Manitoba Hansard — 13 May 2002 (Sitting 30, 37th Legislature, 3rd Session)

37-3-30

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session· Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LII No. 30 - 1:30 p.m., Monday, May 13, 2002

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARRETT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS,Harry FAURSCHOU, David FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HA WRANIK, Gerald HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie MURRAY, Stuart NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott, Hon. STEFANSON, Heather STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosano, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charles wood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Lac du Bonnet Gimli Point Douglas Flin Pion St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Kirkfield Park Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Tuxedo Dauphin-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

1345 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, May 13, 2002 The House met at 1: 30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Assiniboia Memorial Curling Club Holding Company Ltd. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau), I have reviewed the petition and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as fo llows: For a private bill giving the board of directors of Assiniboine Memorial Curling Club Holding Compan y Ltd. the power to levy an annual assessment against the holders of the Class "A" pref erred shar es of the company but at no time shall the holders of those Class ''A " pref erred shares be required to pay additional cash beyond the share value repres ented by the class "A" pref erred shares. Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable Member for St. James standing for Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Law Amendments Third Report Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Third Report of the Committee on Law Amendments. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents the following as its Third Report. Meetings. Your committee met on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 6:30p.m., in Room 255 of the Legislative Building. Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Meetings: Your committee met on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building. Matters Under Consideration: Bill 3-The Highway Tr affic Amendment and

Summary Convictions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant le Code de Ia route et Ia

Loi sur les poursuites

sommaires Bill 7-The Local Authorities Election Amendment Act/Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'election des autorites locales Bill 10-The Envir onment Amendment Act/Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'envir onnement Membership Resignations/Elections: Your committee elected Ms. Korzeniowski as Chairperson. Your committee elected Mr. Santos as Vice Chairper son. Substitutions received prior to commencement of meeting: Hon. Mr. Ashton fo r Mr. Martindale Hon. Ms. Fr iesen fo r Mr. Schellenberg Hon. Mr. Chomiakf or Hon. Mr. Mackintosh Mr. Santos fo r Mr. Reid Mr. Hawr anikfo r Mrs . Smith (Fort Garry )

1346 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13,2002 Mr. Cummings for Mr. Laurendeau Mr. Maguire for Mr. Schuler Public Presentations: Your committee heard one presentation on Bill 3, The Highway Tr affic Amendment and

Summary Convictions Am endment Act/Loi modifiant le Code de Ia route et Ia

Loi sur les poursuites

sommaires, from the following individuals and/or org anizations: John Butcher, Winnipeg Police Service Your committee heard four pre sentations on Bill 7, The Local Authorities Election Am endment Act/Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /'election des autorites locales, from the following individuals and/or org anizations: Gr ant Thorste inson, Manitoba Municipal Administrators Association Richard Sexton and Teresa Dillabough, Private Citizens Niel Hathaway, Private Citizen Stuart Briese, Pr esident, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Written Submissions: Your committee received one written submission on Bill 7, The Local Authorities Election Am endment Act/Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /'election des autor ites locales, from the following individuals and/or org anizations: Roger Goethals, Reeve, Rural Municipality of Winchester Bills Considered and Reported: Bill 3-The Highway Tra ffic Am endment and

Summary Convictions Amendment Act/Loi modifiant le Code de Ia route et Ia

Loi sur les poursuites

sommaires Your committee agre ed to re port this bill with the following amendment: THA T

section 7 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed subsection 257.1(2): Municipalities' use of surplus fine revenue 257.1(3) If a municipality's fine reven ue from convictions based on evidence from image capturing enforcem ent systems exceeds its costs of acquzrzng and using the systems, the municipality must use the surplus revenue for safety or policing purposes.

Province's use of surplus fine revenue 257.1(4) If the gover nment's fine rev enue from convictions based on evidence from image capturing enforcem ent systems exceeds its costs of acquiring and using the systems, the governm ent must use the surplus reven ue for safety or policing purposes in the part of the province in which the offence was committed. Bill 7-The Local Authorities Election Amendment Act/Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /'election des autorites locales Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Bill 10-The Environment Ame ndment Act/Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'envir onnement Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Ms. Korzeniowski: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. * (13:35) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS U.S. Agriculture Legislation Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House. On May 10 this year, together with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Murray), I attended a special meeting in Regina to discuss the impact of the new U.S. farm bill on Canadian agriculture and Canadian farmers.

As members know, the new U.S. farm bill will spend $180 billion over 10 years, most of it in the first 6 years. That represents a 70% increase over previous farm legislation. The level of support is a great concern to our Government, places our producers at an

May 13, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1347 intolerable disadvantage, is contrary to any sense of free trade and will continue to negatively influence international markets. Individually, Prairie Provinces cannot mitigate the negative impacts the U.S. farm bill will have on our producers and our economies. Prairie Provinces need to speak with one voice.

Through our meeting in Regina, provincial leaders from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta called on the federal government to provide a federally funded trade injury payment to mitigate the impact of the international subsidies and to take aggressive trade action at the World Trade Organization and under NAFT A to challenge the trade-distorting elements of the U.S. farm bill. Mr. Speaker, more is needed, and as Prairie Provinces we must remain vigilant. As part of the discussions in Regina, we decided to hold a special joint meeting to discuss the impacts of the new U.S. farm bill.

I want to take this opportunity to announce that I will be asking for leave in consultation with the House leaders, the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Liberal Party, to debate a resolution on this U.S. farm bill. This resolution will confirm Manitoba's report for an early special meeting between agricultural groups, farm communities, provincial government leaders and key federal government ministers, in which governments can discuss how best to mitigate the negative impacts ofthis U.S. farm bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to the support of this House in what is truly a serious threat to our producers and our agricultural economy. Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise also to make comment on the U.S. farm bill that was signed today by President George W. Bush, that indeed will provide a tremendous amount of economic hurt and put what we believe in Manitoba are our agricultural producers that have proven the world over that they can be efficient if they have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

Clearly, we know that when you look at examples such as pulse crops where Manitoba excels and leads the world on a level playing field, those producers do extremely well. Now we see that the U.S. farm bill has come into play and is attacking those producers, pulse crop growers. We find that puts our producers once again on a very unfair and not level playing field. We do know that the Canadian federal government has indicated that there is a number that they use of $1.3-billion hurt to the economy in western Canada.

We believe, and it was discussed at the First Ministers' meeting with the leaders of the opposition, that that is absolutely a bare-bones minimum, that in fact each province should do their own calculation to ensure when we sit down with leaders of the federal government that we are bringing actual numbers to ensure that our producers are recognized with the hurt that they are going to have to go through. * (13:40) On the basis of a resolution, I believe it is important that we do· have a debate and that we certainly would look forward to having a debate on this very, very onerous bill that has been introduced that our producers have to fight.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I request leave to speak on the Premier's statement, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Member for River Heights have leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted. Order. Do I hear no? Is there leave granted for the honourable Member for River Heights to respond? [Agreed] Mr. Gerrard: I, too, rise to speak briefly to the effects, which are substantial, of the measures signed by President George Bush south of the border today.

I believe that this creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the farm, in the agricultural community in Manitoba and in Canada and that it clearly needs a response, a response that needs to be multifaceted, that is very aggressive internationally in terms of trying

1348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2002 to decrease organizations Organization. subsidies worldwide like the World through Trade We need to have a very clear and accurate analysis of the effects of this measure south of the border on agriculture in Canada. Those effects clearly will depend on what happens with agricultural prices, what happens with changes in patterns of seeding that may be influenced by measures in the U.S. farm bill which enhance their conservation or set-aside reserve program. It needs to be done well so that we look at the multiplicity of effects.

It needs to have a combined action plan at a national level with all provinces working together. It also needs to have a province which is ready to come to the table and say there are some things that we can do provincially that are going to help farmers. I think we should leave no stone unturned. Farmers and agricultural producers in this province need to be supported to know that they will be supported. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): It is my pleasure to table the Annual Report of the Public Utilities Board for the year 2001.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 18- The Special Survey Amendment Act Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Ashton), that leave be given to introduce Bill 18, The Special Survey Amendment Act, and that the same now be received and read a first time. I would like to inform the House at this time that the Royal Recommendation for this bill is not required though it does appear on the Order Paper. Mr.

Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, seconded by the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services, that leave be given to introduce Bill 18, The Special Survey Amendment Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time. The honourable member has informed the House that it does not need Royal Assent-it is Royal Recommendation, as is printed on the Order Paper. He has made that clear to the House. Mr.

Smith: Mr.Speaker, this bill proposes amendments to The Special Survey Act to change the approving authority for the special survey from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to the Registrar General. It will also remove the provisions for cost recovery from landowners affected by the special survey. Motion agreed to. * (13:45) Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have members of the Springfield school's parent council who are the guests of the honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD U.S. Agriculture Legislation Impact on Manitoba Producers Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Premier and I travelled to Regina to meet with other provincial leaders regarding the impact the U.S. farm bill will have on Canadian farmers. We are in agreement that the U.S. subsidies put Manitoba farmers at a severe disadvantage with their American counterparts. Early this morning, U.S. President George Bush signed the $190- billion U.S. farm bill.

I would ask the Premier to provide details on the financial impacts this bill will have on Manitoba farmers. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the existing U.S. farm bill is projected to cost Manitoba producers some $250 million a year. We project the addition of pulse products, the

May 13,2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1349 lentils and peas, will add funds which we are now calculating. We know that there is some indirect impact on the feed industry and the livestock industry as well. We are going through with our Department of Agriculture represent atives, and Mr. Lee was with us in Regina, as the member knows, is doing the full impact. Some of the regulations have not been fully fleshed out, or flushed out-or terms you want to use-from the U.S. government. I wish, but certainly its minimum is $250 million, and it could go up as high as between $325 million and $345 million.

We can provide that exact breakdown as the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) continues to calculate this with her officials Mr. Speaker, as I said in Regina and the member just said in his statement, it is interesting to note the pulse crops have doubled in four or four and a half years. They have doubled in that period of time in a subsidy-free environment where farmers decided that the oil and grain seeds were being highly subsidized by the Europeans, subsidized by the Americans, and they of course went into these emerging markets and expanded and doubled very effectively.

Now they get into another situation where, as they have adopted and adapted to the changing subsidies from our so-called trading partners, they have been hit over the head by this increased subsidy signed by President Bush today. We are going to have a real test on the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, which was expanded into NAFTA, but signed it?- 1988. There were claims made then that there was a binding trade panel to deal with these distortions. We are going to have a real test. We plan on testing that provision through this unfair trade endeavour. Of course, that same binding panel was brought into NAFT A.

