Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), Bill 200, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), Bill 201, The Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act (Loi sur le jour de solidarité à l'égard des autochtones), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), Bill 203, The Public Assets Protection Act (Loi sur la protection des biens publics), standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), Bill 205, The Dutch Elm Disease Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la thyllose parasitaire de l'orme), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), who has 11 minutes remaining.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: Bill 202, The Home Care Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant la protection des soins à domicile et apportant des modifications corrélatives).
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, by leave, I would like to move the following resolution.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Thompson have leave to propose Resolution 16? [agreed]
Mr. Ashton: I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that
WHEREAS Manitoba Hydro provides hydroelectric power to Manitobans throughout the province; and
WHEREAS electricity is an important public utility; and
WHEREAS many Manitobans are frustrated over the current rate structure of Manitoba Hydro that results in residents of certain areas paying more for hydroelectric power than those in other areas; and
WHEREAS this results, particularly, in rural and northern Manitobans paying more for hydroelectric power; and
WHEREAS many Manitobans feel that this variance in rate structure is unfair; and
WHEREAS prior to the last provincial election the then Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro indicated that the government was preparing to change the structure in light of these concerns; and
WHEREAS no action was ever taken by the provincial government on this matter.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that Manitoba Hydro and the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik) consider reviewing the current rate structure in light of the need to ensure equitable treatment of all Manitobans regardless of where they live.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to move this resolution on behalf of the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), and I want to thank the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) for seconding the resolution.
I want to put on the record that this is a very important concern, particularly in northern Manitoba, but I would suggest to you as well that throughout rural Manitoba it is very much a similar concern. One has to, I think, start from a recognition of how our hydro rates are structured. They are structured on the basis of the size of the population of the community served and the area served, the population density. Now what that results in is we have a number of rate structures and, coincidentally, it results in the city of Winnipeg paying the least for hydro. It results in some of the larger communities, my own community being in the second tier, and other rural communities and northern communities paying the most for hydro.
I want to indicate, Madam Speaker, that I believe this is a very easily corrected problem because it would not result in a dramatic increase in rates for anyone. The fact is it is really a marginal difference and it is really something that is symbolic to many rural and northern residents of an unfairness. Now I want to stress again why people are so concerned about this and why it is a particular concern in northern Manitoba. I do not think it requires much to recognize the fact that much of our hydro comes from northern Manitoba.
Apart from the Winnipeg River system, most of the large dams that have been built, virtually all of the developments of the last 35, 40 years have been in northern Manitoba. I must say it is particularly frustrating for people in communities such as Gillam or Bird, which are right next to hydro sites, or Split Lake or Nelson House or York Landing or Cross Lake or Norway House, all communities that have been affected by flooding from surrounding hydro dams, to be paying more for their hydro than people who live in the city of Winnipeg. I would suggest to you that there might be some who would suggest that it should be the other way around, but we are not proposing that.
We are saying that here we have a public utility and here we have an opportunity to use a very good asset of the province of Manitoba, our Manitoba Hydro, and bring in an equitable rate structure that is fair to all Manitobans regardless of where they live. Now I want to stress that this is not the first time we have raised this issue. I have been raising this issue time and time again; in fact, I have gone to the Public Utilities Board. I went as the Hydro critic for the Manitoba New Democratic Party officially to propose that we have equalization of hydro rates. I also want to indicate my understanding--and I can speak for the New Democratic Party and I also believe the Liberals are on record as supporting equalized hydro rates--it is only the government right now that is holding this back.
Some Honourable Members: Shame.
Mr. Ashton: Now it is even worse. I know the members on our side are saying "shame." It is even more frustrating than one might imagine, because we have had indications in the past that this was going to be corrected. The former minister responsible for Hydro, Don Orchard, people remember the former member for Pembina, a very outspoken member who was known mostly for health care issues. But you know, he was the minister responsible for Hydro and had committed very clearly to many communities and committed in the committee of the Legislature that we were going to have equalized hydro rates. Now what happened, Madam Speaker?
An Honourable Member: He did not run again.
Mr. Ashton: No, I was not asking what happened to the member for Pembina. I know he is very busy right now working on behalf of one of the private consortiums looking at our lab system, the privatization of our health care system. But I wish him well, I wish Don Orchard well. I know he was a very active member of this House, to say the least, Madam Speaker, very involved in debate.
Mr. Orchard said that there would be equalization of hydro rates, but what happened was there was another kind of equalization that took place that pre-empted this with Manitoba Hydro. What they did is they brought in some changes that brought down the relative spread between business and residential rates, so they equalized business and residential rates to a greater extent but did not proceed with the equalization of hydro rates.
Now I want to put this in perspective again, because was it that they were in difficult financial straits? Well, no, Madam Speaker. If you would look at the situation with Manitoba Hydro because of the development of our hydroelectric resources in this province--and I might add since 1969 every single one of the developments that have taken place have been under New Democratic Party governments. But I will just give you the most recent, and that is Limestone.
