LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, November 30,
1992
The House met at 8 p.m.
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE
(Second Day of Debate)
Madam Deputy
Speaker (Louise Dacquay): Order,
please. The hourbeing 8 p.m., will the
House please come to order.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Madam Deputy Speaker,
indeed it is apleasure to stand up here and talk today on the throne speech,and
it is similar to when you are in school.
One of the firstassignments you have when you get back into class from
theEnglish teacher is, how did I spend my summer? You have to lookback and say, well, this
summer has been tremendously excitingand changing for myself on a personal
basis here and thefunctions and the things that I have had the opportunity toattend. The summer of '92 will certainly go down as
one of mymost eventful summers in my life.
Firstly, what I would like to do, Madam Deputy Speaker,
issend out some congratulations to the new faces here in theLegislature, and it
is my pleasure really to extendcongratulations to the new member for
I would also like to extend best wishes, salutations and
goodhealth to the Leader of the Second Opposition, the member for
An Honourable Member: How come
you are always so nice when theyare going?
Mr. Reimer: When
they are going, we are always nice.
I would like to also take the time to extend best wishes
andgood health to our Lieutenant‑Governor (Mr. Johnson) who was nothere
for the throne speech, but I understand that he is gettingbetter, getting back
into fine form. He was missed during thethrone
speech, and I wish him a speedy recovery and good health.
In looking back, as mentioned, when you look at your
summerand what happened in the summer of '92, I have to look back atsome of the
events and some of the things that I will just takesome moments to sort of
highlight in a sense. I guess when welook
at
From the Fringe Festival, we had the Folk Festival here
inWinnipeg‑‑not necessarily here in
Also, naturally there is Folklorama. Here in
An Honourable Member: Every
one?
Mr. Reimer: Every
one, and I will tell you it was something tosee if you had not been to them,
and I imagine most of us have.
The involvement, the volunteerism was at an all‑time
high,the attendance was at an all‑time high. It just goes to show,here in
*
(2005)
Going on to the Speech from the Throne, as it was broughtforth
a little while ago, I cannot help but repeat a couple ofthe paragraphs that
came out right at the very, very beginning.It seemed so very apropos here in
Manitoba when we talk aboutwhat is happening.
I would just like to quote from the Speechfrom the Throne, and the lines
are:
"The winds of change are sweeping the globe. Walls andboundaries that have traditionally
defined nations, internationaltrade, national economics and individual
lifestyles are tumblingdown. This
revolutionary process is affecting every continentand touching virtually every
nation and every community.
"History teaches us that the most durable and
enduringsocieties are those best able to cope with change, adapt theirway of
life and take advantage of the new opportunities."
It seems that it should be repeated–the line "best
able tocope with change, adapt their way of life and take advantage ofthe new
opportunities." On a personal note,
I can attest to thatvery, very easily, because at times we do have to go
through somedifficult changes. We have
to adapt and we have to look forwardto new opportunities. As anybody, you have to turn the page andyou
keep moving.
Here in
We are very fortunate here in
Today's society, with the mass amount of communications
andchange that comes about, makes what is normal today obsolete bytomorrow, so
we have to position ourselves to change.
As agovernment, one of the things that we strive for very diligentlyis
to be aware of the people, to be aware of what is going on inthe economy of
We have to look at what they are coming up with and what
theyare suggesting as a way of doing business and the way of going tothe
community and try to see where their answers are and wheretheir directions
are. The Leader there, the member for
Concordia(Mr. Doer), kept talking about and criticizing this governmentfor the
studies and the reform and the changes that thisgovernment was bringing forth,
and saying it is the same oldrhetoric rehashed and it is brought forth again
and again, but wehave to look at what their agenda is. Then they come out with avery broad spectrum
of statements, and actually it is so broad itonly takes up, I believe, two
pages‑‑priorities for the sessionwhich take up two pages.
*
(2010)
It becomes quite a budget speech for the NDP in the sense
ofwhere their priorities are. In here
you see words likeperformance, and you see words like reform, and you see likestudies
and you see like boards and commissions, and you see alot of the same type of
thing that they are talking about overand over again. They talk about their positive thrust, of
whatthey feel they should be doing, but they seem to be doing thesame old
rhetoric and the same old rehashing of how they used todo things. They look backwards all the time as to what
should bebrought forth to the people of
He did happen to mention about being out of touch. He keptsaying that this government is out of
touch. It has to go acrossthe road and
take a walk across the street, and he talked aboutthe fact that the delegates
at the convention, the ProgressiveConservative convention‑‑in fact,
I should point out that at theConservative convention that was just held, we
had over 500members in attendance and we had a tremendous turnout of themembership. I guess he is referring back to a guess when
hisconvention was on just a few weeks ago where they had, I think,it was only
200 memberships or people out. So, when
he talksabout the interest in the party and his strong mandate, when heis
talking about his 200 delegates, and the conference that wejust went through
where we had over 500, you can see where theinterest is and the direction of
priorities.
In one of the comments made by the member for Concordia
(Mr.Doer), the Leader of the New Democratic Party, he talks about ourbeing out
of touch, the delegates at our convention, but I haveto look back at one of the
comments and one of the directivesthat came out from the NDP convention, and
this was theinstructions that they had for the youth. This was a packagethat was distributed to the
youth of the NDP, and some of thethings that they were saying that they should
be involved with.One of the things they said is they should have a conference,they
should get together, and they asked the youth to pick up, asan item of
conversation and discussion, the Regina Manifesto.The Regina Manifesto is what
the youth of the NDP should use as aguiding light in discussions.
Now, when you talk about the Regina Manifesto, you aretalking
about 1930s policy. This is what the
executive of theNDP are telling their youth to use as a guide, the ReginaManifesto
of 1930. My gosh, how could you use that
as aguideline? How could you use the
1930s as a guideline for the1990s? This
is the youth of the NDP that they are trying to getgoing. I mean, you have to get more in tune over
there. Youjust cannot look backward and
look backward.
I have to revert back to when I talked one other time,
and Icalled it the new dinosaur party.
My gosh, I guess it still isthe new dinosaur party. I mean, we just keep looking backwardand
backward across that way. Mr. Doer also,
I believe, came upwith the line–I have to make sure I have it right here–when
hewas talking about the junkets. I
believe what he was talkingabout was the Premier (Mr. Filmon) being the junket
king of allpremiers. This is attributable
to Mr. Doer. He was talkingabout the
various trips that our Premier had made overseas.
