PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS

Bill 200--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), Bill 200, (The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews).

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

Bill 201--The Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), Bill 201, The Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act (Loi sur le jour de solidarité à l'égard des autochtones), standing in the name of the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).

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

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would like to speak on Bill 201, Madam Speaker.

I wanted to speak on the Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act to urge members of the House to consider passing this particular act. I want to indicate that we have raised this issue previously. We had hoped to have it passed before the actual day this year, but because of some of the difficulties in getting any agreement at that time, there was no decision made. I think it is important that we get this particular act passed.

We are dealing with a situation now where the federal government has recognized the day in June which has become known as Aboriginal Solidarity Day. We in this House I believe have the opportunity to go one step further and recognize it through this particular act. It is I think pretty significant when the members of the Legislature in this Assembly do make any kind of statement, Madam Speaker, but I think it would be doubly important to the aboriginal people of this province if we were to pass this particular act.

As I look in this building, this beautiful building, I am often struck by the fact if one was to walk in this building at times, one would perhaps have some difficulty recognizing the significant role that aboriginals played in this province. It is quite interesting that there are probably more in the way of ancient Roman and Greek symbols in this building than there are symbols of our aboriginal heritage. I recognize that was very much the style of the day then, a classical style of the early 20th Century and in 1923 when this building was finally built.

But, Madam Speaker, I would urge us to perhaps go one step further in the 1990s when we finally do recognize the important historical role of aboriginal people, that we perhaps start by trying to transform this building in certain ways and also, perhaps through this act, transform the mentality that we have developed in this province that somehow treats history--I know it was the case in many history books--that it almost only started at the time of European contact. Obviously, that is not the case. There have been many centuries of human settlement in this province and a long history of the many aboriginal peoples in this province, and I think that is really the spirit behind this bill.

I want to stress, too, that we feel that title, Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act, is indicative of the day which is currently recognized and is an important statement. It is not merely a recognition of aboriginal people; we are not talking about cultural recognition per se. It is a much stronger statement. I think it is important we make such a strong statement to aboriginal peoples at this point in time by passing this act. I would strongly urge the government to consider at least putting this bill to a vote. I think that is the least we can ask for.

I look forward to the comments of the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) on this particular bill. I commend him for his initiative in indicating his willingness to speak on this particular bill, and I look forward to this support because I know he as an individual is concerned about our recognition of aboriginal people, and that is what this bill is all about. I look forward to perhaps the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik) making a similar statement.

I think, Madam Speaker, it is important to stress there are no financial implications; this is not something that is a budgetary item. What it is is a clear statement by members of the Legislature that we recognize the historic development of aboriginal people, and not only that, but the importance of aboriginal people today and the need to deal with the many concerns of aboriginal people to make sure aboriginal people are part of the mainstream here in this province.

With those few words, I would strongly urge the government to allow us to have a vote on this bill, move it through second reading, and, hopefully, have it passed at this session of the Legislature.

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).

Bill 205--The Dutch Elm Disease Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), Bill 205, The Dutch Elm Disease Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la thyllose parasitaire de l'orme), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), who has 11 minutes remaining.

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

SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS

Madam Speaker: Bill 202, The Home Care Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant la protection des soins à domicile et apportant des modifications corrélatives).

Bill 203--The Public Assets Protection Act

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that Bill 203, The Public Assets Protection Act (Loi sur la protection des biens publics), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I want to outline to members of this House, who do have a copy of this bill but perhaps have not considered this matter for some time, that this bill would require one basic thing of any government that was looking at selling off any Crown corporation; that is, we do the same thing that would happen in the private sector. When you look at the sale of either part of or all of the assets of a company, you put it to a vote of the shareholders, and the shareholders of our Crown corporations in this province are the people of Manitoba.

Obviously, Madam Speaker, this is related to the sale of MTS. I want to use the sale of MTS, the proposed sale, as an example of why we need to consider having this kind of legislation in this province. Just look at what happened. Has there been a vote on the sale of MTS? There has not. The provincial government in the election said nothing about selling MTS. In fact, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was on record as saying that MTS was not for sale.

Consider then, Madam Speaker, the fact that afterwards we asked the Premier whether MTS was for sale, and he said no, the first question I asked in this House after the election. He said, no, we are not looking at selling it. The Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) in September said there is nobody talking about selling off MTS other than the opposition and the opposition critic, myself as the MTS critic.

