Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Rule 72, subrule 8, I am tabling today the agreed upon order for consideration of the Estimates for the fiscal year 1998-99, which is the product of good co-operation between the opposition House leader and myself. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable government House leader.
"WHEREAS the federal government has eliminated the Crow Benefit, a $750-million support of the Western grain transportation system; thereby creating uncertainty and forcing change upon Manitoba's agricultural producers; and
"WHEREAS the cost of exporting grain is increasingly prohibitive and has caused Manitoba's agricultural producers to reconsider their cropping options; and
"WHEREAS Manitoba farmers are increasingly integrating livestock, poultry and hog operations, oilseed and vegetable production into their more traditional grain operations; and
"WHEREAS the Manitoba government through its Working for Value Task Force recognized the need to increasingly diversify agricultural production at both the farm and the value-added processing level; and
"WHEREAS the Manitoba government has supported the efforts of agricultural producers and processors to diversify their operations through programs such as the Manitoba Agri-Ventures Initiative, the Agricultural Diversification Loans Programs, the Community Works program, Grow Bonds and the Rural Economic Development Initiative.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider continuing to provide agricultural producers and processors with the tools to diversify their operations and to seek out opportunities to make the transition to value-added activities."
Motion presented.
Mr. Penner: It is certainly a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on this very important initiative and issue.
Madam Speaker, the loss of $750 million in income to the grain growers of western Canada--Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta--in my view will have a very significant impact to how western Canada and the farm community in western Canada operates in the future.
We have seen the history unfold of the agricultural industry, and I believe when John A. Macdonald made a conscious decision in 1871 to bring agriculture into western Canada and open up the West, by encouraging people from Europe and other countries to come to this western Canadian area, the initiative that was established at that time would have been profoundly changed had we not moved in the direction that we did in agriculture.
I think it is interesting, Madam Speaker, when you read some of the history that is before us today. Anybody can look at and read the debates that have emanated throughout the history of the development of western Canada from Macdonald's era on, and basically from the first time that this country was formed and the decisions were made to open up the West are very interesting debates. Some of the history that has been written is some very interesting history: how the elevator associations were formed, and how the first co-operative was established by farmers, not through their own initiative, but by an almost evangelical approach to changes that needed to be made in the marketing of grain.
Similarly, Madam Speaker, when these so-called evangelists for change came into western Canada and convinced western Canadian farmers that the private sector trade was adversely affecting them and treating them in a manner that should not be allowed, farmers took things into their own hands and farmers made decisions at the urging of the federal government to build a grain-handling system that still stands today. The elevator systems that were built to handle the grain were built by farmers in farm organizations. The United Grain Growers was one of the first elevator companies to be formed in western Canada. The three prairie Pools came in later under a different movement.
It is interesting to note that during this whole debate when the evolution of the grain industry was transforming and the railways were built that nobody ever proposed a single-desk selling system. It was always proposed that the grains would be pooled. I mean that is what the evangelists of change were preaching, that we should not trust the private trade, and that we should pool our resources and we should pool the grain sales and all share the benefit. That, of course, was one of the main reasons why the great debate took place in Europe as to what they would do with these Canadians or North Americans in trying to set up a pooling system and virtually take control of the world grain trade.
That was the initiative at that time, and throughout the debate from 1905 till 1941, when the then Prime Minister decided that they would close the commodity markets, close the exchange and put in place a pooling system and a marketing system that would be controlled by government.
Similarly, Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that during that period of time from the early 1930s to 1945, we talked about the need for the railways to be able to earn enough money on transporting grain that they could in fact stay alive. Henceforth, came the Crow benefit. The Crow benefit finally was established to ensure that the railways would be adequately compensated. Later on, during this historical debate, it became evident that the initial charges that were provided by guarantee to the railways were not going to be adequate and changes again were made to the system. Henceforth, at the end of the debate on the Crow, the the federal government was contributing roughly between $700 million and $750 million to transporting grain out of western Canada.
