speech debate that is going on, you have a chance
to vote to make a difference, to make a statement that can go all-party to
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this matter couldn't be more appropriately debated. The next item that comes up after Orders of the Day is two government resolutions on this very point. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I
thank the honourable members for their advice to the Chair on whether the
motion proposed by the honourable Member for
The notice required by rule 36(1) was provided. Under our rules and practices the subject matter requiring urgent consideration must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. There must also be no other reasonable opportunities to raise the matter. I would also note for the House that rule 36(5)(d) also specifies that the motion shall not anticipate a matter that has previously been appointed for consideration by the House or with reference to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn.
On today's Order Paper, a government
motion is listed that deals with the subject matter of calling on the federal
government to hold a fair producer plebiscite on the future of the Canadian
Wheat Board's monopoly. Therefore, the matter of urgent public importance filed
by the honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: I have already made a ruling and my ruling stands.
* (15:00)
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule 45(2), I am interrupting debate on the Throne Speech today to call government business, and that would be the government resolution listed on the Order Paper calling for support of the Canadian Wheat Board single desk.
Mr. Speaker: Under government business, the Government House Leader has requested that debate on the Throne Speech be waived. We will deal with the resolution dealing with CWB single desk.
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers), that
WHEREAS all elected
farmer directors from
WHEREAS the federal government is calling for a single-commodity plebiscite on barley but not on wheat; and
WHEREAS the voices of wheat producers should be heard on the fate of the single desk; and
WHEREAS the benefits of the single-desk CWB for grain producers are well known; and
WHEREAS the view of the Manitoba Legislature on the single desk of the CWB should be known at this critical juncture.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba make clear its support for the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food, seconded by the honourable Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers), single desk,
WHEREAS all elected farmer directors from
WHEREAS the federal government is calling for a single-commodity plebiscite on barley but not on wheat; and
WHEREAS the voices of wheat producers should be heard on the fate–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my House Leader for putting this forward so that we could, indeed, have this very important debate on the single-desk selling powers of the Canadian Wheat Board for wheat and barley. I hope that we can come to consensus and agreement on how important the single desk is for the producers of this province.
Mr. Speaker, the single desk is very important in the world market for wheat and barley, particularly for wheat. It provides a consistent brand for our wheat, and this brand is recognized around the world for its high quality and for its consistency of supply.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
But, more importantly, people have to
recognize that many studies have been done, and studies show us that the
Canadian Wheat Board's single desk delivers a premium for our farmers. This
premium is estimated to be in the range of $10 to $13 per tonne over what
farmers could earn in the open market. When you think about the amount of wheat
that is grown in this province, in western
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board provides farmers with market power, and that is the one place where farmers have strength. They don't own the grain companies. They don't own the transportation system, but, through the Wheat Board, farmers have the ability to set price. If we move away from the single desk, what farmers become is price takers.
As well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to recognize the elected board of directors where farmers, since they have been elected to that board, have direct control over marketing systems. Again, this is very important and many changes have been made to the Wheat Board since farmers have been elected to that board for the betterment of business for our producers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board acts as an advocate for our farmers on issues such as transportation, grain handling and international trade. The price pooling which is very important for producers is a very important tool that will be lost, and this is a tool that will help our farmers manage their risk.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite what members
opposite have said, and what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen)
referred to, that this would deter value added, I say to you that the Canadian
Wheat Board does not deter value added. In fact, there have been many changes
made by the farmer directors to allow further value added. I say to the members
opposite, look across the border at
We all know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the federal government wants to remove the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk claiming that the Canadian Wheat Board will be able to survive without the single desk. This is absolutely false if people try to say that the Wheat Board will survive in an open market. Without the single Wheat Board, the wheat won't be able to compete with the elevator giants that are out there, because they have no assets. They don't have elevators; they don't have port terminals. This is not what farmers are asking for.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, if
you look at what is happening with the grain handling systems, grain companies
are joining together to become bigger companies. For example, Agricore United
holds about $1.5 billion in assets, owns about 83 country elevators and over a
million tonnes in terminal capacity at
I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that
even the government's own task force report acknowledges that there is no such
thing as a dual market. As such, the Canadian Wheat Board opponents–people like
to say that, listen, you can have a dual market. In reality, if the single-desk
selling ability of the Wheat Board is lost, there will be only one thing. If
the single desk is gone, it will be the open-market system that will be out
there. I want to remind the members opposite, they say, yes, the Wheat Board
can continue the single desk–[interjection]
The loss of the single desk will be a tremendous loss for our producers. They
will lose revenue. They will lose their recognition in the world market. In
fact, a company like Warburton's, who has contracts under the Wheat Board to
buy wheat from farmers, has said that they will look elsewhere. They will look
at
Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we also have to
think about what the loss of a single desk will do to the city of
* (15:10)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, farmers in
Members opposite say we are invading into
federal territory here, that we shouldn't be touching this issue. Well, I say
to you that I will listen to the producers of
I think if we check the record there has been a united position on the Canadian Wheat Board from all members of this House in previous times. So I would ask the members opposite to look very carefully at what they're saying, and I would say to them in this case think about the value of the single desk. Think about what it does for the producers. Think about the power that it gives producers in the marketplace. Think about what the single desk does to give Canadian wheat recognition around the world. Think about those directors who producers have elected because they support the single desk. I would urge all members in this House to recognize how important the single desk is, and others have said, let's send a united message to the federal government that indeed this is what farmers want. If they're going to hold a vote, let all of the farmers, and let them not get by. They'll say, oh, we're just going to deal with barley now. You know that once you've seen the divide off like this, you're weakening it. We know clearly that the federal government has said that they want to end the single-desk powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have to stand up beside our farmers.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to rise on what is a very
important issue for many, many Manitobans. We know that in the history of our
agricultural economy over many decades the Canadian Wheat Board has played an
important role in terms of aggregating wheat and other grains and selling it
into world markets. We know that over time the Canadian Wheat Board has evolved
in that role as an advocate for our grain producers here in
The issue has been taken up at the federal
level, and the federal government has put forward a position on the future of
the Canadian Wheat Board that is supported by some producers in our country and
has raised concerns on the part of other producers. But we know that at the end
of the day this is not an issue that should be decided in Ottawa by Ottawa
bureaucrats. It's not an issue that should be decided by
The problem that we have with the
government's position on this issue is that, on the one hand, they say they
favour democracy, let the producers decide. On the other hand, they say: But
only if they agree with us, only if they decide that they are in favour of a
single-desk system for selling wheat. Well, the world is changing, and I know
that members opposite cling to old ways of doing things. They have trouble
getting their heads around the fact that the world markets are changing and
that new opportunities may open up for producers across
If we take a look, as one small example,
there's a family well known to the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) who
operates in his constituency, the Pizzey family involved in taking flax and
processing flax into value-added products that go to products across our
continent. They take flax and they make it into health foods. They take flax
and they make functional foods. They make pet foods. They employ 52 Manitobans
working within their operation within the constituency represented by the
honourable Member for Russell. This is a great example of a family that has
landed on an idea. They found markets for their products. They find
opportunities to buy grains from producers and pay those producers a fair price
for those grains, and then turn around and make good products that sell on
markets both here in
This is just one small example of the renaissance that's occurring in rural Manitoba as more and more Manitobans embrace opportunities to develop products, to add value to those products that are grown on our lands and that are raised in our rural communities to add value, to create jobs, to produce revenues for governments and to generally benefit their communities, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it's happening everywhere.
For that reason, there is new thinking coming into our province around the future of agriculture, and that new thinking is bringing about a changing perspective on the evolving role of the Canadian Wheat Board. What we have today is recognition that the Canadian Wheat Board has played an important role historically in marketing grain on world markets, but also a recognition of the fact that the world is changing, and members opposite seem to be completely oblivious of the changes that are occurring throughout our rural landscape. It's no wonder that Manitobans from across our province, and particularly our rural community, are joining the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba in record numbers, in hundreds and the thousands.
I would provide the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and any other members of the New Democratic Party who are interested, a ride. We'll offer them a ride to Emerson tomorrow night to witness the hundreds of Manitobans that are going to come out and elect a new Progressive Conservative candidate in the constituency of Emerson. The Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), who has done such an exemplary job of giving voice to our agricultural producers in Manitoba, will be present, and I offer the opportunity to members opposite to leave the Perimeter, to travel to rural Manitoba and listen to those hundreds of Manitobans who are joining our party and who are looking to change, change to the old ways of doing things that are represented by the members opposite who continue to live in the past when it comes to the changes going on in our agricultural economy.
* (15:20)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I invite members
opposite to join me as we travel to Ste. Rose on Wednesday night to join those
hundreds of Manitobans who have joined the Progressive Conservative Party that
will be coming out and gathering together, looking for a change in terms of the
government of Manitoba. We'll be joined by the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr.
Cummings) who will be there, who has been such an articulate and an eloquent
voice for producers in
I say it's time for a debate to take place, and it is time to do what's right. It's time to allow the producers to have a final say on changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. And so we are the only party in this Legislature that is consistent in terms of our position on this issue. If we look at the history of how this issue has evolved over the past weeks and months, the federal government came forward with a proposal to make changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. In response to those proposals, I wrote to the Prime Minister of the country before the minister came out with her proposal for a provincial plebiscite. I wrote to the Prime Minister of the country and laid out our perspective on the issue of marketing grain, and we said that at the end of the day it should be the producers that decide. In response to that letter, what did the federal government do?
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
They listened, they listened to what we had to say; they listened to the concerns and the opinions and the positions taken by thousands of producers and organizations that represent those positions across the country and they changed their positions. They evolved, and what they said was that we will have a plebiscite on the marketing of barley before we make any changes. We'll table any changes to wheat. We're not going to proceed with any changes to wheat, but we would like to put a vote to producers of barley to give them a voice before we move ahead to make changes to barley. It was the right thing to do, and we thank the federal government for listening to producers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where changes to the way wheat is marketed have been put off and what we are saying is, what we are saying to the federal government on this important issue is: Have a plebiscite; let the producers decide the direction of reform when it comes to the marketing of wheat in Canada. Those are consistent principled positions. We are not going to play politics with rural producers, and I know that the members opposite want to do everything they can to distract attention away from their neglect and mismanagement of agriculture over the past seven years. They have a newfound passion for agriculture after seven years of bungling their response to the mad cow crisis that almost devastated our beef industry. After sending contradictory messages on the pork industry, after failing to take steps to bring about appropriate changes to federal grain programs, and after dropping the ball on an opportunity for value-added processing in rural Manitoba with a Canola crushing plant that went to Saskatchewan, they are now saying in light of seven years of neglect and failure, we are all of a sudden going to be passionate about an issue that is within federal jurisdiction.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that this is an important issue. We know that provincial members of the Legislature have a responsibility to take a position on these issues. That's why we're taking a position; that's why we're taking the position of, yes to democracy, no to forcing decisions down the throats of producers. Yes to democracy, and that's why we will vote against this. We will vote against this resolution because they can't have it both ways. They are either in favour of democracy, they are in favour of choice, but they're against it. Let us speak with one voice as Manitobans.
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this motion, and it is possible, you know, to
recognize the fact that
An Honourable Member: He didn't win.
Mr. Doer: Oh, he didn't win. Okay. Because I know a farmer from the constituency of the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) did win. He was pro-Canadian Wheat Board and his name was Mr. Nicholson. He won the election against Mr. Downey. We have had farmers speak over and over and over again pro the single desk.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has the opposite view. He says this is inconsistent. Well, his letter to the Prime Minister that he cobbled together after we called the press conference–and he panicked. Like a deer in the headlights, he panicked–[interjection] Well, we will wait and see which way the member votes, if he allows his members to vote.
We support the expansion
of marketing choice. Now, if you close your eyes, you can hear the Premier of Alberta.
If you listen to the words of Ted Morton in
It is possible, you know,
to take a position in principle for a concept that has been supported by
Now, members opposite will do the
opposite. They will say before an election, we support the telephone system
being owned by the people of
So, Mr. Speaker, (a) the member has an
inconsistent position with his speech which does not surprise us, does not
surprise us; (b) it is possible to take a position in this Legislature on an
important institution for farmers consistent with the previous votes of farmers
and also call a national vote. It is absolutely essential because, quite frankly,
the wheat-producer voters that we would suggest should be voting are not just
in
So it is important to take a stand and get off the picket fence. The members opposite are not going to do that. They are too cowardly really. They are going to try to find a way–you know, big tough people. They swagger into coffee shops: Oh yeah, we got a position on this issue. I just won't tell you what it is. I am a big tough farmer. I won't tell you what my position is.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you farmers want to know where people stand and we don't mind telling them. We don't mind telling them. We know where the Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire) stands. We know where he stands. He has always been against the Wheat Board. He sits at the right hand of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) who is sitting on the picket fence. I know the Member for Arthur-Virden isn't on the picket fence on this issue. I know he supports the elimination of the single desk. We know that. He has been saying it for years. There is nothing wrong with that. At least he has a position. I don't agree with it, but why don't you let him vote? Why don't you unchain him and let him have a vote, instead of possibly filibustering this resolution today so you don't have to take a stand.
* (15:30)
We support the single desk at the Canadian
Wheat Board because farmers in
We support the Canadian Wheat Board and
the single desk of the Canadian Wheat Board because, Mr. Speaker, it is a
position that is appropriate for the
We think this Legislature should speak. We know members opposite will say one thing in election then do something else. They did that with the telephone system. We know they voted against a referendum for the telephone system a number of times, Mr. Speaker. [interjection]
Well, the Member for
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
I know that the previous member from
Lakeside brought in the single-desk marketing on hog marketing within the
An Honourable Member: How'd it work out?
Mr. Eichler: Well, it worked
out well, didn't it? Obviously it did; we have a billion-dollar industry. What
this government does is that it puts a moratorium on the hog barns within the
province without good consultation, and this is what they are doing with the
Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. The government went on to impose a cattle
levy without consultation. They made it voluntary after we took them to task on
it, and the minister and the government have failed to move forward on any new
initiatives with respect to agriculture. It just ties the hands of the
producers without any common sense put forward on this issue. Now they are
bringing in a single desk without encouraging opportunity for new investment
and value added within the province. If we just had the opportunity for
marketing choice, we would see the
We will leave it at that, because I know there are some other members who want to speak on it, and we'll let it go to a vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Yes, there are other members who want to speak on it, but we also want to vote on it so I won't take up too much time here. I'm very glad that we're having this debate, Mr. Speaker, today, because it's time for the members of the opposition to put their thoughts on the record and quit sitting on the fence, equivocating on this issue. They say they support the Canadian Wheat Board in principle, and yet, like their masters in Alberta and in Ottawa–no longer the Progressive Conservatives, just the Conservative Party in Ottawa–is basically dedicating their position to them, and that is to kill this institution that is so important to the farmers of Canada and, in particular, the grain producers in Manitoba here.
There's no doubt that the Canadian Wheat Board has played a fundamental role throughout our history. It provides a consistent brand internationally that is recognized around the world as some of the highest-quality product in the world. This results in premiums that are delivered to our farmers. These are premiums that are captured by the producers, Mr. Speaker, not by the multinational, transnational grain corporations, which the big Conservative parties seem to advocate for instead. [interjection]
Well, I am being heckled by members opposite already, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not surprised. They want to know how much wheat I sold. Well, I'm not a wheat farmer, sir. I'm in livestock instead. My wife and I just recently purchased some sheep, although I am very happy to see that there is a very active sheep producers' association that speaks for the producers in this province as well. I realize the value of that. I am no expert by any means, and I certainly defer to experts on that front, as I do on the Canadian Wheat Board.