Madam Speaker, it was not until December that we learned that they had appointed a number of brokers. It was not because they announced it to the House out of their own initiatives, because we learned through our contacts in the community that this was happening. At that time they said, well, maybe we are going to consider selling it off. It is interesting because they said they were looking at it. We did not at that point trust them, and I do not think anybody could trust them. We went around the province and we asked people what they thought. More than 50 municipalities passed resolutions, including the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities and many of the communities across the province, passed resolutions opposing the sale of MTS. [interjection] The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) says, did they vote right or wrong? A lot of them were in areas represented by members opposite. I would be prepared to table the list of communities again when we get into debate on MTS to show people that there was province-wide concern expressed.

But, you know, many people got involved. They phoned the minister. They phoned the Premier (Mr. Filmon). You know what they did, Madam Speaker? They sent out a letter to people saying there will be a public debate on this issue. They said there would be public discussion before any decision is finalized.

I arranged a meeting along with concerned residents in the Westman area, where we called the shareholders' meeting on MTS. One individual got up, he is a senior citizen, and he said, you know, I have a letter here, and he waved the letter. He said they said there will be a public discussion and two weeks later they announced they were selling it off. No public discussion. No discussion, period. They said they were selling it off. He said--well, he used the word “lie.” That is the term he used.

Madam Speaker, I realize we have some restrictions on our use of language, but he was very incensed, a senior and this is, by the way, from the NDP community of Killarney, I believe, Killarney, Manitoba, you know, with a strong NDP tradition--[interjection] Well, perhaps that may change too after this. There may be an NDP tradition.

Well, it is interesting. The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) laughs because there are a lot of people concerned in Westman about this particular issue. [interjection] Well, he says not once they hear the truth. Obviously, Madam Speaker, they are not hearing it from this Deputy Premier. He would not know the truth on MTS if he tripped over it, or if he found it on his travels to Brazil. He does not know the concerns about MTS. The Deputy Premier and the rest, they were so confident in their position, that what did they do? They did not hold a single public meeting. They made the decision in the cabinet. They did not discuss this with one Manitoban outside of the cabinet and Mr. Stefanson, the CEO of MTS.

Madam Speaker, they did not even have the confidence of going to their own backbenchers until they had made the decision. If I was a government backbencher, I would have told them right then and there that no matter what the issue was, they do not have the right to operate that way. I hope that some of the backbenchers will speak out, if not in this House, then speak out internally because I know they were not consulted.

* (1640)

So what are we going to do, Madam Speaker? What are we going to do about that situation? This is not democratic. This is a corporate decision-making system. Here we have the CEO of the corporation, one Mr. Filmon, with a board. He is the chair of the board too, I guess, and we have the board, which is consisting of the cabinet here, and they make decisions for one million Manitobans. The heck with the rest of the caucus on their side, let alone the Legislature and, as for the people of Manitoba, look at what they have done on this case.

They made the decision and now they have spent $400,000 to try and persuade the people of Manitoba that they, the appointed, illustrious cabinet of Manitoba, knew so much about this issue, that they were right, the people were wrong. They were so brave, they had to spend $400,000 doing it.

I want to ask anyone, is that the democratic system? I mean, do we want to adopt the corporate model? Is that really what we want? Is that any way to run a province? Is it right, morally, ethically or politically to sell off a Crown corporation that we have owned in this province, that was built by generations of Manitobans since 1908, and turn around, after having said in an election that you do not want to sell off MTS, making a commitment not to sell it off, and then turn around a few months later and say, oh, well, things have changed.

Well, the only thing that had changed is that they were not in an election and were not going to use the lie of not selling off MTS. The only thing that changed was now, firmly entrenched with a majority government, they figured they could get away with it. You know what? They will not get away with it politically, I can tell you that, unless some of the government members stand up and vote for their constituents, particularly rural MLAs because, believe you me, it is a concern.

I am getting calls all the time from people who are saying they are Conservatives and they do not agree with this. Go to any coffee shop in Manitoba, go to any coffee shop in rural Manitoba and ask people what they think about the way the government is dealing with this. Ask them two questions, and you know what, I will say this and I will say this to the member opposite, the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson), just ask them two questions.

Ask them what they think about selling off MTS and ask them if they think they should have a vote on the sale of MTS. Because you know what, Madam Speaker, everybody I have talked to in rural Manitoba says, you are right. They did not raise this in the provincial election. The least they should do is have a vote on this. Put it to a vote. Have a referendum on it if you want. Have a plebiscite. If you do not want a referendum, have a plebiscite. A plebiscite is where it is not binding. But ask the people of rural Manitoba where they stand on this.