Many of us believe that had that debate and discussion or that decision never been made, western Canada would have evolved into a much different kind of a country. We would have seen, in my view, the milling industry remain in western Canada. We would have seen much of the processing that naturally evolved to eastern Canada by design of the federal government to ensure that the eastern industries would be supplied with the natural resources and that the renewable resources that we had in western Canada were transported under subsidies under three programs.
* (1710)
One was the At and East program, which took grain out of Thunder Bay and transported it all the way to the Maritimes to ensure that they would have the same cost for feedgrain that western Canada did. The other one was the feed freight assistance act, which guaranteed eastern Canada, Ontario and Quebec, cheap feedgrain. They basically, quite frankly, in a noncompetitive way, were able to keep western Canada in an area where we basically could not even compete with ourselves as farmers in livestock production.
So we were put into a noncompetitive position by our own government, by policy of our own government. That changed historically the way western Canada could develop, Madam Speaker. When the Crow benefit was eliminated it put us back into a competitive position with other nations from a freight perspective. It, however, puts Manitoba at a very noncompetitive position as far as marketing feedgrain or wheat even outside of this country. It becomes almost unaffordable to ship and pay the cost of the transportation.
So that means that Manitoba will in essence really have the cheapest feedgrain in all of Canada if you really allow the competitive forces to take over without intervention. We will have the cheapest feedgrain. That means that we must now look at all the other policies that were established during this great debate of how grain would be dealt with in Canada. We must deal with them as well because the basic fundamentals of the whole equitable debate were based on everybody paying equal cost of shipping freight. Whether you lived in Manitoba or you lived in Alberta, all farmers would pay equal cost. That is now gone. The equity mechanisms are gone, the basic fundamentals are gone.
So we must, in my view, take a look at all the other institutions that were built on that equitable base and the argument of equity for all producers. If we do that, I believe that western Canadians will recognize as well as eastern Canadians that the competition, the competitive factor, will in due course indicate that we should raise all the livestock of this country in Manitoba, because nowhere else, from a competitive factor, will you be able to raise cheaper feedgrain than you will in Manitoba.
So what does that do to all the other processes that were set in place, supply management, Canadian Wheat Board and all those institutions? I sincerely question whether they can, in the long term, survive or be maintained or whether they in fact should be. I think that is a serious question that farmers should ask themselves, because before, right from 1905 on up, the question was always, or the point was always made that all the farmers should be paid equal. Well, that cannot happen now.
So how do you then put in place a system, even across western Canada, even though it does not apply to eastern Canada, an equitable system that would stand the test of the courts? If you ask that question, if you truly ask that question, is it legally responsible from a governmental perspective to keep in place structures that are not economically soundly based? I ask those questions. I have not the answers for that, nor would I want to espouse a firm position on it. I, however, do say that somebody, and governments, especially we in Manitoba, need to take a hard, strong, long look at this position, because it is the very essence of fundamental competition that will allow us to survive or not survive.
I believe that we have a tremendous opportunity, Madam Speaker, to develop an agricultural industry that will be dramatically different than what we had in the past. I see specialty crops, such as sunflowers and crops maybe that we have not even considered yet--hemp, and maybe many others--become very prevalent in this province.
I see a livestock processing industry that I think can evolve back into Manitoba no matter how much other governments want to pay for them to stay in their provinces.
The natural evolutionary process of a competitive marketplace in my view will dictate that those industries should come to Manitoba. That will mean that we will be able to provide a lot more jobs to young Manitobans, if you really think this whole thing through.
It does, however, create one problem and that is for the grain growers, especially those that are going to be dependent on the export market. We should never kid ourselves that all our grain will ever be consumed entirely by the livestock industry in this province, so we will have to export some grain. That means, of course, that our grain growers in this province are going to have to make some very dramatic and fundamental changes that will require us to rethink how agriculture and the agriculture policy should be constituted in this province.