We have to look back and say, well, what was the reason
forthese trips? Well, when the Premier
took the three trips–theywere talking about the trips to
Who did he take with him when he went over there? He tookbusinessmen, and they paid for their
own way, not at thetaxpayers' expense. I
believe when he went over to the Orient,there were about half a dozen
businessmen. When he went over to
They say, why should he be going over there? I have to lookback to 1987 when the then
Pawley government took a trip to theOrient also. Yes, they took people there too, but did they
takebusinessmen? No. They took cabinet ministers. [interjection]No,
it was a trip to the Orient, a 10-day trip to exotic places.
*
(2015)
Now, how did it go over in the newspaper here in
Mr. Eliesen, as we all know, has gone on to bigger and
betterthings from here. In fact, he has
gone on to
From there he decided there were little greener pastures
whenthere was a little bit of a change in government. He ended up in
In the paper there the other day I could not help but
noticea picture of Premier Bob next door.
It is a picture of PremierBob at the telephone, and I think he is
phoning either–no, he isnot phoning home, it is from the Taiwan Hotel. My gosh, he isover there on a business trip
too. Yes, Premier Bob, the fellowfrom
over in
Our Premier (Mr. Filmon) goes to three places. He goes to
*
(2020)
Here is Premier Bob doing all these trips. I mean, you justhave to wonder where the
priorities are on this. I have to goback
to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was talkingabout when he was
talking about wanting to get things happeninghere in
Now, we have to ask, where is the Jobs Fund, and where
arehis priorities? Back in 1983, the
same Gary Doer, while speakingabout the Jobs Fund, and I quote: It is bloody immoral in mymind, he says. The government does not understand the
differencebetween a make‑work job and a structured economy. He is talkingabout the Pawley government at
that time. Any economist willtell you a
structured job is more beneficial to the economy.
He went on further to criticize the NDP government for
itsJobs Fund which he likened to the government dropping people whofixed pot
holes in the highway to hiring people to cut flowersalong the sidewalk. My goodness, this is the same Gary Doer. Atthat time, he was MGEA president. So at one time, it is bloodyimmoral in my
mind, he is quoted as saying. Now he is
saying weshould be getting the Jobs Fund going again. [interjection] Quitedishonest
in fact, because it comes from all areas that way.
What we have to ask Mr. Doer is, where is this money
going tocome from in the Jobs Fund? I
mean, if he is going to come forthwith a Jobs Fund, we have to look out and
say, well, where is themoney going to come from? Where is Mr. Doer going to get themoney
from? Well, we got a bit of a hint when
we see a quotefrom the–this is from the Swan River Star & Times, September
23,1990. This is from
I would think that the Leader of the NDP always gets a
littleapprehensive when he goes into
There is duplicity there.
In fact, if we talk aboutduplicity, we are talking about the duke of
duplicity over onthat side right now because of the flip‑flop, the
insincerity.He is going to use the social assistance budget for job trainingand
for jobs for the Jobs Fund. So that is
where he feels thatthe money should be coming from. So when we look at the JobsFund and the
blueprint for monies paying for it, we should lookalso to where other monies
are being spent.
We look at
*
(2025)
Now, the Jobs Fund in
So, in looking at the comparison, we look at
We have the NDP governments, and not only that, what ishappening
with the NDP governments in other parts of Canada–finally realizing that there
is such a word as fiscalrestraint. We
are looking at cutting of jobs. They
talk aboutcutbacks into their funding to education. They are talking abouttheir welfare
cuts. They are doing a lot of things
that are notreally going contrary to what they are supposed to be doing whenthey
talk about the fairness and the equity to people.
So we look at what we are trying to do here in
As has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr.Doer), when we had the Economic Innovation and Technology Councilthat was
just here in
It is this type of involvement and this type of
appreciationto try to make things happen that will make and bring Manitobainto
a better position here in
One of the things that was presented and was built upon
isWorkforce 2000 which is looking at a training force of almost25,000 people by
the time it is finished, and these are peoplewho are being trained in the work
force themselves by theemployers and the employees helping each other. A lot of theemphasis and the direction is to
try to help people buildthemselves up.
*
(2030)
The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Concordia
(Mr.Doer), talked about the Crocus Fund and how all these things werebrought
forth by his government. In fact, the
impression that Igot from when I was listening to him speak was that most of
thedirection, the emphasis and the content of the throne speech isactually as
it was for the former Pawley governments and theSchreyer governments. Well, if that is such a true case, I wouldsee
no reason in the world why he would be voting against thethrone speech and
bringing in amendments to it, if he comes outso strongly saying that the
direction and the emphasis that is inthis throne speech is old hat for
him. So we have to look atwhat the
Leader of the Opposition is trying to bring to us whenhe talks about trying to
make a new beginning or rehash some ofthe things that are talked about here in
the throne speech.
There are a number of other indicators that we can look
at,economic indicators here in
Unemployment has dropped to 10.3 percent in July to 10percent
in August of '92. The first eight months
of 1992 showeda 30.3 percent increase in housing starts in
So these are all very positive indicators of our
confidencehere in
It is just like the old Chicken Little scenario, the sky
isfalling, the sky is falling, but at the same time the Leader ofthe Opposition
is like the rooster. He is the rooster
in theChicken Little scenario and, like the rooster, he likes to crowin the Sun
every morning. The Sun we will refer to
is The Sunpaper with the little 10‑second clips there.
An Honourable Member: But he
is no little red hen.
Mr. Reimer: No
little red hen, no.
In fact, the Conference Board of Canada, which the
members ofthe opposition often refer to, predicts that
One of the noticeable things is that when we talked to
thepeople there, when I had the chance to talk to some of the peoplefrom other
parts of Canada–in fact, there were people there fromother parts of the world–they
talked about the positive attitudethat this government has shown in trying to
attract mining andinvestment here in Manitoba.
Mining and exploration can be avery big boon not only to northern
In northern
But at the same time if there is a growth factor
involved,this province and this government should take advantage of it andtry
to encourage this type of development in
In going back to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer),
hewould feel that any type of work force or any type of jobcreation has to have
some sort of tangent to it or ring so thatthere is a concern that all factors
are being attuned to. Wehave to go back
to what the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) wastalking about in his reply to
the throne speech when he wastalking about large corporations and the
corporations moving andthe movement of capital with these various companies andcorporations.