We also plan on going after this at the WTO, but we believe there is injury to our producers. That is why we have called all three western provinces. I am glad Alberta has joined Manitoba and Saskatchewan in calling for a trade injury payment to bridge again these unfair subsidies for Canadian producers. Mr. Murray: The First Minister has quoted a number of $250 million, knowing that number could be higher than $250 million.

Knowing this U.S. farm bill has been out there for the number of months it has been out there, my question is: When will the Premier announce the <letails to Manitoba farmers on the financial impact this U.S. farm bill will have on Manitoba farmers? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, for the grain and oilseed sector our initial calculations are that it rolls in the special payments that were made on an ad hoc basis over the last couple of years. For the pulse crop producers it is an additional subsidy that will have an impact.

That is why I say we so far have calculated on the per bushel cost to Manitoba producers to go from about $250 million to between $325 million and $345 million. We can provide that breakdown. We are wanting the detail of the regulations that flow from the bill. As we look at some of these details under the regulatory regime that flows from the U.S. farm bill, the thousands of pages of regulations, we will be able to be more precise, but it is certainly above 250.

It is between 325 and 345. * (13:50) There are some crops we are planning to have expanded, for example, potato production which we believe so far is not subject to additional subsidies under this U.S. farm bill. The members will know the expanded operation in Portage, the initial operation in 1987 in Carberry and expansion of that same plant in the mid-'90s in Carberry, the McCain's plant in Portage is meaning that Manitoba is going from third to second on potato production. We soon will be first in Canada.

Hopefully, the Americans will not touch that crop, but certainly the addition of the pulse crops is negative. The country-of-origin bill that is part of the U.S. farm bill, we are not afraid of consumers reading "made in Canada," Mr. Speaker, but the impact, will this be a surrogate technique for blockading Canadian products? That, too, could have a very serious impact on Canadian producers and the livestock industry here in Manitoba. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, it is important to have the date exactly when we are going to do

1350 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2002 this, because we believe that Manitobans, Manitoba farmers, should have a voice in the subsidy war. I would just ask the Premier if he will ensure and determine that number, that financial economic hurt that Manitoban producers have suffered because of this, will he determine and let Manitoba producers know that number before we take this fight to Ottawa? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agriculture is working on the per bushel impact of the subsidies and expanding the ad hoc payments to the pulse crops, to peas and lentils.

We do not have all the details on the country of origin. This is still a bit of an unknown factor. Certainly no Canadian producer is worried about the term "Canada" being used by any consumer for any consumer products.

We think the Canadian reputation for a viable livestock industry, a very positive livestock industry, is an extremely positive consumer advantage, but if that country-of-origin legislation is used as a surrogate club to stop exports of livestock products, if that club is used, as the member knows, as a way of stopping the flow of livestock weanlings and other products back and forth, which of course will affect the prices for producers, that will add to the very negative impact of this anti-trade bill. This is a bill that the Washington Post has said: If subsidies were an art form, this would be the Mona Lisa.

This is a bill that the Economist last week said is an absolute obscene trade distorting law, and everyone in this Chamber should be opposed to it. We want a level playing field. Farmers here can survive under a real free trade agreement, not this phony subsidy issue from the United States. U.S. Agriculture Legislation Impact on Manitoba Producers Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Just last week the Premier (Mr. Doer) of this province said this U.S. farm bill would be short-term pain for a group of farmers, and I quote. He said: This will be short-term pain for farmers in Manitoba.

Can the Minister of Agriculture tell this House how many more farmers this province is going to lose because of this U.S. farm bill? * (13:55) Ron. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, the impacts of this U.S. farm bill President Bush signed today are going to be very serious for our producers, but our producers have lived with a U.S. farm bill before and they have adapted and gone into new crops and have been able to adjust.

This one is far, far more serious, and that is why we are asking for all parties to co-operate with us so that we can indeed have a united front when we go and encourage the federal government to take strong action to ensure there is funding for this trade injury that is going to be hurting our producers. Mr. Jack Penner: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture then whether she could tell us how many businesses she thinks will be closed in rural Manitoba and in the city of Winnipeg due to this farm bill. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, you know this is a very serious issue.

It is an issue that is affecting our farmers. When our farmers are affected, our small communities are affected, and indeed the city of Winnipeg is affected. So I would hope that this member would get on board and stand with us as we fight against this U.S. farm bill. Mr. Jack Penner: This critic for Agriculture has told the minister time and time again that he would take her by the hand and lead her to Ottawa and negotiate with her, side by side, because we believe this industry is important to Manitoba.

Can the minister give us an estimation as to how many jobs will be lost due to the American protectionist bill we have just seen signed in Washington today? Ms. Wowchuk: I want to thank the member for offering to hold my hand down this path, but I can tell him that I have been standing up for farmers. What I would really like him to do is to get his message straight, not like the last time when we were trying to have a united front, he went off on another tangent and did not send a united message from Manitoba. We have to stand united on this issue.

May 13,2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1351 Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Emerson, on a new question. Mr. Jack Penner: Mr. Speaker, on a new question. It does not surprise me that the Government is concerned and that the ministry is concerned about her position, because she promised the people of Manitoba when she was elected, and this Premier (Mr. Doer) promised the people of Manitoba that they would protect the small family farms.

I would like to ask the minister: What action has she taken during the last two and a half years to ensure this kind of action would not be pre empted by the American government, and how many jobs in agriculture and in the city of Winnipeg will be lost due to this trade action taken by the Americans? Ms. Wowchuk: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we did not raise the portioning on farmland taxation as this government did. We put additional money into education and into property tax credits that helps Manitoba farmers, as it does the rest of Manitobans.

This Government has said they will work to protect small farms, and we are prepared. We have brought in programs that address issues for all farm families, and in particular family farms. I would ask this member at this time if he would get on board and stand with us on this important issue, instead of trying to divide people and saying that we are not standing up for the family farm, Mr. Speaker. * (14:00) Police Services Resources Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, the Doer government, already infamous for its misleading election promises, also made a commitment to the people of Manitoba and said, and I quote: We will make our communities safer. Statistics Canada reports that Winnipeg has the highest homicide, sexual assault, assault, robbery, violent crime, motor vehicle theft, among other major Canadian cities. About 14 hours ago, a young man's life tragically ended in the area when he was shot to death in River Heights. Mr. Speaker: When is this Premier (Mr. Doer) going to provide our police with the resources required to protect the citizens of Manitoba? Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to rely on crime statistics, he is entitled to do so. He says that under this Government the city has the highest homicide rates, and I just remind the honourable member that Winnipeg had the highest homicide rates in this country in 1994, in 1996, in 1997, in 1998. But, having said that, we have brought in initiatives, including a gang unit in prosecutions. We have strengthened our prison gang suppression strategy. We brought in a witness intimidation policy to guide us.

We had a national leadership role in bringing in new legislation to the Criminal Code. This province is now funding policing levels, funding that was voted against by members of the Opposition on the Budget. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are becoming increasingly jaded by the Doer government's continuing issue of press releases announcing initiatives, re-announcing initiatives. There is a store in Manitoba, right here in Winnipeg, that is selling hoodies that says on the front "Winnipeg, Murder Capital of Canada" emblazoned across these hoodies.

The media is now reporting that the victim of last night's shooting was a known member of the Zig Zag Crew, a puppet of the Hells Angels. Can the Premier (Mr. Doer) tell Manitobans when he is going to remove administrative roadblocks that tie up our police services for hours at desks, instead put them back on the street and start protecting citizens? Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, the year 2000 indicated that youth crime was down, robberies were down, break-and-enters were down, mischief was down. Auto theft is down by some ll percent for the first four months of this year.

1352 LEGIS LA TNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13,2002 Overall, crime rates are down from the unprecedented level of 1997. Under the former government, this province had the worst violent crime rate ever recorded in Canadian history. I just conclude, Mr. Speaker, with this quote. It says: Whether it is a turf war, internal housecleaning or bad blood among rival Winnipeg motorcycle gangs, the bodies are piling up. Three deaths on Tuesday brought the number of Winnipeg biker killings, or attempted killings, to five in the last three months. That is from The Globe and Mail from August 1996. We have a serious challenge.

We are rising to that challenge and bringing in innovative strategies to make Manitobans safer. Mr. Murray: Manitoba's police services, clearly, are to be congratulated for their efforts to address the growing gang problem in our city, but when they look at the Doer government, to the Minister of Justice for support, what do they get, Mr. Speaker? Nothing. They get nothing. Manitobans are seeing gang shootings in downtown Winnipeg. The Hells Angels have opened up a store in Winnipeg.

The Hells Angels are having fundraising projects, and now the Hells Angels are buying residential property right here under his watch. When can the police expect to see their efforts being supported by the provincial government, instead of being constantly undermined? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I believe it was this side of the House that commended the excellent police work that went into the blockade and eventual arrest of the individual that is now alleged to have committed so many armed robberies in the city of Winnipeg.

I really think that the member opposite is going way beyond the political norm in this Chamber. This is a serious public issue. The members opposite when they use the term "misleading" have continually misstated the fact that the Hells Angels, according to a 1998 Fr ee Press report, made an agreement with the Los Bravos in 1997 to open up their first

chapter in July 1999. This is an issue, a challenge that goes beyond partisan politics. It goes to the whole community, and for the Leader of the Opposition to continually make this an issue of politics when he had an opportunity to pass a safety bill dealing with bunker gangs and on three occasions the House Leader, who is the Minister of Justice, called the bill and members opposite sat on their hands. That bill could be law today. That is undermining the police force. Young Offenders Prosecution-Adult Court Mrs.

Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Regrettably, the NDP government forget that it was their Government that allowed the biker gang president to take a free trip to Spain. Having said that, we have, repeatedly in the newspapers, shootings in public. We have armed robberies. We have violent crimes occurring every day on a regular basis and it is escalating. Having said that, we had one of the most horrendous crimes in this city, one that touched the hearts of many, many people in this city, the sexual assault of a young child. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask this Attorney General: Will he support the effort of putting this youth into adult court providing the evidence merits that? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): We also, Mr. Speaker, have an unprecedented line of questioning to suggest that the Attorney General, that an elected official get involved in the prosecution of an offence because what the likely result of that would be are motions by the defence, motions that would get rid of this trial and perhaps let an offender off the hook. Let us have some responsible questioning in this House. Point of Order Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): We hear the Premier (Mr. Doer) from his chair saying that it was Justice Nate Nurgitz who did this. What did the Crown have to say about this motion, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mrs. Smith: Will this Attorney General take responsibility for the chaos that the courts are in,

May 13,2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1353 for the escalating crime on the streets of Winnipeg, and will this Attorney General take serious consideration to the young offenders who are going through our court systems and getting off with very light sentences? Mr. Mackintosh: You can get up in this House, I guess, and just say anything and say to an Attorney General: Why do you not get involved and start prosecuting a case, start making decisions in a particular case?