You know what, the members opposite know this to be the case. Listen, I have been all across rural Manitoba and my own constituency, which is northern Manitoba. In fact, I am going to Portage la Prairie tonight, by the way, where more than 250 people have signed ballots saying they do not want to sell off MTS. I have had people in pretty well every constituency, they phone me and they say, you know, I do not support your party but I support your position on this, and you know what they say? Everybody agrees, put it to a vote.

I say, Madam Speaker, this government's action on MTS proves that we cannot trust them. I saw the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) today ask the Premier about Autopac, and it scares me to see the Premier of Manitoba say, we have no intentions of selling off Autopac. That is what he said about MTS. You know, when you have lied once, when you have lied twice and when you have lied three times about something, do you expect people to believe you on a fourth?

I mean, the fact is, they told the people of Manitoba in a fraudulent election campaign that they were not going to sell off MTS, and it is on the chopping block. So we need to protect our public assets. We need to protect it from the types of government of this nature who think that they can tear up the history of this province, who think they can turn their backs on Manitobans, who think they have the God-given right to say one thing in an election and turn around and do another thing completely.

I have said right from the start with MTS, put it to a vote. If the majority of Manitobans think we should sell it off, let us do it. That is the democratic decision. If you had campaigned on that in the election and you had been honest with the people of Manitoba, you know what, I might have said, you have a mandate. I still think there should be some other process. But you cannot morally, ethically, you cannot say one thing in an election and then tear up something that has benefited Manitobans, particularly rural and northern Manitobans since 1908. You know, the bottom line here is an issue not just about our Crown assets but about our democratic process. I do not think any government has the right to destroy something that has been in place of that nature, to make such a dramatic decision without even the barest of processes in place to ensure some democratic discussion.

This is the government. They have not had a single public hearing on the sale of MTS. They have had a few meetings by invitation only with municipal officials. There has not been a meeting. They will not debate it. The minister responsible for the sale of MTS, I have challenged him already. I will debate him anywhere, any time on the issue of the sale of MTS in any community in Manitoba. I will do it in his own constituency if you want to start there, but they will not do that. They will not debate it. They will not hold public meetings. They sure will not hold a vote on it, and do you know what? To the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), you know what? Go to your constituents and ask them if they think they should have a vote on the future of MTS. You know what? You go to your constituents, ask them if they think they should have a vote on the sale of any Crown asset. You know what they will say? The vast majority of people will say you bet, they are our assets, we are the shareholders, we should have a say. You know what? I am arguing again, I am saying that if the people say sell off MTS, you know what? I will fight against it but I will accept it.

But there is something missing here. I quite frankly am really concerned about the future direction in this province. I do not think any government, I do not care what political stripe, has the right to make a decision that is as binding as this with no mandate, no discussion, no vote, nothing, Madam Speaker. Right now, with this government and the assembled group of cabinet ministers, that being the decision, and perhaps the CEO, the chair of the board, because my understanding is it did not even go to the board. In fact, the minister confirmed that. The board of MTS did not even have a say over this. They do not have the right to do that. You know what? MTS and the Crown assets of this province, they do not belong to Gary Filmon and his group of cabinet ministers. They belong to all of us. We are the shareholders, and we should have the right to have a say over its future.

I say how can you trust this government if you cannot trust them on MTS? How can you trust them with Autopac or Hydro or any of the other Crown assets? What is at stake? Well, we all know how much we benefit from MTS, from MPIC and Hydro in terms of low rates. I challenge anybody, particularly rural members, go to any area of this country and see what a private phone company provides in the way of service. There are only three areas in the country where you have virtually no party lines anymore, and I will name them for you. One is Alberta, and it was AGT which up until 1990-91 was publicly owned that got rid of the party lines. The other is SaskTel which is publicly owned. The other one is MTS which is publicly owned. Look at the major reinvestment that just took place in terms of rural service. Who invested in rural service of Manitoba? MTS did. Publicly owned, once again. Look at our rate structure. Along with Saskatchewan we have amongst the lowest phone rates. We have amongst the lowest Autopac rates in the country. We have got the lowest hydro rates pretty well in the world.

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is here, we benefit. But it is not just a question of that. In the future, I ask, what is going to happen to our province, a small province of one million people, when we do not have the control of our own destiny that the ownership of our Crowns gives us? We have much greater say over that direction when we have MTS keep the financial resources, its headquarters, its staff, right here in Manitoba. If you read what is happening now, the government is going to allow that to shift, 25 percent foreign ownership of MTS as a quick example.