Now I do have to take some exception to
some of the comments made by members opposite, particularly the Opposition
House Leader, some of his scurrilous comments about the fact that the
government of the day is doing nothing on behalf of the farmers of
There was some mention made of Harry Enns
a little earlier on here today, and that gives me a good example of something
that this government did. Harry Enns talked a lot about excess moisture
insurance. This is something that this government did as soon as they came into
office, Mr. Speaker. It was very timely too because, since then, we have
experienced some of the wettest years in the history of
In terms of the cattle industry, the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) again said, well, they've done absolutely nothing, but I look at a list of programs here. I count no less than 10 different programs flowing close to $160 million, money that has bridged our ranchers through some very tough times with the BSE crisis, with drought and so forth, Mr. Speaker. So we have certainly paid attention to the interests of our producers, and we have intervened when farmers were in need. There are many ranchers in business today, I would say, thanks to the actions of this government. So, obviously, the Member for Steinbach is a little bit out to lunch in this regard, but that doesn't surprise me.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) was making all kinds of references to how times are changing; we no longer need the Canadian Wheat Board. I would suggest that times are changing on his side of the House as well. There are a lot of old farmers, good old Progressive Conservatives that are being changed out as the days roll out here. Either they go gracefully like the former critic of Agriculture, the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), or they go kicking and screaming and fighting, and there is probably more to come on that front. So we can see what they think of the old institutions on that side of the House. They're no longer wanted. The Canadian Wheat Board is a case in point, I would say.
* (15:40)
Now I know that trying to establish decent prices for wheat, Mr. Speaker, is not an easy thing. When I was in university, I wrote a paper on the international wheat agreements, and one of the things that I learned there was that the hardest thing is to set even a minimum price. To get all the countries of the world to agree to minimum prices for wheat is virtually impossible. So, if these people think that individual producers are going to stand a chance against the four largest grain marketers in the world that market over 75 percent of the wheat out there, then they have another thought coming, because these transnational corporations, whether it's the grain companies or the rail companies, have their own interests at heart. They're not out there worrying about the farmers. That's not where their vested interests lie; their vested interests lie in serving the shareholders of their corporations. We see a prime example of that in the rail companies. There used to be a national rail company in this country, no longer.
But I do give the previous Liberal
government in
The railways, were they doing such a good thing for the farmers? Well, I make reference to the maintenance costs that they were inflating and sticking the bill to the farmers. They were saying that they were spending somewhere upwards of $4,500 per car to maintain these vehicles, where, in reality, I think it was closer to $1,500. The bottom line was that was $40-some million that should have gone to the farmers, instead went to the shareholders of these large corporations. So, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, these companies don't serve the needs of the people.
In terms of value added, these guys, one
of their big arguments is that the Wheat Board is inhibiting value-added
production in this country, but the record speaks otherwise when you look at
barley malting, for example, in
I know there are many speakers waiting anxiously to speak on this, but I do know that we want to have a vote on this. So I would conclude by saying that a dual market is a farce, Mr. Speaker. You're either going to have a Wheat Board or it's going to be a total free market. The Wheat Board does not have port terminals. They do not own elevators. You look at Agricore United. It has, it says, 83 elevators across the country. So, without capital assets like that, how can a disenfranchised Wheat Board compete in an open marketplace? That will be to the detriment of our grains and oil seeds' producers.
So I thank you for the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record. I look forward to a vote on this issue because I want it on the record where these guys on the opposition benches stand. Thank you.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
We will support this because we see that
over the years the Canadian Wheat Board has provided major benefits for farmers
and for
We see benefits in maintaining the
Canadian Wheat Board in terms of the future of the
We certainly believe that the Canadian Wheat Board can be improved, and I would add here that when I was a member of Parliament in the federal Cabinet, we made changes to the Canadian Wheat Board to allow the election by farmers of the majority of directors. We made sure that it became, as it has become, a farmer board, a Canadian Wheat Board that is directed by farmers for farmers and in the best interests of farmers.
We see that it is quite important to have a very strong voice in the industry for farmers, particularly with what has happened with Manitoba Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, with the Alberta Wheat Pool. These used to be farmer co-operatives. They are no longer, and it is very important that the farmers have a commercial organization which works for them, on their behalf, and for the benefit of farmers rather than for the benefit of anybody else.
Improvements in the Canadian Wheat Board
can certainly be made and, in fact, are being made by the farmer-elected board
of directors. Those improvements, I would suggest, are particularly in the
areas of facility, the ability of secondary industries from seed processing to
food processing to a whole variety of other areas in rural
Clearly, if we are going to develop as a province, then we need the development of these secondary industries, and I know that farmer-elected directors like Bill Toews from Kane, Manitoba, working very hard to look at ways that the Canadian Wheat Board can continue to evolve and make changes as a single-desk marketer for wheat and barley in these areas of food processing.
* (15:50)
A major reason why we are going to support the single desk for the Canadian Wheat Board is that the four-week-long study that was mandated by the federal Minister of Agriculture, Chuck Strahl, is short. It is short not only in terms of the amount of writing, but it is short in terms of the vision for just how the Canadian Wheat Board will survive without a single desk for wheat. I think that it is very important that there be a clear vision for how the Canadian Wheat Board would survive without a single desk for wheat. Farmers that I have talked to, whether they are for a single desk or for dual marketing, would envision, hope to have, even if the single desk is gone, a role, a major role for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The report which was done on very short notice in very short fashion failed to provide a clear vision for how the Canadian Wheat Board would survive if it no longer had the single desk for wheat and barley. Is the vision here for handling facilities, and have the costs and future for the Canadian Wheat Board been looked at carefully enough? The Wheat Board is somewhat different from the hog board, and certainly what is needed here is much greater certainty that if the Canadian Wheat Board lost the single desk it would be able to survive in a dual marketing system. I think it is a very quick and short report that was done and that what is needed is a much better and clearer vision of just what the Canadian Wheat Board is to become if there was not a single desk.
I think that the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is clearly important. The future of the grain industry is clearly important to all of us, and we should have a very clear understanding of what's going to happen and how the Canadian Wheat Board will survive in a dual marketing situation before we move to get rid of the single desk for wheat. One of the points that is clearly important, and that is this, is that regardless of whether the Wheat Board has a single desk or dual marketing, we need for all the players in the industry a clear vision for what the future is going to hold, that people need to be able to plan, they need to be able to see where things are going, and this applies to farmers, this applies to people in the Wheat Board who are now considering whether they should stay there if dual marketing comes in because they're not sure if the Wheat Board has a future, people who are other players in the industry, the Grain Commission, that it is very important that we know what is going to happen.
That is why we would argue that at this juncture there needs to be clearer decisions made, that we don't need horizons which are murky and cloudy, and that is why we believe that there needs to be a vote, and that is one of the reasons why, at this juncture, because there has not been an adequate presentation of what the role of the Canadian Wheat Board would be in a dual marketing, that the single-desk marketing and the security of the single-desk marketing for wheat seems the better option right now for Manitoba. That's why we would support this resolution.
I
would like to add a couple of comments, stories, as it were, which illustrate
the role and the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board. The first story is
told by a friend of mine. He was visiting, I think it was
An Honourable Member: Paul Martin?
Mr. Gerrard: No, it wasn't
Paul Martin. He was looking at ships unloading grain, ships unloading grain at
a port, I believe it was in
That is one illustration of why the
Canadian Wheat Board has done a good job because it is able to market high
quality wheat and deliver it, and do a good job of it. [interjection] Absolutely, this is what farmers grow and because
there is a system here which includes the Canadian Wheat Board, we end up with
a better price for farmers and a better situation for farmers here in
I will give a second story. This story
comes from
Right away, the Chinese turned around, and they said: We are going to have to start bargaining seriously. We know that you know that we need your wheat, and we had better start bargaining seriously. That is what happened because we had the Canadian Wheat Board with a lot of knowledge representing Canadian farmers and getting a good price for wheat for Canadian farmers.
Let us acknowledge the marvellous work that the Canadian Wheat Board has done over many years. Let us acknowledge the problems that were there when there was not a single-desk Canadian Wheat Board marketer. Let us acknowledge that we need a stable environment for marketing wheat, and that in the absence of compelling evidence there is an alternative will for the Canadian Wheat Board to do a marketing system which is substantial and which can work in the best interest of farmers.
Then, I believe, at this particular time we should be supporting the single desk for the Canadian Wheat Board and that is the way we will be voting on this resolution, Mr. Speaker.
* (16:00)
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the proposed resolution of the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk).
Do members want me to read the resolution?
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: WHEREAS all elected farmer directors from
WHEREAS the federal government is calling for a single-commodity plebiscite on barley but not on wheat; and
WHEREAS the voices of wheat producers should be heard on the fate of the single desk; and
WHEREAS the benefits of the single-desk CWB to grain producers are well known; and
WHEREAS the view of the Manitoba Legislature on the single-desk CWB should be known at this critical juncture.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba make clear its support for the CWB's single desk.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the motion, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Formal Vote
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.
Order. The question before the House is the resolution moved by the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk).
* (16:30)
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Aglugub, Allan, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Brick, Caldwell, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Gerrard, Irvin-Ross, Jennissen, Jha, Korzeniowski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Martindale, McGifford, Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Reid, Rondeau, Sale, Santos, Schellenberg, Selinger, Smith, Struthers, Swan, Wowchuk.
Nays
Cullen, Cummings, Derkach, Driedger, Dyck, Eichler,
Goertzen, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Penner, Reimer, Schuler, Stefanson,
Taillieu.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 34, Nays 15.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that we'd like to continue the discussion in the House of the second resolution.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we'll proceed with the second resolution in the name of the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers), that
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board is controlled by a democratically elected board of directors; and
WHEREAS economic analysis has found that the Canadian Wheat Board's overall economic impact on Manitoba includes 3,270 total jobs; over 400 downtown Winnipeg head office jobs; $126 million in wages; and a $220-million contribution to provincial GDP; and
WHEREAS the potential loss of the Canadian Wheat Board's shipments through the Port of Churchill would have a devastating impact on northern ports and could rob producers of an affordable shipping alternative; and
WHEREAS 8,000 Manitoba producers seed more than 3 million acres of CWB wheat every year and the loss to the Canadian Wheat Board would negatively impact funding for agricultural research; and
WHEREAS, without the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers would lose their most important advocate in matters of transportation, grain handling and international trade;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call on the federal government to hold a fair producer plebiscite on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly for both wheat and barley.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food, seconded by the honourable Minister of Conservation,
WHEREAS the CWB–
Dispense?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: WHEREAS the CWB is controlled by a democratically elected board of directors; and
WHEREAS economic analysis has found that the CWB's overall economic impact on Manitoba includes 3,270 total jobs; over 400 downtown Winnipeg head office jobs; $126 million in wages; and a $220-million contribution to provincial GDP; and
WHEREAS the potential loss of CWB
shipments through the
WHEREAS 8,000 Manitoba producers seed more than 3 million acres of CWB grain every year and the loss of the CWB would negatively impact funding for agricultural research; and
WHEREAS, without the CWB, farmers would lose their most important advocate in matters of transportation, grain handling and international trade;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call on the federal government to hold a fair producer plebiscite on the future of the CWB's monopoly for both wheat and barley.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, now that we know where the opposition stands with regard to the single desk and that they do not support maintaining the single desk of the Canadian Wheat Board, it's time for us to have a discussion and hear whether the members opposite have listened at all to what producers are saying.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
But, you know, the members opposite seemed
to have again changed their minds. I'd like to read a comment from December 1,
2005, when the Member for
Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's very interesting that, in December, the member opposite supported the Wheat Board and supported supply management, and now speaks out against maintaining the single desk. The member opposite doesn't seem to realize that, if you have supply management, it's also a form of single desk. I say to the members opposite that, if you are against the single desk of the Canadian Wheat Board, I wonder where you're going to go next on supply management.
I would ask the members opposite to talk to their federal colleagues whom they're very much in support of right now in dismantling the Wheat Board, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether or not the next step is to dismantle supply management. I would say to the members opposite that this is a very dangerous time. When the World Trade talks have been falling apart, when we have other countries all attacking our single-desk selling of the Wheat Board, attacking the Wheat Board monopoly and attacking the supply management, I say to you that I wonder where the federal government is going next, and how true they are to their word that they really do support supply management, because this tells me that, if you do not support single-desk selling, you do not support supply management.
I have another quote here from the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen). The Member for Steinbach says: We should be fighting hard to maintain the Wheat Board, and I quote him on saying: I do want to wish the minister well as she goes towards the WTO trade negotiations in Hong Kong. I hope she will fight hard for the Canadian Wheat Board as well. Well, isn't that interesting? I was going to the Hong Kong WTO talks, and members opposite said fight hard for the Canadian Wheat Board. Make sure it's maintained because it's important. Here in this House today, when they have the opportunity to stand up and say that they will support maintaining the single-desk selling of the Canadian Wheat Board because they recognize the value of it, they flip-flop, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tell you they are sending a terrible message to our producers.
They're sending a terrible message to our supply management industry because you cannot trust them to stand up for our farmers and be sure that the single-desk selling of the Canadian Wheat Board is maintained, or that supply management will be maintained. I can tell the members opposite this is a concern within the supply-manage industry. Supply management industry is wondering where the federal government's next move is on supply management.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
I would ask the members opposite in this House to give some indication on where they are on that issue, or maybe they haven't had a chance to talk that over with Stephen Harper, but they certainly had a chance to talk over the Wheat Board. The members opposite say that this is just about barley, nothing is happening to wheat. I would encourage them, Mr. Speaker, to read some of the things that Stephen Harper said before he was–
* (16:40)
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Emerson, on a point of order?
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to know whether what the minister said is correct, whether she correctly put on the record that she believed the Wheat Board is a vehicle of supply management.
Mr. Speaker: Information that's brought before the House, the Speaker takes as factual. So the honourable member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, what I did say, and the member should listen more carefully, I said that the single-desk selling of the Canadian Wheat Board is similar to single-desk selling that we have in supply management, and if you're against the single desk of the Canadian Wheat Board and taking that marketing power away from producers, I believe that you have to look very carefully at what these members are thinking.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just talk about the
reason we are calling for this resolution, and that the producers have a fair
say on the future of the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board on both wheat and
barley. I want to commend our Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Saskatchewan Premier,
Lorne Calvert, for showing leadership on this issue because it really does
affect our
An Honourable Member: We didn't say that at all.
Ms. Wowchuk: The member opposite says he didn't say that at all. I hope he read the federal platform and what the federal government talked about in the election.
But the producers, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned about this issue, and that's why farm organizations got together. We have the Keystone Agricultural Producers, the National Farmers Union, Wild Rose Producers, APAS. All of these producers came together, and what was the end of their result? These producers looked at the value of the Canadian Wheat Board, and they put out a report on what the value of the Wheat Board was. Then they said: If there are going to be changes, we want the producers to make the decision. That's right; they should be making–the federal government should not be segregating out barley, and then saying, we will deal with wheat later.
Mr. Speaker, if there is going to be a dramatic change in the structure of the Canadian Wheat Board, the legislation says the producers should have the say, and that's what farm organizations have said. Farm organizations have said: Give us a vote. If producers vote to move away from the single-desk selling of the Wheat Board, that will be their decision, but they should not be manipulated by the federal government. That's what's happening right now. The federal government has put in place farmers on the board who are anti-single-desk selling. This has not happened before. The government appointees are usually people with expertise in business, not farmers. The farmers are usually elected to the board. Then the next step is the federal Minister of Agriculture put a gag order on the Wheat Board. The federal minister who is responsible for the Wheat Board put a gag order on the Wheat Board saying they could not put any information out.