What the role of an Attorney General is obviously and what the role of a government is, is to put in place the policies, the direction to ensure that we can counter this threat to public safety that has been endured by Manitobans for some time. Indeed, in 1997, I remind members that Manitoba suffered the highest violent crime rate ever recorded in a Canadian province.

I have one regret, and that is that back in the early 1990s when gangs reared their ugly head in the city, street gangs in particular, we had a government in place that did not put the policies in place to fight that back, to try and nip it in the bud. Since we have come into office, we have done more in two and a half years than they did in 11 years. * (14:10) Justice System Plea Bargaining Mrs.

Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Will the Attorney General pay close attention to what is happening in the courts around the plea bargaining situation, since when he was in Opposition he criticized this side of the House on a regular basis about the plea bargaining situation, and right now it is worse than it ever was in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I guess, yes, you indeed can just get up and say anything.

We did bring in a Victims' Bill of Rights which is unfolding to allow victims of crime a say in the plea bargaining process which is a wonderful opportunity to understand what is taking place, to give information about what took place and is a further check and balance on plea bargaining. But, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have voted against a Budget which included a 5.8% increase for prosecutions and a 4.5% increase for policing. Having said that, unfortunately the Opposition does not also understand that having a safer community and a safer Manitoba is not something that can be done only at a courthouse.

It also requires the involvement of all the ministries of government in bringing forward opportunities and hope for young people, opportunities and hope for all Manitobans. That is how we see it. Tough on crime, yes. Tough on the causes of crime, too. Livestock Stewardship Initiative Report Recommendations Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I think we can all agree that when it comes to agricultural producers that measures to help and support agricultural producers should be treated with priority and with urgency.

When the Government came into power they initiated a livestock stewardship initiative, held widespread hearings. There was a Tyrchniewicz report with a whole series of recommendations, including the following: That government develop and make public the policy framework through which livestock expansion will take place, stressing its concern for sustainability. In my recent discussions with Mr. Tyrchniewicz, it is quite clear that the comprehensive response to his report and the comprehensive framework is still not in place 16 months later.

I ask the Minister of Agriculture: When is it her plan to put this framework in place? Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, when this Government took office we recognized that there was growth in the livestock industry in Manitoba and we wanted to ensure that growth was sustainable. We made several changes, changes in our Department of Agriculture, changes in Intergovernmental Affairs, changes in the Department of Conservation. We did put in place the Livestock Stewardship Initiative. We have the report. We have acted on many of the 40 recommendations.

We are in consultation with the industry, with the producers in this province and with municipalities and all partners in this industry. We are moving forward on it. I tell the member that very shortly we will be making a statement

1354 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2002 on the balance of the recommendations we have not acted on to this point. Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. I ask the minister when she will be fully acting on the recommendation for farmers in transition and those who currently derive limited income from farming to develop a package of programs that will enable these farmers to adjust their farming operations to a level that will provide them with an acceptable quality of life, and including in this things like a greater focus on higher animal welfare produc tion systems. Ms.

Wowchuk: As I said previously, the livestock industry is very important to this province. If you look at the revenues that farmers are generating from livestock versus feed grains, there is a huge increase. In all of it, we have to ensure it is growing in a sustainable way. We are looking at options to help producers, but certainly there has to be a balance in this. If the member would look at some of the initiatives we have taken through Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation to ensure there is funding available for farmers as they go through this transition, I would say that is one step.

We will continue to work on these ·recommendations with people involved in the industry. Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. I ask the minister why she has decided not to proceed with a system of performance bond insurance that would assure the costs of environmental problems with a specific ILO are not borne by the public in order to provide both environmental assurance and a way that ILOs can proceed, knowing that there will be full guarantees in terms of environmental aspects. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, in this province we have a variety of farmers. We have large operations.

We have smaller operations. We have farmers who choose to farm in an organic way. All of those sectors of agriculture are very important to us. You have to find a balance. You cannot impose one part of the recommendations that are going to be very burdensome on some of the producers and discourage production. I can tell the member one of the recommendations we did move forward on is that there will now have to be environmental plans for, rather than 400 animal units, for 300 animal units, that farmers will have to do the environmental plan. We are looking at how we can work on all the other recommendations.

Very shortly we will have the final ones. Mr.Speaker, the majority of the recom mendations under the Tyrchniewicz Report have been acted upon by three departments. Justice System Plea Bargaining Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans expect their government to be accountable, and, most importantly, the Minister of Justice is one that is expected to be accountable to the people of Manitoba and also for the Crown prosecutors that work for the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Irving, twice convicted of impaired driving, was charged with impaired driving causing death.

His plea of guilty was to a lesser charge. This also triggered a $46,000 payment as a death benefit. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he can explain why this plea was advocated by his Crown prosecutor, knowing that the direct result of the plea would be a $46,000 payout for his wife's death. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Speaker, when members opposite get into details of a matter dealt with by way of the prosecution service, it is important for them to remember that the prosecutors make professional judgments based on the law and the evidence that is available to them. In terms of what the evidence was and what charge it more specifically related to, I have asked for information in that regard which we can make available to the member opposite.

I can only say that this certainly is a very unusual and certainly a sad situation, and I recognize that it certainly has been of interest and concern to members in our department, as well as MPI.

May 13,2002 LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1355 Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice how he can tolerate this when in June of 2001, the minister announced that drunk drivers would face vehicle forfeitures. He also announced in December of 2001 that drunk drivers would have their vehicles taken and those vehicles would be sold. In this instance, this driver used his vehicle when he was suspended to get into it when he was drunk, causing the death of his wife. How can the minister square his statements with the action of his Crown prosecutors? Mr. Mackintosh: Mr.

Speaker, it should be noted that on coming into office, within weeks actually, we extended the look-back period for provincial suspensions from five to ten years, so that we were looking at the experience, the repeat offences in the court, unlike when members opposite were in office. Having said that, we also introduced and were able to get the support of this Legislature to bring in very strict new legislation. The member knows full well that the forfeiture regime has been scheduled for implementation this year, and that announcement is coming very soon.

It is the first time in Canada where there will be a forfeiture of a motor vehicle for those very serious cases where people are actually using their vehicles as weapons against the public safety of Manitobans. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister how he can assure Manitobans that there are any teeth in his statements and in his announcements, when in fact people who have been convicted of being drunk and driving can get into a vehicle, kill an individual, kill a Manitoban, and then collect an MPI death benefit as a result of it. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr.

Speaker, the member should know that the Criminal Code is where the sanctions are set out in terms of incarceration or not for a repeat impaired driving. It is my understanding that there is a mandatory term of imprisonment for a repeat offence. We will look to see what the record is here and what applies. {interjection] Well, the members opposite are reflecting on a particular prosecutor, which is unfortunate. The prosecutors apply the law.

I might just add that in terms of the MPI issue, that is a provision that exists in insurance policies, in auto insurance policies across this country, whether it be private insurers or MPI, Mr. Speaker. * (14:20) School Divisions Amalgamation-Consultations Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): As 1994 was the last time Manitobans had any meaningful input into this Government's school boundary changes, why is this minister setting such a dangerous precedent by creating a system where a citizen's right to question their government's action is stripped and dissenting voices are silenced? Hon.

Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education, Training and Youth): Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are doing no such thing. In a parliamentary democracy bills are brought forth to the Legislature for full debate. In Manitoba we have the added benefit of having committee hearings where the public have input into bills being debated before the Legislature. So we are proceeding on a matter, as the Member for Springfield points out, that has been before the public since 1994. It is high time that a government acted. Mr. Schuler: Mr.

Speaker, is this minister aware that 1994 was the first opportunity parents had a voice to say concerns about amalgamation and Bill 14 makes it their last? Is it any wonder that parents state: The Government wants us to shut up and go away? Is this what the new NDP is all about? Mr. Caldwell: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, I again appreciate the member's question. I know that the member was a former school trustee and has some knowledge of these affairs himself.

Over the last two and a half years I personally have been visiting schools at an extraordinary rate, discussing issues of educational importance with teachers, with students, with administrators, with parents. In fact the Springfield Parent Council, as one of the associated bodies, have been guests in

1356 LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13,2002 my office. I have had a number of meetings, most famously in the member's constituency with 900 people at Springfield Collegiate. So we have ongoing dialogue and consultation with elected officials, reeves, trustees, councillors, boards, parents, children. We will continue to meet and visit schools in this province. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, does the minister know that 1994 was the first and last opportunity parents had to speak in regard to amalgamation, even though today's primary school children had not even been born? Is this how the minister defines symmetry?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is referring to the 1990s. Perhaps he would like to look at the fact that from 1990 to 1999, the tax increases in the Transcona-Springfield School Division, with the changes made on the funding formula, the zero, minus two, minus two, the property tax credit, the tax increases in that school division were 88 percent. We have, through our property tax credits, through the ESL, frozen those taxes for the provincial portion. There is a good reason why we have to move forward. We cannot keep our feet in cement.

We are going to reduce the number of school divisions by 33 percent. We have discussed this and listened to Manitobans. We have listened and now it is time to act. For the member opposite, all I 100 000 Manitobans count. All the 33 percent of the school divisions that are also going through change count, but what counts a lot is an 88% tax increase under your administration. We are doing something about it. Chiropractic Care Coverage Reduction Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, the Doer government's decision to totally eliminate chiropractic coverage for children under the age of 19 shows a bias against children getting chiropractic care. I would like to ask the Minister of Health what he based his decision on to cut coverage for children in Manitoba. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with respect to chiropractic coverage, it was only a couple of days ago that the member opposite was saying we were spending too much on health care. The member was saying we spent enough on health care, in fact, that we spent too much.

As I indicated in the Budget, there were some tough decisions we had to make, and one of those tough decisions was to a non-core service. We are not eliminating it. We are providing coverage. We are not doing what the Tories did in '95, reduce the visit from $50 to $12, but we made straight budgetary decisions to try to reduce some of the costs but still provide some of the coverage. In addition to that, we are not only maintaining but we are expanding a whole variety of services.