Limestone is producing a tremendous profit for the province of Manitoba. There were some members in this House including the current Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) who was then the critic for hydroelectric power, do you know what they wanted to do a number of years ago? They wanted to buy hydro from the United States instead of developing Limestone.
You know, I think it is interesting how we have time, with even the few years that have passed now, just a decade, to reflect on the fact that they were wrong, they were dead wrong, and that Limestone is now making a profit. Now how is that relevant to Manitoba Hydro's rate structure? We should be using some of that profit which is there, which is on the books with Manitoba Hydro, to equalize hydro rates. We do not have to increase anybody's rates in the province of Manitoba to equalize hydro rates. We can take the revenues that are available and correct this injustice.
I want to suggest to the government that they should consider this again. We have a new minister. We have a minister who I am sure can reflect upon what the commitment was that Don Orchard made. I still remember when we received that commitment in the committee of the Manitoba Legislature looking into Manitoba Hydro. I just ask the government why they will not act on it. This is not a cost to the taxpayer. It is not a cost to the ratepayer. Manitoba Hydro is making money. It is making money from--
An Honourable Member: Just like MTS.
Mr. Ashton: Well, just like MTS, but I do not want to get into that because I will be spending a lot of time on MTS later on, and I do not want to reflect on the irony of the fact that once again our publicly owned hydroelectric company is making this profit, Manitoba Hydro, not a private company but a publicly owned public utility.
I want to say, Madam Speaker, we would not even be able to debate this, the rate structure of Manitoba Hydro, if this government was to proceed to privatize Manitoba Hydro like it is doing with the Manitoba Telephone System. That is one of the great things about public ownership of our public utilities. We as MLAs who represent our constituents in this Legislature have the opportunity to speak out on issues like this. I mean, if we had a privately owned hydroelectric company, does anyone expect that they might even think of equalizing hydro rates? I would suggest they would probably turn around and do the complete opposite. This is what is going to happen, we know, with the Manitoba Telephone System. But Manitoba Hydro would probably be faced, as a private company, with higher rates in rural areas.
* (1640)
You know, it is publicly owned companies like Manitoba Hydro that brought in the hydroelectric service that many rural and northern Manitobans have today. As recently as a few months ago the minister announced the long-awaited development of direct-line hydro power into Pikwitonei and Thicket Portage. That is because we have a publicly owned Manitoba Hydro that has a commitment, has a mandate, to serve Manitobans wherever they live.
So, Madam Speaker, there is an opportunity here to correct one of those irritations that is out there that frustrates many people outside of the city, and I look to the minister because the minister represents a constituency from outside of Winnipeg himself and, I think, understands the concern. There is no complete logic to this because, as I mentioned, it is based on density of service. Manitoba Hydro is only looking at the cost of service based on the assumption that the hydro rate itself is a fixed rate.
It does not make any sense, because the density of the--[interjection] No, the density of the service, not of the government. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), I think he is getting ahead of me in this. But they only look at that. They treat hydro as if it sort of appears at the delivery level to the retail customer at the same cost to everyone, and I admit there are resources that come from the Winnipeg River system which the City of Winnipeg had investment in, but, you know, the vast majority comes from outside of the city of Winnipeg.
I am arguing here for rural Manitoba, as well, Madam Speaker. I am not saying, just because the hydro just happens to be located in northern Manitoba, that rural residents should not be included in this. I want equality for everyone, and I want to say that sometimes in frustration there are people in the North who wish there was a big tap set up on the hydro that we could just turn a little bit once in a while, just let the lights flicker a little bit just to remind everyone where that hydro comes from, but we would never do that. We would never do that.
You know, we may get the short end of the stick time and time again. [interjection] Well, the Premier of Newfoundland, he would turn off the tap. We would not. We are proud to be part of the province, Madam Speaker, and we think a lot of the future of Manitoba lies in northern Manitoba. Do you know what? Do not take our generosity for granted, though. I mean, we are getting a little frustrated with not getting the roads back and the services and the rest of it. Do you know what frustrates us in northern Manitoba? It is that we have to pay more for our hydro than the city of Winnipeg does. We have to pay more than the city of Winnipeg does.
Madam Speaker, this is about hydro; it is about rural and northern Manitoba. I think the bottom line is it is a strict issue of fairness, and I will tell you what. I bet you, if you go to anybody in the city of Winnipeg and ask them a straight question, do you think you should have lower hydro rates than people in rural Manitoba and northern Manitoba, do you know what--I think people in Winnipeg are pretty generous, and they have a great commitment to this province--I think they would turn around, and they would say, they should get the same fair treatment as everyone else.
Do you know what is ironic, Madam Speaker? On the Manitoba Telephone System, under this government, they are eliminating the one area where rural residents pay less. We used to pay less outside of the city for phone service because that is based on the reverse principle. If there are more customers, you pay more, so the city of Winnipeg had more customers, and people paid marginally more. That is being eliminated now as the government has moved from its 10-rate structure down to a three-rate structure, and as it moves into privatization, it is probably going to go in reverse, where rural Manitobans and northern Manitobans are going to pay a heck of a lot more, a heck of a lot more for phone service. So MTS has been sort of corrected by the government. It is one thing they do not advertise in rural Manitoba, that people are paying more for their phone service now.