This affects all of us and it means, to my mind, the fight over Crown corporations like MTS is more than just a fight over our Crown assets; it is a fight over the future of this province. First and foremost, it is the fight to ensure that we have at least some semblance of democracy. You know, democracy is not about having an election every few years and lying and cheating your way in terms of issues like the Jets and MTS and then having four or five years of majority to go and ignore the people of Manitoba. Democracy is about listening to the people in between elections, as well.

And you know what? When it comes to the sale of Crown corporations, I say to you, Madam Speaker, democracy requires that you do what any private business would have to do, consult with your shareholders. They are the people of Manitoba.

* (1650)

I say to the members opposite they have no right to sell off our Crown corporations, and they should also recognize that governments change. I will say on the public record, as I am sure many other New Democrats will say, do not think that you can tear up the history of Manitoba as you are doing right now because the next government, which will be an NDP government, will repair the damage you have done to MTS and other areas. And I say to members opposite, do not take rural Manitoba for granted anymore. You cannot ignore them on issues like MTS or the Wheat Board or the many other issues as you are doing.

I tell you what. I throw this as a challenge to any rural MLA. I challenge any rural MLA to debate this in their community, this bill, this issue at any place, any time. Perhaps some of the MLAs will show some courage, the kind of courage we are not seeing from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the cabinet, and I hope they will then explain to their constituents where they stand and whether their constituents should have a vote on the future.

The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) should talk to people in his own community because you know it is easy to sit in here and say, oh, I know my community, my constituents. I challenge you: we will have a fair debate, and we will let people decide on 203 and the future of MTS instead of sitting here in your private rooms and deciding. You do not have the ability--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): I would like to place a few comments in respect to this bill before the House. I would just like to register a few comments as to why this side of the House cannot support that bill.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Morris has been recognized to speak to the bill, and I am having great difficulty hearing him.

Mr. Pitura: One of the comments that was raised by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was that the backbenchers were not consulted with in regard to the MTS privatization. I would have to say that they were consulted and that they were brought into the discussion right along the way.

The reaction was that, in terms of the overall analysis of the Manitoba Telephone System, upon the analysis that was given by the Crown Corporations Council's annual report at last fall's committee meeting, it was definitely pointed out at that point in time that MTS was one of the very high-risk Crown corporations that this government had to contend with. The reason I say that and from that basis on that report, then the study went forward to take a look at Manitoba Telephone System to see if indeed it could be maintained as a Crown corporation or what other avenue it could be done with the corporation in order to make it viable.

MTS over the past number of years has accrued a liability of in excess of about $883 million. With assets of about $1 billion or slightly over $1 billion it gave a very high debt-equity ratio to MTS, which made it very difficult for that corporation to be able to leverage capital in the money markets to be able to rapidly change to the needs in new technology and to be able to stay competitive within the telecommunications market.

The telecommunications industry in this country is changing rapidly. The regulation on communications systems is now open for competition. So now MTS, having a monopoly for the past number of years, has now been thrust into the marketplace where it has to compete to be able to exist. In order to compete, it has to be able to be in a position to respond to ever-changing needs in technology and to be able to adopt them and to adopt them quickly. So it needs to have financial strength in the corporation to be able to do this. Sitting at equity of about 20 percent just would not allow it to be able to adjust to the demands that were being thrust upon it with the deregulation. The number of years that it has operated has been very successful. It has successfully been able to retire the pension funding liability. It has been turning a modest profit but in terms of the future, it has to be able to adjust.

If Manitobans were going to be able to continue to operate the Manitoba Telephone System, Madam Speaker, No. 1, a large portion of that $883-million debt would have to be written off. Secondly, a large portion of credit would have to be extended to MTS in order to make it viable again, putting the taxpayers of the province at a very high risk in regard to being able to get the Manitoba Telephone System back on its feet. That does not say that over the number of years that in the future, MTS still is a small Crown corporation with regard to everybody else that is in the field. It is one of the smaller corporations. That is not to say that in the next decade that even if it is being operated as a Crown corporation, we would not be forced into a position where the corporation has to be divested and then at that point in time there would not be any equity left in the company to recover.

Even the telecoms, as they are referred to across this country, they have all, except for Saskatchewan and then Manitoba, gone to some sort of privatization. That is why I say, Madam Speaker, that this bill in regard to this piece of legislation is not going to be able to address those concerns, because you have to make decisions quickly. You cannot possibly use that legislation properly to go back and go through this whole process, because decisions have to be made quickly if the problems occur. That is why we have a Crown Corporations Council to be able to identify the positives and the negatives with Crown corporations. If we go on the basis that council can make the adequate input to government, that is, determine which of the Crown corporations are viable and functioning well, which of the Crown corporations we have that are having some difficulties, they identify that and then it is up to government to be able to decide in which direction it wants to go.

