Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Member's Business.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that
"WHEREAS Springwater Wayside is a publicly maintained source of spring water and a roadside stop utilized by local residents and tourists; and
"WHEREAS in 1987, the Provincial Government upgraded the facility and installed a pump to make the water more accessible; and
"WHEREAS the current plans to privatize the operation of Springwater Wayside are contrary to the public interest and will make the water less accessible; and
"WHEREAS in Springwater Wayside were in private hands, local residents are concerned they could be charged for the water; and
"WHEREAS the Provincial Government has undertaken to privatize waysides without public consultation.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Natural Resources consider maintaining the Springwater Wayside as a public facility with unrestricted access to members of the public; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Provincial Government to consider putting in place a program so that individuals who are interested in establishing a water bottling facility would have access to alternate sites rather than public parks."
Motion presented.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to bring this issue to the Legislature because it is an issue that is very important to the people in my constituency. Last spring, when the people of the Pine River and surrounding area realized that the government was planning to privatize the Springwater Wayside Park, hundreds of people signed petitions. I would imagine close to a hundred people phoned the minister's office, as well, to express their concern with what was happening.
I would like to share with you a little bit of history of this site, Madam Speaker. The Springwater Wayside Park is located about six miles north of Pine River. Pine River is a community that has very poor drinking water. As a result, people come to this particular spring to get most of their drinking water. The water is at the bottom of a hill, and over the years, people had to climb down this hill and carry their water up. Well, when the New Democrats were in power in 1987, they recognized the importance of this site, and they wanted to improve the facility for the people of the area and put in a pump, bringing the water to along the highway where people could access the water very easily. That is a recognition of a government that cares for people and recognizes the importance of good-quality water.
Over the years, through the Department of Natural Resources, this site was maintained and kept clean, and there is a small picnic area a little ways over. Although it is not an overnight campsite, it is a site that people use for picnics. Tourists use the site, and many tourists also pick up their water. I have to tell you that people from Dauphin come to this site to get their water because they say that this is the best water for making dill pickles.
So it is used to a great extent. There are a lot of people who use this site, but this government in their path to privatization would privatize anything that was available to them, and one of the things that they decided to privatize was this particular site, and, as I indicated, the people were not very happy with it. I have to say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) that when we raised this issue after letting him know about the number of people who had signed petitions and the number of people who called his office, he said that he would like to resolve this issue, and he indicated that the person who was going to get this site would not be able to restrict the water. There had to be access for people to get their water there.
But the point is, Madam Speaker, there are many springs along Duck Mountain. If somebody wants to bottle water, I encourage them to go on that venture. I encourage anybody who wants to start up a business, but in this particular case there is no need to privatize a site that has been upgraded for public use.
The minister said that he had some concern. One of the reasons they were privatizing it was because it was not kept clean. Well, I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, the individual who has taken over this site--and my understanding is he has been given a 25-year lease on this site. We have not seen the contract. We are not sure what services he is supposed to be providing, but the site is not kept clean. This spring, the people from Pine River had to go into the area and clean up all the garbage. There was a tree laying on the site since last summer, so this is your privatization; it is going to work so well. What we had before was the Department of Natural Resources coming in on a regular basis and keeping it clean, but, no, they had to turn it over to the private sector, and it is not being kept clean. Local people are not happy about this. Local people do not know what the plan is.
So I think one of the mistakes the government has made is not informing the public. They did not let the public know. The public, in fact, does not even know for sure whether or not the individual who is supposed to have signed this contract, whether he has really got it or not or how it is going to be handled.
So, Madam Speaker, there are ways that we--we would encourage business. We would encourage the bottling of water from our area because we have some of the best water in the province. We would encourage that, but we do not encourage what is happening at this particular site. I would ask the government and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) to give some direction to the person who is now in charge of this site to hold some public meetings and make people aware of what is going on. Do not try to do everything behind closed doors and keep people out of it.
These are people who have built up the area, people who are used to having water from this area, and now they are worried that their water supply is going to be taken away from them. I am told that the individual who is planning to develop this site is going to put a filtering system in, and there will still be water available to the public, but that is not the point. The people of the area have indicated that they want the site to remain as it is. They do not want it privatized, and there are many other sites in the area where water can be obtained.
I want to say that the government should look back at what previous governments have done. As I said, the New Democrats, when they were in power, recognized the importance of this site and put in a pump.