I truly think, Madam Speaker, that governments, whoever they might be within the next 10 years or so, are going to have to make some very dramatic policy changes in order to sustain the agricultural community in this province. I believe that we have a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) that understands that. I believe we have a government in this province today that understands that. They were the ones that initiated the value-added task force and went out and asked Manitobans what changes needed to be made, and that was very clearly indicated in the report. That report only reflected what we heard rural Manitobans tell us in how changes should be made, what kind of changes should be made, and when they should be made.
I believe that our government truly recognizes the dramatic impact of the changes that were made three years ago by the federal government. I only hope that this government sees fit, that this House sees fit to go to tell Ottawa that they must in fact now move, as we have done and are prepared to do, to make these very significant policy changes that will affect all of agriculture and the export of the agricultural goods that we are going to raise in this province.
I thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the time that you have allotted me to put these remarks on record, and I would ask this House to support this resolution.
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise on such an important topic as the diversification of agriculture in Manitoba, agriculture being so important to our overall economy.
I listened intently and with great interest to the words put on the record by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). I was quite impressed with his ability to reach back into the history of our province and our country, and in so accurate a way present the picture that led up to the stage where we are at here today in 1998. Of course, we have to make decisions today that are based on decisions that have been made in the past.
* (1720)
Sometimes, Madam Speaker, I believe that it is good to build on the decisions that were made in the past. I think that it is good to build on the successes that we have had in agriculture, but I agree sometimes you need a provincial government or a Canadian government to make a decision that reverses decisions that were made in the past. It runs counter to what has been happening in the past because really what we have to have in mind is what is going to benefit the Manitoba farmer the most. As everybody should know in this province by now, whatever benefits the Manitoba farmer also benefits the rural economy, and when the rural economy goes well, I would suggest that things within the perimeter go well as well. That I am afraid is something that is not understood as well as it should be.
I think those of us from rural Manitoba have a big job to educate people about the worth of agriculture and the importance of agriculture, the value of agriculture not only to a family living in Manitoba, be it rural or urban, but also to the overall economy of this province. The number of jobs that are created in agriculture in this province is key to the success of this province overall. If you see in rural Manitoba, if we observe a time when we become less diversified, I think you would also see a time when we have fewer jobs available to people and you will see more migration of people from rural parts of this province to the city, you will see migration from the rural parts of our province to other provinces. So, yes, diversification is absolutely key to the success of our province.
Madam Speaker, historically speaking, just to sort of pick up where the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) was speaking, Manitoba has enjoyed historically throughout its existence a diversified economy. This is for a number of different reasons. I would suggest, first off, our location, right smack dab in the middle of the North American continent, has allowed us and encouraged us to become more and more diversified as our history has progressed. Location: here we are, we are located in a chunk of continent where in the south part of the province we have land which is considered in some cases to be amongst the best for growing grain and oilseeds in some of the best land in the world. At one time though, the information was that some of this land would be no more worth to us than any desert in the world, and studies were created, and they talk about the Palliser Triangle, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) points out.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
If people a hundred years ago looked at the area that they refer to as the Palliser Triangle, looked at it a hundred years ago and compared to now, I am sure they would be very impressed with the amount of progress that we have made over that period of time, the amount of production that we have got out of that area that was not considered arable at one time. So that is one part of our province that has really grown and flourished because of the location that we have.
Moving up through the province, our location says that we have forestry in the North, and the jobs that are connected with activities in our forests. We are blessed with mining and deposits underneath the Canadian Shield that we as a people in Manitoba have exploited over the past several decades and beyond.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this province, as well, we have a fishing industry; we are blessed with lakes. At one time, Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Manitoba sustained substantially larger fishing fleets than they do now, but there are still people who make a living fishing.
So in this sense we are diversified already even before we start to debate this in the Legislature. Despite what any government does, our geography tells us that we are going to be somewhat diversified just to begin with, so there is a natural kind of a force diversifying our economy.