The other matter, Madam Speaker, in terms of the government of the day in this province is that the electorate puts people here to represent them and to make decisions on their behalf in the best interests of the majority or the people of the province of Manitoba. With that there goes the responsibility that some of these decisions have to be made by government in that respect. So with respect to the Crown Corporations Council there to make the reports, government must act on it.

With those few words, Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS--PRIVATE BILLS

Bill 300--The Salvation Army Catherine Booth Bible College Incorporation Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), Bill 300, The Salvation Army Catherine Booth Bible College Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Collège biblique Catherine Booth de l'Armée du Salut), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to take a minute or two to comment on this particular bill. You know, the Salvation Army has done many fine, wonderful things in the city of Winnipeg, in fact in the province of Manitoba over the years, and I acknowledge that this particular bill means a lot to the member for St. Norbert as it does for members, no doubt, on all sides of the House and of all three parties inside the Chamber.

I know, with the bill, a private member's bill that I had introduced regarding health care, one of the things that I have been pushing for is to get the government actually to say a few words on my bill, believing that I did not want them to stand it indefinitely. Therefore, I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to stand this particular bill indefinitely because it is a bill, obviously, that does merit going to the committee.

Madam Speaker, with those very few words in support, in principle, of the bill because of the Salvation Army and the many wonderful things it has done, we are prepared to see it go to committee. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

The question before the House is second reading, private Bill 300, on the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), The Salvation Army Catherine Booth Bible College Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Collège biblique Catherine Booth de l'Armée du Salut. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Order, please. Is it the will of the House to call it 5:30 p.m.? No? Leave has been denied.

To resume Private Members' Business, Proposed Resolutions.

* (1700)

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Res. 11--Agricultural Safety Nets

Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render),

WHEREAS Manitoba's provincial government recognizes that our farmers are a vital source and are major contributors to the provincial economy; and

WHEREAS the farming industry is subject to conditions of nature that have an impact upon the success of a farming operation in ways that are not experienced in traditional businesses; and

WHEREAS the federal government has reduced the federal farm safety net envelope from $850 million in 1994-95 to $600 million in 1997-98; and

WHEREAS a stable level of federal funding to safety net programs is imperative towards ensuring that these programs are adequate and effective.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that all members of the Legislative Assembly urge the federal Liberal government to restore and maintain funding levels to farm safety net programs so that Manitoba's farmers can be adequately insured against the many unpredictable occurrences they face.

Motion presented.

Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present and invite debate on Resolution 11, the Agricultural Safety Nets, to all members present. Our government has long recognized a tremendous positive impact our farmers have on the Manitoba economy, as well as the Canadian economy.

Manitoba's farms are the foundation of the province's economy. One in seven, or approximately 14 percent of all employment opportunities within Manitoba owes its existence to agriculture. Those Manitobans involved in agriculture are leading the way in the new world economy, diversifying and growing to meet the challenges, have an ever-changing marketplace. Our farmers are proving that they can compete in a world market and compete successfully.

Conditions in the agricultural industry have improved significantly in recent years with crop producers enjoying the largest gains with an almost 20 percent increase in cash receipts in 1995, Madam Speaker. In fact, total farm cash receipts from crops, livestock and direct payments increased 0.7 percent last year. The farm sector's ability to absorb a huge decrease in direct payments and still record a small increase in total receipts indicates how much stronger this sector has become in recent years. I believe all members present recognize the unique and often unpredictable situations our farmers must work under. Their livelihoods are subject to the whims of mother nature to a degree unmatched in any other sector of the economy. Drought, hail, insects and disease all have a direct negative impact on our farmers and by extension on the rest of us, yet they still persist and overcome.

The federal government has been on a path of major withdrawal of support for agricultural safety nets, a path I am sure that the members representing the Liberal caucus would find shocking and deplorable. Not too long ago, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) stated in this House that, and I quote: My Liberal roots are not as deep as my Manitoba roots, and I have lived in Manitoba all my life by choice, and that will always come first. That will be my first consideration.

So I would encourage him, along with other members of his caucus, to give voice to their support of our Manitoba farmers and contact their counterparts in Ottawa to denounce these shortsighted actions. The federal Liberals' now infamous red book of broken promises stated: Farm families need long-term programs to assist them in securing their future.