But, you know, if that has been corrected on the one hand--rural Manitobans are paying more; northern Manitobans are paying more--is it not only fair that the same thing be corrected in reverse on Manitoba Hydro. I look to the minister, and I look to members of this House, because, quite frankly, we brought this resolution in. If the members have any difficulty with even the slight criticism of the provincial government, I make a suggestion. I think we could probably amend that. We could probably remove that section and put it to a vote because I look at the members who are listening to this debate right now, the majority of whom are rural members on the other side. I am sure that, if we took out maybe that reference, they could support this motion as well. I will be interested to see what their comments are.
I know the Liberals will support it. They are already on record in supporting equalized hydro rates, along with the NDP. There are two parties in this House that are, and I really think most individual government members are. Madam Speaker, if we do not have enough time to debate this issue today, I am sure we can bring it back at some other point in time. There are a number of other issues we are hoping to bring back in terms of private members' resolution, the one last week on AECL being a good example. We are hoping to get back and have votes on a number of resolutions, hoping to negotiate that. I think this may be a good example where we can do that.
So, with those words, Madam Speaker, I look forward to the comments of members opposite and particularly from the minister, because I think he has an opportunity to correct a historic injustice, a symbolic injustice, but something that irritates a lot of rural and northern Manitobans.
I think the ball is in his court, and I look forward to hearing his comments and hopefully the support of other members in this House on the government side for what I feel is a very excellent resolution that has been drafted by the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). Thank you.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I do not know who on the opposition benches said, cheaper power, cheaper power. I think we all would like to have lower energy costs than what one has today, although in Canada Manitoba Hydro has the lowest published rates in the country and certainly the continent. Canada, generally, is one of the lowest rates in the world. So we enjoy the great benefit of some of the most reasonably priced electricity in the world, and that has been a great advantage to us.
I certainly appreciate the resolution moved by the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and the comments of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) obviously advocating a position for those who live in areas that have less density and, under Manitoba Hydro's rate formula, which contains three particular zones based on density, and density affects the cost of putting in lines, putting in the infrastructure and the resulting profitability of those lines compared to areas with higher density, but I would like to put the member's comments in a context.
I have been Minister responsible for Hydro now for a little over a year, I have been Minister of Northern Affairs since 1993, and I continually see or hear what I believe to be a lot of the mythology that surrounds hydro service in this province. This mythology, and we have heard the member today speak about, this is a northern resource and we would sometimes like to stop the power to the south, and it has been, you know, a great advantage to the southern part of Manitoba and somehow something special is owed, but if one follows through the logic of that, the water--[interjection] The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says, equal, but based on the density, his own constituents in the city of Thompson have the same density level as other parts of the No. 1 zone or whatever it is and have the same rates as those in areas with similar density, as do Flin Flon and The Pas. So the density area applies equally across the province. There are some issues in the North with respect to areas not serviced by land line, and I am going to address those a little bit later in my remarks, but there is a fairness.
The same zones apply everywhere across the province. They are based on density, what it costs to bring service into a particular area. So when the member says they want fairness, what he is really asking is that those people who have very low density, where the cost of bringing in that power is much higher than in areas with the greater density, be subsidized, in essence, by those other people. There is some of that now that takes place. There is some of that that takes place now, but the idea of the zones was to level that somewhat to ensure that there was some fairness in density.
There is not one of us rural members who have not had from time to time individuals come who wanted electrical service taken out to an area that is a mile or five or six miles from the main line, and we are looking at $5,000, $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 bills, and said, why is this? This is unfair. We should have this put in. Then you look at their usage and you find out it would take 100 or 200 years to pay for the line. Well, if you are saying we should do that, and that is not what the member has been talking, but if one says we should do that, then you are asking all of the other ratepayers to pay that cost to bring in a line that really the economics of it are somewhat marginal. So we have to be careful.
The member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) knows that. We have had mutual constituents who have wanted service into particular sites at a huge cost with very often seasonal demand. Well, you cannot expect everyone else to pay for that, so when the member asks for fairness, yes, the rates are applied equally all across the province.
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), his constituents in the city of Flin Flon are in the lowest price zone based on the density again. [interjection] Well, perhaps I am wrong in that particular case, but because of again the high density, I gather.
* (1650)
But, Madam Speaker, the point I would also like to make are that these rate zones have been in place for many decades. They have been in place through various governments, and members of the New Democratic Party, who represented the northern seats in the Pawley administration, did not change those rate zones either, so to stand in opposition to say that, I think, is somewhat unfair. When they had the power, when they were on the government side of the House, they did not change those rate zones. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I do not know if he lobbied or not, but he was not able to convince his colleagues to do that.