So, first of all, there are farmers put on there that are slanted towards anti-Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. The Wheat Board has been gagged. They're not allowed to talk while the federal minister is out there getting his message and his propaganda about the Wheat Board out. Other people aren't allowed to do that. But the most important thing we have here is that it is the producers that are asking for this, and we have said to the federal government: We want you to hold a plebiscite on wheat and barley. A simple question. Hold the plebiscite on wheat and barley. If you will not hold the plebiscite on wheat and barley, then we will hold that vote for our producers because we believe that in some way our producers have to have a voice. But I want to say to you that this resolution calls on the federal government to hold a producer plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on both wheat and barley.
So, Mr. Speaker, all we're asking is that
the federal government live up to its legal and moral responsibility to
producers, and if the federal government doesn't do that then I guess we have
to give the producers a voice. [interjection]
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the members
opposite who represent many rural communities to listen to what producers are
saying, listen to what Inky Mark, the Member for Dauphin,
Well, if the members opposite will support this resolution calling for both a wheat and barley vote, then I would be very pleased to stand beside them to ensure that our producers get that vote. I hope the members opposite will continue in that vein to try to get that vote, Mr. Speaker.
But why? Others will say that we are just trying to play politics here. Indeed, it is nothing about playing politics, Mr. Speaker. We want a plebiscite so that farmers can have a say. Let the farmers decide. How did the Wheat Board get started? The Wheat Board got started because farmers were desperate, because they were being short-changed. It is very interesting. I got a package sent to me today with some of the meetings and some of the votes and petitions that producers had signed at the turn of the century when they were recognizing that they were at the mercy of the grain companies.
I remember stories that my grandfather told about how the small farmers, who didn't have very much grain but had lots of bills, had to sell their grain in the fall, early in the fall, so that they could pay their bills. By coincidence at that time of the year, the price of grain was very, very low, so the poor farmers had to take what they could get because they had bills to pay. Those farmers who were more established and could afford to carry on would wait until the new year, and, by miracle, at that time of the year, the prices were a little better when most people had already sold their wheat.
That is why farmers organized. That is why farmers asked the federal government to put in place the Wheat Board. That is why farmers asked for pooling to be put in place, so they would not have to worry about at which time of the year they sold their grain, they would be treated fairly. That's what this is about. In a time when there are grain companies that are becoming larger and larger and less options for producers out there, members opposite should be thinking about producers who, again, will have one less option.
But, Mr. Speaker, members opposite should be also listening to farm organizations, and what have farm organizations said? Well, Keystone Agriculture Producers today supported Premier Gary Doer and Premier Klein for calling on the federal government to hold a plebiscite.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
When addressing other members in the House, ministers by their portfolios and other members by their constituency.
Ms. Wowchuk: I withdraw that comment, and I will go again.
Today's commitment by the Premier of
Manitoba and the Premier of Saskatchewan to call for a federal government to
hold a plebiscite on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board was applauded by
Keystone Agriculture Producers. KAP believed that a plebiscite is morally and
legally required before changing the basic structure of the mandate of the
Canadian Wheat Board, and that a vote should be held across western
Farmers must have a voice on this
important issue. The federal government must call for a plebiscite, and, in the
event that the federal government of
* (16:50)
Mr. Speaker, I will go on one more line. KAP also calls on the federal government to put forward a plebiscite that asks producers to select between realistic choices. Members opposite, who were part of the organization of KAP, have sat on their boards, should be listening to these people. As I say, it is not just KAP, it is producers across the country who are saying let's have a vote. You could ask two questions: Do you support the ability to market all wheat or do you wish to remove it? Give the producers the same. I just do not understand why members opposite, first of all, would vote against single-desk selling and why they would now hesitate to give producers a say.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say as well
that members opposite have to recognize how important this whole issue is to
Mr. Speaker, we don't want the Canadian Wheat Board to be torn apart. The Canadian Wheat Board has served our producers well. We must be sure that the–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): I apologize for interrupting the member, but I wonder if you could see as we get nearer the hour of five o'clock, if we could seek leave of the House to not see the clock until this motion is dispensed of.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House for the Speaker not to see the clock until this is dispensed with? [Agreed]
* * *
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that members opposite want to continue on this important debate because it is an important debate. It is a debate about whether the producers will have the right to make the decision on their institute.
Because what is the Wheat Board? The Wheat Board is our producers. It is their position, their ability to have power in the marketplace. It is their ability through the Wheat Board to get those sales and to have that credibility of a high and consistent quality. It is through the Wheat Board and the work that they have done that there are special contracts, such as the Warburton contract, that get a prime product.
Now, members opposite will talk about the Wheat Board taking the ability away from value-adding. I would ask them again to do their research on that because that is not true. The new board has made many changes on delivery of contracts and the ability to deliver grain for value added. Many of those things have been done, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you the members
should recognize what they said on December 1. On December 1 they said they
were definitely in support of the Wheat Board. I say to the members today you
should be on the side of farmers. The farmers have asked for a plebiscite. The
farmers have asked for a plebiscite on wheat and barley. The members opposite
should not support the federal government's little games of sectioning off one
part of the Wheat Board without having the debate on the future of the total
Wheat Board. So I say to the members opposite: Stand true to your word. If you
believe in farmers having a say, then let the farmers have the say. Support
this resolution. Call your friends in
I say to the members opposite as well, Mr. Speaker, they have to think about what it means to eliminate the single-desk selling of the Wheat Board and what this also means in the future for other supply management. Those are very, very serious issues. I say to you farmers considered very seriously what they were doing when the Wheat Board was started. They lobbied. They got the government to listen to them. They put in place legislation that allowed the Wheat Board to come into existence. If there is going to be a change, Mr. Speaker, then we must have the producers make the decision on wheat and barley and make that decision at the same time rather than segregating it off. Thank you very much.
Mr. Eichler: I want to correct the minister when she said that I went on the record as of the first of December supporting the Canadian Wheat Board. We do support a strong and vibrant Canadian Wheat Board. We stand behind that.
The government of
The NDP's plebiscite will ultimately be an irrelevant issue as it is on wheat, which the federal government has clearly indicated is not up for discussion. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) informed producers that those growing wheat next year should plan to market it through the Wheat Board. Why is the NDP government looking to interfere with the farmers' marketing choice?
The provincial plebiscite will have no legal binding with respect to standing and has absolutely nothing to do with the decision-making process by the federal government. It will be nothing more than an expensive taxpayer-funded opinion poll. In all, it is a poorly organized threat. This NDP government has presented no plan for conducting their poll and what their question will be and how to assemble a list of participants.
The Minister of Agriculture went to the committee hearing about three weeks ago, and she appeared before that committee and said that it would cost $2 per producer. That was 8,000 producers so she said a cost of $16,000. The following week, during the breakfast with the Premier (Mr. Doer), he went on record as saying it was going to cost tens of thousands of dollars. Who is really telling the real story, Mr. Speaker? It would be nothing but a waste of time and we have to make very sure the question is clear. Obviously, this minister and this government do not understand where they're going with this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the following resolution: I move, seconded by the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen),
THAT the resolution be amended by deleting all the
words after the first word "WHEREAS" and replacing them with the
following:
the Canadian Wheat Board has been the sole marketer of barley and wheat for western Canadian farmers; and
WHEREAS a strong Canadian Wheat Board should continue to play a role in marketing western Canadian grains; and
WHEREAS in light of changing markets, products, and economic conditions, many western Canadian farmers believe that more marketing flexibility would improve opportunities for marketing grain and create opportunity for value-added business; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has already taken positive steps to increase the marketing flexibility in response to requests from western Canadian grain producers; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board is governed by federal legislation; and
WHEREAS in exercising its jurisdiction, the federal government has decided to hold a plebiscite of western farmers on the marketing of barley; and
WHEREAS the federal government has stated that no changes are currently being proposed for the marketing of wheat.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba make clear its understanding that the federal government has sole authority for changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In recognition of federal authority in this area, we indicate our support for the federal government's decision to hold a plebiscite for the marketing of barley and call on them to hold a plebiscite in advance of any changes to the marketing of western Canadian grain, including wheat.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for
THAT the resolution be
amended by deleting all of the words after the first word "WHEREAS"
and replacing them with the following:
the Canadian Wheat Board has been the sole marketer for barley and wheat for western Canadian farmers; and
WHEREAS a strong Canadian Wheat Board should continue to play a role in marketing western Canadian grains; and
WHEREAS in light of changing markets, products and economic conditions, many western Canadian farmers believe that more marketing flexibility would improve opportunities for marketing grain and create the opportunity for value-added businesses; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has already taken positive steps to increase some marketing flexibility in response to requests from western Canadian grain producers; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board is governed by federal legislation; and
WHEREAS in exercising its jurisdiction, the federal government has decided to hold a plebiscite of western farmers on the marketing of barley; and
WHEREAS the federal government has stated that no changes are currently being proposed for the marketing of wheat.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba make clear its understanding that the federal government has sole authority for changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In recognition of federal authority in this area, we indicate our support for the federal government's decision to hold a plebiscite for the marketing of barley and call on it to hold a plebiscite in advance of any changes to the marketing of western Canadian grain, including wheat.
The amendment is in order.
* (17:00)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker,
as I read this amendment, I see that the members opposite are prepared to go
with the federal government and ignore the producers of
The members opposite say, In recognition
of federal government's authority in this area, we indicate support for the
federal government's decision to hold a plebiscite on marketing barley, and
call to hold a plebiscite in advance of any changes to marketing of wheat.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I tell the members opposite what the producers of
The farm organization of
Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite read
the resolution that we put forward, it very clearly states that we want a
plebiscite based on what the producers have said, and that is to have a
resolution on both wheat and barley at the same time. The members opposite want
to split hairs. They want to try to find a way to get what Stephen Harper wants.
In light of changing markets, products and economic conditions, many western
farmers believe that more flexibility would improve opportunities for marketing
grain and create new opportunities. Well, yes, if producers feel that way, then
give them a vote. But give them a vote on both issues at the same time. Members
opposite are not loyal to the farmer; they are not listening to what farmers of
The members opposite are beholden to their
federal leader who wants to destroy the Wheat Board. Read some of the things
that he has said prior to being Prime Minister. Read what he has said and what
he did. What did the federal minister do and what did Chuck Strahl do, the Minister
of Agriculture? This summer he called a meeting in
Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister of
agriculture to come to
An Honourable Member: You don't think he was there?
Ms. Wowchuk: The member opposite says, don't think they were there. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I talked to the federal minister, and he did not bother looking at the books because he has been given a directive. I can tell you what the directive is that Minister Strahl has been given by the Prime Minister: Get rid of the single-desk selling of the Canadian Wheat Board. That's the direction he has been given, and it doesn't matter what advantages there are for farmers. I asked the federal minister to also look at what other people who were anti-Wheat Board, anti single-desk selling did when they came on board.
I look at the present chair; when Mr. Ritter came to the board, he said that he thought the single desk should be dismantled. When he had a chance to look at the books he recognized the true value of the Wheat Board in the international market for the Canadian producer, and he has since then changed his mind and has been working to support the single desk.
But at the same time that producer-elected board has been making many changes. You know, it's too bad there's been a gag order put on the producer board and the Wheat Board, because they cannot talk about the true benefits of the Wheat Board because the federal minister has put a gag order on them and said they can't discuss anything about the Wheat Board. At the same time the federal minister hasn't put a gag order on some of the other people who are encouraging the dismantling of the single-desk selling.
So, Mr. Speaker, I look at this and I am
quite disappointed that the member opposite would bring forward a resolution
that would call for a plebiscite that is in complete contradiction of what
But the members opposite want to play games. They want to be sure that Stephen Harper gets what he wants, and they want to take power away from farmers, the one institute that gives farmers more power in the marketplace; the one institute that gives farmers the ability to set price rather than to be price takers, they want to take away, Mr. Speaker.
A member opposite says, farmers want choice. Well, I ask him what the heck was he talking about when he said this side of the House definitely supports the Wheat Board? Definitely supports the Wheat Board when it suits him. But on the other hand, these members opposite want to see part of the Wheat Board split away because they know that the Alberta producers want barley taken off, and they, rather than thinking about what's good for Manitoba farmers, are prepared to support the Alberta position. The Alberta government that spent over a million dollars trying to get studies, and even when they got those studies they did not get the full commitment that it was better to have the Wheat Board maintained rather than moving away from single-desk selling.
The members opposite are falling into that trap because they want to support the federal government, not support producers, not to support what Keystone Agricultural Producers have said, when they said the Premier of Manitoba and the Premier of Saskatchewan did the right thing by standing up and saying that they will hold the vote if the federal government won't. We want the federal government to hold a vote. We want the federal government to hold a joint vote, not to play games. The Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, have put forward a resolution here that says that they want a split vote. That is not what our producers–
An Honourable Member: Maybe a split vote.
* (17:10)
Ms. Wowchuk: Maybe a split
vote. But they will not stand up and say they support the position of
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. McFadyen: I am pleased
to rise and speak in favour of the amendment that's been proposed and
introduced by the Member for
Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue that we
have is that we have an incredibly important issue before the Government of
Canada today with respect to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. In
determining its position on this issue, we know that there are farmers in our
country, as, indeed, there are producers in our province who have a divergence
of opinion on this issue. So the question is: What is a fair process for
arriving at and resolving those differences of opinion? I would suggest today
that the Member for
So, Mr. Speaker, the amendment today is
designed to put forward very clearly the position of the members of this
Legislature that we believe in democracy when it comes to changes to the
Canadian Wheat Board. We're not going to say, on the one hand, we believe that
there should be a single desk, and we're just going to move ahead regardless of
your perspective, and we believe in democracy speaking out of the other side of
our mouth. We believe to be consistent. We should be consistent in saying that
we recognize that there's a diversity of opinion on this issue in rural
We know from history, Mr. Speaker, that
this issue of the Canadian Wheat Board and matters like it give rise to great
emotions within rural communities. But different people have different
perspectives on the issue. I know members opposite aren't very well represented
in rural
So what we're proposing instead is, let's
step back, let's deal with the facts as they exist today; let's look at what
the federal government is proposing, and let's support them when they say,
let's have a plebiscite on barley. Let's say that if we're not making changes
to wheat, why would we have an unnecessary plebiscite that divides Manitobans,
that costs taxpayer dollars, that does nothing more than allow a government
that has a record of seven years of neglect in agriculture to give them a
diversionary tactic–they think Manitobans will take their eye off the ball and
they'll ignore seven years of neglect, Mr. Speaker. Well, let's give Manitobans
credit. Let's give our producers credit for being intelligent people who know a
political ploy when they see one. I can tell you that, in spending time in
Souris just this past weekend, and in communities like Dauphin,
Let's look at what the government is doing, has done, to our hog industry. Let's look at what the government is doing to our beef industry, attempting to bring in unilaterally a head tax without consultation and without a plebiscite of producers. Let's not lose sight of the fact that there's more to the issue of our agricultural economy than the Wheat Board.
But, as we look at the question of the Wheat Board, let's proceed in a way that is measured, responsible, that takes into account the views of producers, that recognizes that there are differences of opinion on this important issue. Let's also recognize the fact that we're not in the 1930s anymore, as much as members opposite may wish and may think that we make Wheat Board policy on the basis of 1930s conditions. The world has changed since then. The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) goes on at some length about the circumstances in the 1930s that led to the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board, and we all know what that history is. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that in the intervening 86 years, in the intervening 80-some-odd years since the Wheat Board was established, times have changed, that new products exist. There are new opportunities and new markets for Canadian produce, and there are new opportunities to create jobs just like those jobs created in the constituency of Russell, where people are using good ideas, applying ingenuity and looking for opportunities to create jobs, wealth and opportunities for Manitobans.
Let's recognize all of
those things, Mr. Speaker. Let's have a debate about the future of the Wheat Board.