We must remember what a corporation is, and we have to
lookat the definition of a corporation. The
definition of acorporation actually is shareholders. Shareholders are peoplethat invest money in a
company, and one of the things that theyput forth to the directors of that
company is the fact that theyhave to be profit-oriented. Profit is not a dirty word; profitis
something that makes the economies grow.
If a company doesnot have profit, it will not stay around.
The NDP in one of their philosophies in one of theirstatements
at the convention just recently said that they wouldmake
How can you encourage business on one hand and tell them
tocome here and then tell them, we are going to regulate yourprofits, we are
going to tell you how much money you can make, weare going to tell you when you
can close and when you can open?What kind of hypocrisy is that? The duke of duplicity has got itall. You cannot have it both ways.
When you talk about companies, you talk about
corporations,you talk about profit.
There is nothing wrong with making money,and if you are going to make
money you are going to stay inbusiness.
If you are going to stay in business, you are going tocreate jobs and,
when you create jobs, you create money.
Moneymakes taxes and taxes pay for the social services that thisgovernment
wants and which all governments want.
We are not going to have that if we have tough
legislationand legislation that is going to say that you cannot close yourplant
when the thing does not become profitable.
There has to besome sort of regulation where people can do that, but no,
theyare going to sit there and say that you cannot close. That isone way to get corporations to
It just does not make sense that they can come up with
such astrong statement and bandy this around.
This is a new resolutionfrom the NDP that this is the way you attract
government, this isthe way you attract jobs, this is the way you attract businesshere. Do not bring a shop to
Madam Deputy Speaker, I see by the flashing light on my
tablethat I have no more time left.
Thank you very much for my time,and I thank you that I had this great
opportunity to talk on thisthrone speech.
If anything matters, the positive attitude willcontinue on this side,
and we will continue to try to make thingsbetter and best for Manitobans.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
*
(2040)
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciatethe
opportunity to speak on this so‑called throne speech here. Itwas about
the eleventh‑‑yes, it was one of the most dismal thronespeeches
that I have seen here. It ranks right
down there withthe '91 throne speech that we had in this House.
I want to, before I get into some of the debate on that,congratulate
the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I found it kind of interesting when
themember for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) was speaking about trying torationalize the
junkets of the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Of
course,I know all about that. When I was
the Minister ofTransportation, the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard), at thattime
as critic, said that I was on a junket when I went
I have to admit, I did not have as good taste as the
Premierhas and a number of these ministers as they become worldtravellers, as
has been done in the last number of months by thePremier and certainly a number
of the ministers as well.
Inside of five months the Premier went to
Now, I will not dwell on that too long except to say that
ifthe member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) cared to look at all thestatistics for the
Then he said these are all good news indicators for the
An Honourable Member: Get your facts straight.
Mr. Plohman: Well,
the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) does notlike me referring to the government
before the Pawley governmentas the
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Now, I find it interesting that the member for Niakwa
(Mr.Reimer)‑‑I am going to take a few minutes to deal with hisspeech‑‑that
he would talk about NDP governments not knowing thedefinition or the meaning of
fiscal restraint. He said they didnot
know that, but what he forgot to mention was the Torygovernment in
Now look at these guys, Mr. Speaker. We have the Minister ofNorthern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) talking about his record that heseems so proud of. He has taken it from a $50 million surplus in1988
to a $642 million deficit in 1992. That
is a turnaround of$700 million the wrong way by these Tories, and they say thatthey
are fiscally responsible, and they have the gall to stand upand believe their
rhetoric and believe that somehow the previousgovernment was less fiscally
responsible than this bunch overhere at this particular time. Nothing could be further from thetruth. Clearly the record shows, so let them not use
thatcomparison because clearly they have gone backward. They areirresponsible.
When they put in last year's throne speech they intend tospend
carefully and manage wisely, nothing could have beenfurther from the facts in
this province because we saw what theirrecord has produced. We have seen it over the past year, we haveseen
it over the past four years, and we will see it, I am sure,unfortunately, for
another couple of years in this province, butno longer, Mr. Speaker. We will not see it more than two yearsbecause
the people of
The Minister of Finance is quite proud of the fact that
hecan talk about freezing personal taxes for four years. It soundsvery much like the
Now what has this personal income tax freeze done for the
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, Iwonder if the member would
submit to a question?
Mr. Plohman: Mr.
Speaker, this member has been around longenough in this House to know very well
that there is plenty ofopportunity to ask a question with leave after the
speech, and Iwould be pleased for him to do that at any time, but I kind ofresent
the fact that he wants to cut into my time right now.
When they talk about freezing the personal tax rate, theyshould
be honest about it with the people of
An Honourable Member: Where?
Mr. Plohman: That is
precisely the question I wanted the memberfor Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) to
ask. He said, where are theygetting
it? Well, we know where they are getting
it. They aregetting it from the property
taxpayers of this province. Theyunderfund
education, they transfer it onto the municipalities,and they have to assess the
taxes.
*
(2050)
It is called the GFT.
The minister does not recall the GaryFilmon tax. They have not admitted the fact that these
taxeshave been put in place precisely because this government hastransferred
responsibilities, funding responsibilities andprogram responsibilities onto the
municipalities. So they arenot being
honest with the people of this province when they onlytalk about one side of
the equation. They only talk aboutpersonal
income taxes.
The other thing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
shoulddo in this province is stand up once a year if not more often, atleast
once a year, and he should thank Eugene Kostyra for puttingin place the
infrastructure in the tax system that would ensurethat we would have surpluses
in this province. That is the onlyreason
this minister has been able to freeze personal incometaxes that he likes to
brag about and take personal credit forthe last four years because of the fact
that he was left withrevenues that were more than adequate to ensure a positivesurplus
in the budget in this province, not a deficit.
So it hasbeen through no good management of this minister that he has
beenable to freeze those taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a few minutes to lookthrough
the previous speech that was brought into this House, the1991 speech, because
from that I think it can tell us a greatdeal about how much credibility we can
place in the kinds ofcommitments and promises that this government makes in its
thronespeech this year, if we look at past throne speeches, look attheir track
record and see whether in fact they will produce onwhat they say.
When you look through it, first of all we find the
completereversal from what they talked about as spend carefully andmanage
wisely. We have not seen that. We have a record deficitin this
province. Obviously, they failed on that
count.
They talked about a new Economic Development Board of
Cabinetin last year's throne speech.