Madam Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about Limestone, and I want to talk a little bit about development, and I want to talk a little bit about the development of hydroelectricity.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing some difficulty hearing the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, let us not forget, as I was saying earlier, the members for northern Manitoba often make this point, that the electricity is in the North, it belongs to northerners. Well, the water that flows through the dam that generates the power flows from the United States, it flows from Alberta, from Saskatchewan, from Ontario. Is it their water? Do people say, we are going to hold this water up to make our electricity? It becomes somewhat of a nonsensical argument, when you look at it logically.
Also, in the development of hydroelectricity, we have thousands of sites across northern Manitoba and other--[interjection] Well, the member mentions flooding. Communities that were flooded that New Democrats in government were not able to resolve, I am pleased to say that today four of the five communities have resolved their issues, either have got agreement or are in ratification, and one we are in heated negotiation, but it is this government which has settled those issues at a very, very significant amount of money.
Madam Speaker, members ask about the agreement. Well, it is signed, ratified by the voters in those areas, and the money has been taken--[interjection] Well, if the members were so good and so well-meaning, why did they not settle it when they were on this side of the House? Why did the northern members who are New Democrats not get it settled? They could not get it settled. They did not get one, not one Northern Flood Agreement settled while they were in power. So let not one member be fooled by that very empty rhetoric on hydro.
The second point I make is, all of those dams in northern Manitoba were developed with somebody's capital ultimately loaned to Hydro and guaranteed by all the taxpayers of Manitoba. We have hundreds of potential hydro sites in northern Manitoba. They are not developed unless there are capital investors prepared to invest, and the dollars that were loaned by Manitoba Hydro to build them are guaranteed not by northern taxpayers only but by all taxpayers of the province of Manitoba through the provincial guarantee.
Members can talk about owning Hydro. Let us not forget what the debt-to-equity ratio of Manitoba Hydro was when the New Democrats left office--98 percent. We own 2 percent of the utility--2 percent. I think we are down now to about 91 percent debt-to-equity ratio, so--[interjection] Well, the member wants to talk about Limestone. This party did not oppose Limestone, it was the timing of Limestone, and I will just tell you, if you look at the profitability of Manitoba Hydro--
An Honourable Member: There he is, wanting to buy power from the United States.
Mr. Praznik: Well, the member says about buying power from the United States. We buy and sell power in the United States regularly. We do it regularly. And the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who pretends he knows a lot about hydro, should know that in the whole development scheme of hydro, building a dam, there is a time to build one as your demand increases so that you can maximize your revenues, and during that cycle of development there is a period where the province's traditional thinking in Hydro is in that importer of power until the demand or capacity of the dam can be used to a certain point that justifies its construction. So the member likes to, you know, come out with an anti-American comment, buying hydro, what have you.
All of these things have a proper time to be built to maximize the benefit, and I think if you look at Limestone, it was built prematurely and probably done for political reasons, probably built when it was to win a general election, and that is not the way you should be building hydroelectric dams. If I remember that debate correctly--I look to my colleagues--that was really the issue, not building it. It was the timing of the particular dam, just like Conawapa. You cannot build Conawapa today unless you have the customers for the power. So we deal with a great deal of mythology in these debates.
One last point that I would like to make on this issue, the member talks about utilities and hydroelectricity, I must say, in a way that is not reflective of a whole change going on in the electrical industry in North America. Electricity is going through a revolution. It is no longer going to be a utility as we know it. It is becoming a commodity, and it is in a competitive market today with natural gas, cogeneration. The member asks if we will sell it. I dealt with that issue in a speech in this House. At the current time there is not a logic behind selling it, but there is a demand to ensure that we are reforming and reorganizing Hydro and positioning hydroelectricity to take advantage of the opportunities that are there. [interjection]
The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) says we are going to sell it, I know. Well, you know, if I thought for one moment that she knew anything about the electrical revolution in North America, I would treat her comment seriously, but I do not think she does because, quite frankly, it is evolving and happening. Manitoba Hydro has some huge opportunities ahead if we move to take advantage of that, and that is as a public utility, and I have never said anything differently, although the member for Wellington might like to imply that. But we have to take that on, quite frankly, and deal with it.
I would also like to point out, Madam Speaker, in the few moments remaining to me that one of the great differences in hydro rates in northern Manitoba has not been the kind of rate structure the member talks about, but it has been the diesel generation rate versus land line, and this administration, my predecessor the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) with great effort and work was able to put together the deal into the north central hydro line, which is now under construction, to bring land line power to nine communities.