This is something that maybe we are luckier than other parts of the continent in, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we start from a base that allows us to diversify. On top of that now, we make decisions to diversify our economy even more, and diversification is a good thing, in a broad sense, to diversify our economy. We do not have to look any further than some communities which have become one-industry communities, and then what happens to that community when the industry takes a downturn, or, heaven forbid, the industry simply finds that there is no market for its product anymore? That is a community that is in real trouble.
We are fortunate in this province that we are diversified to the tune we are, because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if there is a downturn in one of the areas in which you produce goods, you can count on another area to sustain the economy until there is a turnaround in that original area. That is why we look towards diversification.
One more reason I think that we have some natural advantages towards diversification in this province is tradition. Manitoba has been a destination, and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) pointed this out when he talked about homesteaders and what they have done to open this country, to break some ground and make land fertile. The homesteaders have come to our province from all over the world with a variety of different approaches to agriculture, with a variety of different concepts and ideas and approaches to how they would farm.
This, I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is another advantage that we have towards diversification. I can just think of my home area throughout the Parklands. Even within the Parklands, you can go from one area of the Parklands to the next, and you can see the farm practices that were used many years ago being used today because they work, the concepts being brought to the Parkland from around the world. Manitoba, in general, ends up being a melting pot of all these different strategies for farming. That produces diversification within agriculture. You can say the same thing about other industries as well. So we do have some natural factors at play. We do have some positive factors towards diversification.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of the points that I want to make is that much of Manitoba agriculture was diversified already despite what any government plan is, any government programs are, and that is a good thing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would applaud, as well, the move by any government--I do not care what the political stripe of the government is--that would come up with a good idea towards diversifying Manitoba agriculture, and I think that, generally speaking, farmers would have no problem supporting whatever government initiative there was that would help them diversify more their farms, their agricultural operations. I do not think anybody has a problem with that.
That is why I would suggest that one of the things that we have to do is we have to take a good look at the advantages of single-desk selling in agriculture. I think single-desk selling is something that over the course of decades has proven to help in the area of diversification. I think it provides the kind of stability and the kind of security that farmers need because, at the very base of diversification, when it is all said and done, is the thinking that the farmer puts towards his farm operation. Now, if he can approach his farm operation with the security and stability of the Canadian Wheat Board single-desk selling component, then he can do a lot more planning towards diversification. He can do a lot more--[interjection] Well, the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) figures that just because he has gone up and down the field a few times more than this member that he is the expert on farming and that only his opinion is the one that is correct. I would wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how many times you have to cultivate a quarter-section of land before you get to talk in here about agriculture.
I would suggest to the member for Roblin-Russell that maybe he ought to be a little bit more open-minded and consider people's opinions when they are expressed to him. That is a form of diversification.
When the government makes decisions concerning diversification and agriculture, I would hope they would have their minds wide open to all kinds of discussion and that he would not rule somebody out just because he happened to disagree with what the minister has in mind.
I want to remind the minister that I would hope that he is all in favour of diversification and adding value to the products we have in Manitoba, because that is the goal on this side of the House as well. Given that we have the same goal in mind, I would think that he would be willing to listen to some suggestions on how to do that. But he can take it from there, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The advantage of single-desk selling is that it does supply for the farmer a sense of security so that he can go out and take the risks necessary on his farm operation--
* (1730)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member. I am having difficulty, though, with some of the decorum that seems to be sliding in the Chamber at this time. When the honourable members have their turn to speak on this motion, they can all put their words forward.
At this time, the honourable member for Dauphin has the floor. The honourable member for Dauphin, to continue.
Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Maybe what is at the bottom of the resolution that has been presented here before us is a sense of insecurity on the part of the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), because at the end his THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED is hoping that this government would consider continuing the good work that they have been doing. Are you worried this government will not be doing that? Is that why you put this forward?