Now, the government said that this site was too expensive to keep up. Well, you know, I have to tell you that people in our area also pay taxes, and there are services that you do provide to people, so it should not be that difficult to be able to provide some services back to people.
* (1710)
I think that the government in this decision to privatize this particular site has got their blinders on and is very determined to proceed with privatization without--
An Honourable Member: They call them blinkers.
Ms. Wowchuk: They have got blinkers on, that is right--without recognizing the importance of this service, of this water, a basic need for human beings to have a good supply of water. They have just gone a little bit too far.
There is nothing wrong with admitting that you have made a mistake, and I would encourage the government in this case to recognize that this move to privatize this particular site is not in the best interests of the people of the area. It is not supported by people of the local area, and I think that it would be very easy for the government to say, well, we have made a mistake with this one. There are other springs in the area. Go ahead, put your pumps in and develop your site there. People would be very happy with that decision.
I would assure the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae) that if his government made a decision like this that you would get many calls from the people of Pine River and Garland and Ethelbert and in fact Dauphin who would congratulate you for recognizing that you had made a mistake.
As I say, Madam Speaker, I was in Pine River on Sunday, and I just talked to people about this particular issue and, again, they said, nobody has informed us what is going on. We are prepared to look after this site. We will keep it clean. The person who is looking after it now is not maintaining it. It is right along the highway. It is a place where tourists stop. It is important that it be maintained properly, and we should not be afraid to spend a little bit of money in an area that we want to have looking attractive for tourism. After all, tourism is one of our growth industries and one that we should be looking at very much, trying to encourage the growth of it and trying to promote rural and northern Manitoba.
As I say, we have many tourists who come through on a regular basis who stop at this site for water, and we should not be in such a hurry to turn everything over to private hands. But we have seen this government do this with a few other provincial wayside parks that have been privatized, and some of them are also in my constituency further north. I can tell you that the maintenance of those parks has not improved. In fact, there has been a deterioration in the quality of maintenance of those sites after they have been turned over to private hands.
There is nothing wrong with the public sector playing a role in providing services for people and making them available for tourists but, in this particular case, this is a very special wayside park, one that is very important to the people of my constituency and the people of the Pine River area, people who, as I have said, for years and years have got their water from this site. Madam Speaker, they are very concerned that the plan of the government is to turn this site over to a private individual who will start up a business there, and then they will not have the ability to access that water.
We have been told by the minister we will have the ability to access this water, but these people have some pride in their area, and they feel real ownership. This is their water, this is their wayside park, and it should not be turned over to private hands.
So again, I encourage members of the government to look at this particular issue and recognize, as I have said, that although to members of the government it may seem like a trivial issue, a Springwater Wayside Park of course does not mean anything to somebody who lives in Winnipeg or in other parts of the province where there is a good supply of water in their community. In this particular community there is not a good supply of drinking water. People haul their water. Now, that may seem like a strange experience to many members opposite, people who live in the city of Winnipeg, to imagine that people have to haul their drinking water, but this is actually the case.
Some days you can stop by there, and you will see somebody from Dauphin or another area who has their trunk filled with gallon jugs, and they are taking water from this site to have their drinking supply for a few weeks because, as you know, there has been a real problem with the drinking water in Dauphin as well.
So, Madam Speaker, I would encourage the government to recognize what a small site like this, I think one that costs the government maybe $2,000 to $2,500 to maintain. In the whole scheme of things that is a very small amount of money for government. I mean, they give away money to many places.
My colleague brings up the issue to Tom Stefanson. They give the ability for Tom Stefanson to make millions of dollars when they privatized our telephone system and that is another privatization scheme of this government. But in this particular case they do not recognize the importance of this system.
An Honourable Member: What have you got against the private sector?
Ms. Wowchuk: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) asks me what I have against the privatized sector. He should have been listening to what I was saying earlier, because I said I have nothing against individuals developing a business, and I would encourage them to look at other sites along the Duck Mountain where we have some of the best drinking water. Individuals, who had the interest in doing it, could establish a good business of bottling drinking water in the area, and I encourage them to do it--[interjection]
But in this particular case, not this site. This site here is one that should be left for the public sector to use and should be left as New Democrats had established it, a site where individuals could get their drinking water.
Madam Speaker, as I said, this government should consider putting in place a program, so that individuals who are interested in establishing a water bottling facility would have access to alternate sites rather than public parks. There is a place for public parks and there is a place for private business. There is a place for spring water that is available for the public to use, and there is a place for people to find sites where they can develop water for bottling.