Let's let farmers decide before changes are made. That's the intent of this
resolution. That's where our party stands, and that's why I'm pleased to offer
my support for what is a common-sense, non-divisive resolution brought forward
by the Member for
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker,
this is a very simple amendment because the position of the provincial
government, and the resolutions before this House, is to have one vote on the
future of the Wheat Board with barley and wheat. The Tory government in
Now, anybody in this House that doesn't
believe the present Prime Minister is not intent on changing the Canadian Wheat
Board for wheat producers is not living in the real world. To act like it's
love, trust and pixie dust in terms of democracy when you've got a stated
position from the present Prime Minister, you have a stated position from the
Minister of Agriculture, you have a stated position from the hand-picked
members of the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, you have an absolute disdain
for debate and muzzling of members in the Canadian Wheat Board located in
Manitoba, I mean, what kind of naivety is across the way, or is it just
complete surrogate status to the federal caucus? Now, from time to time, all of
us should unite with
There is a difference between the opinion
of farmers in
* (17:20)
Now we do not want to listen to the Conservatives when it comes to democracy. You know, people do change their minds. There has been a recent big flip-flop on a major financial issue, affecting all kinds of people. People in governments change their mind. People change their mind. Members opposite, many of them campaigned on maintaining the telephone system in '95, and then they changed their mind after that.
An Honourable Member: Buy it back.
Mr. Doer: And then they, Mr. Speaker, sell it for $13 a share. You stole the damn phone system, that is what you did, and you were part of it. You were in the back rooms. You helped sell the shares, some of which were sold illegally by your brokerage friends.
So you know what, why should a wheat
producer living down the road in the Interlake not get a vote in January or
February, and the barley producer will get a vote? Why would you want to do
that? Well, maybe that is the position of the government of
I could tell you, Mr.
Speaker, this is a very simple issue. Either this Legislature can call on
farmers to have one vote, the wheat producer and the barley producer together,
and we will. We will abide by that vote. But members opposite are trying to
cherry-pick the vote. They are trying to create an impression that the
This is only an issue of undemocratic momentum. That is what it is. It is phoney. It is dishonest and everybody in this House should have the courage to say: Why don't we join and have one vote? Why don't we have barley producers and wheat producers have one vote? That is a simple question. So you want to join the momentum. [interjection] The member opposite was part of a government that sold shares and denied a referendum four times. He put it on his Web site. He has taken it of his Web site. I would be ashamed of it, too.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this
is the creative resolution. It is a phoney momentum move, aiding and abetting
the government of
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the Premier of this province utter the most foolish rhetoric and uneducated rhetoric that one could ever hear in this Legislature regarding the Wheat Board issue. He is not a farmer, so I can understand that in Concordia and perhaps where he lives in River East, the Wheat Board doesn't matter because he doesn't have to feed his family on what he earns off the land. So that is why he doesn't care. He doesn't care. He is with KAP when it suits him to be with KAP, but where was he when the livestock producers came here? The cattle producers came here and said: Hold a referendum. Where was he? Where was he? He refused.
Mr. Speaker, he is desperate. The Premier of this province is right now politically desperate, so he creates a diversion of the Wheat Board vote so that he doesn't have to face the issues that Manitobans want him to face. Why doesn't he hold the public inquiry on the Crocus scandal? Why doesn't he hold the vote on the cattle issue? Because those are provincial issues, and you need to create a diversion because politically he is running scared. That is the issue.
The amendment to this motion, Mr. Speaker, is very clear. The amendment says that producers should have a vote on barley, and they should have a vote on wheat when the wheat question comes up. At the present time, the only question we have before us is the issue of barley. The federal minister has said there will be a vote on barley.
Now, the Premier, again, uneducated in the grain industry as he is, talks about the barley producers will have the vote, but the wheat producers won't. Well, I want to tell this Premier that the wheat producer and the barley producer are one and the same. My colleague, the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings), produces wheat and he also produces barley. He will get the vote. Mr. Speaker, I produce barley. I produce wheat. I will get the vote. So I suggest that the Premier perhaps get himself a little bit more up to speed about what the issues with regard to the Wheat Board are.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we saw a resolution come forward regarding a single desk. Why doesn't the Premier (Mr. Doer) take a look at the task force report and what it says, because the task force report talks about a wheat board? It talks about a wheat board existing, but it also talks about opportunities in our province. I want to talk about opportunities in our province because this Premier, again in desperation, seeing young people leave the province, has now decided that he is going to do what we promised in '99 and in 2003, and that is give a rebate to students who stay in the province. But what are they going to stay for if there are no jobs? The question is the high taxes in our province and the fact that there are no jobs for young people.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if we want to create
jobs in rural
Now, I could tell the Premier a story about Glen Pizzey from Angusville who wanted to mill his own wheat. He was forced to take it to the elevator and then take it home again where he could mill it, but he didn't have enough quota and therefore he couldn't mill all his wheat. He had to go and buy the wheat from the Wheat Board then to mill it. He could not mill his own wheat.
Mr. Speaker, there are examples upon
examples of this kind. What we have to understand is the world is moving ahead.
Why did
Now, should there be a wheat board? Yes. I sell my grain to the Wheat Board. I have to today, but I should be able to choose. It's a grain that I produce and the revenues from that go to feed my family. I have young sons who would like to farm, but under the present system the future is very bleak. If these young people were able to sell their product to either the Wheat Board if that's advantageous or to a mill if that's advantageous, then they could extract the most from the marketplace. As it exists today, that can't happen.
So what's wrong with allowing the Wheat Board to operate in an open fashion under an open system where the people who produce the product have the choice. It's not for us to decide in this Legislature that there should be a single desk or that there should be an open system. That question should be left to the people whom it affects most, and those are the producers in our province and in our country.
Mr. Speaker, the federal
minister had said we're going to allow the producers to vote on barley first.
Now, right now if you took a poll in
* (17:30)
Now, Mr. Speaker, recent research which has identified the omega in barley as an important component that can be used in functional foods now presents a new opportunity in our province, especially where barley is produced, because why can't there be mills established in rural Manitoba where the barley is produced and then we can sell the extracted product to the further processors.
I go to another example, and the example is, we've heard the example of the Pizzey mill, but I go to the example of Bunge foods and the processing of Canola oil. About 25 years ago, a Canola crushing plant established on the west side of the province. They started to crush the oil, and not refine the oil, but send it out as raw oil. When we were in government, Mr. Speaker, when the Progressive Conservative Party was in government, they helped this company process their oil to a shelf product, one that could be sold in shelves in stores.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if that product were
handled under the Wheat Board, we would see Canola being shipped out of this
country and processed either in
As a matter of fact, unfortunately,
because of this government's bungling of issues, we now have
Now, how much more opportunity exists in this province. We could become, we should become, a centre for processing our food and our products that we produce in this province. We should be using the Richardson Centre, the Food Development Centre, to help those value-added processors establish. But, Mr. Speaker, I heard a comment that was made by our Minister of Agriculture that indicated that somehow she found a conflict between the producers of our province and the value-added processors. I want to quote what she said. She said, and I quote, "I want to see farmers get a better return." Manitoba Agriculture Minister Rosann Wowchuk told the committee.
Excuse me. I will retract the name of the minister. "I do not want them to be sacrificed for value added." she said. Now can you imagine this? She is saying that farmers are going to be sacrificed for value-added processing. What kind of a statement is that to make to the world from a minister of agriculture who should be encouraging that every product we grow in this province is going to have value added to it so that we create the jobs to keep our youth in this province, to keep industry thriving so we can reduce the tax rates that we pay right now so that we, in fact, can become the opportunity that we owe to our children and to the future of this province.
Mr. Speaker, I say to this Premier (Mr. Doer) and to this Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), shame on you. Shame on you for having such short-sightedness. Shame on you for thinking that farmers somehow don't understand the issues, and they will not vote correctly. Allow them to take this matter into their hands, vote as they should, vote as they think they want this industry and agriculture to expand in this province, and allow them to make the decision.
The amendment to the resolution that was
put forward today is one that talks about opportunities for
It's not that agriculture is not important
to the
Rather than dealing with issues that they
should be here in the
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for St. James. [interjection] The honourable Member for Arthur-Virden.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to stand before the House and put some words on the record in regard to the amendment that we have put forward on the government's decreed resolution that they have in the Order Paper today.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
There are a lot of contradictions in this Order Paper presentation,
Mr. Deputy Speaker, a lot of contradictions in the government's own wording,
and I'll get into those in a minute. But I want to just say that the reasons why
we voted against the single desk is very, very clear. This is the same group
that, when I was on–and I want to point out that I did spend eight years on the
Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. I was the elected farmer in western
Mr. Deputy Speaker, while we continue to bring in new choices in the board marketing system, there were those in the Farmers' Union and, of course, the fellow that ran against me at that time in 1994, Mr. Nicholson, who is still there on the new board, who indicated that if there were any choices in the board for farmers to price their grain within even the monopoly it would be the end of the board. The sky would fall and there would be no more opportunity for farmers. Well, that was in 1994.
In 2002, the last time
this member was elected, I looked at the front page of the Co-operator in January, the farm paper in
Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that was a very pertinent point back in the early '30s, prior to the droughts of the '30s, when the grain companies were having difficulties to survive. The board was formed as a means of trying to protect the grain handling system in the prairies, and there was good reason for some of those choices at that time because there wasn't the information technology available on farm sites at that time. You couldn't deliver a wagonload of grain to an elevator and expect to get much for it when they knew you had no other choice in where to go with that grain. Today, those farmers know what the price of that product is before they ship it, and they may ship it all the way across the prairies in trucks in an effort to maximize their returns. They have that ability to do so on all of the grains they have, except for wheat and barley, for domestic processing purposes. We have got to keep in mind that farmers already have the choice in how they sell feed barley and feed wheat. They don't need to go through the board to do that.
* (17:40)
If you want to look at
how the mothballed party viewed this process back in the '70s, this NDP
government, the NDP in
So these are the changes that have evolved over time. My forefathers had a very good right to want to keep the monopoly the way they had it. The young people today that are out there in our industry looking for change and the opportunity to market their product are being educated today with commerce degrees, with plant science degrees, with soil science degrees. Some of them are coming back with commerce degrees, and they have probably a better understanding because of the tools they have available to them today to be able to market this product more on their own. They also realize that as the margins have shrunk, and I farmed for 33 years, from where they were in the late '60s to today, in the '70s to today, they have seen these margins dwindle, and it's very much important that the farmers become more involved in the processing of grain on the Prairies.
We live, and I've made this speech in the
House before. Equidistant from Vancouver and Montréal and New Orleans, we are
the area that needs to have processing the most in Manitoba and we have a
system today, the government of the day, by bringing in the resolution to
saying we are going to take away the opportunity for farmers to process that
product more on their own provincial grounds than on their own farms. I just
want to put the magnitude of this on the record. Thirty-seven bushelled acre,
possibly a tonne to the acre, is the average of wheat production in
So the farmers that are out there today
asking us, as the opposition, to make sure that we look at different
opportunities within a structure that the board is involved in for sales, to be
able to access value-added process. Our predecessors set up a very good process
of value-added co-operatives, new generation co-operatives that really this
government has shelved and not gone forward with in giving the farmers the
opportunity to use more. We've got a government that professes to have more
investment in ethanol and support biodiesel and support all of these areas.
But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know they don't have any problem with feed wheat
going into an ethanol plant, but they have a big problem with quality wheat
going into a flour mill, a flour mill right here in
We have a number of innovative people
around
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just have to say
that the minister's own resolution–I don't know who she got to do the math on
this one, but she is indicating that there are $220 million of contribution to
the provincial GDT by having the Canadian Wheat Board's overall impact on
Now, in the next WHEREAS, it states that
we've only got three million acres of Canadian Wheat Board grains in the
minister's own statement in all of Manitoba. So you'd have to have 70-million
acres to produce that 15 to 22 million metric tonnes. I mean, her math just
doesn't add up. This government has no idea of what they're talking about when
it comes to their own resolution. So why in blazes, No. 1, would we ever vote
for this resolution because of their own errors in development? You mean, is
she saying that all of the wheat and barley wouldn't get any value at all in
Now, if she is saying that she doesn't want
the farmers to have some of the value-added opportunities of that 220 million,
if that's what she is including in there to get that number, then I think
that's wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The farmers need to have a more integrated
system to be able to get some of the value-added dollars that are in this
industry today in
But this minister, she
has a very callous view of value-added processing. One minute they want to
expand ethanol, they want to expand the livestock industry. They are taking
credit, or getting credit for the expansion of the pork industry in
* (17:50)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not here to say
that all is a hundred percent in that open market. I know that there are
opportunities amongst our young people to use the hedging opportunities that
are there in the grain companies today. They can go and look at the pricing
options, and you know, all the board has done is develop what the pricing
options are that the grain companies are already using and at a basis level
backed up in
The minister federally has already asked
for a vote on barley. He is already going to provide farmers with that
opportunity. There has been some discussion about the
She's also said in this
resolution that the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board would negatively impact
funding for agricultural research. Well, I know the fine work that the Grains
Institute does, because I have been there as well. The Grain Commission needs to
make changes with regard to the types and quality of wheat that we do allow in
regard to KVD in
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to say that the hypocrisy of telling farmers that they have to have a single desk, or then saying that we are going to give you a plebiscite on this issue is undermined by the fact that this government's credibility has already been undermined by the fact that they didn't give farmers, at first, a choice on the checkoff on cattle sales in Manitoba, the $2-per-head that they had. The fact that they covered up the idea that it could actually be up to 10, 20, who knows what the number is? It was open-ended in their legislation.
The hypocrisy of not allowing 33,567
Crocus investors to be involved by supporting them through an independent public
inquiry is just ludicrous. The government has recently made other changes in
regard to a freeze on hog barns in
At least I just want to put on the record as I sit down, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the fact that this minister has so little confidence in the people at the Wheat Board is astonishing to me. Having spent eight years on the board's advisory committee, I know the good work they can do. I know that farmers would continue to contract grain with the board. I know there is not a grain company out there that could afford not to have a contract to handle a half million, a million, or two million tonnes of wheat or barley at any particular time, or our other grains if they were to choose to market those down the road. The margins in that handling system are not such that they could afford to turn their back on a half million or five million tonnes of wheat or grain that would be handled by the board today, and these are strictly competitive forces that actually may bring down the handling charges to some sectors of our industry today.
But the bottom line is we are the furthest
from port. As I made this speech in December of 1995, in
I also want to make sure that the minister
knows about the hypocrisy of her position in standing up for
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, unless the federal government has taken that responsibility back in the last short while, I would say to the minister, does she believe that it's right that the farmers in this area should pay the buyback process that they are forced to buy on a per-tonne basis which is much higher than just the simple administration fee to fill out the paperwork. It puts our farmers in a jeopardized position. It puts them in a position where they cannot market their own product, where they cannot add value on their own farms.
I want to close by saying I think it's
absolutely imperative–and I don't think this is a debate, that this issue
should be debated by either side of the House because we know that value added,
Mr. Deputy Speaker, is where farmers are going to be able to make money in the
future. We know that we're better off to save that $60 or $70 a tonne. It
doesn't mean that the farmer's going to put it all in his pocket, but we're
much better off if we can haul our grain to a neighbouring farm or a
neighbouring town or another area of Manitoba to have it processed right here
and save some of those export dollars. I've always said to the railroads that
the biggest concern I have is–they said why are you not paranoid about the Crow
benefit changing, Mr. Maguire, and all of the issues that we could maybe have
as far as control of the industry around that? My answer was: My goal as a
farmer is not to have to use you. It's to be able to process all of the product
that we grow on our farms here in
So I want to say that the reason I support the amendment as put forward is because, of course, the federal government does have a say. Even Mr. Goodale, the former Minister of Agriculture, would indicate that the federal government has an authority to be able to make changes to the board. Otherwise the change that's there that he's saying you need a plebiscite or that farmers should have to have a say wouldn't be there because it was only in the last few years that that minister, the former federal Liberal minister, put that in the act. That wasn't there under the original Wheat Board act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it wasn't there in 1949 when oats and barley were put into the board as well. It was only put in there in the '90s, if not even more recent. Well, no, it was in this century–in this millennium, I should say.