I can tell you from this side of the House, we are totally committed to diversifying farm production. We on this side of the House are going to support the measures that promote diversification of agriculture, that promote adding value to products in this province. What I wonder, when he brings forth this kind of a resolution, is he wondering if his colleagues on his own side have got that kind of a commitment when he asks them to consider continuing supporting agricultural producers?
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the changes that the honourable member across talks about that he calls necessary I would suggest are more his opinion and that he should open his mind as well to some of the suggestions that are made on a much broader basis. In that sense, maybe we can move more towards diversifying agriculture. Thank you.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I am, first of all, extremely pleased that I have this opportunity to speak about agriculture, and I want to thank the mover of this resolution for affording us all the privilege of so doing. I say this as an observation, not as a complaint. Agriculture matters find themselves hard-pressed to get on the agenda of this Chamber from time to time as we understandably reflect the priorities of the day, which certainly tend to be in the area of social services. So I am extremely grateful to my colleague the member for Emerson to allow us to have this discussion on the issue of agriculture, generally speaking.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also want to express a very sincere public thank you to not only the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) but his two colleagues who did a very important thing for all of us here in Manitoba. "Change" is, I guess, one of the most overworked word. Change is always about--it is part of the evolution of all things. We in agriculture speak constantly about the changes that are taking place, and of course they have been going on all the time.
I also understand the fact that most of us are nervous about change, and we do not particularly look forward to change. I like the expression in a little story that my Premier, the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), that talks about change. He says the only time that we welcome change, the only time in our life that we actually welcome change, is when we are babies and our diapers are wet and we are looking for somebody to change them. That is the only time we accept change in a positive way. Other than that we tend as human beings to resist it, because we are concerned about the unknown. We do not quite know exactly what we are changing to. We are more comfortable with how we have been doing things currently and in the past. And so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for all those reasons, it is understandable change is a worrisome thing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was thrust on us here in the mid-'90s a particular change that was not of our making, as the member for Emerson correctly points out, but nonetheless we have to respond to it, and respond to it we are trying to do. What was thrust on us was the withdrawal as I recall, or the change if you like, of Canada's longest standing agricultural support program, if you like, factually known as the Crow. Much has been said, much has been written, and there are many who are extremely well suited to comment on the Crow and have commented on the Crow in this Chamber.
But I just want to pick up where that left us. That meant that that change I spoke about just a little while ago took on even a more dramatic need and necessity. What I am particularly pleased with is that this government does not rush blindly into change, whether it is in health, whether it is in education. Do you remember the program, the effort that former Minister of Education, the former Minister of Finance, by someone named Clayton Manness put into the thoughts about the changes that were necessary in the structure of education? Yes, it took the efforts of three colleagues of mine in Health to bring about the plan that are still obviously creating some heartache and some concerns, some worry out there, as we fundamentally change from literally hundreds of boards of education and health providers to relatively few as we impose a new structure on the powerful city-based hospitals. Mr. Deputy Speaker, not an easy matter at all.
Again, that was proceeding to a plan in agriculture. We knew the inevitable was about us. We knew the Crow was dying, and we knew the Crow had died when we felt the $750 million no longer coming to agriculture. It meant in Manitoba such a dramatic change that it is hard for people not directly involved to appreciate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I get heart-rending letters from farmers. I got one just the other week from a farmer from the Bowsman area, the Swan River Valley area. He writes me, he says two-carload loss of premium malting barley--and he attaches the freight invoices to the letter that demonstrate that over 55 percent of a value of the shipments he made were eaten up by the freight bill. In other words, one carload he got some money for and the other carload was there totally to pay the freight bill. He says: Mr. Minister of Agriculture, what are you going to do about this? You have to do something.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot do a great deal about it. If I am honest, I cannot tell him that next year that freight bill might be 60 or 65 percent, particularly if Judge Estey's report comes through with greater deregulation of the transportation system--that is what it could mean. What I can tell him, though, is he ought not to be the first to line up at his municipal hall as part of a group objecting to a livestock venture in the area, a hog barn, because it is through this diversification into livestock that we can avoid that massive freight bill, and that is the direction that we are doing. But not exclusively. There are 101 different types of opportunities in rural agriculture that this government and this department is pursuing. It is not our thoughts that are being brought to bear on the issue. No, again, as is the hallmark of this government, we set in force a task force, to look and to listen and talk to people, that was capably chaired by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
We travelled--I will tell you, I have been in this place and associated with different governments in opposition and watched other governments. Not too many issues and not too many times has there been a group of legislators go out to inquire, to ask questions in as thorough way as this task force did, I believe, in the neighbourhood of 26 locations in Manitoba.