So how has the federal government achieved this goal of securing farmers' futures? Well, since the early 1990s, support by the federal government has plummeted. Support for our farmers has been reduced from a high of $3.2 billion in '91-92 to $1.1 billion in '95-96, $728 million for this year of '96-97 and will settle at $631 million in '98-99. This represents a decrease of over 70 percent. Can any other sector of the economy relate to such a complete withdrawal of support by the federal government? The largest reductions have primarily occurred due to the elimination of the GRIP program, a loss of $1.4 billion. Farm support and adjustment measures, FSAM, a loss of $960 million, and NISA incentives, Net Income Stabilization Account, a loss of approximately $250 million. The main safety nets that remain are the Net Income Stabilization Account and the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program. These programs provide some protection against yield risks and to cyclical downturns that characterize the industry, but they do not provide the price protection that was provided in the past.

During this same period, our farmers have taken on additional obligation with the federal government's elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act or the Crow, which reached $726 million in '92-93. Manitoba farmers have witnessed their federal safety net support cut out from underneath them. At the same time, Manitoba farmers have experienced the largest increase in freight costs as the federal government dropped its freight assistance and removed Canadian Wheat Board pooling.

Our government has responded to this continued loss of federal support for our farmers. Our government has managed to cope by introducing the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program this crop year to protect producers from potential yield losses. In the process, our government has made a three-year commitment to enhance crop insurance to ensure a measure of stability and safety nets for our farmers. The Enhanced Crop Insurance Program, operating with the Net Income Stabilization Account program, will now replace the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan.

Under the Enhanced Program, all crops insurable under crop insurance will continue to be insurable, whether it is red spring wheat, canary seed, parsnips, fenugreek, timothy, lentils or sweet clover, to name a few. The producer is still afforded the option of deciding to insure or not and at what level. Coverage is offered at 50 percent of the long-term average yield with no premium charged to producers. However, producers will have the option of selecting higher coverage up to 70 percent or 80 percent on any eligible crop. The saving to Manitoba farmers will result from there being no premium for the basic 50 percent coverage and the producer paying only a portion of the additional coverage. The remainder will be paid by the governments of Canada and Manitoba. Producers will have the option of insuring all or a portion of their crop and can select from the different coverage levels.

Our government has been able to offer farmers a good long-term tool for farm business management and during these times of fiscal restraint I am extremely pleased with the quality of program we have designed and are able to offer our farmers. Our government successfully negotiated transitional assistance of approximately $30 million over three years, 1995-96 to '97-98, which allowed for the introduction of enhanced crop insurance. This program is considered the model for many provinces considering changes to their current crop insurance programs, a point I think that Manitobans have a right to boast about.

Our government has continually been at the forefront of initiatives designed to benefit farmers. I would like to relate back to the fact that many of our producers in this province have acted on national safety net committees and have had valuable input at that level and in determination of safety net programs across this country. I would just like to relate one potential safety net program, I believe, that needs to have discussion in the future because in three years time the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program is going to be at a point where something is going to have to be needed to replace it.

* (1710)

I would just like to comment on a report that was done by Sid Gordon and Bob Hopley when they were part of the Grains 2000 study group and the report that they had put forward in terms of crop cost insurance. It is a program, I believe, that all members in this House should have a look at and study because it has some merits in regard to being able to provide a safety net support to prairie farmers, whereby not necessarily their yields are covered or missing bushels are paid for out of their crop, but rather their input costs are covered with regard to producing a crop. Where this comes to fruition or to a higher level of exposure is where we see that this last year where fertilizer prices have increased, fuel prices have increased and so on. This type of a program, Madam Speaker, will be able to address those higher costs on a sliding scale and be able to give producers coverage. So I think it is something that probably in the future, before the three years are up on this other program, that we as Manitobans probably should have a look at.

I would also like to pay respect to the predecessor of our present Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Glen Findlay, because it was his foresight and vision that the GRIP program in this country actually got off the ground and more specifically for the operation of the GRIP program in the province of Manitoba. I would like to pay tribute to him because that was a very valuable program and a much needed program at the time.

The grain industry, at the time of the creation of GRIP, was in difficulty with increasingly depressed prices for farmers, and our government, committed to the well-being of our farmers, designed the program with a specific start and end date. Improved market prices, reduced federal support and mandated removal of trade barriers under GATT contributed to the demise of the program. The design of the program was so successful, Madam Speaker, that when it concluded after its five-year mandate and after having provided approximately $800 million worth of benefits to producers, it had a surplus. That surplus will be returned to the producers as well as to both levels of government.