I might add the member opposite was complaining about us not paying enough for nurses and then, when we paid the nurses, the member opposite said we paid too much. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Valley Gardens' Lighthouse Program Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to tell you about the new Lighthouse program that has recently opened. The Valley Gardens Lighthouse opened in the last week of March. Before being a Lighthouse site, Valley Gardens junior high was a police athletic club.

Lighthouses are sites funded by the Province and run by the communities around Manitoba that provide people from ages 12 to 20 with a safe place to stay after school. The idea behind the drop-in program is that young people can forge new relationships with other youth, members of their communities and law enforcement officers in a positive, fun environment. Such mentors can help them make healthy choices and perhaps avoid trouble during the difficult years of adolescence. At Valley Gardens young people can play basketball, volleyball, football and dodgeball.

The site may be expanding to include several non-sporting events in a more spacious

May 13, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1357 facility. The staff who run this site are considering having an all-girl night in the future. Such close contact with kids gives facilitators the opportunity to get to know the youth of their community. Such familiarity is very helpful for adults to recognize problem behaviour or other signs of antisocial activity. A trusting relation ship between members and kids can be essential in assisting the youth to make healthy choices.

Most of the kids at the Valley Gardens Lighthouse are currently attending junior high and presently there are between 40 and 60 kids that regularly attend. These numbers are increasing however. According to staff who run the site, there would be nights when there were too many kids for two workers and two volunteers to handle. In fact, they had to put a cap on the number of people who can attend, testimony to the popularity and the need for such programs. I congratulate Valley Gardens and their facilitators for such success and hope their plan to- Mr. Speaker: Order. Conservation Farm Family Mr.

Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Ron and Wendy White, and their family, Myles, Brooks and April, of Lyleton, Manitoba. * (14:30) Every year the West Souris River Conservation District recognizes a family that actively promotes wise farm management and conservation practices. This year the conservation district has honoured the White family as the 2001 Conservation Farm Family. R.H. White Farms Ltd. operates 23 quarters of land. It includes grains and special crops, an agricultural supply dealership, and elk and bison.

Ron White has gone to great lengths to prevent soil erosion. Eleven quarters of the Whites' land have old shelter belts, and in 1980 more belts were added. Ron has also participated with the PFRA in a shelter belt rejuvenation project. Some of his other farming practices have included continuous cropping since 1974, combined with minimum tillage. Gradually, Ron has moved into zero-till cropping systems. The White farm has been completely zero-till since 1987.

Ron White's commitment to soil protection fostered the development of the Sandilands Soil Management Association, which resulted in strong local membership and grassroots programs to address soil and water management in the municipalities of Edward, Albert, Arthur and Cameron. Since 1997, a total of eight quarters of Wendy White's family farm have been taken out of annual crop production and sown to grass, as the White family has diversified into other aspects of agriculture, namely elk and bison.

The Whites have used riparian fencing along the Antler River to exclude the elk and bison from the riverbanks as an extension of their conservation practices. They have also been active in the protection of ravines and waterways by leaving them in grass. For all their efforts, the White family is truly deserving of the honour of being named the Conservation Farm Family for 2001. On behalf of all members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, congratulations to Ron, Wendy, Myles, Brooks and April White. Stevenson Aviation and Aerospace Training Centre Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St.

James): I am pleased to speak about a recent opening of the Red River Winnipeg campus of the Stevenson Aviation and Aerospace Training Centre. Building on Red River College's excellent aerospace training programs, the addition of Stevenson's training facilities will help address the shortage of skilled technicians in Manitoba's aviation and aerospace industry. The centre will house both Red River's aerospace manufacturing training programs and Stevenson's engineer training programs and facilities.

The new centre located at 2280 Saskatchewan A venue is the result of more than $7.4 million in funding from the provincial and federal governments, created to address the need for increased training in the industry. Furthermore, this partnership between govern-

1358 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2002 ment and industry will ensure that Manitoba can provide the highly-skilled workforce necessary for a successful aviation aerospace industry. In addition to the new centre, the aviation aerospace industry also received an unexpected contribution from Air Canada. Unveiled at the announcement this morning was the donation of a DC9 aircraft from Air Canada which will provide students at the centre with a full-sized aircraft to be used for training purposes.

Today's announcement' of a new avtahon aerospace training centre will help build upon the achievements of the industry in Manitoba, which is currently the third-largest in the country. The centre will also create valuable high-tech jobs in the province to further advance the aviation and aerospace ipdustry. I am proud to speak of this made-in-Manitoba solution that creates a world-class training centre, provides quality jobs to Manitobans and helps to promote an integral industry in the province. Congratulations to all those involved in this important new endeavour. Rossbrook House Mr.

Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Rossbrook House, which was chosen as the recipient of the 2002 Caritas Award by the Catholic Foundation of Manitoba. The award was presented recently during the annual Caritas dinner at the Convention Centre. Caritas means "caring, affection and generosity." The Caritas Award is given to Catholic individuals or organizations in Manitoba who have served the community in an outstanding or memorable way. In 1976 Sr.

Geraldine MacNamara formulated the following v�sion for Rossbrook House: No child who does not want to be alone should ever be. Now, 25 years later, this inner city organization is still providing a safe alternative to the streets for children and youth. In honouring Rossbrook House in this way, the Catholic Foundation of Manitoba said it celebrated the endurance and the courage of human spirit, the goodness and dignity of children and the power and creativity inherent in the community of Rossbrook House.

The award was given to the entire Rossbrook community of children, youth, their families, their staff and the volunteers. Over the years, Rossbrook has joined the community in addressing issues of oppression and widespread poverty. It has founded numerous community-based and alternative school programs, and opened Elgin House to serve young adults and Meegwetch House as a home for young girls. Mr. Speaker, many lives have been touched by Rossbrook House, including those who have struggled together for 25 years to watch it expand. Dedicated people really do make a difference in this community.

Rossbrook House is the perfect example of this, making them truly deserving of this award. I extend my congratulations to all those involved in Rossbrook House for receiving the 2002 Caritas Award. I would also invite all members to attend Rossbrook's annual meeting and powwow for Thursday, May 30. Winnipeg Art Gallery Ms. Linda Asper (Riel): Mr. Speaker, on May 9, 2002, I had the pleasure of representing the Premier (Mr. Doer) to open the exhibition Hot Picks 90: Ninety Years of Collecting by the Winnipeg Art Gallery.

The first major celebration of several planned to mark the 90th anniversary year of the gallery, the event saw the reopening of the stone door for the first time in several decades. It was originally dedicated by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret in 1971. Mr. Speaker, Architect Gustavo da Koza, who designed the building, created a monolithic stone door to be opened on ceremonial occasions. It gives visitors a sweeping panorama of the gallery's lofty Tyndall stone main entrance hall. Welcomed by Richard L.

Yaffe, chair, Board of Governors, and Bruce Taylor from the sponsoring firm Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson, those present viewed 90 of the Winnipeg Art Gallery's hottest, 90 of its best, selections taken from a collection of more than 22 000 artworks accumulated in 90 years of existence. The collection encompasses historical and contemporary art by Canadian Inuit, First

May 13, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1359 Nations and international artists, all represented in the current exhibition. The building itself is a memorable development. It is a bold design statement fitting for a gallery of art, resembling a ship sailing the prairie. It has become a friendly and familiar symbol of our city, instantly recognized by Manitobans and visitors. Manitoba has long supported a vibrant, well-respected arts com munity. We are all responsible for recognizing and promoting how important the arts are to the enrichment of our cultural community and to the quality of our lives.

Our Government is proud to be among the Winnipeg Art Gallery's many supporters. Congratulations to the Gallery's board of governors, Patricia E. Bovey, director, and her staff for the splendid work done in serving Manitobans over the years. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business * (14 :30) Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you canvass the House to determine if there is leave to deal with, on an emergency basis, a resolution on the special Prairie meeting on the U.S. farm bill as the first order of business today? Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): We are definitely prepared. We were going to move a MUPI, but the Government has made the right decision in bringing forward this resolution as an all-party resolution. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave? {Agreed] Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, would you canvass the House to determine if there is leave to waive private members' hour in order to deal with this matter? Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour to deal with this matter? {Agreed] Mr.

Mackintosh: I understand that we are just awaiting the translation of the resolution which will be moved by the two Leaders in the House. Perhaps if we could have a recess until say 10 to three. Mr. Speaker: We will recess the House and reconvene at 10 minutes to three. Could we have the bells ring for 1 minute just to let the members know? Could we do that? {interjection} We will recess the House and reconvene at 10 minutes to three with the bells to ring at 11 minutes to three until 1 0 minutes to three. Agreed? {Agreed] The House rec essed at 2:40p.m. The House resumed at 2:53 p.m. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr.

Speaker, I understand that we are still waiting for translation, if there is consent of the House to begin the debate, recognizing that when the translated copy comes into the House, it will be attended and will be part of the record of the House as being voted on when the time comes for that vote. Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House to start the debate? [Agre ed} Mr. Mackintosh: Mr.

Speaker, there has been some dis cussion in terms of the procedures for this afternoon, given the extraordinary nature of this, if you could canvass the House to determine if there is leave to limit speaking time to 15 minutes each, maximum. We would ask, of course, for your Office to help enforce that in the House. Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House to limit speeches to 15 minutes for each member? {Agreed] GOVERNMENT MOTION U.S. Farm Bill Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray), that

WHEREAS a special meeting was held in Regina, Saskatchewan, on May 10, 2002, on the

1360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13,2002 impact of the new U.S. farm bill on Canadian agriculture and Canadian fanners; and

WHEREAS this meeting was attended by the premiers and their designates and the opposition leaders from Manitoba, Saskatch ewan, Alberta, all of whom issued a joint resolution and statement expressing their serious concerns about the U.S. action; and

WHEREAS the Prairie leaders called on the federal government to provide a federally funded trade injury payment as bridging to mitigate the impact of the international subsidies and to take aggressive trade action at the World Trade Organization and under NAFT A to challenge the trade-distorting elements of the U.S. farm bill; and

WHEREAS the Prairie leaders also agreed that a special joint meeting should be held on these issues in Regina at the earliest opportunity, to which federal ministers, including the ministers of Agriculture, International Trade and Finance, as well as senior federal ministers from each of the three Prairie Provinces would be invited to discuss these concerns with representatives of the Prairie governments and legislatures and farm and community leaders. THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Manitoba confirms its strong support of an early special meeting on the U.S. farm bill in Regina to include representation from agricultural groups, farm communities, provincial legislative leaders and key federal government ministers; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly endorses the Prairie leaders' call for federally funded trade injury payment and aggressive federal trade action through the WTO and NAFT A. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable First Minister, seconded by the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition

WHEREAS a special meeting- An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. Mr. Doer: I would like to thank all members of the House for granting leave for this resolution today. I understand that both parties had a similar view, that this bill was too important today, this U.S. farm subsidy bill was too important today to leave without a debate in this Chamber and a resolution on the books from hopefully all members of this Legislature. I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for joining me on Friday in Regina.