* (1740)
As a rule, when we send task forces to do different things, to seek public opinion, we kind of hit the main regional centres. We maybe go to Brandon if we want to go to the Westman region, we go to Thompson or we go to one of the southern places, and that is about it, and Winnipeg. Not only that, individual members and, collectively, they also went and looked beyond our own country, beyond the border, and looked at some of the very interesting things that our American friends were doing with some success. Put that all together, and that was a considerable amount of work.
I know that I was privileged from time to time to be asked to preside over some of the meetings. I made a mild complaint. They kind of took over my office in doing this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that is what went with the turf. They worked diligently in putting this all into very readable report form that is our plan and serves as our plan, as our benchmark, as we try to navigate our way in the new post-Crow era and try to, as best we can, encourage ourselves and encourage our departments of governments, whether it is Rural Development, whether it is Finance, whether it is Agriculture, to respond to some of the realities that are out there in agriculture that I have already referred to with respect to freight costs of moving high volume, low cost goods out of this region, which now are just about impossible to do in an economic way, and to challenge ourselves and challenge our farmers and challenge our entrepreneurs the 101 ways that we have to invent, if you like, to provide for a decent economic return, to provide for opportunities for our young people, and, quite frankly, an extremely high priority of this government, to help repopulate some of our rural areas that for too many years now have seen a continuing decline of that population base.
In doing so, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we make it possible to provide those services throughout rural Manitoba that we are as much entitled to as those in the larger urban centres. We want quality health care, we want quality education, we want quality recreation opportunities, we want decent highways, while we are at it, when we are commuting these distances back and forth as well. So to do all this, our economy, our province, has to create the necessary wealth.
You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was just an excellent opportunity that I enjoyed this morning very much in the company of some of my colleagues to visit one our major job creators, Schneider's meats. They, members will recall, just last year completed a brand-new $25-million processing plant in St. Boniface, and it was a delight to walk through that plant, clean, bright, not some of the bad press that the naysayers would like to attach to the pork industry, employees well protected, well shielded from danger. There was not an aura of unhealthy or intolerable working conditions in that plant, a plant paying excellent wages, 50 more job openings right now at excellent wages.
All the time I walked through that plant, I did not--yes, I walked past mounds. We walked into one cooler facility that had a capacity for 6,000 carcasses of hogs at one time. The plant itself has a capacity of killing up to 800, 1,000 hogs an hour, so I saw a lot of pork, and I saw a lot of people working, and I saw state-of-the-art equipment in that brand-new plant, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I always go beyond that. I saw nurses being employed in hospitals. I saw personal beds being provided for our seniors, not just in the city of Winnipeg, but throughout rural Manitoba. I saw new hospitals being built. I saw teachers being hired. I saw parks being looked after as I was walking through that plant, because that is what it is all about.