Again, the New Democrats did not do that. Secondly, I have had the pleasure of putting together the arrangements in the last year that will bring land line power to the communities of Thicket Portage and Pikwitonei. Well, how they vote is a different issue, but the fact is, we are doing the right thing, and this government is the one that has settled Northern Flood Agreements, has brought in land line power to a variety of communities and is ensuring that Manitoba Hydro remains a strong, competitive utility in this province, and I am very proud of the efforts that we have managed to achieve. Thank you very much.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I would yield if the members of the opposition want to speak at this particular time, and I would be prepared to speak afterwards as long as I do not give up my time for speaking now that I have been recognized. Is that an agreement of the House that I were to let them--
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to permit the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism to speak after the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen)? [agreed]
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this Chamber today in order to put a few words on record in support of the resolution put forth by my honourable colleague for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and introduced today by my honourable colleague for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I know that other northern members and indeed the entire caucus will support this resolution.
The member for Thompson has most eloquently expressed the need for the equalization of hydro rates across the province of Manitoba. Many rural and northern Manitobans pay considerably more for hydro than do the residents of large cities such as Winnipeg. The excessively high hydro rates are particularly onerous for northerners. There are enough handicaps for those living in northern Manitoba without adding to these handicaps by forcing extraordinarily high hydro rates on northerners. Our food prices are much higher than in the south, our gasoline prices are higher, our roads where they do exist are often in deplorable condition.
* (1700)
Many of our small communities are not even in fact serviced by roads or by hydro lines. These communities have to rely on diesel generators, as the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) just mentioned a moment ago. That type of electricity is indeed costly, and it is very limited and not always reliable. For example, in some communities it is not unusual for a family living in a small house to pay hydro bills in excess of $600 or $800 a month in the winter. In some places only a few small appliances can be plugged in. Dryers and washers are off limits. Electric heating space heaters are not allowed. Power outages are common. Fluctuation in power levels often damage or destroy motors in freezers and fridges. And this happens to those Manitobans who ironically are least able to pay. The story is much the same whether it is Brochet or Lac Brochet or Tadoule Lake or any other isolated northern community, and it would also include isolated communities such as Sagkeeng First Nation.
Certainly basic justice concepts would suggest that the First Nations people would at least be given special consideration when it comes to the setting of hydro rates. Much of the territory of the First Nations people was flooded and destroyed, traditional hunting and fishing and trapping were negatively affected. Yes, there have been some flood agreements, as the minister mentioned, but First Nations people in northern Manitoba, some of the poorest people in northern Manitoba, pay some of the highest hydro rates in this province. That is a fact, as I mentioned before, not necessarily just in northern Manitoba but also sometimes in rural Manitoba and other isolated places. And this does not look like justice to me, Madam Speaker.
Why should those who live in northern Manitoba in remote isolated communities, often in cramped, small, poorly insulated dwellings, be forced to pay the highest hydro rates in this province? And where is the hydroelectric power produced? We know it is produced in northern Manitoba; we know it is produced in our own backyard. There is something terribly ironic about those who can least pay for the power have to watch the spectacle of the power being produced in their own backyard.
An Honourable Member: But you would not shut it off.
Mr. Jennissen: The honourable member says we would not shut it off. No, we would not let the southerners freeze in the dark. That is because we are compassionate human beings up North. We have learned to share our ideas and our wealth, and we have learned a lot of that from our First Nations brothers and sisters.
There is something fundamentally unjust about this state of affairs, however. Certainly as Manitobans, we are well aware of the importance to our economy of a renewable resource such as hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power is Manitoba's nearest equivalent to Alberta's oil, but this important public utility, as it is now structured, is based on population density, and I think this does not act in the best interest of all Manitobans.
Northerners and rural Manitobans in general, and aboriginal Manitobans in northern Manitoba in particular, are paying more than their fair share. This is especially hard to take when the Hydro utility had a net earning of more than $70 million last fiscal year. The Public Utilities Board has granted further rate increases of 1.5 percent in 1996-97 and 1.3 percent for 1997-1998. In fact, in the next two years we are expecting an extra $30-million-profit.
Yes, Hydro does have a large debt, we do not dispute that, but it is also setting record profits. Northerners are not averse to paying their fair share, but when all factors are weighed and factors such as the following would have to be included, an environment that has been damaged by hydro development, isolation, a high cost of living, difficult access to health and educational services, then it becomes obvious that changes in the present hydro rate structures are desirable.
Northerners, almost to a person, believe that because hydroelectricity is produced in their backyard, they should get a break. And not because we as northerners want preferential treatment, we have never been that antidemocratic or antiegalitarian, Madam Speaker, but because it is difficult enough to survive in northern Manitoba without the burden of extra high hydro rates, artificially set, I might add, and determined in southern Manitoba. Unfortunately, southern Manitoba and southern Manitobans do not always realize that northern Manitobans are angry and frustrated with rates, with its rules and regulations that always favour the south. The North is different from the south, in case anybody has not noticed that, and, therefore, my colleagues and I are always pleading with the members opposite to recognize northern realities.
When it comes to roads or health care or education or hydro rates, we need northern guidelines, not southern guidelines. We are not asking for extras, we are asking for an attempt at equality, if not total equality, at least an attempt at equality. But what do we get, Madam Speaker? Here are some examples: cutbacks to health services in the North, cutback of $4.5 million to three northern hospitals, and supposedly that is to mirror the cutbacks in the south, again treating the North as if it were like the south. The pain is to be distributed equitably across all of Manitoba.