What results has that new cabinetcommittee had over the past year in
this province? What has ithad besides
one of the highest unemployment rates in thisprovince's history? Where is the economic development in therural
areas of this province? Why are people
flocking out of theprovince instead of returning for all of these jobs and economicactivity
that this cabinet committee would seem to indicate havetaken place here? They are not here. They have not produced.They got zero, and
then when the Minister of Northern Affairs(Mr. Downey) talks about zero he is
absolutely right. That isthe record of
this government. If I was giving them a
mark itwould be zero out of 10, Mr. Speaker, quite correct. I have togive the Minister of Northern
Affairs his dues on that.
Let us look at the review of the Manitoba Crop InsuranceCorporation. They said they were going to conduct a review
andthe minister appointed a‑‑he announced that in the '91 thronespeech. What have we seen from it? He got his report from thehardworking people
he appointed to that committee who travelledaround the province and reviewed
the Crop Insurance Corporationin this province, as was their mandate. He received this reportin June of 1992. Now, five months later, he has not evenreleased
it to the public. He does not want us to
see it,despite repeated requests that we have made to him in person, byphone,
in writing, despite repeated requests being made by hiscommittee that he
appointed. People from his committee
havephoned the minister and pleaded with him and written to him.
The Keystone Agricultural Producers have asked him to
releaseit. Farmers from across
Now that is what we get from this government's
reviews.Theonly time that they act quickly on reviews is when they can hackand
slash and cut programs. Then they will
move quickly, Mr.Speaker. But when it
comes time for making improvements anddealing with difficult problems, we see
no action from thisgovernment. That is
what we can expect from review upon reviewupon study by these ministers and
this government. It is clearlya method
that they use to get them past the next election, to getthem past difficult
problems to delay dealing with the difficultissues that they must deal with in
this province. We have seenit in that
particular case.
Now what about the statement that they are going to
identifyopportunities in environment, health, information technology?Mr.
Speaker, they have the Green Team. The
member forRoblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) today, the Minister of RuralDevelopment,
talked about his Green Team. He talked
about some200 jobs. Now I think all that
he did with that money is producecaps and maybe 200 part‑time jobs he
talks about.
The member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) is complaining about
the675 jobs he says
Let us look at the deregulation of MTS. Now I want to take afew minutes to talk about
that, because I am sure that thecabinet ministers were not very pleased when
they saw these twoheadlines in the press back to back, Mr. Speaker. Air messblamed on deregulation and right
below, the member for
We believe Manitobans want the opportunity of choice, hesaid,
and he knows if he would learn from the Minister ofTransport who knows the
facts on this deregulation of transport,particularly the air industry and rail,
that in fact this hasbeen terribly detrimental to the
Mr. Speaker, now will they say, well, deregulation is notworking
even though they follow right on the heels of LloydAxworthy, the previous
Minister of Transport under the Liberalgovernment when he was moving as quickly
as he could before the'84 election to deregulate the air industry, because he
thoughthe could get some quick fixes, he could get some low faresquickly. The people say, who gave us those low
fares? Oh, itmust have been Lloyd
Axworthy. Let us vote for Lloyd. That iswhat he wanted to do in 1984. He could not put it in place quitequickly
enough. Mazankowski realized this
beautiful opportunityhe had and jumped right in, because it was completely in
tunewith the philosophy of the federal Conservative government.These two go
side by side, the Liberals and the Conservatives andthe deregulation side of
it.
Now, on the other hand, when it does not suit their
agenda,their corporate agenda, then they want to regulate more. Now letus look at the regulation in the
pharmaceutical industry. Theywant to
provide greater regulations, greater protection for thesecompanies. Yet, on the other hand, they want to
deregulate inthe transportation. When it
fits their agenda, on the one handthey will deregulate and regulate on the
other hand.
*
(2100)
I say there is no consistency in the philosophy, just asthere
is no consistency in the philosophy of this Minister ofHealth (Mr. Orchard)
here today when he stood up and denouncedfinally the reregulation, the greater
protection for the namebrand drug companies, while his First Minister, his
Premier (Mr.Filmon) refuses to denounce the North American Free TradeAgreement,
which includes precisely that provision that willenshrine it in an
international trade agreement, which makes itmore difficult to change in the
future.
I say that these ministers are all over the map. They knownot whereof they speak. They have no plan. They have noconsistent philosophy except that
the corporate agenda is theonly agenda for this country and for this
province. They followalong on the
Mulroney agenda that we have seen that has been putin place in this country
over the last number of years that hasbeen discredited. They will, undoubtedly, see the end of theMulroney
government in the near future, but unfortunately if itis a Liberal government
federally, I do not think that there willbe much change in the direction of the
nation under JeanChretien, the tired old lieutenant of Trudeau in his province.
Mr. Speaker, I want to also raise some other major issuesthat
I believe should have been in this throne speech that werenot in this throne
speech by this government.
This throne speech has one very small section onagriculture. There are about three small paragraphs. In one,obviously, the minister has seen that
the farmers of Manitobawant some action on the sugar industry and so, because
of thewriting campaign that was undertaken, he finally figured he hadto put
something in the throne speech. So he
pushed for having amention of the sugar beet industry and broadening
opportunitiesfor processing, hopefully, in this province.
This is long overdue just like the reference todiversification. While this government has talked aboutdiversification
for five years, they have done nothing.
Now theyare going to have a forum; that is their great project indiversification,
a forum. No action, Mr. Speaker, ondiversification. They have cut back on research.
At the same time they have done nothing on a sugar
policy.We can go back into the 1970s, we can go back into the 1980sunder New
Democratic governments when we were pushing the federalgovernments to put in
place a national sugar policy that wouldensure a vibrant sugar beet industry in
this province and acrossthis country.
This party was nowhere on that at that time. Theywere not supporting it, Mr. Speaker. Now, suddenly they get afew letters coming
in, and they realize it might be popular atthis time, so now they say they are
going to call on the federalgovernment for a national sugar policy. It is a fact that 90percent of
We support the fact that this is mentioned in this thronespeech,
but it should have been acted upon and dealt with manyyears ago by this
government when they had the opportunity.
Theyhave not done that. They have
not supported that concept overthe last number of years, so the sugar beet
industry can indeedmake, I think, a great impact on the economy in the province
of
Certainly, in the member for Steinbach's (Mr. Driedger)constituency
and the Interlake area and perhaps many other areasof this province, we can see
tremendous growth in the sugar beetindustry.
It is something that this minister and this governmentmust move
aggressively on in order to ensure that the federalgovernment puts in place a
national sugar policy.