I know that it required for both of us late notice, a fair degree of scheduling challenges. I would also like to say to the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gerrard), the Member for River Heights, that we have expanded this endeavour to include all-party representation. I anticipate this will include the Ag ministers, the Ag critic as well. We are all in this together now. This is very, very important. Mr. Speaker, the media asks what is different about this bill.

Well, first of all, the Leader of the Opposition and I have both said that this bill takes the ad hoc payments that were made on an ad hoc basis and continues them on a regular and ongoing basis for the next number of years. So one element of the bill is building in the unfair subsidies in grain and oilseeds, which will be in essence three times greater than the Canadian support for our agricultural producers in grains and oilseeds.

The second feature of this bill is to expand it to the pulse crops, which are not subsidized now by the federal U.S. government, the pulse crops being peas and lentils and other beans and other crops. This will, of course, produce a great, great challenge to the incomes of our producers. The subsidies will mean that American producers will be encouraged to grow these crops. They will have an unfair income advantage by growing these crops. That will depress the prices on the world market and, by definition, affect the livelihood of Canadian and Manitoba farmers. Mr.

Speaker, this crop has grown in the last five years under both administrations. This is why it is truly a non-partisan issue. If you look at the increase in pulse crops here in Manitoba, it

May 13,2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1361 has grown from about $200 million a year to $400 million a year over the last five years. That has been consistent growth year after year with Manitoba producers. So this is truly an issue of subsidies and very important. The third element of this bill that is very, very potentially negative for Manitoba producers and for Canadian agriculture and farm industries is the whole area of country of origin. I have to say this is not a concern just for us here in Manitoba.

We have higher prices for our hogs because of a fairly vigorous trade environment, particularly with weanlings. Mr. Speaker, the market, the ability of having prices to be determined both south of the border and north of the border has allowed for some competition for those prices and allowed for income. The bottom line for all of these issues is: How do we get income to farmers? This could be under jeopardy. It is the same for Alberta now that has cattle. Cattle move back and forth over say the Montana-Alberta border in various stages.

Under the bill of origin, this could have, again, a very negative impact on that very, very natural grazing and ra1smg environment, could affect the number of animals that are processed in Canada, and therefore have a definite negative impact on us. We are not afraid of the label. If it is "country of origin" and it is "Canada," we certainly feel very confident.

When you put Canadian livestock products against the European products and even other products from Argentina and other places in the world, Brazil, the Canadian products do very well in terms of consumer confidence based on the very good farming practices and livestock practices here in Canada and here in Manitoba. The credit for this reputation goes to the Canadian and Manitoba farmer. We want to pay tribute to them in this debate. * (1 5:00) But, Mr.

Speaker, if this "country of origin" is used to be a surrogate way of stopping trade for livestock and as a way to politicize, we know in the South Dakota elections a few years ago trade blockades were established under different political pretences at the detriment of the producers here in Canada. We have enough politics in this U.S. farm subsidy bill for 100 generations, let alone having more political interference into natural markets that should take place in a natural way under the NAFT A provisions. As I said, the grain and oilseed sectors now have an over 50% percentage subsidy by the Europeans.

Instead of going along with the agreement in Dubai to start reducing the subsidies, the U.S. governme nt was in Dubai, and then it was in Mexico City. There was an agreement from the Europeans and the Americans to start to reduce the subsidies. This bill goes totally against what Canada and Manitoba want and starts rebuilding the subsidies and entrenching them, not just for the next U.S. election period but for the next number of years in a U.S. farm bill. This is a very, very negative step against Canadian and Manitoba producers. It is a hugely troubling impact on trade.

It will have devastating results in terms of Canadian trade with the United States, and we are going to test the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, which is contained within the NAFT A trade agreement. The so-called binding panel agreement will be put to the test, I believe, with this trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, besides those three major differences from the existing ad hoc program, what is different today than a few months ago? Well, there are a couple of things: The Americans made an agreement at Dubai, and now they are breaking that agreement with their trading partners. That is a very big difference.

Secondly, the Americans are now being condemned by their own press. The Washington Post last Wednesday said: If trade subsidies were an art form, this would be the Mona Lisa. The Economist publication, which was read by most countries, called these trade subsidies literally obscene and an absolute total distortion of international trade, and an absolute retreat by the existing U.S. administration from trade liberalization to absolutely protectionist, based on pork-barrel politics of the most obscene nature.

1362 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13,2002 Thirdly, there is a difference now with the back bench in Ottawa.

We will see whether that makes any difference, but the Speller report produced by the federal Liberal back bench, for the first time ever, says: (1) this is trade subsidies; (2) there must be a comparable subsidy from the federal ·g overnment to the producers, and the Speller report deals with the existing subsidies of $1.3 billion, but this is, for the first time ever, that the back bench has spoken out in a way that is very consistent with all the rest of us; (3) we have, I believe, an opportunity, the federal minister has not said no to proposals, but we have unanimity from Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

We thought it was very important to start with our own provinces. We have a unanimous view from our producers, from our rural communities, and, yes, this is an impact on the city, too. This is not a rural versus city issue. This is an issue of impact and importance on all Manitobans because it is an attack on the livelihood of our farmers, and that is an attack on the livelihood of every Manitoban in this province. So I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we are all joining together on this resolution. It is important for us to speak with one voice, and I want to thank the members of the Opposition.

I know a lot of us have families that go back to the farms. Some members of this Chamber still live and work on the farm. I see the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) here. Having been doing some haying down the road at the Habkirk [phonetic] farm years ago, and being the last one in the bathtub on a Saturday night, I know a little bit, not as much as the member from Ste. Rose, but I know that this is a very important issue for all of us. It goes beyond partisan politics.

It goes to the heart of our province, to the heart of our economy and to the hearts of our communities, and that is why I am pleased we are together today with a resolution in the House. I thank all honourable members for that. Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion, that resolution on special Prairie meeting on the U.S. farm bill that the First Minister makes reference to. I agree that it was a very interesting meeting.

As a matter of fact, I think what was fascinating about that meeting is I believe we were sitting around a table that members of Confederation sat around.

I think all of us felt in that room, if the energy that was there to create this great nation of ours was crafted around that table, it is our hope that the meeting that took place on Friday would have the same historic value and that perhaps we can, for once and for all, solve this incredible puzzle, I guess, that our agriculture producers continually find themselves being punished, not because they are not the best producers in the world, which we all know they are, but they are being punished because the U.S. has brought in a bill that continually subsidizes their producers to the tune that nobody can possibly keep up to.

So, hopefully, that meeting on Friday will have that outcome for our producers, not only in Manitoba but also throughout western Canada, indeed, the nation. We do know that the U.S. farming community has on an ongoing basis had some levels of subsidization. In fact, I believe that it was in the 1996 Uruguay round that the WTO decided at that time that, in fact, there should be some crop subsidizes, but there should be a necessary elimination of those over time. I think that was what came out of that understanding.

In 1996, the farm bill in the United States, although it was an ominous bill, again, what we saw was there was all the reliance on market forces, but they felt that that would gradually, again, work towards eliminating these subsidies. Well, Mr. Speaker, we find time and time again that our producers in western Canada are being put in a position that is just completely unfair. I say unfair because, given the chance to compete, given a chance to be on that same level playing field as those to the south and those across the pond in Europe, our producers would shine, and we know that.

They produce the best product in the world. They produce it efficiently, and they produce it in very, very safe methods. The unfortunate

part is that they have to compete on a very, very unlevel playing field, and that does not make things right for our producers in Manitoba or western Canada. We know that the big issue of grains and oilseeds is out there. The farming community of Manitoba a year ago in front of the legislative steps frustrated because there was no voice, there

May 13, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1363 was no sense of anybody listening in Ottawa on the federal side as to what could be done for these hardworking men an women, who we all know would rather be seeding or harvesting or working on their land than standing in front of a Legislature saying we are being punished. We are being punished unfairly because the U.S. government continually subsidizes their producers. That was last year, Mr. Speaker. There was a figure that was being discussed about the economic hurt, a figure to the tune of $1.3 billion.

Well, that number may have been relevant yesterday, but as of 7:30 this morning when President Bush signed the U.S. farm bill that $1.3 billion is now totally irrelevant, and that is why it is important that we in this province and in Saskatchewan and Alberta, that we decide the economic hurt of our producers because of this new bill that the President of the United States has put in. * (15:10) We know on a level playing field with pulse crops, Mr. Speaker-we have seen it in Manitoba-we know full well that our producers can compete, not only compete but can grow and flourish which is what they really want to do.

They want to see their businesses and grow it and make it so that it is profitable so they can reinvest and continue to grow. We have seen that in the pulse crop business. We have seen the doubling and the expansion of that in our home province of Manitoba. Now with this new bill, what happens is those producers are now under attack. There is no place for these producers to tum. They are trying to diversify. They are trying to deal with the economic situation, but wherever they tum now a new bill comes in and slams the door on them.

That . is why I believe, as has been discussed today, and why it is important that we all get a chance to stand and speak to the horror of this U.S. farm bill because I believe we are all united in our approach. I believe that we are all looking out for the best interests of Manitoba. But as we will see I think as we move forward, it is all about western Canada, as well, because I think the meeting on Friday that had all the leaders of the parti es representing Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, that was the unanimous position that we decided to take and I think is being recognized and applauded.

The other side of that, Mr. Speaker, which I think is important, is that part of this is to ensure that members of the Keystone Agricultural Producers, the Wild Rose Agriculture Producers and the agricultural producers of Saskatchewan, all of those groups are also united in supporting our producers against what this horrendous U.S. farm bill is going to do to them. We know that the amount of money that has been put into this is just so incredibly large that it is hard to even know where to attack. But the most important place I think, Mr.