That is what it is about for our municipalities, too. If they want to see their youngsters stay at home in those rural municipalities, then come to terms with a changing agriculture. Come to realize that you can have those things and at the same time, in fact, see a moderation; in fact, even see an improvement in the overall level of taxation that we impose on ourselves from time to time for these services.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, yes, we are--and let there be no doubt about it. I found it passing strange that the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) would question the honourable member's therefore resolved of the resolution, that there was a doubt. I am delighted that at least the first spokesperson from the opposition has indicated, if I understood him right, that they were supporting the resolution. The question is will they come along for the ride all the way, because it is going to get a little rocky, it is going to get a little tough there once in a while. I would like to comfort them. You know, never fear, Enns is near, and they will land safely at the destination that we are all travelling to, but stay with us and we will make this province of ours the kind of province that we can be very proud of and that will benefit future generations for many generations to come. Thank you.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this private member's resolution by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). I have read through it, and he makes some very, very good points. He has missed out a few things, which I will probably elaborate on in my time in speaking to this resolution.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says that he feels that what the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) said today sounds like we are supporting this resolution, but somehow there are some things missing in this resolution, and if there was the opportunity, I think we would probably make some amendments to this resolution and add a few things that we feel, too, are important to the agricultural industry and to the province of Manitoba.
It was interesting listening to the comments by both members opposite--and I agree. I mean, the reduction and the elimination of the Crow benefit has greatly affected this province and western Canadian provinces and the agricultural producers in Manitoba. As my honourable colleague said, we are in the centre, but we are also at the worst part of the centre with the elimination of the Crow for the freight costs, as the Minister of Agriculture had said.
I also wonder, and not being in the agriculture industry myself, but for the last 15 years living in rural Manitoba and being around in agricultural areas, Killarney being one of them, now Riverton, I see the need and I see what has happened. So even though I am not totally familiar with how the system works, at least I see what the costs and what the results have been with the loss of this, elimination of the Crow benefit.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, $750 million is a tremendous subsidy; $750 million to be lost in a matter of no time at all is a big, big reduction. It has made a lot of our producers in Manitoba, our grain producers and others, and I have seen it in my area for diversification. What I have also seen in my area is the importance, and in other parts of rural Manitoba--as Rural Development critic I get an opportunity to go around to all the different areas. What is important is to maintain that agricultural base, no matter whether it is in the southwestern corner, the southeastern corner, the middle, wherever agriculture and wherever part of agriculture there is, we should be doing what we can to maintain that, absolutely.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I made some notes, and I am trying to because I want to make a few points when it comes to rural economic development also. The member stated that agriculture is important to rural economic development, and I agree, very important. We had a report out here just last week when I was heading home saying that what percentage of Manitobans make their income, what percentage of their income is from what production or what job. That happened to be agriculture, farmers and farm managers. I believe it was in the 60-something percent of this province.
* (1750)
So diversification is and has become an issue over the past couple of years to maintain this economic plus within our communities. But the Minister of Agriculture, who told us that he was here for us to save Manitoba and Manitoba producers and economic development of this province, the Minister of Agriculture should not boast too loudly about his being available as the king of Manitoba and the king of Manitoba agriculture.
Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair
The history lesson was very interesting. I enjoyed listening to the member for Emerson with his comments about how everything transpired and I certainly appreciate that, but getting back, the Minister of Agriculture stated: well, I saw when I walked through the Schneider plant, I saw nurses being hired, doctors being hired, roads being built.
Just this afternoon, or whenever he was at Schneider's, the King Harry of Manitoba, the Minister of Agriculture says: I saw this vision for Manitoba. I saw the personal care homes. I saw the hospitals. I saw the economic development.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, what about the last couple of years? What did the minister see? A few rough spots, just a few cutbacks here and there, just a few cutbacks in agriculture, just a few cutbacks in social services and in health care, just a few, a few bumps in the road to glory, as the Minister of Agriculture would say, to the glorious environment of our province.