I do not believe that they will do it, Mr. Speaker,
becausethey will say that is protectionist and the Free Trade Agreementwill not
let them do it, but here they have it in their thronespeech that they are going
to take action on sugar beets. Wewill
wait and see whether in fact there is anything substantialor whether it is just
more words, more rhetoric, for the peopleof
We see no mention in this throne speech, Mr. Speaker, inagriculture
by this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) withregard to the proposals that
are being made with regard to theCrow benefit, major proposals by the former
Deputy Minister ofTransport, Ramsey Withers, under the Liberal government,
underLloyd Axworthy, when the Western Grain Transportation Act was putin
place. He started the dismantling of the
Crow then, and hewants to finish his work now under the Conservative
government.
Ramsey Withers has put forward a proposal to the
ministersthat would see the massive dismantling of our graintransportation rail
system in this country, particularly in the
There is no agreement at GATT, and we should not, Mr.Speaker,
be giving away the Crow benefit or using that as anexcuse, as Charlie Mayer is
doing, the Minister of Grains andOilseeds federally, or it seems supported by
this Minister ofAgriculture that he is too using that as an excuse.
Now, we do not have any mention of that issue in this
thronespeech, any mention of that issue to stand up for the farmers ofManitoba,
to ensure that our interests are protected, that therail system is protected,
that we have some protection for ourroad network in this province–nothing in
this throne speech.
Of course, before the federal government has done its
evildeeds for this country, it wants to deregulate agriculture in
We see a drop of 8 percent in the farm population, from
'86to '92 as well, something else that the Minister of Agriculturecannot be
proud of. He cannot sit there and say
that agricultureis looking rosy, even though we just have a report that we have
anear record harvest, according to Statistics Canada, albeit feedwheat worth
less than two bucks a bushel.
Let us take a look at what this minister is silent on
withregard to the Wheat Board and other Agriculture Canadaregulations. Mr. Speaker, from the information I have, not
onlyare they looking at removing barley from the exclusivejurisdiction of the
Wheat Board for a dual system on a NorthAmerican market, which we oppose and
believe the Wheat Board cando a better job of supporting or of marketing our
barley, we areinterested in finding out where the minister sits on that andwhether
he, in fact, is going to stand up to these moves by thefederal government.
[interjection]
It started with oats.
The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
An Honourable Member: Who is
going to kick him out, AudreyMcLaughlin?
Mr. Plohman: Well,
the people of
An Honourable Member: No, they
are not.
Mr. Plohman: Yes,
they are, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] He iscertainly not going to be in
government, so he is not going to bein that position; so he is trying to do as
much damage as he canright now.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to taking out barley and
removingbarley from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, thereare
other major implications of the deregulation which includethe country's grading
system. Now the minister has not
mentionedany of these initiatives.
I raise this in the Throne Speech Debate because there isnothing
in Agriculture in the throne speech other than themention of sugar beets and a
forum on diversification. Nowheredoes
the minister mention the tremendously serious problemsfacing Manitoba farmers
on these issues of the Crow benefit, onthese issues of the Wheat Board and the
deregulation, and GATT.This minister is not dealing with those issues in this
thronespeech, and I think he has been negligent in putting them forwardto the
Premier and ensuring that they are in this throne speechto indicate some kind
of action on his position.
(2110)
I believe he is lying low on those issues. He wants to seewhich way the wind is blowing
before he starts taking somepositions.
Clearly, we know from his philosophical bent that heis probably
supportive of any of the moves that Charlie Mayer ismaking with regard to the
Wheat Board, any of those he is makingon the Crow benefit. As a matter of fact, it was this Ministerof
Agriculture who stood up apparently at the Agriculture meetinglast spring and
indicated that he would like to see the Crowbenefit paid–or at least a review
undertaken to see the Crowbenefit paid differently to each province and managed
under theprovincial jurisdiction.
So he started that–[interjection] Well, the Minister ofAgriculture (Mr.
Findlay) can clarify that at some future time.I am sure he will have an
opportunity to do so, and I lookforward to that.
Let us look at the grading system that would be
deregulated,Mr. Speaker. Red meats, feed
grains and potatoes perhaps couldbe removed from regulation under the
agriculture grading systemin this country.
It advocates that
The report, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, also
recommendsthat livestock grading become the responsibility of the industryrather
than government and that grading be carried out on acost‑recovery basis
and even then it could be optional under somecircumstances, which is absolutely
ridiculous. So I believe thatwe stand to
lose a great deal because we have a very respectedgrading system with high
standards in this country, and we shouldnot allow this federal government with
no mandate to do thesekinds of things at this time to dismantle many of theseregulations
that are going to hurt our reputation as a supplierto international markets of
many different commodities and fordomestic use.
So I say that this minister has not represented the
interestsof agriculture well in this throne speech. I see that there isno mention of the
livestock industry, the decimation of thepacking industry in this
province. Many people are raisingconcerns,
many farmers that I talk to. What initiatives
is thisgovernment taking to try and turn that around? Are they justsimply going to resign and say,
oh, well, who killed it? How isthat
going to solve the issue right now?
There is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). I thought hecould ask slightly more
intelligent questions than that. He mustdeal
with solutions to these problems. He is
in government. Heis responsible. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) isresponsible. The livestock industry, the packing industry
inthis province and processing industry are going down the tube,and these
people are not doing anything about it.
The people ofManitoba, the farmers of
I notice there is no mention in this speech either, Mr.Speaker,
about the Keystone Agricultural Producers new fundingformula for the
organization, the new check‑off that they want.Where does this minister
stand on that check‑off legislation andchanges that they are proposing to
get greater dollars flowingin? Is he
willing to make that check-off legislation optional interms of the designation to
the organization of the producers'choice?
Is he willing to look at that if it is going to beincreased?
This is something that this minister has not clarified
andhas not included in this particular throne speech. In additionto that, as I mentioned, he has
waited now some four years, intohis fifth year, on diversification, talks about
diversification,and now we see a showpiece in this particular throne speech, ashowpiece
of action.