Speaker, if I could use the word "attack," is to start with a united position. I believe we will see that not only in this Legislature but in the Legislatures in Saskatchewan and in Alberta and the stakeholders, such as I mentioned, the agri culture groups that we mentioned before. We do know, and it has been mentioned in this Chamber, that the backbenchers, the Speller report was put out by the backbenchers of the federal Liberal government and clearly they also recognize the horrendous impact that our agriculture producers are having in Manitoba and throughout western Canada.

So we hope, as well, as was expressed by the First Minister, that some of those, of their own members, of their own party, have a chance to get the ear and resonate the message of the importance of ensuring that in the short term we address the issue but that we have a long-term plan so that each and every year we do not see our producers having to stand at the front of their Legislature saying: We need assistance, or, like my neighbour, we are going to have to auction off our farm. I may not be accurate. I hope I am, but I believe the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr.

Jack Penner) had said that he thought that there were some five auctions being held in the past couple of days. That is a shame. Those people did not get into that business strictly to see it auctioned off. I would say that one of the best comparisons of all, and I think this will strike to the heart of anybody that understands farming or does not

1364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13,2002 understand farming, this comparison brings it home, and that is that Manitoba producers get about $26 per tonne of wheat that they ship. Literally kilometres away in North Dakota the same producer gets $135 per tonne. How is it that those in Manitoba, knowing full well that, given an opportunity, they could go toe to toe and produce product every bit if not better than those people in North Dakota, are being penalized because of this unfair subsidization? Just briefly, the Premier talked about country of origin.

I know we had that discussion when we were in Regina. J think that we all know that the fact is in Brandon we have a wonderful plant there, Maple Leaf. We know that it produces excellent product. I think that any time anybody in this world sees anything that has a maple leaf on it, it means one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is first quality, first-rate product. I do know that one of the issues that was of concern is what is the price to consumers. I think that is an issue that has to be dealt with in terms of country of origin. But, overall, I applaud the First Minister for bringing in a resolution.

He quite rightly said that if they had not brought in a resolution, we were prepared to introduce one because we feel it is important. So I will just close by saying that this is a very important initiative, a very important initiative because I think we have a chance to get it right not just in the short term, because that is where hurt is, but in the long term so that those producers can see some hope and opportunity in the future for something that they are the best in the world at. We certainly are very much in favour of the resolution introduced by the First Minister. Hon.

Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I too am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this very important resolution, and I certainly want to commend the Premier for bringing this resolution forward and also commend him for meeting with Premier Klein from Alberta and starting the discussion at the provincial level while we were in Ottawa discussing it on a federal level. Certainly it has been a topic that has been on all of our minds. It was a huge discussion at the Agriculture ministers meeting.

I say that I am pleased that the Premier brought this resolution forward, but this is not the first time that the Premier has recognized the importance of this issue. In fact, it was only three weeks after he had taken office that the Premier led a delegation to Ottawa protesting the low commodity prices as related to the U.S. subsidies. This is not a new issue. The U.S. subsidies have been there for a long time, but it is what is happening with this bill and the increases of these subsidies that is so serious.

This bill moves the ad hoc payments that the United States had for their farmers into a core base funding, putting them there on a permanent basis, in fact raising them higher than they were before and adding in new commodities as we have heard about, the pulse crops, as well as the issue of country of origin. They are all serious issues. We raised this issue with the federal Minister of Agriculture. It has been raised now with the western leaders and will go to another level where more people will get together to discuss this important issue. We have to bring as much profile as possible to it.

I am very pleased that we have all parties standing together saying that this U.S. farm bill is wrong and that the federal government has to put in place funding to cover trade injury. I am pleased that producers are together on this one. I have news releases from producers who are saying that this is a federal issue and the federal government must address this trade injury. The impact is not only on producers, it is on rural communities. It is on the city of Winnipeg and on all centres. The kind of subsidy that is being put in here will hurt all producers and will hurt very much the economy.

When we were in Ottawa, Mr. V anclief did not say no. He said he would take this issue to his federal cabinet. I think that there is additional pressure on the federal government, given the Speller report. This is a report written by Liberals for a committee put in place by the Prime Minister and a report that says the Liberal government should address subsidies and put in place funding to help farmers through this difficult time.

May 13,2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1365 So I would hope that with their own study and committee going out to talk to producers that this will mean that the federal government will live up to their responsibility to address this trade injury. It is trade injury that is caused as a result of a trade agreement signed by national governments. It is funds being put in by the national government in the United States. It is certainly going to cause a tremendous amount of hardship for our producers.

When I look at what has happened in Manitoba, I have to admire producers in this province for the steps that they have taken to diversify into new crops where there is a market, crops where there are no subsidies, crops that have helped stabilize farm income in some parts of the province. The crops that we are talking about in the pulse sector are not grown right across the province, but they are a very important crop in more the southern part of the province. * (15 :20) These farmers have diversified their business and have found markets with absolutely no support from government.

Now the U.S. has decided that they want to start subsidizing in this

section as well. It is going to hurt Canadian farmers, Manitoba farmers. It is going to hurt farmers in developing countries around the world as well for whom this is a very important crop. These are very important crops for them. That is why countries around the world have raised serious concern about what the U.S. is doing with this farm bill. It flies completely in the face of their credibility. Here they are at the WTO talking about reducing subsidies. You have the European union moving in the direction of reducing subsidies.

Of course, Canada's supports for agriculture are far below where they could be, but Canada made that decision and our farmers have adapted to it. Although they were not happy with it, they have made adjustments, because they are very good farmers. The U.S. now is going completely in the opposite direction by increasing their subsidies. This is not accepted by people around the world. It destroys the U.S. credibility. That is why we asked when we were at the Ag ministers' meeting the federal officials along with our officials to do an analysis of what the impact of this subsidy was on each commodity.

We also asked the federal government to look at what the options were to challenge this at the WTO. Was there the opportunity to challenge under NAFTA? All of those things are being looked at. I can tell the members as well that my department is working very hard to look at what the impacts on Manitobans are going to be. The preliminary numbers that we have, the injury that we have now is in the range of $250 million annually. We anticipate that the injury could go somewhere in the range of $345 million. It may go higher depending on what happens with the country of origin. Mr.

Speaker, I want to share an example with the members of what can actually happen in the United States. Because it is based on your five-year average, people are being advised to take their land out of production for one crop and get a payment and then plant pulses on that and get another payment, so really those farmers have the opportunity to double dip and make huge amounts of money with very little effort and put our farmers at a complete disadvantage. So, as I say, this is a very serious issue. U.S. subsidies have always been a concern for us. European subsidies have always been a concern for us.

As I said, since we have taken office, we have raised this with the federal government. I have had the opportunity to raise it and discuss it at the Provincial State Advisory group, which is an advisory group on agriculture between the United States and Canada, with state and provincial representatives discussing agricultural issues. It was a topic of discussion at our Northern Plains Producer Conference, where farmers had the opportunity to talk to counterparts about the impact of subsidies. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to raise it.

I am very pleased that we have all-party support on this and that we are going to continue to pursue this because agriculture is a very, very important industry in this province. We cannot afford to have more farmers put out of business because of the level of subsidies put in place by the United States. There is absolutely no reason for the United States to be going into

1366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2002 subsidization of crops that have no subsidy now, when on the one hand they say they support the WTO and are committed to reducing their subsidies and then move in this direction. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that, as well, the issue of country of origin and the labeling of products, of meat and fish products, particularly meat products, is a very important issue for us. When you look at the amount of product that goes back and forth over our borders, we export over $700-million worth of meat products into the U.S. every year.

They are very important trading partners for us. If we have to have some of these barriers put in place and this is going to restrict our trade back and forth across the border, it is going to be devastating for our livestock industry. But it is going to be devastating for many people in the United States as well, because many U.S. farmers ship their livestock into Canada to be fed and then ship it back to be processed, and it is going to cause a problem for their industry as well.

I know that there are people in the United States who are concerned about the impacts of the country-of-origin part of this bill, but, Mr. Speaker, as I said, we export-I want to correct the number. We export $763.8-million worth of cattle, bison, hogs, beef and pork into the United States, and this amount continues to grow. So, if this country of origin is used as a trade barrier, it is going to be very serious. Yes, Manitobans and Canadians can stand up in the marketplace anytime. We have a very high quality and a very credible product out there, and we can stand our credibility on that one.

But, when we have to compete against this high level of subsidy or if there are trade barriers put in place for our producers, it is going to be very, very difficult. So the bill is significant. It will have a huge impact on our producers. The exact detail of the impact is not known yet, but those are some of the details that are being worked on. Certainly, the increased loan rates and also the introduction of a new feature, called the countercyclical payment, is going to be devastating for our producers, Mr. Speaker, and we have to have a strong front.

I am very pleased that we are all standing together, very pleased that western Canada is standing together, and I look for the rest of the country to stand with us, to ensure that it is the federal government that comes through for our producers. Ultimately, what we would want and what we have always said is that subsidies have to be reduced. We would much rather have no subsidies or much-reduced subsidies, and if you look at the pulse industry, there is an industry that has grown without subsidy, but to reduce those subsidies or to have this issue addressed at the WTO is going to take many, many years.

Our farmers cannot wait for those many, many, years. We have to have the financing and the support from the federal government to get our farmers through this issue. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased we are having this debate. I look forward to the discussion from all members and other members in the House, to hear their views on this bill, and I look forward to working with other provinces and with the federal government to ensure that this issue is addressed and that our farmers do not have to compete against this level of subsidy. * (15:30) Mr.

Jack Penner (Emerson): I really want to thank the Premier and the Government for bringing forward the resolution. We were in the process of bringing forward a MUPI that would have also given all parties in this House an opportunity to address this which I think an extremely important issue, not only to the farm community, but indeed the entire province. I think the commercial community in this province, indeed, this city of Winnipeg could in fact be some of the most severely hit area if we in fact see the devastation that could emanate out of the farm bill that President Bush signed today in Washington.

I want to take this opportunity to put a few comments on the record, excerpts from the actual bill, and comments made by some of the media commentators and some of the senators that were, in fact, actual draftees and committee members of producing this bill. The target prices, lawmakers, it says, should not say the new farm bill revives the target price

May 13, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 67 system, which was abolished in the 1996 farm bill, the right-to-farm legislation, and it says why. Because target prices were in play in 1995 program crops, any deficiency payment was based on what a producer actually produced, and this is not the case with this new farm bill. The new farm bill allows the base acreage crop to qualify for any countercyclical payment. That is a major difference. So think of the new target price as a safety net price, acreage-based crops designated by producers, and I think therein lies the whole difference to this farm bill.