I would encourage the government to recognize that they have made a mistake on this particular site and encourage them to listen to the people of the area. As I said, I would welcome you to come to my constituency and tell the people of this area you have made a mistake, and we would give you the warmest welcome if you would say that you would leave this site in public hands.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): It is certainly a pleasure for me today to stand and speak on the resolution brought forward by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
I listened to her make her explanations as to why she would oppose what is happening at Springwater Wayside Park. As I have sat through a few sessions now, it seems that my first question would be: is she really opposed to this particular plan or is she just opposed to everything that appears to have privatization in it or anything associated with privatization?
As I think about certain areas in my constituency where we have wayside parks in our communities, it makes me question some of the things that she is saying in the sense that I know when you have parks like that that provide a public service and have probably provided a service for a long period of time, the question would be, though, is: is there a bigger benefit to the plan that is being proposed. I do not know for sure, but I would guess that wherever you have a public system such as the one that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is talking about, I am sure there is cost to upkeep and maintenance and certain things.
I know the honourable member threw out the number of $2,000 to $2,500. I guess, obviously, there should be some way of verifying the numbers that she has put forward. I also note in her comments that quite often, as is the case for members opposite when they present a petition, they say a number of people. Well, is it a number of people, one? Is it 10? Is it 15? What constitutes the number, I guess, is the question that I would ask?
* (1720)
Ms. Wowchuk: The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) is doubting the number of people who signed petitions. I want to indicate to him that there were well over 700 people in a very small area who signed a petition opposing this government's plan to privatize this site.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Turtle Mountain, on the same point of order.
Mr. Tweed: Madam Speaker, I was not questioning the number of people who had signed the petition. I was merely asking for the number, because I did not hear it in the honourable member for Swan River's presentation.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River does not have a point order. It is clarifying the record.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Turtle Mountain, to continue debate.
Mr. Tweed: For clarification, this does not cut into the allotted time that I have to speak on this resolution, I would hope. Anyway, Madam Speaker, I thank you and I will continue on.
Whenever you are dealing with I guess individual issues which, in this case, the member for Swan River, it is a personal issue for her. It is an issue that affects her constituents and the people of her community, so I certainly think she has probably done a good job or entitled to bring forward personal issues such as this that represents the people who she represents in the Swan River area.
But I do think that she has to take into consideration--again, she has put some numbers on the record that would indicate that the cost of maintenance on an annual basis for this facility would be approximately $2,000 to $2,500. Not knowing the true numbers, it would be unfair to me to make much comment on those numbers, other than the fact that that may be an annual cost of operation, but it certainly would not be the total cost of operation. When you look at the costs over time for repairing and replacing many of the things that are involved with this type of facility, I would think that there is probably some infrastructure that over time would have to be changed or repaired or upgraded. I would think that there certainly, as there is in many areas of the province of Manitoba, is a concern about contamination of the well. I think that safeguards and the necessary steps would have to be taken to prevent this.
My own experience in wayside parks would be that there is probably, as in some of the parks that I have in my constituency, they tend to always be quite messy, because people I do not think fully appreciate what they are and what they should be used for in the sense of a place to stop and enjoy yourself and enjoy the area that these parks are within. I think that, as I understand it, the agreement that is being proposed to take place, the contractor or the person who is in charge would be responsible for certain things including the replacing and upgrading of some of the assets of the park as they needed it.
I think that rather than asking the people to provide these dollars to do this--and again, I would make comment about the member's statement where she said that this is their park. As much as I accept that, Madam Speaker, again, I am questioning it only because I do not know the situation particular to this particular park. But if it is their park, the question I might ask is: have they or do they currently participate in any of the costs of maintaining and upgrading and taking care of this facility? I know she has mentioned in her comments that it should be the government that does this, and yet the comment when they are talking about protecting their particular wayside park, they are saying, you know, this is our park, this is my park.
Yet when I see a wayside park, the first thing I think of the main purpose of it being there is for the person travelling by, the tourist. If it is going to be for those people, then I think that we probably have to discern what the difference is and what the utilization factor is.