So I'm saying that the federal government does have a role in that area, and all we're doing by bringing this amendment forward is recognizing that. We are also recognizing and supporting the federal government going ahead with its plebiscite on barley, and we're saying that if there were to be any changes in the marketing of western Canadian grain, perhaps a future discussion with farmers should take place as well.
So, having said that, I will close with the comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I want to say that I very much support the amendment brought forward by the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Eichler) and the discussion that's been given by our leader and other members who will speak to this amendment as well. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nevakshonoff: Thank
you for the opportunity once again today to rise and discuss this issue. It's
been very enlightening, I have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see these
individuals opposite finally show their true colours. There has been a lot of
obfuscation on that side of the House. They were in support of the Canadian
Wheat Board but in support of the open market as well. I think the whip has
finally snapped in
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
That is what we're talking about here.
They can dance around and talk about value-added production all they want, but
the bottom line is that it's the big business agenda. It's dictated by an ultra
right-wing government in
* (18:00)
Small farmers that are today protected by the Canadian Wheat Board, that have an entity that is marketing truly in their interest, not in the interest of the shareholders living off in some distant land, but the farmers themselves. That's what's under attack here and it's led by the most right-wing government in the country, the Government of Alberta.
So let's not beat around the bush here. We know what's happening and who's controlling the agenda. Now before they start criticizing the how many acres of wheat do I grow, like they attempted the last time, I don't. I'm not a wheat producer, but I represent a lot of wheat producers. I represent a lot of them and I talk to them and they talk to me. They phone me and they chose me through a democratic process to come here to speak on their behalf, and I bloody well will speak on their behalf and what I think. So, no, I'm not a wheat producer. I own a small farm and I say small, but I live in the country and I represent these people. So, on that basis, I'm here today.
Now if they want to listen to the voice of
farmers, why don't we make reference to the farming organization in this
province, the Keystone Agriculture Producers? They're the ones who represent
the farmers. They're the ones who speak for the farmers, and they're bang on
with our government and the government of
So there you go, ladies and gentlemen, and
what are they asking for? What are they asking for? They're asking for the
federal government to obey the law. It's written right in the Canadian Wheat
Board Act that any attempts to dismantle it, which is underway right now, is to
go to a plebiscite. It's not half a plebiscite: maybe we'll do barley now,
maybe we will do wheat sometime in the future; we will manipulate it and
corrupt it to the point where we might actually be able to subvert it and win a
vote. They know that's not the case now. That's why they're not putting wheat
to the full question now. They're just going with barley, which is in
Quite frankly, the Conservatives put their real agenda on the record a long time ago. They said, we don't need a plebiscite. The election was the plebiscite. We said we were going to do away with the Wheat Board during the election campaign. Therefore, that was the plebiscite. Well, people didn't just vote on the Wheat Board during the last election, and quite frankly, they didn't do all that well in the last election. They don't have a majority in this country. They have a very weak minority, and it's getting weaker as the days go on and people can discern the true agenda of the ultra right-wing in this country.
But that's what they're telling us. Oh, we won the election, technically, so we don't need a plebiscite, so there you go. That was the Minister of Agriculture and Agrifood Canada saying that the law of the land, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which calls for a plebiscite, no ifs, ands or buts, no maybes, it's on the record there, it's written into law. All we're asking is that they respect the law and that's what the farm lobby groups, the Keystone Agriculture Producers, in this province are calling for as well, so I have to support them. I support my farmers and the farm organizations in our province as well.
Now the Interlake, the constituency I
represent, is an area that particularly needs the Canadian Wheat Board because
we're a long way from the ports. We're a long way from the big grain terminals,
and the Canadian Wheat Board doesn't own any terminals or any elevators so we
need it as a marketing agency. It might be okay for some of those big farmers
in southern
The Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) has a huge farm, as does, I am sure, the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). They want to get bigger. As a matter of fact, I remember several years ago here the Member for Emerson was telling us about how all of his neighbours were going out of business, and how he was magnanimously going over there and sympathetically buying up their land for them, doing them a big favour, right? Basically, putting them out of business, and he gets bigger; that's the Tory agenda, right? All these small farmers, they don't care about them. They are just cannon fodder as far as they are concerned. They're there to be gobbled up. They don't have the clout that these guys do. They don't own their own elevators, or things like that.
I know some big
Conservative farmers in my constituency actually bought the elevators from
Agricore. So that guy is well positioned. He is well positioned to market
grain. That is one out of the 50 or 100 wheat producers in the area, mind you.
The rest of them are out of luck, right? The rest of them have to haul all of
their grain all the way to the
They make reference to the cattle checkoff. Well, the government didn't give the producers a vote on the checkoff. Well, according to The Farm Products Marketing Act, I think it is called, there is no call for checkoffs there. There is no call for plebiscites there. There are all kinds of checkoffs in this province on a wide range of commodities. There were no votes called there. But that is in the act. That is the law. So we are conforming to the law. Why don't the Conservatives conform to the law in terms of calling for a plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board? So that is the difference there.
Why didn't the previous Conservative
government have a plebiscite when they did away with the single-desk selling
of hogs in this province? They didn't. They gutted it, no vote there. A lot of
producers were opposed to it. Harry Enns himself will admit that good
Conservative hog producers were entirely opposed to it because that
disenfranchised the vast majority of them. When you did away with the single
desk, all those small farms went out of business. Now it is the big producers
with supply contracts to the processors, those are the ones that ended up on
top, and all those family farms out there, Mr. Speaker, were dust in the wind.
A few of them managed to hang on in rural
* (18:10)
So let's not fool ourselves here. We know
what the Conservative agenda is. It is the corporate takeover of the production
of food in this country. This is the major component of it, trying to split off
the barley producers from the wheat producers, and off you skate. We are not
fooled by that. The people of
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Well, Mr. Speaker, after what we just heard about the Interlake manifesto, I would like to read the last line in the proposed amendment under "BE IT RESOLVED": In recognition of federal authority, that it is their "decision to hold a plebiscite for the marketing of barley," and call on them "to hold a plebiscite in advance of any changes of marketing western Canadian grain, including wheat."
I don't know what about that the Member
for the Interlake does not understand, but you know it may have something to do
with the type of thinking that went on when balanced budget was instituted. The
former Member for Radisson said it was one of the most dangerous pieces of
legislation we ever had to deal with, and the Member for
So, having said that, I think that ranks
right up there with the comment that we heard from the Minister of Agriculture
(Ms. Wowchuk). You know, not only is she the Minister of Agriculture, she's the
minister of rural development. She went to
Well, I don't know how the Minister of Agriculture intends to correlate that thinking, but to me she is also sitting in a position where she was prepared to tell cattle producers, of which I am one, that we don't need a plebiscite about a checkoff. She was going to ram that down the throats of the cattlemen of this province. She was going to have a checkoff and have it directed to her pet project, which was an honourable enough project, but the duplicity of taking that approach to a checkoff for cattle, and then not being prepared to deal with this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, federal law is what the Wheat Board operates under. We have to recognize that in this debate. Remember when this Premier stood in his place about four years ago, and subsequently a number of times, and said, we are all elected in this Assembly, therefore we can set the hydro rates right here? Remember when the Premier pointed that out? Well, I think that thinking is still prevalent in this Legislature when we're talking about putting a plebiscite in place for something that hasn't yet had a proposal put in front of us as agricultural producers.
The thing that the barley producers in this country and, particularly, in this province have faced over the last few years is not exactly a resounding endorsement of the market that they've been operating in. Barley has been at an all time low in the recent half decade that we have been trying to move barley in this province, and the reason for that is we are part of a world economic structure on marketing our food stuffs. When the farmers in this province look for an opportunity for value added, I would only point to one example of which I have been the benefactor of, and something that caused a great deal of grief for a previous federal minister of agriculture, and that was when Charlie Mayer, as Minister of Agriculture, indicated that they didn't think the oats should be continued to be marketed as the sole propriety of the Wheat Board in this country.
We now have a situation where this
province produces the finest milling oats in North America, competes on the
international market, supplies oats to the biggest milling plant, probably in
North America, which is situated in Portage la Prairie. An operator in my
community, in McCreary, is able to market oats across
Bottom line, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to
keep my remarks as brief as I can so my colleagues can have the floor. The
bottom line: We are involved in a diversion tactic by the current Premier (Mr.
Doer), a diversion to try and strike farmer against farmer, farmer against
community worker, farmer against developer who wants to do value-added
investments. Rural
We are having this debate because the government of the day has failed miserably in its agricultural policy, and they would like nothing better than for us to have this debate, create a debate in rural Manitoba that doesn't reflect upon their freeze in the development of the hog industry, which is one of the brightest parts of the rural economic opportunity right now. They don't want to talk about the tax load that they have only started to deal with in any specific manner. Sticking to a rebate doesn't exactly strike a warm and cuddly feeling to those who look at their tax bill and realize they are still subject to the whim of government about whether or not that tax load will, in fact, be imposed.
Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I would simply remind the government that they are not going to be able to divert the minds of the agriculture producers into a petty debate which is better directed towards the federal government at this particular juncture, and in the end, they want to make sure that they have a voice in where their future is and where they will be marketing their products.
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I, too, just want to put briefly a few comments on the record regarding this debate and the resolutions and, specifically, the amending resolution that we put forward this afternoon. I want to read:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba make it clear its understanding that the federal government has sole authority for the change of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In recognition of federal authority in this area, we indicate our support for the federal government decision to hold a plebiscite for the marketing of barley, and call on it to hold a plebiscite in advance of any changes to marketing the western Canadian grain, including wheat.
* (18:20)
Now, having said that, I also want to put this on the record: That most of my neighbours, most of my colleagues in the organization today called KAP, and many other farm organizations, know my stand on the Canadian Wheat Board. I have been a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board, but I am equally as strong a supporter of the constitutional right of every farmer or every individual in this country to be able to make the choice of where and when and how, with whom they want to do business. That has not, and is not, the case, and that's where this current NDP government in this province and I differ greatly. I believe it is imperative that there be a clear choice given to farmers as to what choice they have in where and when they choose to market their commodities.
The Wheat Board has done a pretty fair job of marketing a commodity; as a matter of fact, two commodities: malting barley and wheat. I find it some days somewhat disconcerting when people that have very little knowledge about the agriculture situation, the economic situation, today and the marketing opportunities that are prevalent today that were never prevalent 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Today, I can sit down at my computer and get all the markets from around the world at an instant. I can press that same computer button, and I can sell my grain in that same instant, right out of my house, out of my home. Historically, during the '30s, '40s and '50s, even up to the early '80s, that simply was not possible. So there have been vast technological changes that have been brought about that make today's agriculture producer much more informed, and with capabilities and capacities that they never had before.
Now, we live in a province where diversity
has become the norm instead of the exception. When I first was elected in this
province, we had virtually no choice in how we marketed our oats. That happened
after I was elected in this area. Since then, we have built a very, very large
oat milling plant at
Why are we still doing the same thing to
our wheat? Why are we growing it, boxing it and shipping it, where? To
I take the Canola industry. When two
farmers at Altona met during the early '30s and said, you know we've got to do
something because these–I should say that these farmers had started sunflowers
in the late '20s and early '30s. They said: We have to do something to be able
to put these sunflowers on the market. So what did they do? They built a little
crushing plant at Altona. J.W. Siemens, father of Ray Siemens who later on
became the president of CanAmera Foods, he and a group of farmers, neighbours,
and my dad included put $10 each in a pot and started raising enough money to
build a small crushing plant in Altona. What have we got today? We've Bunge and
the Harrowby plant, which are two of the major crushing plants in western
If we only allowed ourselves as governing bodies, or as legislators, to take a positive view of the opportunities that we have in the marketplace today on not only wheat, but all the other commodities such as cattle, hogs, chicken, eggs, turkeys, bison, dry beans, soybeans, Canola, sunflowers, oats, barley, corn, flax, grass seed, alfalfa and flour mills. Virtually all of them are marketed outside of a marketing board. They're all marketing privately.
And here we are as legislators today
debating whether our farmers have the ability to market the one commodity
that's in discussion here today, and that's wheat. Have they got the ability to
search out markets in the world? Have they got the ability to build industries,
to develop a secondary processing industry in this province? Well, I have
enough faith in those farmers and the rest of society in
Does that mean that we should do away with the Wheat Board? Absolutely not. When Harry Enns, the then-Minister of Agriculture, decided that he would put an end to single-desk selling of pork, of hogs in this province, what did the NDP say then? They virtually said the world would come to an end if we did that, that the hog industry would suffer and die, that the hog board and the marketing board would disappear in this province. Well, what I found interesting is that today's president of the Keystone Ag Producers was at that time a member of the board of directors at Manitoba Pork. I got a call at that time, because I had been the former farm leader in this province. I got a call from Manitoba Pork and they said, can we meet with you privately, Jack. I took Denis Rocan, my colleague in this Legislature, the Member for Carman with me. He was not then the Member for Carman; that's why I said Denis Rocan. I took him with me to this meeting, and by the time we left that meeting we had decided that Manitoba Pork could constitute itself into a co-operative that would sell hogs for those farmers who didn't want to market themselves, and they would pool the results, the marketing results, as they had in the past.
What happened? Today, Manitoba Pork, I
understand, and I stand to be corrected here, but I am told that Manitoba Pork
today sells twice as many hogs as they did then, plus we have major processing
industries now in this province that employ thousands of people over and above
what we did before. Did the sky fall, as the NDP would want the people of
Does Manitoba Pork exist under a competitive kind of system? Absolutely they do. Go ask them today. Would they ever want to revert to just a single-desk sell? Go ask them. I think you'd be surprised, and those members sitting in this House who are governing today need to rethink their positions on what we want to do with value added.
I was shocked and amazed when I read the little article in the paper that said the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) would not sacrifice her wheat growers for value added. Well, value added has always added value of money in the pockets of farmers beyond the farm gate, and she's concerned that we might have to sacrifice them? Shame on our minister. That clearly indicates why our cattle producers were in the kind of situation they were in when they were left to fend for themselves during the crisis that we faced when the borders were closed.
An Honourable Member: Oh, Jack.
Mr. Penner: Totally on their own they were. The minister says, oh, Jack. Well, I'll tell you, let's analyze what happened. The farmers, the cattle producers had to come on bended knee to beg this minister and her government to do what? The first indication was, well, we'll give you I think it was $10 or $15 a head as support to buy feed. I think that was one of the first processes.
* (18:30)
Then they nickeled and dimed, and nickeled and dimed, and niggled till those farmers were at wits' end. Had it not been for the border opening, I would believe that we might have lost the major portion of our cattle industry in this province.
The NDP said: We will build an industry; we will build the processing to ensure that this kind of situation will never confront our cattle producers again. Well, let me ask how many cattle processing plants have we seen built by the NDP government? There are absolutely none because they are afraid that we might have to sacrifice the individual producer for value added. That is what the minister says: We might have to sacrifice the individual farmers. And she said: I am not going to do that. Nobody has asked her.