Where is the action on diversification, Mr. Speaker, by thisminister? Why does he continue to cut back? Why does hecontinue to cut back in research,
in dollars fordiversification? I want
this minister to deal with that issue inthe next budget to ensure that that is
a priority when he bringsforward his estimates to the Treasury bench and to the
TreasuryBoard, that he will indicate that this is one of his majorpriorities
for the
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out in the four minutes I haveleft
that I hear these remarks from members across the way aboutderegulation. I want to put in perspective for these
ministersand these members opposite that when we were sitting ingovernment and
the deregulation philosophy was running rampant inthis country, both by the
Liberal federal government, the Liberalprovincial governments and Conservative
provincial governments,only one NDP government in this country, we stood
against thatderegulation time and time again with the federal government inair
deregulation, in rail deregulation, presentation afterpresentation, because we
did not have direct jurisdiction inthose areas, but we made it known publicly
in every forum we hadthat this was a death knell to the air industry, that
there wasshort-term gain for long-term pain for the consumers of thiscountry.
They refused to listen and they went ahead, and now they
aretalking about reregulating the transport industry in some ofthose areas
because it has been a disaster and we see the resultsnow. We see it in rail–10,000 workers are going to
be laid offin CN. Now they talk about a
gain. We see this resurrected,this
proposal. We see the massive layoffs in
the air industry.
Mr. Speaker, only as a last resort, reluctantly, did we
signthe Memorandum of Agreement dealing with deregulation in thetrucking
industry. Yes, we signed it, and let me
say that wewrung every possible concession out of the federal minister, JohnCrosbie,
before we did that.
We ensured that there was shared funding to implement theNational
Safety Code. We ensured that the safety
code would becommitted to and put in place before we agreed to deregulation.We
ensured that there would be a trial five-year period, thatthere would be a
review before that period was over, and weensured that
The Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger)knows that. He has retained the
same transport chairperson whohas continued to do that I believe to the extent
possible underthe circumstances in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts with regard toderegulation. We do not hear the Minister of Highways andTransportation
stand up in his place in this House and say thatthe great deregulators in the
transportation industry were theNDP, although he has strayed from the
truth. He has occasionallyin this House
left the impression that I, as former Minister ofHighways, was responsible for
the deregulation of thetransportation industry.
He is wrong, as I have stated,categorically wrong, and I know that the
members of the Treasurybench, members of this cabinet fully understand that
issue now,even if the Minister of Transportation has not explained it tothem in
the past, but I would hope that he has.
Mr. Speaker, this throne speech is a dismal recipe for
thisprovince. It gives no
direction. It shows a flounderinggovernment
that is going nowhere in this province.
I know thatthere is only one solution, and that is to put an end to thisgovernment
within the two years that they have left here.
I knowthe people in
We are going to make sure they know about the facts of
thisnon‑throne speech that we have received in this House under theguise
of a throne speech and a plan for the province ofManitoba. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation):Mr.
Speaker, I feel sort of honoured by what appeared to beapplause on your behalf,
and I appreciate that. Another newsession,
and I want to indicate to yourself that I do not think Ihave ever seen you look
better sitting in that chair. Obviouslyyou
are in good health and seem very enthusiastic, and I think itis proper.
Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that says, the more thingschange,
the more they stay the same, but that is not quite true,because things have
changed even in this House from the time thatwe finished our session last June,
I believe it was. Since thattime, you
know, we have had a couple of members that have steppeddown; we have had some
by‑elections.
I want to take this opportunity to welcome the new
members,one that has been re‑elected and certainly to the member on ourside,
the member for
Things do change.
We had a resignation just the other day,Friday, so things do
change. Other things have changed in
thisHouse. We have a new face sitting at
the table here, so thingshappen that way.
*
(2120)
New Pages, and I sometimes wonder what our new Pages
think ofwhen they get into this Legislature.
I want to pay a specialtribute to the young lady who did the first vote
count onFriday. I thought it was
exceptional. For the years that I havebeen
here, Mr. Speaker, I think sometimes when the Pages comehere they seem sort of
awed and nervous. This young lady walkedup
there and without looking at her notes, she called every shotright. That is no reflection on the others, but it
is a verydifficult thing and she did it with poise and confidence. Ithought it was one of the better ones I have
heard. It was good.
I have had the privilege over the years that I have been
hereto participate in many of the throne speeches and I have sat invarious
seats in this House. When I was a
backbencher, I satover there somewhere.
When I was in opposition, various seats onthat side, and I have to say I
listened to many, many speeches,good speeches, bad speeches, meaningless
speeches. Possibly, Mr.Speaker, for all
the ones you have listened to, probably themeaningless ones are the most ones
that you hear. Surprisinglyover the
years, we have listened to the speeches from whereveryou sit. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) is
always veryboisterous and tries to be very aggressive.
I think back to the speeches, and I say this for the
benefitof the new members, over the years the speakers who draw one'sattention,
and I want to make reference to some of them over aperiod of time. It used to be Russ Doern at one time, he hadvery
colourful speeches. Nothing in them, but
colourfulspeeches. It was interesting to
listen to, to some degree, ifyou wanted some entertainment.
An Honourable Member: You cannot even say that about Maloway.
Mr. Driedger: Well, I
was just going to make reference to themember for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway)
now. The member for Elmwood nowtries to
follow along those lines‑‑[interjection] I cannot evensay it is
that comical all the time. You need some
of this stuffin here as well.
I mean if you had all the speeches of the calibre of themember
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), and I should not make referenceto the amount of
empty seats in here, but it used to be differentwhen there was a lot of
attention during these debates andeverybody seemed to be here and pay attention
to these things.Maybe it is a reflection on the quality of the speakers whom wehave
making speeches nowadays.
I can recall other good speakers in this House. There wasthe member for
Another speaker in this House whom I had a lot of respectfor,
I did not value any of his political background, but Mr. SidGreen at that time
I was almost awed by him. First of all,
hewas a lawyer, had legal training, very qualified speaker. Ialways made reference in my earlier days in
the House as abackbencher that Sid Green could take the head of a needle andspeak
in it for 40 minutes and you would listen and wonder whatwas coming out of
it. At the end nothing came out of it,
but hesure kept you listening and paying attention for 40 minuteswhenever he
spoke.
Those were the kinds of speakers whom I remember over theyears
participating in the debates here, but then we have anawful lot of speeches
here that we get through this rhetoric tosome degree. We just experienced some with the member forDauphin
(Mr. Plohman), who has a tendency to go in thatdirection. We all have our own way of presenting our
views inhere, and that is what makes it nice and interesting.
I want to say to the new people coming here, do not getdespondent. I walked out with the member for
But this is a process that after all the years that I
havehad the privilege of speaking in this House, I always find itchallenging
and exciting to get up for it to some degree toparticipate. It is because I like the system, I like what
I amdoing. I like being a politician,
and I have said many timesregardless of our political parties that the majority
of themembers who come into this House are sincere about trying to dothe best
they can for the constituency and for the province.