When you look at other methods of providing this type of service to people, obviously there is going to be opposition to it, as we are hearing today. I stated in my opening comments that any time this government has brought anything forward that would indicate some sort of form of privatization, the members opposite stand and rail against privatization. In fact, if I understood correctly, I think the member for Swan River in her closing comments had to drag in the MTS debate that took place several years ago now. I think, Madam Speaker, as long as I will be here and probably you that we will constantly hear about this MTS debate as it comes forward. It would indicate to me that this argument will continue for a long period of time, because I suspect that the government that is currently the government of Manitoba will continue to be that for a long period of time.
The other thing that I understand about this particular offer or this operation that they are proposing for Springwater Wayside Park is that the people of the community or the people of the area that do use it and do take advantage of it will have an opportunity as they do now to access unfiltered spring water at no cost. Now if that is what the member's main concern is, then I would say that particular question has been resolved and that was certainly part of the resolution that was brought forward is the fact that they want the water accessible and usable to the people in the local area. I think that has been certainly addressed in the issue of the agreement between the two parties involving Springwater Wayside Park.
The idea that a person would take on operation of this type of facility-- and again as the member for Swan River has indicated already, it is a mess, it is dirty, it is unkept--again I am speaking strictly from someone who has not been there, but I would think the people that would take over the management of that in their best interests, it would be in the best interests of all to maintain the facility as good as it has been or perhaps even in a better way. I would suggest to the member opposite that if she has those concerns and if that is a concern again, it is always brought forward by the members opposite through innuendo and suggestion, quite often we do not hear anything that substantiates the suggestions they brought forward, but they are brought forward and put on the record. Therefore to the members opposite, it is perceived as being a fact, and I might suggest that they would present it to their public that way.
The changes that are going to be made, as I stated, some of the infrastructure things that will be taking place, I understand that the well and the pump will be upgraded either through repair or replacement. I understand that there is the installation of a filtration system which will improve--pardon me--and they will be improving the parking area for the people who are going to utilize the facility, again not just the local people but the tourists that travel by. There is nothing better than a facility that is presented well to the public and to the tourist that stops for a moment to enjoy the scenery and the surroundings that this particular wayside park would present. I would suggest that it would be a good idea that these people, in the best interests of what they are trying to do, they would maintain a very clean and presentable facility for all the people.
* (1730)
The concerns that I have as I see it in some of the wayside parks that I travel through in my constituency is the fact that, if there is a bit of private interest involved in it--and again I am speaking only from my personal experience in the areas that I represent. I find that I have never been into one of those parks in my communities that are unkempt and not right up to standard, not a place where you would not want to spend an extra 15 minutes enjoying the area. I would suggest that if the member is having complaints or is hearing from people that say it is dirty or not as presentable as it once was, perhaps they should take a minute and visit with the person that is involved with the park at this point in time, and I am sure some sort of an agreement can be reached between the two parties.
The other thing, just more of a comment than anything, in regard to the suggestion from the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) that she is not opposed to the development of a water facility, or a bottling facility in the area, just not that area. She suggested that anywhere throughout the Duck Mountain, you know, they should look and we should be providing access to them for this.
I appreciate her comments in the sense that she is putting on the record that she does not oppose the government offering other alternative sites in the Duck Mountain for future developments of businesses and enterprises, but that is not what I have heard from the member opposite since I have come into this House in 1995. All I have heard is opposition to everything that has gone on in her particular community and in her particular riding, Madam Speaker. I think the one issue that I know of, and it comes up from time to time, is the fact of natural gas coming into her communities and how it is suggested that government in some way prevented it from happening.
I would suggest that it may have been the member's attitude and approach to it, as I stated, the approach that she takes to all business ventures in her communities. There is always a way to oppose it and a method of opposition that would probably seem distasteful to people that might want to come in and expand and grow and develop into her particular community.
So with that, Madam Speaker, I read the resolution, I listened to the member's statements as she has put forward. I do think it is really not an opposition so much to this type of an industry or to any industry; it is an opposition to privatization. It is more of an ideological position that she is taking, and, unfortunately, I find that I cannot support her resolution.
Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this resolution because I think that the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), albeit she has designed the resolution actually within a very, narrow scope, I think that the purpose of the resolution maybe identifies a much broader area of concern with regard to the whole issue of water within the province of Manitoba. So what I would like to do is go through this process, and I think by putting some arguments forward that perhaps at the end of my presentation, there will be no doubt that the process that the government is following for that wayside park is, indeed, the right way to go.