I think it allows, the minister has stated, a farmer to set aside a previous crop that he has grown, taken the last five-year average, and he will be paid 93 percent of that previous crop five-year average price and crop and allowed to plant, for instance, a crop of peas on that crop and sell the peas under the designated price under the LOP, which will be 11 .93 cents a pound. Therein is the real problem. This will give that producer an opportunity to double his money on a given acre of land.

It also allows for some significant changes to the payment yields, allows producers who update base acreage to the average of 1998-2001 plantings to update yields for countercyclical payments, and that AMT A update is the higher of 70 percent of the difference between the current AMT A yields and a full-yield database, updated base on the 1998- 2001 year planted, or it says 93.5 percent of the '98-2001 yields on planted acreage. The dairy program, I think, is another program that should be looked at very carefully.

This gives dairy producers in the United States a base price of 16.94 cents per hundredweight of milk. That is when the Boston price falls below that, the producers in all of the U.S. regions would receive 45 percent of the difference between 16.94 and the lower-market price. That sets a dramatically higher base rate for fluid milk and would allow the subsidies to apply if and when the American producers attempted to export much cheaper milk or price their milk to a much cheaper rate for export market. The same thing would happen in the other commodities.

It would allow, for instance, somebody to price peas into the international market. At whatever they chose to sell for, they would be given a base-rate price plus the previous average five-year yield and price average of the previous five-year average, plus the current subsidy that is identified or the base rate price that is identified under this program.

The one real area of concern, I believe, to the livestock industry in this province, whether it be hogs or beef cattle or, for that matter, any livestock, including poultry and all the rest of it, is a provision in this bill which indicates that meat products will be stamped U.S.-made only if the farm animals were born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. I think therein lies the dilemma for the livestock industry. We do not know exactly what that will mean or how the Americans will use that born, raised and slaughtered in the United States provision for labeling of U.S. meat.

If the Americans then want to use that as a marketing tool in the United States, in other words buy U.S. -produced products only, that could have a significant impact on those Isowean barns that we have in this province now or, for that matter, the poultry industry, the turkey industry and the ability for them to ship, export processed meat and/or live turkeys into the United States, as is currently the case, even under our supply management system. It could have a very dramatic eff ect, Mr. Speaker. I think the true effect of this farm bill will not be known for quite some time.

I understand this document is some 900 pages. What I am reading from is simply short excerpts of what the effects might be on this bill. This bill, they said, was initially a $73 .5-billion increase over the current farm bill. That appears not to be the case. According to commentators this morning, it is probably $1 90-billion to $212-billion total farm bill that could be used to do almost anything or support almost anything or countervail, countervail is not the right word, but to restrict movement of other countries' goods into the U.S., and therein I think lies the biggest problem.

One of the comments that one of the senators, Senator Jt>hnson, made was: As packers continue to threaten to take their industry to Mexico and other countries around the world, I think it is going to be all the more

13 68 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2002 important that we have country-of-origin label for meat products so American consumers have a fair opportunity to know the nature of the product they are buying. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) has spent a bit of time today explaining what they are negotiating with under the new provisions, under their four-tiered agriculture provisions which will also have a Canadian labeling ability.

Well, when one looks at how dependent we are on the U.S. market, and when you look at the ability under the new provision within two years to force processors to label everything produced in the U.S. as U.S., and then the promotion !15pect of the provisions under the farm bill would lead me to believe that this is probably one of the most protectionist bills that we have ever seen drafted and passed in the U.S. Senate and signed by a president.

This allows the Americans to target the American market and try and sell to the American public the realities of the marketplace, and that is to promote American-produced products over any other products imported. I think that is what this is all about. Where will that leave us in the debate and the discussions under the next WTO, and how will that position us in Canada in drafting a new farm bill that will be based on environment, that will be based on quality and labeled Canadian?

I think that might be the exact adverse thing that we might want to see in the marketplace, and I think the minister should pay very close attention to what this farm bill does and how it is written and what sort of powers it gives to the American system. I think we need to talk a little bit about the target prices, as I said before, and how countercyclical payments will be made, and that 93 percent of the previous base price will be used to support.

I think that is absolutely important, and I think one should also note that the com price under the LDP will be $2.6 0 targeted U.S., and that means that it will be very close to $4 a bushel that U.S. farmers will get in Canadian. I think this also clearly, again, reinstates the minor oilseed prices at about very close to 10 cents a pound. That is $6 U.S. for Canola oil, for instance. I think that, again, gives them a huge advantage over our pricing mechanisms in our own plan. * (15: 40) I want to spend just a minute or two on the new drafting of the new bill that the minister had talked about before.

Country of origin, country of-origin labelling, country of origin based on quality, does not sell or cannot sell if there is no marketplace. If other countries shut their doors to our products, no matter how good our products are or how high a quality our products are, if they by law or by political means shut their borders we have nowhere to go. I would suspect that the environmental costs that the minister as one of the pillars under the new farm bill that Canada is discussing might well put us out of a competitive range if other countries do not move in a similar manner.

They might in fact designate us non-competitive. I think we need to be very careful, Mr. Speaker, that we in our country do not outprice ourselves in the international marketplace. That is my biggest fear. I think we need to be extremely careful. I believe that Canadian farmers, especially western Canadian farmers and Manitoba farmers, are probably the most environmentally conscious people that you could find anywhere, because they depend for their livelihoods on maintaining a good, clean water supply, a good land base and an economic ability to compete in that international marketplace.

Our farmers are very proud to have been able to compete against the American Treasury up to now. I think that is over. I would suspect that the rumours I hear, that the losses that farmers in Manitoba might in fact incur might approach three-quarters of a billion dollars only in Manitoba alone. The number that was touted before was $1. 3 million. As a Canadian hurt by the American trade, I think, as our leader so eloquently stated, what we are facing now is an unknown number and we need to clearly identify that number in this province.

I would challenge the Premier to encourage his staff and the minister's staff to bring forward clearly the kind of numbers that we can put some credence in, take those numbers to Ottawa and demand that Ottawa get on the same support level that Washington is on today.

May 13, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 69 Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be able to rise and speak on behalf of the farm community in Dauphin-Roblin. When I say farm community of Dauphin-Roblin, that includes the farms, the family farn1s, the people who directly make a living farming, producing products for us to eat as well as the number of communities, the number of businesses, the number of enterprises in my constituency and in constituencies of every other MLA in this building that will be affected by this bill that President Bush signed this morning.

Let us not make a mistake. Let us have no doubt about this. This is United States trade protectionism at its worst. That is all this is. On the one hand, the Americans think that they can hassle us when it comes to some of the supports we put in place for our farmers and at the same time believe that it is their right to move forward and introduce bills such as this one that the President signed this morning to negatively impact the livelihood of our farmers here in Manitoba. I want to remind people that this bill replaces the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act that was put forward in the States,

an act at that time that provided for more and more and more subsidies. This is not something that is new. This is not something that should take any of us by surprise. We have to recognize that the American government on one hand is talking the free trade rhetoric and on the other hand is acting like protectionists. The examples to prove that, the evidence before us is clear. We have had challenges to supports that were provided to Canadian and Manitoba farmers. Over and over again there are challenges to the Wheat Board.

There are challenges to a whole number of supports that we, as legislators, have put in place to help our farm community, and are challenged again and again and again by the American government. I do not need to remind members on either side of this House about the number of ad hoc subsidies that have been put forward over the years by the American government. This bill today that Mr. Bush signed provides $18 0 billion worth of subsidy over 10 years.

You know what is even worse than that, the worst part about this is that the proposal is to spend the bulk of that money within the first six years of the ten-year bill. That is in effect taking $18 0 billion and spending it in the marketplace in six years. That increases the amount of harm that this is going to cause our farmers. That increases the pressure on us as decision-makers to act. This bill that we have before us also will, for the first time, provide some impact on an area of our agricultural development in this province that has seen some growth, which in the last number of years has doubled.

I am talking about peas and lentils, the pulse crops. We have seen some good progress in that area. We have seen success there. Now what is going to be the impact of this bill on a growing agricultural diversification here in our province of Manitoba? It is going to be negative. It is going to hurt people who have been working hard to make sure that that part of our agricultural industry would be successful. Mr. Speaker, the other part of this bill that is very worrisome and I think opens up a huge can of worms is the whole area dealing with country of-origin labelling.

Do we have any doubt whatsoever that this will not be used as a trade barrier by a protectionist United States government? I submit to you that is exactly why it is. being put forward. I think it is something that we should be very concerned about. I think it is something that the federal government needs to be very concerned about. I know that members of the cattle producers here in Manitoba are very concerned about that portion of this bill. How do we deal with this huge problem that we face? I was very interested to hear some of the statements that were read into the record by the Member for Emerson.

I think the Member for Emerson did a very good job in indicating just exactly what it is that we are dealing with in this debate here today. It has been said in the past that Canada has always had a problem. It has been a mouse living next door to an elephant. Well, what we are dealing with is an elephant because of the size of this bill, but we are dealing with a rogue elephant. We are dealing with an elephant that

13 70 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 2002 has gone mad in the marketplace. It is a rogue elephant because it is running against the rest of the world, the Europeans, the European Common Market also singled out by the American protectionist movement. The European Common Market has been looking to reduce the number of subsidies that hurt the marketplace in all parts of the world. They have been moving away from subsidies. They have been looking for ways to desubsidize agriculture.

Canadians have been doing it for how many years now. * (15: 50) Every member in this Legislature can think of something that we have given up in the name of free trade. We can all think of something, just within the envelope of the farm community, that we have gone forward and �aid: You know we are such good folks we are going to show you our good faith. We are going to give up the two price system of wheat, or we are going to give up this, or we are going to give up that. We have been doing it. We have been doing it year after year.

Every time we get in to negotiate a new free trade agreement we give up something. What has the rest of the world been doing? They have been dragging their feet. Now today we are faced with this. I think the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner) makes a good point. I think that we have to take some of the points that the Member for Emerson was making. We have to think back to what we were told when we had the Standing Committee on Agriculture travel this province just a couple of short years ago.

We have to take the statistical information that the Member for Emerson has provided this House here today, combine it with the real-life stories that we were told two years ago in Brandon, in Winnipeg, in Beausejour, in Dauphin. Those were real cases. That tells us how this bill is going to play out at the farm gate.