Look at the dry bean industry. The dry
bean industry came about when we lost our sugar beet industry, because the
Americans decided that they would cut the quotas that we were allowed to export
for sugar. So we lost our sugar industry. What did we replace it with? Dry
beans. How many dry bean plants were built in
I know the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick) says, you're full of beans. And very proud to be full of beans, because I do love beans.
However, I am going to
conclude by saying that farmers today are astute enough to be able to search
out the markets, to look for markets. Off our farms today trucks travel
regularly, B-trains and other trucks, picking up the produce that we produce on
our farm, and we export it as far as
Do we need to keep the Wheat Board? I
think we should, the same as we insisted on keeping the Hog Marketing Board. I
think the potential for growth is immense if we would do that. Allow the vote
to happen, but establish at the same time the recognition of the constitutional
right of an individual to make choices on their own, and where and when to
market. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will be totally amazed and shocked at
the growth that you will see and the secondary industry and how we develop jobs
in the
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I have been waiting with anticipation for hours now to see members
of the government stand in their place to speak in support of a resolution that
they brought forward because it was important enough to set aside the normal
business of the Legislature, namely the Throne Speech, to debate an issue
around support for farmers, Mr. Speaker. Yet we have heard, and I do not know
how many hours we have been debating this resolution, three members of the
government side of the House stand in their place and speak about how important
it is to support the farmers in the
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to wait, and
we will continue to debate, but I challenge members of this government to stand
up for the farmers in the
Mr. Speaker, there are many, many on our
side of the House that have experience in the agricultural sector. I have
listened with great interest to the comments and the discussion that we've had
today. Many of them have put forward very reasonable arguments on why the
amendment that we have put forward would address the needs and the issues of
Mr. Speaker, we also have seen a
government speak out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. On the one hand,
they want to dictate, the great dictators of what is best for Manitobans. They
want to dictate that a single marketing approach through the Wheat Board is the
only way to go. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, they say there
should be a plebiscite, and we should give farmers a say. Well, passing strange
that elected members of the Legislature on the government side that are elected
from the city of
Mr. Speaker, we've seen it time and time again. You know, it used to be Devils Lake, and every time there was an issue that was controversial like the Crocus Investment Fund that the Premier wanted to escape, the next thing you'd see are headlines on the front pages of the paper that the Premier was going to save us from foreign biota in Devils Lake. It wasn't an issue that he could address, or he could fix, or he could solve on his own, and this is another one of those issues that he can't solve. It isn't within provincial jurisdiction, but he continues to try to deflect away from what the real issues are here in our province.
Mr. Speaker, why doesn't he stand up for the 34,000 Manitobans who lost money because of the bungling of the Crocus Investment Fund? Why doesn't he stand up for those people who lost over $60 million and call a public inquiry? Why is he afraid to put his hand on the Bible and tell the truth about what he knew when? Why, when we've got crisis after crisis in our health care system, isn't he looking to try to have debate on the issues in health care that are very important for the people in the province of Manitoba?
Mr. Speaker, we have a Premier who is
trying to deflect away from the issues in
We can't be living back in the 1930s and saying what was good for farmers then is necessarily good for farmers now. Our farmers have grown. They have common sense. They have an understanding of what needs to happen, but we've got a government that is out of touch with reality. It is looking to the past and not to the future, Mr. Speaker, and, as a result, we have the kind of doublespeak that we see in both of these resolutions that have been brought forward today.
* (18:40)
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful. You know, farmers can see through what this government is trying to do. We even have an editorial in the Free Press today that sees through what this government is trying to do. It's time that we got on with the business of managing what's in the best interests of Manitobans. It's time that we got on with debating the Throne Speech, and it's time that this government got in touch with reality, got in touch with the agricultural community and did the right thing, supported our amendment and got on with trying to govern and deal with the issues that impact Manitobans, that they have some ability to influence or impact right here in this Legislature.
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
Unfortunately, the members opposite are
lacking in knowledge of the Canadian Wheat Board, following their leader down a
blind trail. I think we know where the NDP stands on rural issues in
We should be debating some of the serious issues, real issues. We have an inadequate CAIS program that farmers are fighting and struggling with. The Throne Speech alluded to a $10-million increase in funding for the CAIS program, but there is no real mention of really getting back and understanding the basic problems with the CAIS program. That's where we should be. We should be debating serious, real issues like that.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
We should be talking about our rural
economy. Our rural economy is struggling, as we know, and the members talked at
length about value added. Those are the kinds of initiatives that will keep
rural
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it's time that the NDP have a look at where they're headed. They've got two different agendas on the Order Paper today, one where they want people to have a vote, the second one where the resolution says that they want a single desk in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. We're just asking where is it? The NDP want to have it both ways.
What we're saying as a party is that the
people of
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we've seen this sort
of political manoeuvring in different areas. We've seen the government come out
and take away some of the issues in regard to the environment, in fact where
they've just come out with what we'll call a moratorium on the hog industry
here in
I want to quote from the Brandon Sun. It was actually a letter to the editor appearing in yesterday's paper. I'm just going to quote a portion of this particular letter to the editor. It's an exact example of what we're dealing with here today in terms of these NDP resolutions. I will quote from this particular letter to the editor: In closing, I would simply note that the most charitable interpretation of this government's action here is that it represents nothing more than a political parlour trick, a cynical sleight of hand which is explicitly designed to defuse the hog issue until after the upcoming election.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is clearly what we're seeing when this resolution is brought forward. The Canadian Wheat Board, the NDP are trying to take the real issues off the table and deflect from the real issues that we should be debating in the House. It's deplorable, and I think Manitobans are starting to see through what this NDP government is doing, what their agenda is.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for your time, and I'll turn it over to my colleagues.
Mr. Ron Schuler (
I'd like to point out to members opposite
and, in particular, to the Premier that there are 300-plus members of
Parliament that have been elected to go to
You know, we're still waiting for a resolution. This group of governing MLAs next is going to come up with resolutions trying to tell the Soviet Union how they should run their affairs, how Mexico should run their affairs, how Japan should run their affairs, how Europe should run their affairs, anything, anything, but focussing on what's going on here at home.
In fact, I'd like to point out one issue, perhaps, that we could be focussing on, and that is the issue of an unsafe, crumbling bridge that is 44 years old, was never intended to take the traffic that it has got, and it's been declared unsafe by the government's own civil servants. What does this government do? I'm glad you're sitting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I'm going to tell you. They tore down a bridge built not even 10 years ago, a brand-new bridge, shiny and clean and sleek. It's a beautiful bridge.
An Honourable Member: And safe.
Mr. Schuler: It is a safe bridge, and it's twinned, and it is meant to take traffic for another 30, 40 years, and they tore it down. There's even a picture in the government brochure where they happily describe this bridge being torn down. They're happy about it. They tore down a new bridge, but it gets better. Guess what they built in its place? Another new bridge.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm glad you're
sitting down because, in place of a new bridge, they built a new bridge, a new
bridge. Can you imagine? We have bridges in
An Honourable Member: And tears it down.
Mr. Schuler: –and replaces it. Can you imagine? That is the length and breadth and depth of this NDP government, and we have to tolerate it day in, day out. We drive on pathetic streets, on roads that need roadwork, on streets that shake the gas tanks off the semi-trucks, and this government finds the newest infrastructure, rips it down and builds exactly the same thing in its place. That's called NDP infrastructure, and Manitobans know it's time for a change.
Why are we not debating these issues, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Why are we not debating Crocus? Thirty-three thousand Manitobans bilked out of their life savings by an incompetent government that should have known better, that should have been on watch, that should have been standing on guard. Instead, what do they do? They tell federal politicians how they should debate their issues, how they should deal with their boards and commissions.
I have advice for them. I have good advice for them. Worry about Crocus. Don't worry about the Wheat Board. You've got enough in Crocus to last you a lifetime. Instead, what are they doing? They're worrying about the Wheat Board; create a diversion. It's shameful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
* (18:50)
I am going to give one more example, and then I am going to allow more of my colleagues to speak because, clearly, there isn't the guts nor the jam on the other side to get up and speak to this issue; they know they are wrong on it.
They want to talk about democracy. They want to talk about democracy and votes. I remember the school board amalgamation where punitively they went after school boards in River East, Transcona and in Sunrise School Division. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the parents went to court and wanted their voices heard, and what did this government do? Undercut all of those parents and passed the law that said no matter what the courts rule, it is irrelevant because the Legislature will be supreme on that, and the parents stood in tears because they weren't even allowed to speak. They weren't allowed to be heard on their school division, and who did they hurt in the end? They hurt the children. Where the school divisions are supposed to be primarily about their children's education, did they care about democracy? Did they put anything to a plebiscite? Did they have the guts or the jam to stand up and say we will let the people vote on this? Not one of them stood up and stood for that, not one.
Then they stand in this House and try to give us a lecture on how voting should or shouldn't be done. Even worse, they try to tell the federal politicians how they should be running their boards and commissions, when they can't even run a Popsicle stand with any kind of integrity. We need no lessons from those on that side. In fact, the guillotine is waiting for them, and that will be the next election because Manitobans are going to look at this kind of nonsense and are going to say: We elected 57 MLAs to go to the Manitoba Legislature and deal with the issues at hand in the province of Manitoba and not be debating hour after hour on things that concern federal politicians.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we should be here debating a Throne Speech and then moving on to legislation, neither of which they even want to debate. They are not even getting up and talking about this issue. Shame on them, and I suggest that they look at this amendment and agree with it.
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I am astounded, as are many members on this side of the House, that we are the ones standing up here today where members opposite sit there and bury their noses and don't even pay attention to what is being debated here because they really don't care. They really don't care.
I want to commend the Member for River
East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for speaking up. She is a sitting MLA from the city of
We have experts on this side. We have the
Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) who stood up and told us all the intricacies
that he knows about the Wheat Board and about farming issues. We have the
Member for
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Wheat Board in its day was appropriate, but today things need to change. We need to embrace that change, and we need to allow farmers the choice where they want to market their wheat, where they want to market their barley. We know they have a choice where they want to market their hogs. We know that they want and they should have a choice on the future of their organization.
I have spoken to farmers about this issue. They want a choice. It should be their choice. I have to put this in perspective for some of the urban members. If you were going to sell your house and you had to market it through one housing real estate board and you didn't have the choice where you were going to sell your house or who you were going to sell it to, maybe then you would understand that choice is important to you. How you want to deal with your own property, the rights of property, and how to deal with your own property is what farmers want, and they want to have that ability.
What this government is doing is they are
just distracting from all of the failures that they have done in the last seven
years. I think they're tired and they're out of steam. I don't know why because
they haven't done anything in seven years. But they've bungled the BSE crisis.
For two years producers were stuck with cattle that they could not find
slaughter capacity for, and the industry struggled. We see contradictions from
this government in the pork industry. On the one hand, they support a
$28-million incentive package to promote the hog industry and the hog
processing plant in the city of
I've spoken to a young person, a young hog producer from the Rosenort area who came to this country a year ago to purchase a hog operation. He said he came to this Legislature; he jumped through hoops to make sure that he would comply with all the regulations that this government has put in place to harm the farmers in this province. He did all of that. Then he went into his business and, one year later, now he is saying, what am I going to do? What am I going to do? Now, they're telling me I can't expand my business. What does that mean for my son who wants to take over the business from me? What does this tell people who want to come and establish industry in this province? On one hand, they say one thing; on the other hand, they say another, and it's like this with this particular issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I've spoken to another farmer in the Elie area who says, why can I not sell my wheat to the flour mill that's right down the corner from me? Why can't I do that freely? He wants choice of where he's going to sell and market his product, his property. This government is just stalling and deflecting from the issues of the day. As we've heard before, we have federal politicians to deal with federal jurisdictional policies. We have members of the Legislature here in this province to deal with issues that we can deal with in this House, the issues of the day, as we mentioned, the Crocus Fund, the child welfare system. We have issues to talk about today, but this government has no agenda. They're stalling their own agenda. They won't debate their own resolution. They don't have an agenda because they're stalling their own legislation. They won't let us get on with debating the Throne Speech. They've proposed legislation, but they won't even get on to that, so when are we going to debate that?
* (19:00)
They're just going to go and stall for three weeks, these lazy socialists, all they want to do. There are burning issues that we need to debate in this province and this government refuses. Instead, they want to deflect away from the issues that are important that we can deal with in this Legislature. We don't have the jurisdiction. It's within the federal jurisdiction, so there is no real point to this except political pandering at its absolute worst by this government. They are embarking on this because they want to pit farmer against farmer. They want to pit neighbour against neighbour. What is the purpose of that? What is the purpose of that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I said, farmers want choice. We want them to have a say. We want to listen to the farmers. We want to get on with debating the issues that we can reasonably deal with here in this Legislature, in this province, which fall under provincial jurisdiction. I say: Let's get on with this business, and let's support this amendment. I support this amendment. Let's all support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I, too, would like to put a few comments on the record regarding the resolution that has been put forward by my colleague, and simply indicate right at the outset that the members opposite, the government has indicated that we are not in support of a Canadian Wheat Board. Yes, we are. We are supporting it, but I think, as my colleagues have so eloquently already indicated, that we're looking at enhancing–enhancing. We are not looking at taking away but rather enhancing the work that they in fact could be doing.
But I do find it interesting that the members opposite have been constantly talking, and the Premier (Mr. Doer) today was talking, about democracy, about the opportunity for giving producers the opportunity to make a decision. On the other hand, though, he got up and he said–and I think Hansard will clearly indicate this tomorrow–that we need to allow democracy to take place. However, we say it to be single desk or nothing.
Now, this was the Premier speaking. I don't understand that. That's a contradiction. When he goes ahead and he indicates, and he said, it's single desk or nothing, when before that he had indicated that there should be a vote given to those producers that are out there, that they in fact would be able to indicate their desire. So, when we talk about democracy, I think we need to be very careful what we are saying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also am speaking today as a producer, one who has been involved with the Canadian Wheat Board, with exporting, with value-added industry, for a number of years. I just want to give the example of, and I think it was the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), who indicated a while back that, when oats were taken out of the Wheat Board and allowed for another market to take place, at that point the price of oats was 34 cents a bushel. Within a few months, it jumped and it was well over a dollar. Of course, the rest, you could say, is history.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
But what has happened is
that there has been value added to that product, and today we have Can-Oat in
Mr. Speaker, just to put this into
context, just to give you an illustration of how right now the Canadian Wheat
Board is operating–and this is specific to the value that producers get for
their product–let's take all the teachers. I think this is something that the
Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) would understand. About 12,000 teachers
are in the
An Honourable Member: 14,000.
Mr. Dyck: Okay, 14,000. Thank you. I stand corrected. But he would also be able to possibly give me the answer as to the total dollars that are spent in education. [interjection]
All right. So now take that, and that
would be not only salaries. That would be everything else, right? So take the
salaries that are out there. You divide 14,000 into the salaries. Now, that's
what every teacher would be earning; they would all be on the same level
throughout the
Now, what we're going to do is we're going to pay them 60 percent of that salary. Right now we'll pay them 60 percent, and then at the end of the year, if there's a little bit of money left over, maybe then we'll pay a little more. But that is what you've got to be satisfied with now. [interjection] The Minister of Education doesn't understand. He doesn't listen too well.
The point I am making is this is the way the Canadian Wheat Board operates. They say that this is the price that everyone will get. We will give you 60 percent and then at the end of the day if a little money is left over, then that's what you will get. I'll give you another example. The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) doesn't understand the one about the teachers. Let's take the one of 57 MLAs in the province here. We know that there are 57 MLAs. We know what the total value of the salaries is, including the Premier (Mr. Doer). What we would do now is we would take the total salaries, divide that by 57, and that's what everyone would get.