The federal Liberal government has left farmers with NISA or the Net Income Stabilization Account. NISA is a voluntary program designed to give farmers improved, long-term income stability on their farms. The program has been developed through a partnership of federal and provincial governments and farmers. Farmers deposit money annually into their individual accounts, and they receive a matching contribution of the federal government and the provincial government at 2 percent and 1 percent respectively. To encourage participation, farmers receive a 3 percent interest bonus over and above the competitive rates earned on their deposits at their local financial institution. Qualifying commodities vary by province, but generally include most agricultural commodities except those covered by supply management such as the dairy, poultry and eggs.

While the NISA and Enhanced Crop Insurance Program offer farmers some protection against yield risks and the cyclical downturns that characterize the industry, they do not provide the price protection that was provided in the past. All members here present will agree with me when I say that our farmers are among the most productive in the world and are integral to Manitoba's economy. Farm incomes can and indeed are more often than not volatile and require risk management programs that are not available to other industries. The federal government's resources are necessary to provide sufficient, long-term safety nets for our farmers and are needed to ensure the industry can maintain in a productive and stable manner right across this country, Madam Speaker.

While the New Democratic Party has a spotted record at best when it comes to their commitment for farmers--for example, their refusal to support our farmers during the 1991 grain handlers' strike--I am confident that members of the official opposition will support this resolution. This confidence comes from remembering that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) stated, and I quote: If farm programs are to be successful, we believe that they should be national programs.

I would therefore offer this resolution to members opposite as an opportunity to clearly indicate that, despite the lacklustre efforts in the past towards our farmers, they do believe in the agricultural sector and a need for such federal funding. So I would call upon all members to support Resolution 9 and urge the federal Liberal government to restore and maintain funding levels to farm safety net programs so that Manitoba farmers can be adequately insured against the many unpredictable occurrences they face. Thank you.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing forward this resolution on agriculture because it is, as he has said--and I want to agree--a very important industry in this province and contributes tremendously to the economy of this province. We often hear the saying, the way farming goes is the way the rural community goes and, in fact, the city. When we have a poor crop or low prices in the farming community, we see ramifications throughout the province. In fact, you hear the news and read in the media this last while about the anticipation of the farm dealers and the business community when they look at the crop in southern Manitoba that has just recently been harvested in anticipation of the money that they are going to make.

So it is unfortunate that the federal Liberal government has reduced the amount of funding to safety nets in this province. It is also unfortunate that there are many other aspects of agriculture that have been neglected by the federal government, but, Madam Speaker, this government is not completely pure and innocent on this either. When you look at the budgets, last year the budget for Agriculture was reduced by 10.7 percent. The year before that the Agriculture budget was reduced by 6 percent. So this government has not been as completely supportive of the agricultural industry as they would like us to believe.

In fact, if you look at what is happening in this province, we are losing out on agriculture research to a great degree, partly because of federal cutbacks, that is true. The federal government has cut the funding to research, but I do not believe this government has been aggressive enough in attracting research dollars to this province. We look at the university in Saskatoon, and it is becoming the centre of research for agriculture. We have lost the research at Morden Research, loss of research in Brandon with regard to the hog industry, and I think that this government has to be much more aggressive.

The member talks about national safety net programs, and, yes, I do believe that we do have to have national programs, that programs should not be split up and have one province negotiating a little different than the other or getting larger pots of money from the federal government. I am quite disappointed that we do not have a national program. We heard the government talk a lot with respect to the safety net and crop insurance, and that seems to have fallen by the wayside. There does not appear to be an effort on the part of the government to have those national standards brought in.

Madam Speaker, farmers are under a tremendous amount of pressure right now, facing many increased costs, in particular, transportation costs, which have resulted from the changes made by the Liberal government to abandon the Crow benefit that was there. That is not the only impact that we are facing. We see what has happened with the railways, and the abandonment of railway shifts more costs onto producers. As a result of the change to the Crow and the railway subsidies and the privatization of railways, but in particular because of the Crow benefit being reduced, we have to look for a cheaper way of transporting our grain to market.

We know that studies have told us that the Port of Churchill is a cheaper access to market, to international markets; and, although we have had lip service from governments, we certainly have not seen the amount of grain that you should be seeing through that port. In fact, I believe, Madam Speaker, that this year we only saw two ships come into that port. So we heard lots of talk during the last federal election about how much grain was going to be put through the port. We had a committee established to increase trade through the Port of Churchill, and then we see that the lines are at risk and maybe the whole Port of Churchill is at risk. That is a great blow to the producers of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, there are other things that government must be concerned with with respect to farmers, and we have to look at what happens to input costs. It is unfortunate that as soon as the price of grain goes up a minimal amount, we see the fertilizer and the chemical companies jack their prices up. When you look at it, the bottom line that is returned--it is unfortunate that with the increased grain prices, that in the end with the increased costs of fertilizer, chemical and machineries, it will be the producers who will not have a great increase in their return.