I think that the whole essence of water as a resource in Manitoba is as we all know that water is the source of all life, and so from that standpoint I think it is very important that we maintain the sustainability of our water resource. Of course, to that end, the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of the Environment are very much key players in the development and trying to retain the sustainability of the water resource because, ultimately, if we have a sustainable water resource in this province of Manitoba, we will enjoy, countless generations of time to come will be able to benefit from this resource and will make Manitoba a very strong, viable province that people will be able to live here, work here, invest, and raise a family.
When we take a look at water as a resource in the province, we look at it from the standpoint of surface and subsurface water. I just wanted to bring to honourable members' attention that one of the areas that I am proud to say that the Department of Natural Resources has taken a very proactive approach in is with regard to land drainage. Ultimately, the water resource that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is referring to will be affected by how we treat and manage our surface water in this province.
Just to bring forward that the Department of Natural Resources brought in a drainage legislation whereby producers now will require permission before they drain their farmland. I just want to reiterate here that in many parts of Manitoba we have seen excessive drainage take place to the detriment of the ground water supply. Certainly, from the standpoint of the producer that is installing the drainage and trying to get rid of surface water, trying to cultivate a few more acres of land, you can appreciate why they were doing what they were doing, but at the same time I do not think very many producers quite realize what the impact was on the aquifer below the ground surface. This aquifer was what they depended upon for their own water supply, domestic water supply, and water supply for their livestock operations. As such, if this practice has been left unattended and allowed to continue, I believe that in the next decade or two decades, we would have really seen the impact of what happens when surface water is drained without any consideration given for the aquifer. So maintaining the aquifer in this province is very important because many parts of this province depend on ground water as their main source of water for their dwelling.
To just go one step further on that, when we take a look at water, having just come through the 1997 flood, of course, everybody said, well, there is just way too much water, so then the main thrust was to get rid of the water, get rid of the water. Well, I am happy to say, yes, I am happy to say that with the International Joint Commission, a report that was commissioned between the federal governments of the United States and Canada and the Province of Manitoba and the State of North Dakota, I am very proud to have that report come forward because I think their mandate is to take a look at the total water management of the Red River Valley, the Red River watershed.
I think it is very important that the kinds of recommendations that I would expect to see come out of that report would be such that in terms of water management we would try to manage our water on the higher elevations and hold the water back. Now, No. 1, that allows the water on the lower parts of the valley to move away more quickly. The second part is that, because this water is entrapped at the higher elevations, which is in the hills surrounding the Red River watershed, there is also this ability to recharge the aquifer, which, up until now, many producers are draining these potholes, trying to get rid of the water, and thereby affecting the aquifer.
In respect to bottled water and bottled water operations, there are many of these operations in Manitoba. The two that I am personally aware of are one down at Menisino, which is bottling water, natural water off an artesian well, and they are marketing this water. The second one that I am probably more familiar with is the one located at Otterburne which is in my constituency. There they use the ground water, and they put the water through a reverse osmosis, and they end up with very pure drinking water. They are an up-and-coming young industry in the area, and they are constantly gaining new markets on a daily basis.
* (1740)
Another area, too, Madam Speaker, that I think in terms of painting a picture for this whole scenario is the fact that in the area where I grew up, water was always considered very precious because we did not have a natural water supply that we could have a well. Most of the ground water was all saltwater, therefore we had to haul our water, and we hauled our water from the city of Winnipeg, from the south end of Winnipeg. We hauled water, in fact, up until 1992. Now, when my father built the farm that I was on, he had enough vision to build a fairly large cistern, so we had a fairly large quantity of water on hand at any given time, about 6,000 gallons.
But I just want to remind members here, Madam Speaker, that that comes with a cost. It really makes me appreciate the fact that you can never take water for granted. It is a very precious commodity and should be looked after and sustained over the long period of time, because this water that we hauled was expensive, and, as per usual, every time we had large amounts of company over, that was usually the time we ran out. When our city cousins came to visit us, and they flushed with high frequency, it always made me very worried because I figured that you only have to flush, you know, every so often, and I thought, oh, oh, there goes the water. So I was always on pins and needles when we had company over and they used the bathroom a lot.
Now, Madam Speaker, getting back to what the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has mentioned with her resolution, you know, the Province of Manitoba, by the actions that they are taking with respect to this park, are going to ensure the long-term sustainability of this wayside park. There is no question about it, because right at the present time, I think the member for Swan River indicated that each year they have to have a volunteer group go out, collect garbage, clean up the site, whatnot. I just remind the member for Swan River that with the park itself, the pump that she says her government installed--and, of course, I have to mention here that, you know, it shows you what the opposition did when they were in government, is that when they put in infrastructure such as a pump, it was never designed to last long. I am understanding it has to be replaced. I am told this pump has to be replaced. I am also advised that the area, because it is unattended and it is used by passers-by, is also used as a place to dump some garbage, and I am also advised that the water tests at the site have confirmed unusually high levels of fecal coliform.