The point is, all I am doing is drawing a parallel to what's taking place with the Wheat Board. I am saying that we should add value to this, that there should be incentive to it. I just believe that it is important that we recognize the fact that what they are debating and what we are looking at are certainly different. But, again, I would just like to indicate to the members opposite and encourage them to look at our resolution.
The resolution simply says, and I will read it.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba make it clear its understanding that the federal government has sole authority for changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In recognition of federal authority in this area we indicate our support for the federal government's decision to hold a plebiscite for the marketing of barley and call on it to hold a plebiscite in advance of any changes to the marketing of western Canadian grain, including wheat.
This is what they're going to be voting against. On the other hand, they have said this is exactly what they want to see, so I don't understand it.
Now, the last point I want to make is that certainly it's a diversionary tactic by the government to put their resolution on the table today. It is certainly not within their jurisdiction to debate this issue. [interjection] Well, the minister indicates that it sure worked. Yes, certainly. We are debating the issue here, but we should be looking after the issues that are current, the fact that this government on Crocus, that they have dropped the ball totally. This is what they should be concentrating their efforts on.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to put a few comments on the record, and I would encourage members opposite to vote for this resolution. I believe it is the one that they believe is the one that should go forward. Please, I would encourage you to do that. Thank you.
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I would like to speak in support of the amendment put forward by
the MLA for
Mr. Speaker, playing politics by calling for a provincial plebiscite on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board shows this government's desperate need to try to draw attention away from seven years of provincial neglect of the agricultural industry. I have been a representative of the Minnedosa constituency now for three and a half years, and I would say that during this period of time I have seen this government do very little to provide supports for the agriculture sector. I would say that they've sunk to a new low by deciding that after all these years that they know best, that they know how to best represent the views of the constituency. [interjection] They will. I believe that. The Member for Gimli (Mr. Bjornson) says the voters will decide, and, you know, they will decide. They will decide and I think that some people won't mind seeing the door hit them on the back on their way out of the Chamber on the other side of the House.
* (19:10)
There are producers in this province who would like the marketing choice, and there are others, Mr. Speaker, in this province who would like the single-desk market for their grain. There is a diversity of opinions and it is a divisive issue. I believe that this government, to take the stand that they have, shows how little they really do know or appreciate about our agriculture producers.
The inappropriate meddling of the Wheat Board issue just shows that the NDP would prefer to play politics with the farmers' lives than work toward improving their lives. In talking to the producers in my constituency they are still recovering from this government's inability to lead in the area of the BSE. Cattle producers are still recovering from the devastation and lack of leadership from this government in the area of helping producers continue on and continue to have a quality of life and to continue to thrive in an industry that they believe in.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP's plebiscite will ultimately be irrelevant to the issue of the vote. They are demanding a vote on the wheat which the federal government has clearly indicated it is not up for discussion. So, for the government to be putting these resolutions forward with really not a clear understanding of what they are asking, continues to show this government's inability to understand and appreciate the agriculture producer. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk) informed producers that those growing wheat next year should plant and market it through the Wheat Board. I guess I question the minister's comment because I believe that she is dictating and appears to be interfering with the farmers' marketing rights.
A provincial plebiscite will have no legal
standing and contributes absolutely nothing to any decision making by the
federal government, Mr. Speaker. So again, they are playing politics with the
issue, and if the members opposite would spend some time in rural
If the NDP government is intent on spending money on behalf of farmers, why doesn't it spend it on assistance for farmers for once rather than waste it on redundant legally irrelevant opinion polls? I think that statement speaks volumes to this government's way of doing business in this province.
Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the Premier
(Mr. Doer) talked about the plebiscite and he said: Here in
Through the spring session, Mr. Speaker, I
want to remind the government, that we had asked for a vote on whether to
collect the mandatory $2 per head cattle checkoff and the NDP government
refused. So it would appear that they pick and choose when they believe that
farmers have an opportunity to have an opinion or to have a vote on what's in
their best interest. At that time, based on results outside of this
government's opinion poll, 92 percent of
An Honourable Member: They asked for a choice.
Mrs. Rowat: The minister is saying they asked for a choice. Well, yes, they asked for a choice, but this minister ignored their request for that. She ignored their request to have a vote. So, you know, she speaks out of both sides of her mouth, and I believe that this minister really should have learned from her experience.
You know, I heard a saying the other day where it said that as you grow older, you don't necessarily grow wisher, you just get older, and I guess the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) should take heed. For all the years that she's served in this Legislature, she has obviously just gotten older. She hasn't gotten wiser. She hasn't gotten stronger in her vision, Mr. Speaker. She has just gotten older, so I think that she may take heed and pay attention that respect and wisdom do not come naturally to her.
An Honourable Member: Unlike some of the other members, right?
Mrs. Rowat: Yeah, right.
The NDP government, obviously, is doing its own little politics here, Mr.
Speaker, and I believe that, in talking to the agriculture marketing group out
of the
Also, the local economic development groups within the Westman region have spoken about options or possibilities that have gone to the wayside because they haven't been given the option of purchasing grain directly from producers, and how, you know, the possibility of a pasta plant in the Westman region had to be just put to the wayside because of the lack of options available in buying grain locally, Mr. Speaker.
So there are a number of issues, and it is a divisive issue. I believe that this government, by taking a stand in putting farmers against one another, again shows that they're a cynical bunch, Mr. Speaker, and it is obviously going to have to be decided on in the upcoming election. I believe that this Premier (Mr. Doer) had indicated today that he wanted to confirm an election won’t be called tomorrow, but I encourage him to. If he is going to call any type of vote, that is the vote he should call. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I thank the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) for allowing me to put just a couple of words on the record with respect to this issue, Mr. Speaker. I know that there are other members that are looking forward to putting their comments, including the Member for Steinbach, on the record, so I'll keep my comments brief.
* (19:20)
Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at this government for so many different reasons. Not only did they bring forward two obviously conflicting resolutions that are printed on the same page in the Order Paper today, it is unbelievable that they would not only do that, but now, after they say that this is such an important issue that should be debated, no one on their side of the House is getting up to debate this very important issue at all. I think it's appalling, Mr. Speaker. I think that members opposite, if they see this as such an important issue, if they see this as a resolution that should be passed before this House, then you would think that they would at least get up and speak in favour of their own resolution. But they don't. They don't because they realize, they know that this issue is out of their jurisdiction. They know that this is a federal issue, but what they're trying to do is play politics with farmers in our rural communities. They're trying to play politics with this extremely divisive issue, and I think it's absolutely appalling that members opposite would take this opportunity in the Manitoba Legislature to play politics with farmers' lives. I think that is absolutely atrocious.
On the one hand, the first resolution that we debated here today in the Manitoba Legislature took a very, I'll say dictatorial top-down approach of Big Brother. I know best; I know better than the farmers about how to sell my wheat, barley and so on. That's what they say: We know best; we know what's right. I quote right from the resolution: "make clear its support for the CWB's single desk." Well, if that's the case, then the next resolution, well, what does it say? Oh, but we better give the farmers a say.
Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. You either take the dictatorial approach or you take the more democratic approach which is something that we on this side of the House are very much in favour of. We believe that the farmers should have a say, and we have said that clearly in our resolution. I'd like to make it clear right now that if members opposite choose to vote against our resolution, they are choosing to vote for their dictatorial top-down Big Brother approach to this very important issue.
I say shame on them, Mr. Speaker, because that is not what's in the best interests of the farmers in our communities. I say shame on them and I encourage them to do the right thing and support our resolution.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I had a bit of a difficulty getting up there because my colleague from Tuxedo wanted to speak. I tried to rush up because she's a difficult act to follow. She has put on the record some very, very good points.
You know, I'm always proud to be a Progressive Conservative but probably never more so than tonight as I have listened to the comments and the very valid arguments from a different perspective, some different areas, in saying why it is that we should support this amendment.
I would say to the members opposite, to the government, that you don't have to. You don't all have to follow a line with the lead duck there, the Premier (Mr. Doer), trying to follow along. You can actually have some of your own thoughts and some of your own ideas because soon, probably not too far in the distance, we'll be out on the campaign trail, and you might actually have to have some of your own ideas. You might actually have to tell your constituents what you stand for.
We know that there's a lot of members opposite who are going to be campaigning against strong Progressive Conservatives who have strong ideas about the future, who don't look 70, a hundred years back, to how things used to be done but who are progressive and looking to the future about how things should be done in the future because that's what it's about.
I would say, in particular, to the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith), the Member for Brandon West should be concerned about the formidable vision that he'll be seeing in the next election. He needs to stand up for his own constituents and say, I won't just be a yes man for the Premier; I'll actually say what I believe for my constituents.
I say as we near the vote on this amendment, there's a great deal of irony. [interjection] Well, I used to say things about the Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). I know that I kind of converted him at the last crime meeting I had in his constituency, where his constituents were saying there's no justice in this province and they looked over at the Member for Burrows and said he's part of the problem. So I think we're already in good stead in that constituency based on what I saw just a couple of weeks ago when I visited his riding and talked to his constituents.
But I would say there's a great deal of irony here as we approach this vote, and it will be very interesting to see what the members do. First of all, it's sort of ironic that they're stalling their own Throne Speech, and perhaps I shouldn't be surprised because of the nature of that Throne Speech and how little there was for real Manitobans. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that they don't want to debate that Throne Speech as we go forward, but you know they're also selling legislation.
When we started off this little blip of a session, Mr. Speaker, we only had about seven days to debate legislation. I remember at one point, and it must have been in June or something, where the Premier was saying there are important pieces of legislation like the whistle-blower legislation, and now he doesn't want to debate it any more. He certainly doesn't want to talk about Crocus. We know he's been dodging and deflecting like a bug on a windshield trying to avoid getting hit on that one.
But more clearly we know that with only seven days to debate legislation they burnt one day. Fifteen percent of the days to debate legislation have now been set aside to deal with federal issues. If it wasn't for us and the willingness to go later tonight, they would have probably burnt tomorrow too, and then 30 percent of the days to deal with legislation would have been gone.
It is strange that a government is so
ashamed of its own record, so ashamed. I understand why the Minister of
Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) is ashamed; she's got a lot to be ashamed about. But
I would say to those members opposite that they shouldn't be, you know, at this
stage of the game so ashamed they don't want to debate their own legislative
agenda, that they'll stall their legislative agenda. But there are other
ironies. You know, you turn on the TV and hear ads about "Spirited
Energy," and one of the ads talks about how in
On the one hand, it talks about the ability to go out, Manitobans to compete in an open market, but here in the Legislature its a different story. What an irony. On the one hand, when they're saying one thing with ads that they're spending millions of dollars on, but they're arguing for something completely different. Completely different.
The Minister of Agriculture should ask herself about other ironies, the contradictions. I say to the Minister of Agriculture, on the one hand, they put on the Order Paper a move for a plebiscite, but then they turn around and they say we're going to actually tell you how you should vote. Well, what kind of a vote is that? What sort of a democracy is that where the government says this is how you should vote but let's have that vote. That's not a voice at all. That's not a voice at all and that's certainly not what farmers deserve, but now, of course, they're asking–we're going to find out I'm sure in a few minutes whether or not this government will vote against this motion or this amendment for a plebiscite. Are you going to vote against a plebiscite? We're going to find out.
An Honourable Member: They were for it before they were against it.
Mr. Goertzen: They were
for it before they were against it, and we're going to find out very clearly in
a few minutes. We'll watch as minister after minister stands up to see if
they're going to vote down on the plebiscite. If they vote against that
plebiscite, we'll clearly go into rural
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this resolution and to the amendment.
First I'd like to pay a short tribute to
the Canadian Wheat Board and the role it has played in the
* (19:30)
It is our view that allowing
Removing the single-desk marketing
capacity for wheat from the Canadian Wheat Board is on the table. Indeed, it is
creating some significant uncertainty for those involved in the grain industry
in
Uncertainty is bad for business. Let me
give you an example, and I would speak now to the huge uncertainty which has
been created by the present NDP government in the hog industry. The uncertainty
in the hog industry is great because we have a situation where we have a
government which was working very hard in promoting the expansion of the hog
industry and then, all of a sudden, recently has announced it wants a
moratorium on construction of new hog barns. There was no warning. There was
just all of a sudden a stop, an edict, an end to the expansion of the hog
industry, and I know many in the hog industry who are very upset at the NDP
government. They see this as the dumbest thing that the NDP government has
done, and they have done this and it is dumb because it's creating uncertainty
in the industry. People who are ready to invest and build hog barns, or invest
in other ways in the industry now are very unsure about what they are going to
do because of the uncertainty created by this NDP government. Indeed, I suspect
quite a number will now move their investments into
I note that the uncertainty in the hog
industry is particularly great because we have no idea when the moratorium will
be lifted, or indeed if it will ever be lifted under this government. They've
given no time line as to when it might be lifted–in six months, a year, two
years, three years, who knows. At the pace which they move, there is a lot of
uncertainty, and it is not helping the people in the hog industry. Yes, the
government should have made sure that the environmental issues were being well
looked after. Yes, the government should have made sure that there is much less
phosphorus going into
The uncertainty is not just in terms of
farmers, it is in terms of the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, it is in
terms of the future of many other businesses which relate in some way to the
grain industry. It is uncertainty with respect to the future of the
As Liberals, we agree
with some of the things that the Conservatives have said about the bungling by
the NDP. We agree that the presence of an NDP government has been a detriment
to the development of business in
That, of course, is why
we are encouraged when we hear from Wheat Board directors like Bill Toews,
who'd been elected by farmers, that he and other directors are aggressively
pursuing changes to the Canadian Wheat Board within the single-desk mandate in
order to promote the development of value-added industries. We see that
value-added industries–and, we believe, that value-added industries can grow
and develop rapidly in
We agree with Bill Toews that the Canadian
Wheat Board with its single desk has to be aggressive in how it promotes value
added, because such value-added opportunities are important. They're important
for farmers, they're important for rural communities, and they're important for
all of
But we come to a bottom line. We have supported the single desk for wheat because we believe, at this point, it is the best option. But it must be farmers who decide. Farmers must be able to vote, and farmers, we believe, must be able to vote on both wheat and barley. That is our position. Farmers should vote on both wheat and barley at the same time. Let's clear the uncertainty.
I would add one more
comment. You know, the NDP in calling for this vote are pretending to support
the great supporters of democracy. If so, why did the NDP not support a vote by
cattle producers on the levy of $2-a-head that they were proposing, a mandatory
levy? The NDP, when it comes to provincial issues, don't seem to support
democracy very well, but when it's a federal matter, they're all for a vote. We
recognize that the NDP are pretty hypocritical, but, in spite of this, our view
is that democracy should be supported, whether it is federal or provincial. We
should be supporters of democracy because it's a very important way of making
decisions, a very important way of involving farmers or others in decision
making and to get better results for all people in
So that, Mr. Speaker, is our position. We see that we should have the vote soon on both wheat and barley, and that the vote should be at the same time because that would be the optimum that can be achieved.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the proposed amendment of the
honourable Member for
Do the members wish to have the amendment read?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, okay.
THAT the
resolution be amended by deleting all of the words after the first word
"WHEREAS" and replacing them with the following:
the Canadian Wheat Board has been the sole marketer for barley and wheat for western Canadian farmers; and
WHEREAS a strong Canadian Wheat Board should continue to play a role in marketing western Canadian grains; and
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Some members have asked to have the amendment read and those members should have the right to hear the amendment, so I ask the co-operation of all honourable members.
WHEREAS in light of changing markets, products and economic conditions many western Canadian farmers believe that more marketing flexibility would improve opportunities for marketing grain, and create the opportunity for value-added businesses; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has already taken positive steps to increase some marketing flexibility in response to requests from western Canadian grain producers; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board is governed by federal legislation; and
WHEREAS in exercising its jurisdiction the federal government has decided to hold a plebiscite of western farmers on the marketing of barley; and
WHEREAS the federal government has stated that no changes are currently being proposed for the marketing of wheat.