I agree that diversification has become, as the member's resolution stated, and I certainly agree with that, some of the programs that this government has put in place, and members opposite know and we have said so, that some of the programs that are in place for the agriculture industry, we support. We have supported that. Our Agriculture critic has said it, I have said it, our Leader has said it, other rural members have said it.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us not get away from another item and that item being that nowhere here in this resolution--now with the elimination of the Crow rate, with the elimination of rail lines through abandonment in rural areas, maybe not in that member's area but in my area, has created a greater problem than what he seems to think there is out there. That problem is infrastructure. It goes along with your social services, goes along with your education, but nowhere here in this resolution does it state anything about the costs to the people to be able to have production, to do production and to cause no further hardship than has been caused.
I see it nowhere here. Nowhere does it say that the Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to restore the infrastructure and to encourage the infrastructure, encourage the Province of Manitoba, encourage this government to create an infrastructure and a service for the province of Manitoba--nowhere.
Now, I have been to meetings in my constituency and to meetings with the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) on a very hot topic, and that is the loss of the line to Arborg. The member was there; he heard what the producers were saying. He heard what Keystone was saying. He heard what Manitoba Pool Elevators were saying. [interjection] What did I say? I support it. I supported the wishes of the constituents and the people in the organizations to maintain that line. I supported their arguments, and the member for Gimli supported them too, and I am putting that on the record.
But what was said there? They showed CP that there was no need to discontinue that line. Now, if that is going to be discontinued by the year 2000, nowhere does this member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) state--[interjection] All the member says is that the federal government has eliminated the Crow benefit, a $750-million support system, thereby creating uncertainty and forcing change on agricultural producers. The member does not mention, does not remember the transportation end of it as far as the infrastructure goes for the producers to be able to be viable and to be able to sell and take their grain to market or their livestock.
Mr. Enns: It is all Binx's fault.
Mr. Clif Evans: Now, what we do see--well, there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is typical of this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), blaming someone else for what he has done in this province of Manitoba. Blame it on everybody else. It is their fault; it is not his fault. He just told us earlier he saw this great vision. Well, I wonder if he saw the vision of the person he was talking about who created the problem. If he had, he would have stopped it but he did not.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is typical. This resolution does not support what we have said, what I believe in, for the agricultural industry to diversify to a wider range, and in my area, for a good example, there is diversification already. There are producers that are into wild boar, emus, ostrich. [interjection] Not goats so much but some of the high-tech diversification. Fishing is an important agriculture economical benefit to my area and to some of the areas in Dauphin, but what I also see and what I have in my constituency as diversification is I have livestock producers who are also fishermen who try and combine that sense of responsibility to be able to diversify their operations.
Now, also on the west side where I am hearing, because of the transportation costs, the freight costs, what we are seeing is a lot of my smaller, medium-sized producers in livestock, such as cattle, attempting and wanting to expand that industry. They are looking towards that end of the industry.
But the minister also said something very interesting, and I thought that he was sending a message--the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) was sending a message out to municipalities, to the people of municipalities to undertake responsibility to allow large diversified agricultural operations. He is telling the municipalities, you should be doing this--not listening to what the people in the area or the people on council are saying, but what the minister is telling them to do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, if someone wants to diversify, if someone wants to get involved in any kind of an industry, whether it be the agriculture industry, whether it be for the benefit of rural development, whether it be the peat moss industry, whether it be the alfalfa plant industry that was proposed, a timothy plant, a pelleting plant that is being proposed in Vidir area--no, he is telling them what they should be doing, not letting them, not letting the producers and the people in the area. He said earlier--[interjection] He is here. No, the minister said, "I am telling." I wrote it down, telling municipalities. [interjection] We will check Hansard, and it will be--nobody should be telling. We should be suggesting, as the minister says he is suggesting, it is not his words. What we should be suggesting, we should be supplying the opportunity for municipalities.
An Honourable Member: King Harry does not suggest.
Mr. Clif Evans: I know King Harry never suggests anything. King Harry just does and takes as he feels and as he pleases. The diversification is important. The agriculture industry is a very viable--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for the Interlake will have three minutes remaining.
The hour now being six o'clock, this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until tomorrow (Wednesday) at 1:30 p.m. Good night.