* (1720)

Madam Speaker, the member talked about protection for farmers. One of the protections that farmers do have and which has served farmers very well over the years--the grain producers, in fact--is the Canadian Wheat Board. As a result of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers have got a fairer return for their product. They have pooled their resources and there has been better equity across the country than there has ever been, but this government criticizes the federal government for what they have done or lack of support for farm safety net programs, but this government has been very silent on their position for the Wheat Board, which is a very important issue as far as safety nets go for farmers. Just as we have the hog marketing board, which is a real benefit to the hog producers in this province, this government has not been fair in listening to producers to ensure the safety nets that are there. So the government, on one hand, is criticizing the federal government for their lack of support for farmers.

I agree with them on that. I think what the federal government has done to agriculture is wrong because they have reduced the budget to a minimal amount of what it was, and for the importance of the industry, we should criticize the federal government and encourage them to recognize the importance of the industry and increase the money into the safety net programs. They should be doing that, but the government should also recognize the error of their ways. This government talks about the enhanced crop insurance, that it is a very good enhancement program. That is not what I am hearing from the producers, and I will look very closely to what the returns are to producers and look for the final report from the crop insurance as to what the participation has been and at what level.

The member talked about the GRIP and it did serve a purpose. It did get money into the hands of farmers, but it could have been also a better program, there is no doubt about that. Now there is a surplus--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing difficulty hearing the honourable member for Swan River.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, the member across the way talked about GRIP. There is a surplus in that program, and we look forward to seeing whether the government is going to return the portion that belongs to farmers to farmers, and whether they are going to put their portion and call for the federal government to put their portion into agriculture research which is much lacking in this province. We have to have research. So we look at this safety net program and that is one thing, but what farmers do not need is the dual marketing of wheat. What we need for this government to do is stand up and say to producers, we support the Wheat Board and we will not have the single-desk selling part of the Canadian Wheat Board destroyed.

Unfortunately over the last couple of days, we have raised this issue many times with government, but they continue to sit on the fence. They will not join with Saskatchewan to fight Alberta in their challenge to destroy the Wheat Board. We need this government, farmers need the government at this time to take a strong position.

Madam Speaker, the agriculture industry is very important to the economy of this province. The agriculture industry needs government to support them with research. If the research is there and the opportunities are there, farmers will continue to produce the crop for export of high quality that we are always known for, but this government cannot say that only the federal governmet is to blame. They are to blame with what they have done.

The federal government is wrong in what they have done in reducing safety nets. That is right, but there are more things besides safety nets that are affecting the farming economy, and there are very important issues facing the farming economy right now. One of them that has been highlighted in the last week has been the Wheat Board, and I am very disappointed in the members across the way to say that they do indeed support dual marketing. They are not listening to the producers of Manitoba. They are forgetting, they are not looking at the studies that have been done to indicate that dual marketing is bad and will put less money into farmers' hands.

Point of Order

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Yes, Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that we are debating the relevance of farm subsidies as prescribed previously by Ottawa and the reduction of farm subsidies by resolution and the support of those subsidies.

We are not debating the relevance of our position on the Canadian Wheat Board. This government supports the Canadian Wheat Board, the maintenance of the Wheat Board. We want it changed only.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Emerson, I would remind the honourable member for Swan River that she was straying slightly from the principles of the resolution that she initially started to debate.

* * *

Ms. Wowchuk: The resolution talks about farm safety nets and supports from the federal government, and I recognize that the farm safety nets are important. The federal government has not fulfilled their responsibility and has let farmers down, but there are many other aspects of support for farmers that we have seen degraded, that the member who introduced this resolution spoke to about, particularly the Crow benefit. Along with the Crow benefit, the Wheat Board is also a very important issue that is a support for farmers. It is very important that we have something that we worked for very hard.

Madam Speaker, yes, the federal government has reduced their budget. It is wrong that they have reduced it, but it is also wrong that the provincial government has not recognized the importance of the agriculture industry and has reduced their budget over the last two years by some 16 percent.

In a true commitment to agriculture, those funds should stay with the agriculture industry. It is a time of diversification, a time when the industry has to change. The supports from government should be there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure--it is unfortunate that I will not have the time to say everything I want to say about the good government that we have in Ottawa. I was ready to support this resolution here, but then I realized there were a few omissions, and there should have been more. There was lacking in there where this government has not done enough for the farmers of Manitoba

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) will have 14 minutes remaining.

The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.