So you can take your choice. You can leave the park as it is and have a water supply that gets contaminated, or you can privatize the park which will allow the development of a new infrastructure at the park with regard to utilizing the water. As well, Madam Speaker, the park will be kept clean, and I am advised that the local residents for that site will be offered a choice of having the water unfiltered and untreated free of charge, or they may choose to purchase the water at a nominal cost from the lessee who has got the facility.
But, overall, Madam Speaker, with the lessee there onsite, we are not going to have garbage dropped off at this site as a place for garbage to be disposed of. We are going to ensure that the water quality from that well remains at a very high level and because of the fact that there is somebody there, there is a chance for tourists to stop in, enjoy the water, enjoy the park, and I think that overall the benefits to that whole area will be much increased as a result of that happening.
So, Madam Speaker, I reiterate again that water is a precious resource that we have in this province. It is a resource that we have to approach from that standpoint. We have to try and ensure its sustainability. I believe that the actions that are being taken at this wayside park are toward ensuring that sustainability of that water supply, because if that water supply became contaminated at that park, it would then contaminate a lot of water sources in the entire area.
So we have to be careful about that, just as we are careful in terms of the environmental impact with hog barns being established. We also have to be concerned about the fact that if people misuse the park, that it will be of benefit to nobody in the long run. I think that the approach that we have taken with regard to this park is just, I believe, the very best way that we can ensure that there is a sustainable water source at that park and that it is available for all Manitobans to enjoy today, tomorrow and a long time into the future, and we even have a lot of American visitors who will be able to enjoy it as well.
So with those few comments, Madam Speaker, I am sure that all members will agree with me that the approach that we have taken is the right approach.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): It is a pleasure to rise in support of my colleague from Swan River who brings forward, Madam Speaker, this very important resolution for consideration of all members, and I am a little disappointed with some of the comments made by the members opposite. It appears that they will not be supporting this very important resolution.
It is of interest to me in that my parents--when I was younger and I lived out there with them just west of Selkirk, we could not drink our well water. So what we would do, we would take containers over to the artesian spring wells that were very prominent in that area, and, Madam Speaker, it is a shameful action of this government's beginning to privatize our natural resources.
As the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has said, this artesian well in the area is the source of water for the residents in that particular area who have poor water, who have poor well water, and they rely upon this source of spring water for their drinking water.
As the member says, water is a very precious resource, Madam Speaker, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) has said, well, he would resolve this issue, but what they have done instead, they have simply privatized this. They have privatized it and they also restricted access to individuals in that area who have in the past relied upon this for their sources of drinking water. It is said that there are other springs in the area, in the Duck Mountain area, that could be used for the bottling of water, and we urge the government to look at those and to maintain this park, this wayside area, for the residents.
Madam Speaker, as the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has mentioned, the residents in that area are very concerned. Over 700 of them signed a petition. They are disappointed that they were not notified by this government. They are disappointed that they were not kept informed of the process; someone said much like what happened during the MTS privatization where the government promised that they were not planning on privatizing that public asset and then they did. I urge the government to go out there and to hold public meetings to listen to the concerns of the area residents who are most affected by what happens when the government is restricting access to their water supply. It is not in the best interests of local residents.
* (1750)
As was mentioned, this is a local tourism attraction in that very beautiful part of Manitoba. It has also been revealed here that the private owner is not maintaining the site and that residents from the area have to come and clean up the site. So to me, it is impossible to understand why the government will not support this resolution to allow the area residents access to this great source of spring water.
So I urge the members opposite to support this resolution to stop the privatization of access to our water, in this case, and the much broader privatization of access to other natural resources in this province. Thank you.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I never cease to marvel at the methods by which the members of the New Democratic Party make every single issue that comes up in our province and in our communities as some kind of a class struggle. That is sometimes the problem with a serious issue. We tend to classify everything as either part of some, what is it, great huge right-wing conspiracy on the one hand, or on the other hand, the leftist hordes getting involved in every aspect of our lives.