You have to take those two and we have to marry them together and we have to tum to the federal government, with the co operation of the Leader of the Opposition, with the co-operation of all members of this House, with the co-operation of all members of the legislatures in Saskatchewan and Alberta. We have to co-ordinate that so that other provincial premiers and their legislatures can get involved. We have to co-ordinate this with farm groups right across this nation, in our province and across Canada. It has to be a co-ordinated effort because we are dealing with a rogue elephant that needs to be tamed. Mr.

Speaker, the key word is co-operation. I have witnessed co-operation in this Legislature in other times. I have witnessed co-operation in terms of agriculture within this Legislative Building and we have to do it again. I was very privileged to chair that Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I really was impressed with the hundreds of submissions that we received dealing with the state of agriculture in our province. That was two years ago.

I can remember sitting late at night in Brandon listening to a young woman, a teenager, from the southwest comer of this province, talk about what farming means to her community in the southwest part of the province. It was an absolutely eloquent speech, and I know that any members opposite who were members of that committee can remember that young woman and how impassioned she was about what farming meant to her and her family. I remember in Beausejour, and the member opposite probably heard this knocking on doors in the by-election in Lac du Bonnet.

I remember the approach by people in Beausejour was, I think, quite global. Looking at the big picture of farming and drainage became one of the issues there, an issue that we are moving on, an issue that we are doing something about, and I know that all members in this Legislature understand how important that is, the drainage aspect in the farm community. I know that we can co-operate, on each side of this House and outside of this House, to bring other people on board to deal with this issue because I have seen it happen before here.

I want to just talk briefly about one of my own constituents who, when we were in Dauphin with the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Premier (Mr. Doer) and I just talked about this just before Question Period today. We talked about my constituent, Mr. Elliott from Grandview, who came to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, looked at the Premier, looked at myself as Chair, looked at all the MLAs who listened intently as he -

May 13, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 71 described what it was like to run a farm operation in the Parkland area. It was not one little issue here and one little issue there. It was not this you can wave a magic wand and do one thing and make my farm operation successful. It, again, was a holistic approach to his farm operation. He talked about his daughter for whom they were attempting to find enough money to send to university so that she could take courses.

He talked about how valuable this was to the community of Grandview and how important it was to instill in young people the feeling that they can enter farming, that they can take over their farms from their parents or they can, heaven forbid, maybe even buy some land from somebody else in the community and begin a family farm somewhere in rural Manitoba, in this particular case near Grandview, Manitoba. Mr. Elliott was absolutely eloquent and impassioned about the prospects of rural living, the prospects of farming in Manitoba.

He was absolutely clear, as were so many other people who presented to our standing committee, they were absolutely clear that we need to push aside our partisanship.

We need to stand together as legislators, and we need to say that we have to provide a united front against this rogue elephant right now and that we need to go and bring in to the table other provincial leaders, farm groups, and most importantly you have got to get on side with us the federal government so that the federal government can provide some type of bridge financing to help in the short term and also toughen up our approach to these long-term trade agreements because, if this is what the future holds for farming, then we will be in big trouble in this province, but I know that we have the ability to approach this problem in a co operative, co-ordinated effort.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Harry Eons (Lakeside): No doubt a great deal is going to be heard on this subject matter in the farm community and in the halls of politics, but what really has to be said: Look at how the American government is looking after their farmers. They are doing it, and this administration is doing it at a time that George W. Bush has before the American Congress the largest tax decrease in the history of that country. Let me remind us all, and particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger), that the Americans start with a -considerably lower base level of various numbers of taxes, as we call them, personal and corporate. They are planning-what is it?-a trillion-dollar tax cut over the next five years. {interjection] Let us not be that sure of a deficit, just as I wish the Minister of Finance well in the turnaround of the economy. But look at what that powerful country is doing because they happen to believe that agriculture is important, that food production is important, as they would say, in their national interest.

They have laws on the book that preclude-have had it for a long time-levels of foreign import into their country when it exceeds a certain level, beef, sugar, a whole host of what we would call protectionist policies. Mr. Speaker, instead of us-quite frankly, it makes for not even that good politics-railing against it, really our responsibility is what we can do about it. What can we do about it? I will tell you there are some things that we can do about it, and I just want to name a few of them in a hurry. We can do something about it at this present time in our history.

We have all acknowledged that it is a national problem. It is the national treasury of Washington or the European Union that is placing our farmers in this position, so it is incumbent for us to have a national response. I will tell you something. Thanks to that great old prime minister whom we love to kick around the block, Prime Minister Mulroney, who introduced the GST, that took a hidden tax and made it a visible tax and, of course, applied it to a lot of other services, that to a large measure accounts for the surpluses in the federal Treasury these days-I think the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger) might even acknowledge that-along with some considerable pulling back of their responsibility in such fields as health care, but certainly the unbelievable revenues created by the GST which convinced the current Prime Minister who promised the people the GST would be history if they elected him in '93. {interjection] * (16 :00)

13 72 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May I3 , 2002 The Member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) remembers that, as do I, unfortunately I suspect, not too many voters in St. Boniface will remember it today, or elsewhere in the country. They will forgive and forget, but what it has done is it has put by current standards-and this is taking into account an economic slowdown, September II , and everything else-the federal government in a position of some $?-billion to $I 0-billion smplus. Am I in the ballpark, Mr. Minister of Finance? I believe so. An Honourable Member: I5 . Mr. Eons: Okay, closer to I5.

So I am saying that, when we were running huge deficits, I always found it hard, quite frankly, to rail for the Canadian Treasury to try to compete with the American Treasury or the European treasuries, but we can in this instance, I believe, make that call because that $I 0-billion to $IS -billion surplus is there. One other reason why I think we need to make it now, and I am pleased that at least the western premiers have gotten together. They have to put much more pressure on. They have to get to that money before other special interests get to it, namely the forestry people.

Now, I have nothing against the forestry people. They have a legitimate case, but I will tell you something. We will win that argument. The forestry people have won that argument in the past. We will win it again when it gets fully cleared through the various panels that it will go through, just as our pork producers won a provision that was put against the import of Canadian hogs. Do you recall that? I think the First Minister talked about it. They attached a levy on Canadian hogs, but because we served notice that we were disputing that, that money was kept in trust.

At the end of the day-it took a better part of three years-we won the argument, and Canadian pork producers got all the money back. In excess of $3 million went back to the pork producers. I maintain precisely the same thing is going to happen to the forestry industry. When the 27% levy gets charged on Canadian softwood lumber, we will have been well under way having served notice that we are taking them to the World Court, WTO, or NAFfA agreements. It will take two years, it may take three years, it may take five years, but we will win that battle.

Then those monies will be reimbursed to the softwood lumber industry. They will be held in trust as was the pork money. There is a clause that calls for these monies not to be encroached upon until a final settlement is made. I say that that is something that needs to be done and can be done. There is one more thing that this Minister of Agriculture can do not tomorrow, she ca� do it today and save the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) some money while she is doing it.

I know one of the things that we in Manitoba can do and are doing, not solely as a result of this, but as a result of an action that took place, again, by the federal government. That reminds me I said the federal government has the capacity with a current $I 0- million to $50-million deficit to do something, even in big numbers. I maintain they also have a moral responsibility. It was only seven years ago that western agriculture gave up some $760 million annually in the Crow benefit.

That is a pretty big chunk of what the industry now is asking for some bridge financing, some help as we sort our way out of this mess. They have a moral responsibility to do that. But, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that action and the result of some courageous action, I might call it, by the then-government, which immediately saw that we had great opportunities in expansion of our livestock industry, particularly in our pork industry, it called for creating more flexible marketing conditions and the doing away with the single-selling desk.

That has done just as was predicted, not just a doubling but a tripling increase of pork production in the province of Manitoba, and it has room to increase more. If this Government would stop listening to ill-advised backbenchers who do not like their uncles and get on to the act of running this province, you would stop funding an organization like Hog Watch that has only one -

May 13, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 73 goal in mind, the elimination of the hog industry in Manitoba. That is all they want to do. You give them $50,000 a year to spread their propaganda. An Honourable Member: No way. Mr. Eons: Yes, you do. Your colleague the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Lathlin) acknowledged that in his Estimates. According to Hog Watch and according to those opponents of pork production, I mean, of course water is of great concern to us. I asked that the minister provide me the list of 35 boil orders or water advisories.

Here are cases where his department people have checked water supplies for pollution. I asked him a specific question. There has not been a single incident, let me repeat that, a single incident where a large hog bam has impacted or polluted a water supply. Not one. {interjection] That is your information. Yet this Minister of Agriculture allows just last week in the paper articles like this to be virtually published once a week without a response by a responsible minister.

You know, this gentleman whose well has been condemned, whose water has been put under a boil order, says: I have never had this problem before the hog barns came into my area. It is a gentleman that my colleague the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner) knows very well. I asked the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Lathlin) about this specific case during the Estimates. Do you know what he had to say? He said, first of all, that the gentleman in question did not take a proper water sample. They questioned whether he just scooped it out of the ditch or whatever he did.

Secondly, they confirmed that it certainly was not from hogs. But what I am complaining about is your Government is supporting an organization that has caused the resignation of the entire local council. There will be very few pro-agriculture people elected to the local council as a result of this kind of activity, this kind of fearmongering.

I want this minister-one thing this minister can do, she can do today, she can do tomorrow, she can support this multi-multimillion-dollar growing industry by showing some aggressiveness, by showing some assistance and putting down the blatant misinformation, the rumour mongering, the fearmongering that another colleague of hers is giving organizations $50,000 of taxpayers' money, including these farmers' money, to promote. That is utter nonsense. That is utter nonsense. It is not just the Government. If you ask people today, if you ask the average Manitoban today, you know, what pollutes our ground water.

Well, it is those mega hog barns. Everybody knows that, when in fact that is not the case. The Free Press does little stories like this. They do a major issue on livestock that becomes an election issue: Reeve and two other councils resign in the member of Emerson's constituency, and then quite innocently on the next page: water tested for E . .coli at homes near gravel pits in the Birds Hill area, the implication being that these big hogs have implicated the ground water supplies in my member from Springfield's constituency. We all know that is not true.

It is the lovely Canada goose that has polluted those waters, but it is the little porker that takes the blam

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-3-30
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 3rd hansardpdf 30.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5220407a59d10a34c83e09d7cad26396e531604d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).