But this is not so. When you cut a northern hospital, you hurt an entire region, a huge region. You cannot go to another hospital. If you hamper the efficiency of, for example, the Flin Flon Hospital, the nearest hospital is at least 150 or more kilometres away. I can also add that this government cuts or limits educational programs such as the Access program, New Careers, BUNTEP, hurting the students, precisely those students in the North and often aboriginal students who most need help.
When funding to upgrade northern highways is reduced year after year allegedly because of southern guidelines connected to population density, once again northerners feel they are left out in the cold, that they are left stranded. [interjection]
And, yes, the honourable member mentions Highway 391. We have a lot that needs to be done on Highway 391. It is no different with hydro rates. As always, northerners pay much more than someone would in Winnipeg. Never mind that the electric power is produced in our own backyard, never mind that we are already paying much more for food, for clothes, for gasoline, never mind that it is our hydroelectric power that keeps the city lights burning. Yes, northerners have noted the irony. While Winnipeggers are using northern electricity to explore the electronic highway, northerners are bouncing around on real bad gravel highways, if they even have highways. Many of them do not even have roads.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, what we are asking for is the equalization of hydro rates as a form of justice. Actually northern Manitoba should pay lower hydro rates than places such as Winnipeg. It should not be based on population density. We should certainly not pay more. I have difficulty with the logic that determines that a bottle of whiskey costs the same in northern Manitoba as in Winnipeg, yet, a litre of milk is much more expensive in northern Manitoba, and a kilowatt-hour electricity is much more expensive in northern Manitoba.
That state of affairs has to change, and the sooner, the better. Northern Manitobans are impatiently waiting. They have been promised equalized hydro rates before. They would like to see at least one promise honoured by this government. They could start with the equalization of hydro rates. That would be a good place to start. It is long overdue. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to this matter. The issue of hydro always does cause for interesting debate in this Chamber, and I hope the member that is the sponsor of this resolution takes the opportunity to read the debate, as one would think it would be important to in fact understand where the people come from in this Legislature, so I encourage that to take place.
One should not get into a hydro debate in this Chamber without bringing a little bit of history to the floor and to talk a little bit about some of the things that have happened in Manitoba Hydro.
Manitoba, Madam Speaker, is very fortunate, blessed with an abundant supply of water that flows from western Canada, from the northern United States and from parts of Ontario through our systems to generate electricity in the North. Of course, it is the lowest cost in North America, it is environmentally friendly, and we believe and I believe as Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism that it is a major form of energy that will continue to feed the future job growth for the province, that will feed the economy. Of course, it is important that we preserve it and look after it.
It is also important to point out that a former Premier and a former government that was known at one time of being pretty strongly rurally based but had also connections to the Liberal Party, and I take my hat off to the former Premier D.L. Campbell, who was the Leader of the government in Manitoba that provided rural electrification for the people of Manitoba. It really, truly, provided revolutionary changes to the lifestyles for rural Manitobans and particularly the women of rural Manitoba who struggled and worked with some of the less than advantageous forms of energy, whether it was cook stoves, forms of pumping of water by the old hand-pump system, but it truly revolutionized Manitoba.
I want to publicly again acknowledge the contribution of Mr. D.L. Campbell as the individual who was committed to bringing rural electrification to Manitoba. He did so, Madam Speaker, without plunging the province into or the hydroelectric utility into tremendous debt.
* (1710)
I as well want to acknowledge a former Premier of this province of whom I am of the same political stripe who had the vision, with him and his government, of which my colleague the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) sat as a member of that government when the Honourable Duff Roblin proceeded to see the opportunities that the tremendous water power of the North provided, the opportunities for Manitoba to be a major player in the energy field and in fact had the vision to further proceed and to develop that energy source as a major driver of our economy.
Then, of course, Madam Speaker, one could acknowledge the New Democratic Party, who almost, in several cases, bungled Manitoba Hydro. At every turn of the way, the history books clearly point out the bungling of Manitoba Hydro by the New Democratic Party and plunging it into debt.
So we have got to make sure the history books are clearly recorded properly, and that, I think, is what we should talk about, the way in which the Honourable D.L. Campbell provided rural electrification, the Honourable Duff Roblin further developed the vision and the electrical activities in the drainage basin to give that whole energy source to the people of Manitoba, and then of course the disastrous years of the New Democratic Party that bungled it. Most other parties build; the New Democratic Party, in most cases, bungles. So we have the history now laid, Madam Speaker, and we can give several examples of precisely what has happened.
I want to as well say, Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the member opposite wanting to change the policy. I would suggest that he should tell the people in the North and the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), where he was for 16 years or where the New Democratic Party was for 16 years when this policy was being carried out in the North. Was he ineffective? Did he not care about the North when he was a member of the sitting government, or is it just a good political opportunity now to again raise an issue for his own political benefit?