Some just do have not the capabilities, I guess, but that
isa shot. I have no need on taking many
shots, but we all have ourown views and what we think is important and how to
do it. Thatis why the political system
in this country is so good, because Iwas terribly disappointed when in '81 the
Sterling Lyonadministration got defeated.
I thought that we were goodgovernment at that time, that there was
foresight, but the publicis always right.
At that time the public made the decision thatthey wanted an NDP
government and they had them for two terms,and ultimately the public said we
have had enough of thosepeople. We do
not agree with their philosophy anymore; we wantto change. They changed.
The debate can continue here foreverwhere you say, well, you know we are
doing the wrong things.
I sat back there exactly where the member for Point
Douglas(Mr. Hickes) is sitting right now in that chair and rememberreally going
after the government of the day, the crazy thingsthat were done. At that time the government did what theythought
was best. Philosophical differences,
that is allowed; weshould be able to have that.
But, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I thinkthat the level of debate gets a
little shallow. Really, it doesget a
little shallow because when we consider that economicsituations that happen in
the country, not just in the province,in the country, internationally, affect
the things that happenwithin this province.
Ironically, when you look within thiscountry of ours we have four NDP
governments, or is it three?Three. We
have four Liberal governments. We have
fourConservative governments. Every one
of these provinces isstruggling with the same problem.
When the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) gets up and
says,this government has done the wrong things, compare our recordwith the
other provinces. [interjection] Yes, the member forDauphin says compare our
record, but the member for Dauphin doesnot indicate that during the time they
fortunately weregovernment that the economy was strong. The economy was verystrong
comparatively. Every one of the
provinces is paying theprice of the change of what has happened in the economy,
not justin
So when we have a lot of these speeches, and I expect
thereare going to be many more coming where the criticism coming says,"The
Minister of Finance has not done this, or the Premier hasnot done
this." Go for it, that is
fine. But I think we stillhave to have
some sense of realism in this thing when we speakand challenge each other. We think what we are doing is right.We are
doing the best we can under very difficult economictimes. Within my department, every one of my
colleagues, asministers and our caucus as well, realize tough decisions that weare
making as government, very difficult, and the member forDauphin, tongue in
cheek, should not make some of the accusationsthat he does, because he was
involved in making some very toughdecisions when, as Minister of Highways and
Transportation, hiscapital budget, which was under the member for Pembina at
thattime, was $100 million in 1981 when they took government. By thetime the member for Dauphin was through
being Minister ofHighways and Transportation it was around $85‑86
million.
Those were tough decisions, and do not tell me that themember
for Dauphin liked those decisions. So
now he stands thereand spouts the wisdom of‑‑so I am just saying
that things shouldbe put in the right perspective.
*
(2130)
I am not going to be critical of the other provinces,
What do we do? We
damage it ouselves. We do it toourselves. I think we have to be a little bit moreconscientious. I have always enjoyed being here. I am proud tobe an MLA. I am very proud to be in the seat that I am
in asMinister of Highways and Transportation, with the difficultdecisions that
come with the position. I am proud to be
herebecause, as my colleague from Lakeside (Mr. Enns) very oftensaid, only 57
people out of over a million have the privilege tobe here, and we should weigh
that heavily in terms of how werespond and how we react to each other.
I do not necessarily agree with the stepping‑down
Leader ofthe Liberals, who was trying to give us the sort of motherhoodtype of
thing that we should do. We are all of
age here. We donot necessarily have to
be scolded and told to do that because,invariably, we all fall into the same
trap, and I do to. I havebeen from time
to time in speeches in this House, I have justbeen going at it and critical and
quite enthused with that, andthere should be enthusiasm here.
One thing that I found sort of interesting in the
speechesthat have taken place today, in fact the member for Flin Flontalked of
being tired. Obviously the member for
Rupertsland (Mr.Harper) is tired; he has resigned. You know, there seems to be atired attitude
here.
Well, I will tell you something. I am not tired. I likewhere I am. I enjoy the challenges. They are very frustratingat times, but that
is part of the responsibility we have.
So I like to be here.
I like to do the best that I cantogether with my colleagues. When our Minister of Finance (Mr.Manness) has
to make tough decisions, I sometimes personally getupset with him from time to
time because of the targets andbecause of the things he asks me to do, but that
is hisresponsibility. My responsibility
is highways and transportation.
The changes that are taking place in the world are verychallenging. Every province is facing these things. I have todefend what happens in my
department. I have to say to everybodythat
transportation is a very important part of the changes thatare taking
place. As we try and get the economy
stimulatedagain, when we talk of world trade, things that affect usinternationally,
transportation is a very important mode and avery important component. I want to make sure that that getsaddressed
in terms of how we deal with some of these problems asthe economy turns around.
I think the most frustrating thing that can happen to agovernment
if they go through the economic tough times, do theright things, and when
things start getting better, they getbooted out. That must be a terrible frustration, and Iexperienced
that to some degree from '77 to '81, when theSterling
There is an old saying, what goes around comes around,
andinvariably we all must face the things that we have said. So Icaution all members in this House, from
time to time when theymake comments, think a little bit, be careful. If you made astatement eight or 10 years ago
and you have changed yourposition, do not apologize for that.
There used to be some of the members that made a point to
goand look through Hansard, what did the member say 10 years agoand now he has
changed his position. I know the teasing
that Ihave gotten and the kidding that I have gotten from membersopposite
because I voted against seat belt legislation.
I am nowa strong supporter of seat belts; I make no apologies for that.At
that time those were my views. I was
entitled to state thoseviews. I voted
against it, which was my right. Now I am
theadministrator, to some degree, of seat belt legislation and Isupport it.
I want to indicate the kidding that has taken place‑‑and
themember for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) seems to have some fun kiddingme about
Sunday shopping. What I did in my
particular case, andI am prepared to put it on record, was I wrote every one of
mychambers and councillors and asked them what their views were onit. They indicated to me in my specific riding
they were opposedto Sunday shopping.
They felt it would have a negative effect ona rural constituency. I brought forward those positions in thedebate
in our caucus. The decision has been
made to allow Sundayshopping and I support it.
I have had my case. I am there todebate
again next time on a different issue. I
do not expect towin or lose all the issues that I deal with. I think that iswhat we are here for. So I think that is the mark of what we areresponsible
for in terms of making decisions.