* (19:40)
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba make clear its understanding that the federal government has sole authority for changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In recognition of federal authority in this area, we indicate our support for the federal government's decision to hold a plebiscite for the marketing of barley and call on it to hold a plebiscite in advance of any changes to the marketing of western Canadian grain, including wheat.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in support of the motion, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the motion, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Official Opposition House Leader): A recorded vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been called for, call in the members.
The question before the
House is the amendment moved by the honourable Member for
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cullen, Cummings, Derkach, Driedger, Dyck, Eichler, Goertzen, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Penner, Rowat, Schuler, Stefanson, Taillieu.
Nays
Aglugub, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Brick, Caldwell, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Gerrard, Irvin-Ross, Jennissen, Jha, Korzeniowski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Reid, Rondeau, Santos, Smith, Struthers, Swan, Wowchuk.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 15, Nays 30.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: We will move on to the main motion moved by the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk). Are there any speakers?
Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to be able to speak here in this House about such an important issue for farmers in Manitoba and, of course, when you look at the resolution that the government has brought forward, I wanted to add a few things to what I'd said earlier about this resolution and that is the one particular issue that is so pertinent to it is the misfacts that they've got in their own resolution, and I just have to make the comment that when you've got–
An Honourable Member: NDP math.
Mr. Maguire: Yes, NDP math.
–a claim of $220-million
contribution to the provincial GDP from a single-desk monopoly, Mr. Speaker,
and yet the minister claims that there's only $10 to $15 a tonne benefit from
having the monopoly, then you'd have to have this 15 to 22 million tonnes of
production a year in Manitoba alone. Now, you can't get that from the fact in
her own resolution. She says there are 3 million acres of Wheat Board grains.
Well, you know, this is pretty tremendous math all right. If that was true, 220
million benefit and around three million tonnes at a tonne to the acre of
wheat, 37 bushels an acre, last year's wheat production average, you would have
a $73 a tonne benefit in
* (19:50)
Now, you know, of course, we will give her
the benefit of the doubt, and maybe there is some spin-off on this, but even
these numbers are wrong because there's a much bigger benefit than $220 million
in
It is such a hypocritical position for this government to be in to vote in favour of a single-desk resolution as they did in the first one and then say: We're going to have a plebiscite, but the only real answer you can have is to have a single desk. Well, you've determined that this government's biased in the fact that the only way that you can see a future is with your blinders on and go back to 1930, like the minister pointed out in her opening comments, when the Wheat Board was formed. I've already gone into the good reasons why the board was formed, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that, as we have changed over time and as farmers have now got access to, basically, freedom of information that's out there today on their Internet sites as well, they don't load grain in a wagon box, haul it five miles to an elevator and take what they can get for it at that time anymore. They market the product on their home site, even if it is wheat that's going to the monopoly, Mr. Speaker, even if it is wheat that's there today because they can't afford to take this product that they're spending hundreds of dollars an acre in production and dare take it to an elevator that they don't already know what they're going to get for it. That means that there is some negotiation even today in monopoly grains because they deal with the company as to whether or not that company will give them a break on the freight rate, maybe they'll give them a break on the handling charges, maybe they'll give them a break for doing business with them on their fertilizer supplies, for a certain volume of product that'll come into their elevator. There are all kinds of loss leaders that are out there today in a competitive marketplace that the grain companies are already working with the Wheat Board in relation to the volume of exports and the volume of grain that that elevator company is going to buy from that particular individual farmer.
Mr. Speaker, so with all of these
competitive issues out there in the marketplace today, it's so ironic that the
board would say: We don't want to give farmers any more choices. Or that the
government, I should say, of the day in
An Honourable Member: Let the producers decide.
Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker–
An Honourable Member: Exactly.
Mr. Maguire: The irony of
this is, Mr. Speaker, we just voted on a resolution, a fine amendment from the
Member for
As I said in my earlier comments, would the minister be wanting a vote on other grains if the government of the day federally had already decided to put them in the board? I doubt it. We wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be here. She wouldn't be here.
An Honourable Member: Explain it to her.
Mr. Maguire: Well, if you have to explain that one to her–it's such an ironic situation to be in when farmers out there today, young farmers are getting education, they're going to university, they're getting degrees in commerce, degrees in business management, degrees in soil and plant science, degrees in marketing, Mr. Speaker, and then the government of Manitoba is telling them they can't market their own grain. Shame.
My predecessors in this House, and I am
proud of the fact that they brought in new-generation crop legislation in
So, fortunately, today we're in a
situation where farmers can actually haul grain across. Actually, if you owned
land on both sides of the border at one time, you couldn't take the grain from
Mr. Speaker, this government today is saying that those farmers out there today, the young farmers–and I'm respective of the farmers that are 70 years old out there today as well, 65 to 70 years old. I'm very respective of their view and their right to be able to continue to use a strong Wheat Board because I want to put it on the record that this side of the House knows that the Wheat Board will be there long after the grain companies and the farmers of today are probably gone. I have every confidence in the board's ability, with some of the players that they have in that institution, to be able to be competitive in world markets, to be able to offer contracts to farmers, so that the farmers will continue to want to contract with the board. But it has to be with the opportunity for farmers to be able to have a choice in how these grains are marketed.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has said, oh, they put this big right-wing, if you will, pro-choice group together from the federal government to put a panel in place to come down with a decision that was already made. I don't suppose if you would've taken a poll for one instant that this Minister of Agriculture would have ever thought that that committee, if it had the views that she is saying it has, would have ever allowed for the opportunity of other grains to be marketed by the Wheat Board other than wheat and barley, and it did. It would have never given that institution the opportunity to buy elevators or to buy infrastructure at the coasts to move grain into ships. It would have never allowed them to buy ships, which it does. It would have never allowed them to buy rail cars, which it still does. It would have never allowed them to get into value-added processing, which it does, if she'd just take the time to read it, as opposed to the Wheat Board's own view and maybe that of some of the groups that are out there today as well that indicated, well, we need to have a monopoly or we'll do our own thing but we need a billion and a half dollars from the federal government.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is why we will be voting against this resolution that the minister has here that calls on the federal government to hold this fair producer plebiscite. We're voting against it because of the hypocrisy of this government. One minute you've got to have a single desk and the next minute the only way you can go is to have a plebiscite as long as it's in our favour.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is consistent with a number of other things that the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) brought up earlier, and maybe I have mentioned a few of them as well. Our leader mentioned them and many of my colleagues have mentioned them in the debate today as well. The $2 tax on cattle was such a hypocritical position and then, oh, they gave farmers a choice.
You know, the idea of
land-use planning back in Bill 12, I think it was, that we debated through the
summer two years ago, gave municipalities the right to have land-use planning
in Manitoba. They brought in the toughest phosphorous regulations in
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture
(Ms. Wowchuk) can't talk out of both sides of her mouth as she's been doing in
this House for seven years. She's got to come to the point where she's willing
to speak on behalf of farmers and represent them in
* (20:00)
For these reasons and the hypocritical
numbers that are in her own resolution, I believe you could go on and on for
hours on this, but I think we need to bring this to a close. We need to make
sure that farmers of
But she goes on to say–and this is before the House of Commons Agriculture Committee of Canada: "I don't want them to be sacrificed for valued added." Well, I would have a concern as she might have meant in this statement. They might have had a concern that these industries could take advantage of farmers, but I would say to you today that these farmers today, whether they're senior farmers or whether they're the young farmers coming out of college, have a handle on the value of their industry to their farm and what their investment is in that farm, or they wouldn't be farming any longer.
Mr. Speaker, this is a hypocritical view
of the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) to go out and say we are going to
add value. We are going to do it through biodiesel. We are going to do it
through ethanol. We are going to do it through wind farming, which would be a
benefit to farmers on a lease basis for even the windmills in
You know, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well a number of the farmers that were named by my colleague from Minnedosa tonight in this House and others around the province that all of my colleagues know, and I think even from a number of the members of the government side of the House who have been trying to get value added in some of their areas and probably having a hard time doing it, winning those debates even in caucus, that this minister's comment before the House of Commons Agriculture Committee does not represent the issues of rural Manitobans in this province. We may even have to ask for her resignation at some point if she doesn't come to the view of how you can actually help these farmers get into these industries and capture some of that value added beyond their farm gate because the future in agriculture today is very well managed in the production efforts of these farmers, whether it is in grain or livestock.
But, Mr. Speaker, this
government does not know how to allow farmers, or even put tax incentives or
incentives in place to allow farmers to invest in the industry beyond their
farm gates. So, with those few comments, I just want to close debate on this
issue, or at least end my comments on it, and we will be voting against this
resolution because I think there is just no issue–[interjection] The Member for Brandon West (Mr. Smith) is going on
in his seat tonight as well, and there's a new flax plant being built. It just
broke the ground on the east side of
You know, Mr. Speaker, the Member for
Brandon West hasn't had an initial thought in regard to new investments in that
area in regard to value-added industries for agriculture. I'm not saying that
there aren't new things happening in
So, with those words, I am going to end my comments, and I urge all members in this House to vote this resolution down.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, the custom in this House is usually one where, when members of the opposition speak, the next turn goes to the government side, but as we saw in the debate earlier on the amendment to this resolution, the government is afraid to stand in its place to speak on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, it seems like the Member for Brandon West, the Minister of Competitiveness, has lots to say, from his chirp from his seat, but he cannot stand up in his place and put anything on the record because, of course, he has very little to put on the record.
Mr. Speaker, something else that was quite appalling a minute ago was the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) who said that she called for us to support a plebiscite. Now, I don't know whether she can't read or whether she can't hear, but if she had read the amendment to the resolution, it calls for a plebiscite on barley and to support the federal government in terms of their call for a plebiscite, and also to have a plebiscite on wheat when that issue arose.
So, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what kind of game this minister is playing, but it is not one that farmers will look at with any kind of respect. If this is what we have for leadership from this government on the issue of agriculture, it is no wonder that our farmers are in difficulty in Manitoba because there is no leadership. There is no guidance. There is no advocate for the farmers in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, our side of the House will continue to advocate for the best interests of farmers. We will continue to speak out on issues on behalf of farmers because that is who sends us here to speak on their behalf. When a resolution like this comes up, I am proud that most of the members on this side of the House spoke to the amendment on this resolution. I want to thank them for that.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we are also speaking on the resolution itself, which we don't see the government speaking to. If you agree with the resolution, then why don't you stand up and put a few remarks on the record to substantiate why you agree with the resolution. But you have no argument, you have no position.
When I look at the Member for Dauphin, the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers), who has a number of farmers in his area, in the next few short months he will be going out there to ask for their support, yet he can't point to a single page in Hansard where he has stood up in this House and spoken on this resolution or in resolutions that relate to agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Yet he is supposed to be going out there and saying he is the advocate for the farmers in the Dauphin area. Well, we'll tell the farmers in Dauphin exactly what this member has been doing other than sitting in his seat, occupying a space.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution, as I said before, is nothing but a diversion. The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) and her Premier (Mr. Doer) have admitted by addressing this issue that they have failed in addressing provincial issues as they relate to agriculture. Where is the minister when it comes to changes to the CAIS program? Where is the minister when it comes to addressing the issue of the livestock industry?
She sat by today and could not answer the
questions that were posed by the Member for
Mr. Speaker, farmers in Manitoba are looking for leadership. They are not getting it from this government. But they are getting it from the opposition party here. We have talked to farmers all around the province. There are farmers who support a single desk. There are farmers who want an open choice. If we were to talk to the younger agricultural producers in this province, they would tell you that they want to exercise every opportunity they can for marketing their products. That means that they are looking for options other than what we have today. Those options may include a more open process, a more open Canadian Wheat Board.
* (20:10)
The minister says she wants farmers to vote. What are they to vote on? What is the question when she doesn't put up the alternative? If people have to make a choice, they need an option. The task force did exactly that. They spoke to all of the interest groups in agriculture, and they put the options before the people. So, if farmers are going to vote, at least allow them to see what the option is so that in fact they have a choice to make. Simply putting out a question to producers whether or not they want a monopoly is not a fair question. It is not a question that producers are looking for. They want to see what the government has put in front of them as an alternative.
This government, Mr. Speaker, has no ideas, has no options. It simply wants to hang on to what is old and what is the status quo. The status quo will not do today. Farmers are speaking out, and they're saying that they need to have a choice. They want to be involved in the choice. They want to make the decision for themselves, as they should, and this government is not listening to them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we heard the Premier get up in his spot and with great gusto he went on a tirade, but in his tirade there was little substance in terms of what he was saying. It was just single desk, single desk, single desk. That is the farmers' union position. That is this minister's position, and, unfortunately, some members on the Wheat Board have no other view than that. But there are options and we should allow those options to be studied by farmers and then to allow those farmers to make an intelligent decision based on the information that's before them rather than rhetoric and propaganda that has been put out by this Premier and this minister because all they put before the farmers is propaganda, half-truths as we've seen in this resolution, half-truths in terms of what this minister has said in front of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
It shows very clearly that she's not interested in value-added processing, Mr. Speaker, to give opportunity to our young people because she says that that will come at the cost of farmers. That is baloney. That is hog wash. She is misleading farmers in this province, as is her boss, the Premier of our province.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to stand here today, and I will stand on every occasion I can and I will tell the people the truth about what goes on in this Legislature about the minister's stand, about her Premier's stand. Of course, everybody else on that side of the House is silent. Where's the minister of highways who represents the LaVerendrye constituency that has agriculture in it. Where is the Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade (Mr. Smith) who represents Brandon West where there are farmers. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. He hasn't got anything to say in his place and that is sad.
So I think Manitobans will hold this government accountable, and they certainly will tell them where the truth has to be in the next election. They will also tell them where to go which means to the opposition ranks, and I look forward to that.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot
support this resolution, but the amendment to this resolution that was presented
was sensible. It was straightforward and it supported the agriculture producers
in
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk)–[interjection]
I've already started putting the question, but if there's agreement we could let the member speak and then I'll put the question. If there is agreement of the House?
Is there agreement of the House?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No? Okay. It's been denied.
The question before the House is the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food.
Is it the pleasure of the House for me to read the motion?
An Honourable Member: No.
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, okay.
WHEREAS the CWB is controlled by a democratically elected board of directors; and
WHEREAS economic analysis has found that the CWB's overall economic impact on Manitoba includes 3,270 total jobs; over 400 downtown Winnipeg head office jobs; $126 million in wages; and $220 million contribution to provincial GDP; and
WHEREAS the potential loss of CWB
shipments through the
WHEREAS 8,000 Manitoba producers seed more than 3 million acres of CWB grain each year and the loss of the CWB would negatively impact funding for agricultural research; and
WHEREAS without the CWB, farmers would lose their most important advocate in matters of transportation, grain handing and international trade;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call on the federal government to hold a fair producer plebiscite on the future of the CWB's monopoly for both wheat and barley.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the motion, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Chomiak: Yeses and nos.
Mr. Speaker: Yeas and Nays.
A recorded vote having been called, call
in the members.
* (20:20)
The question before the House is the motion moved by the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk).
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Aglugub, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Brick, Caldwell, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Gerrard, Irvin-Ross, Jennissen, Jha, Korzeniowski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Reid, Rondeau, Santos, Selinger, Smith, Struthers, Swan, Wowchuk.
Nays
Cullen, Cummings, Derkach,
Driedger, Dyck, Eichler, Goertzen, Maguire, McFadyen, Mitchelson, Rowat,
Schuler, Stefanson, Taillieu.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 31, Nays 14.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hour being past 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).