I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but he is known to speak sometimes more politically and in his own interest than he is genuinely interested in benefiting his constituents. I think here is a prime example where the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) had how many years to change this policy, and what did they do? Absolutely nothing.
So it clearly points out that he is presenting this, the New Democratic Party are presenting this, solely as a political issue. They probably, I guess, feel some way that they are speaking on behalf of their constituents, but it all comes back to a political motivation.
Madam Speaker, on that whole issue and Manitoba Hydro, what has this government done to ease some of the problems that northern Manitobans have felt with Hydro and Hydro policy? It was this premier, Premier Filmon, it was this government, the Progressive Conservative Party that started the conclusion of the flood agreements that were outstanding for some many years that they were in office. It was signed in 1977. There was progress made till '81, and then it went on the backburner. It was not until 1988 that this government under Premier Filmon that proceeded to advance the settlement and the resolve of the Northern Flood Agreement, not a New Democratic Party, not the member for Thompson, not the member for Flin Flon, but this party who they say just care about southern Manitoba and do not care about the North. Let that one be put aside.
Madam Speaker, Grand Rapids, how many people are aware of the fact that for many, many years the New Democratic Party kept telling the people of Grand Rapids that the government, Hydro did not owe them any money and, yes, legally and technically the government of Manitoba and Hydro did not owe them any money for flood damages. But you know what? It was the compassion of the Conservative government, it was this premier, Premier Filmon, that said to Manitoba Hydro, let us relook at the Grand Rapids settlement. You know what? It was relooked at. You know what? There was over a $20-million settlement paid by Manitoba Hydro under a Progressive Conservative government and Premier Gary Filmon, not a New Democratic Party. Let the record show who are the compassionate people that did not take the legal advice that the NDP party were sitting on. We took the moral high ground and resolved the issue. It was not the New Democratic Party.
Madam Speaker, what were one of the other major issues? I have got about a 40-minute speech. Could you tell me how many minutes I have left?
An Honourable Member: Seven.
Mr. Downey: All right. I will really have to go to work on this, Madam Speaker.
We were elected in 1988, and what did we see? We had some nine communities in northeastern Manitoba that were a hundred miles from the major generating stations producing all this electricity that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) talks about. Well, those nine communities in Manitoba, Madam Speaker, are living in less than desirable conditions because they are not connected to the main transmission system. They are generating out of diesel fuel power that could give them 15 amp service, and that had to be dealt with.
The NDP did not have time, did not have money or did not have the desire, apparently, to resolve what is an outstanding issue for those many native communities in northeastern Manitoba. This government, Madam Speaker, proceeded to work with the federal government, to work with Manitoba Hydro. We put some money on the table to say we want to see those people have their systems put in place so that they can have the kind of standards that the rest of society have in Manitoba. Yes, it is a $117-million project of which Hydro, the federal government and the Province of Manitoba committed to, and, yes, it is being built under my colleague, the current Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Praznik), and I am darn proud of it to be part of a government that has proceeded.
Do you think for one minute the New Democratic Party would stand and admit that these kinds of things had to be done? No, Madam Speaker. No, they would not stand. They would say, oh, look, we built Limestone, we built Jenpeg. Well, we know that Jenpeg was the biggest boondoggle that this province has ever seen. A commission of inquiry clearly said that the people of Manitoba were misinformed about the building of Jenpeg and how unnecessary it was. Yes, a commission of inquiry clearly pointed that out, and, yes, they talk about building Limestone. While the Liberals called it Lemonstone, we supported the building of Limestone, but it was, again, the timing of the building of Limestone. Yes, it created jobs. It showed the people of the North--and by the way, most of the people hired by the New Democratic Party at that time did not come from northern Manitoba. They imported them from British Columbia and from all other provinces. They, quite frankly, were leaving the perception this was for the North, but, quite frankly, the North got very little benefit.
Madam Speaker, there is one very extremely important point that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) should appreciate. It was the Progressive Conservative Party under Premier Filmon and this government, my colleagues who are sitting here today, that took the 7 percent sales tax off the use of electricity in industrial and manufacturing developments in this province. In his own back yard. The member for Flin Flon should stand and say thank you to this government rather than standing to criticize us about inequities and unfairness. How much money did that save his community and HBM&S for the removal of the 7 percent? How much did it save the Thompson Inco process? Seven percent. It saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars right in their own community, and they do not have the integrity to stand and give credit where credit is due.
Well, if they were genuinely honest and fair members of the Legislature and give credit where credit is due, they would stand and do it, but they continue to demonstrate how strictly narrow partisan they are and how perception-oriented they are. It is time that the people of Manitoba clearly understood what the NDP stand for. They stand for self-preservation, cling to power and to perceive the people of Manitoba something that actually is not.