As I sat and listened to the debate today and some of the comments, especially those coming from my honourable colleagues opposite, I tended to think that once credibility gets stretched when we are dealing with a matter which is of importance to people in a particular region or neighbourhood, when that matter is treated as a doctrinal or a dogmatic or a philosophical or idealistic issue, it stretches one's credibility only a little bit.
That is a consistent thing that we see with honourable members opposite, and I suggest sometimes their consistency is somewhat foolish. I think it was Ralph Waldo Emerson, or somebody like that, who said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. I do not mean to imply that the mind of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is particularly small, because I happen to know otherwise. It is just that if this matter had been couched in terms that were less philosophical in nature, less political, less partisan, I think honourable members on both sides, on all sides of this House, would tend to give the whole issue a little more credibility than we are getting from the honourable member for Swan River.
You know, everything is not some kind of class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This is a pragmatic sort of society we live in. More and more when you look across this country, you see governments taking on issues. The issues are surprisingly similar everywhere across the country no matter what kind of government is in office. You see what I call Romanow's conservatives carrying on in a way that does not look very much different from Mike Harris' Conservatives, depending on the issue of the day. I mean, this is not an issue about, or should not be, this matter of Springwater Wayside ought not to be the subject of some philosophical debate about the control of the means of production in our society or the class struggles that we hear about each and everyday in this House from honourable members opposite. This is a real matter at the local and regional level that requires some appropriate consideration, and I respect that.
The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is right to raise the matter, bring it forward, have it talked about, but on the basis of some kind of discussion about how wrong it is to privatize something or how wrong it is to take the approach that, oh, you all so often see the Tories taking it, it just has to be wrong because obviously it is the Tories doing it. Let us all grow up around here a little bit. There is a question of credibility for all of us. There is a responsibility for credibility that we all have to discharge, and sometimes I think that we are going to have trouble being taken seriously by the population of this province if we keep dealing with these matters in this kind of a way. What is the right thing to do?
Well, I think that the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) and the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura) have certainly dealt with the specific aspects of this issue in a way that I could never pretend to emulate. So I will not dwell in detail on all of that, but I know there is tremendous pressure on this side of the House for me to do just that and to get on with a detailed analysis of the circumstances.
The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has done a good job presenting the issue from her standpoint, too, but I find it fascinating that this matter can ascend to the kinds of levels that honourable members opposite want it to ascend, whereby we have a basic class struggle going on right here at Springwater provincial park. [interjection]
Madam Speaker, well, it is all about privatization. Another opportunity for the New Democrats to take some kind of philosophical position on the whole issue of privatization and control of government, public control of our resources, and the means of production, and the monetary supply, and all of these things which really have very little to do with Springwater provincial park, which, as House leader, I suppose I could have been up a long time ago complaining about the whole issue of relevancy in the debate. But, no, as a courtesy, I thought I should let honourable members put forward their very strongly held views.
As I was listening to this debate coming from members opposite about the evils of privatization, I thought back to about 1987 when I was sitting on that side of the House, right next to where the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) sits today, and the honourable member for Emerson, as he then was--today he is the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger)--sat right beside me where the honourable member for Transcona now sits. He was somewhat of a mentor to me because he was my Whip. There were certain powers that Whips have, like, shut up, McCrae--that sort of power was something that he had to resort to from time to time, with great effect, I might add. But it was back in those days that there was a privatization going on here in Manitoba. [interjection]
The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is right. You know, she says: talk about the water. Well, why is it that the New Democratic Party is so bound and determined they have got to tax everything in existence?
One of those things is water, Madam Speaker. They want to tax the very water, the life-giving water that we need to sustain ourselves. That is exactly what they did back in those days. They found everything else. I do not know if they actually got to the cavities, the fillings in your teeth, but that was coming if they were in office long enough. But they did tax the water.
As I was saying, in regard to the philosophical nature of this debate, I was talking about a bus company which the New Democrats--you know, when you are in government, there is a certain reality that sets in, and even though you can rail on all day about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and all of that, the fact is sometimes you need to do the right thing when you are in government, and the New Democrats did not have very much choice because they ran this bus company into the ground while it was under their stewardship. So what did they do? They privatized it. I remember it well. Eugene Kostyra privatized the bus company, now called New Flyer. It used to be called Flyer Industries. What is the situation today? Winnipeg, Manitoba, is the bus manufacturing capital of North America. Now, I ask you--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable Minister of the Environment (Mr. McCrae) will have seven minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).