Well, Madam Speaker, I do not know how much time I have left. I have another--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Downey: I clearly believe that if these members opposite were truly as interested as they should be, that they would make a presentation or representation to the Public Utilities Board. It is the Public Utilities Board that establishes and controls the rates in the province of Manitoba. It is the Public Utilities Board that make the final decisions, and I would ask, have the members opposite considered taking it to the Public Utilities Board? If they have not, why have they not? Why are they bringing it to the political arena in the Manitoba Legislature if it is not for the sheer purpose of trying to again paint this government as doing nothing for northern Manitoba? It does no good for the harmony of this province to stand and politically try and draw lines between different regions of our province. That is the problem with Canada. There are too many people trying to say that they have their own interests, that they want to make sure that they are looked after first and separate from everyone else.
* (1720)
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) should take a look at all the benefits and the balance of which has been introduced by this government for the people of the North who use Manitoba Hydro, and being a fair person, I would think he would, at some point in his political career, which may not be that long, as with the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), as with the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), stand in their place and demonstrate that they have the integrity, that they have the fairness and that they do recognize that this government, Madam Speaker, is a government for all the people of the province.
This government is not just for one region. This government has taken strong action to support the people of the North in the use of hydro, whether it is in process, whether it is outstanding claims that he and his government had the opportunity to solve or the issue of zoning and that type of--the issue of the resolution that they could have dealt with during their term of office. So their arguments, their purposes are very narrow and very shallow, and I truly believe, when the history books are written, it will clearly demonstrate that it was the Progressive Conservative Party that were builders of hydro and builders of this province. Of course, it was the New Democrats that were the bunglers, as everything else they have touched in relationship to public administration. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed very much my opportunity to speak.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, it is difficult for me. I do not have the history and the background to speak with passion the way the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) has been speaking. However, I would like to put a few comments on the record, and I will try and be very brief in these comments because I know my honourable colleague the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) would like to also have an opportunity to put a few comments on the record.
I have been listening intently for the last number of minutes to some of the comments that were made on the whole area of the equalization of Manitoba Hydro rates throughout the province. I can speak from experience in having been involved in several enterprises where we, in fact, in the southern area, were looking at getting hydro moved into some remote areas, as we call them remote, and really it was no different there than some of the comments that I have heard so far. We also needed to pay extra dollars for the lines to come in, and I would say that, from our perspective, it made sense. The cost of putting in the lines was given to us. It was our expense. Certainly, we realized as well the number of years, as the honourable minister mentioned before, it would take to pay back the cost of putting in those lines. So that became our expense. I would simply like to put on the record that as there are individual needs, certainly these costs have to be borne by someone. So that is also happening.
The minister also mentioned that Manitoba Hydro maintains three rate zones, and these rate zones are intended to reflect differences in the costs to distribute electricity to areas of different population densities. The rate zones are: zone 1, which is Winnipeg, that is the legal boundary; then zone 2, which is a medium density, and that is 100-metred services or more, with a line density of at least 15 customers per kilometre of distribution; and then they have zone 3, and that is the low-density area, less than 100-metred services outside other rate zones. Towns and villages are typically within zone 2, and rural residences and farms within zone 3. Then, of course, rates are based on the kilowatt-hour usage for customers and are applied in exactly the same way throughout the province.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that this is something that the minister has been trying to say, that there is not equality in that sense throughout the province, and no one is being segregated out and treated in a different way.
The government has taken substantial steps in the past few years to build transmission lines to remote communities because they provide better electrical service and are more economical over the long term than operating diesel generating facilities, and the minister was speaking about the cost of having the generating stations going as well. Manitoba Hydro users in these northern communities will have a hydro rate reduction as a result of this, and this government, also, by its strong action to provide transmission service to remote northern communities, supports a fair rate structure for all Manitoba Hydro customers that fairly reflects the costs of providing the service.
Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the lines that need to be put into remote areas are put in at a cost, and they have to be borne by someone, and so it is important to note that these costs are picked up and, again, as I indicated, through the different zones, the zones 1, 2 and 3, and that is how the levels are determined.
Through major capital projects and substantial improvements in service, this government has proven its commitment to the people of northern and rural Manitoba.
Manitoba Hydro studies show that while revenues from Winnipeg residential customers recover about 100 percent of the fixed cost to serve them, revenues from the rural or the zone 3 customers recovers only 80 percent of the cost, so most of the difference is due to the higher cost of rural distribution.
Madam Speaker, this is something that has been in existence for many years, and I guess if we were looking at dealing with an ideal world, with an ideal situation, certainly it would be nice to have those costs equalized throughout the province. I submit to you that we do not live in that kind of an ideal world and so, therefore, that is not possible.
Then again, the lower population density increases the cost of distributing electricity, so the zone structure is the method Manitoba Hydro uses to address these cost differences. In fact, the rate differences do not fully address the differences in cost to serve lower-density customers.
Madam Speaker, I recognize that my time is almost up and so, with that, I would simply like to put on the record that certainly on an ongoing basis the intent is there to continue to give as low a cost hydro to all those who need it within the province, to all the users in the province, to try and give them the cost that is the best possible. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) will have nine minutes remaining.
The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).