Some individual came up to me. Well, he said, if you did nothave your way on
the decision on Sunday shopping, why are youstill there. I said, what will I do, take my blocks and gohome. I am elected; I am responsible; I accept that
decisionthat has been made. I do not
know how other caucuses operate,but in our caucus we have open debate on these
things. When thedecision is made, we
accept that decision, and I expect all ofthe other caucuses do the same thing.
Show me any member of this House who has not lost someissues. What do you do? Do you sulk?
No, that is not the wayyou do it.
So anyway those are the challenges and interestingthings that happen in
the Legislature.
I want to spend what time I have left in talking abouttransportation
issues. I am glad the member for
Transcona (Mr.Reid) is here, who is my critic, because in some of the questionsand
answers that take place during Question Period there is notreally enough time
to get into some of these issues. I will
tryand cover as much as I can during the time that I have in termsof dealing
with some of that.
I think the members in the Legislature are well aware
thatthe trucking industry, with which I will start off first, is avery
important industry to
I want to tell the members here that the truck port of
entryat Emerson is the fourth largest in
The traffic is changing more to north‑south whether
we likeit or not. I could get into the
debate of the Free TradeAgreement with the States or the NAFTA agreement, but I
will nottouch on those things at the present time. I do not think I haveenough time.
The onus is on a north‑south basis. That is the reality oflife. I will tell you something. What I will try and do for themembers
opposite is try and give them the information in terms ofthe escalation of
truck traffic, because they come north‑southand then go east‑west. We are in a good, positive position forthat.
The trucking industry has gone through major problems
acrossthe country. If members know, the
strikes that were taking placein Ontario and Quebec were because the truckers
were unhappy withthe deregulation aspect of it, the impact that it had on them.The
position of Manitoba, I have no qualms saying that we havenot changed our
position from the time that the member forDauphin (Mr. Plohman) was the
minister.
We are still on the same track in terms of trying to makesure
that certain issues were addressed as this deregulation tookplace. I have followed through on those things. That is why wework co‑operatively with
the trucking industry, and that is whythe trucking industry has not been that
unhappy with us. I mean,they are not
always happy with us, but they are not to the pointwhere they have
demonstrations and strikes, because we have anintimate working relationship
with them in terms of trying tomake things a little better for them.
We have extended our RTAC routes throughout the province
toaccommodate them. We have extended the
loads, the dimensions onthe trucking industry.
These are all little things, but positivethings for them.
*
(2140)
The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) was making reference
tothe National Safety Code. We will
virtually have it implementedby the end of this month. We will talk about inspectors later.The
National Safety Code is virtually in place, and I will havethe privilege of
addressing the Manitoba Safety Council tomorrowon commercial inspections at
their meeting. I think it has beenan
accepted thing that we would phase it in.
It has not createda big uproar.
We have the inspections in place, and we have thatkind of relationship
developed in there. I could speak at
lengthon that.
I want to touch on some of the issues that have been
raisedin Question Period and also have been on the news lately. Theair industry is going through dramatic
changes. Everybody isaware of the fact
that for some time both our national aircarriers, Canadian and Air Canada, have
been losing dramaticmoney to the point where they were virtually both going
broke ifthey would have kept this on.
It was at that time, Mr. Speaker, when I made the
personalcomment saying that deregulating it at the speed that they didhas
created some of the problems. I think
everybody is aware,when you start losing $600,000 a day or whatever they are
losingnow combined individually that you cannot have two carriersflying out of
the same place, for example, from Edmonton toWinnipeg, within half an hour of
each other and both half full.That is where the economy just does not make
sense. That is whyI made that reference
that there possibly should have been someregulation still in place. I justify my position on that.
Actually, after I was quoted in the press, ironically I
had a50‑minute interview with the media.
This was one of the lastcomments I made and that is the one that makes
the headline. Mr.Mazankowski has indicated
as well that possibly they maybe shouldhave reviewed some of these things. We cannot change some ofthese things, but I
think it is incumbent on us to raise some ofthese issues that we feel could
happen.
I feel very proud of my transportation advisory staff
that Ihave, who basically are on top of these.
They have been dealingwith transportation issues, whether it is air,
rail or whatever.These are the people I rely on to give me the right
informationso that I can assess it and bring these points forward. I thinkthat is a standard approach to these
things.
Under the air industry, we saw the thing unfold whereCanadian
was running into difficulty and was trying to amalgamatewith American, and then
that one fell through and they tried todo an amalgamation with Air
I have no bones about indicating that I prefer to see twocarriers
so that we do not have a monopoly on it.
I do notbelieve in this monopoly aspect of it, so any which way withinreason,
making sure that we look after the taxpayers' dollar thatwe try and have a dual
system going out here. I think there issomething
that can be worked out. There has been
endlessmeetings and endless discussions taking place on this. I thinkthat once we know exactly what is
going to happen, the positionthat we have taken is that before Manitoba is
going to put in anymoney, if they are looking at that option of putting money
intohelping Canadian, that there has to be a good business planpresented so
that we are not going to take and pour money downthe tube somewhere with no
benefits out of it.
There is the aspect of Gemini and Sabre. It is surprising,Mr. Speaker, that I have to
indicate that I have never seencorporate giants really operate the way they
have been operatinglately. They can be
pretty ruthless in terms of looking aftertheir own interests whether it is Air
So I am hoping that out of the whole turmoil that has
beenout there with the air industry that something will come out ofit that is
going to be to the satisfaction and, certainly, theposition we have put forward
that in the decision making thatultimately we might be faced with is that we
look at the economicand the job impact on Manitoba. That has to be there, because wehave‑‑and
this is not talking disrespectfully of Air Canada‑‑butwe have 1,800
Air
Now I want to touch briefly on the rail industry. The memberfor Transcona (Mr. Reid) raised the
question today of how manyjobs were lost.
He sort of lobbed a wide-ranging question, and Ifielded it with sort of
a political answer on that, but there areproblems out there. We know that CN is challenged withrationalizing
their operation to be more efficient, to becompetitive. When they do that invariably it affects jobs.
As I indicated in my answer today, we are the second
highestemployer for the railways. I
think we have something like 5,500employees with CN‑‑do not quote
me specifically‑‑and around 2,800with CP, in that range, Mr.
Speaker. So that is a big employmentimpact
for us. If they talk of layoffs, I think
there is adiscussion taking place right now between CN officials and theunion
people, no decisions have been made. As
the decisions comedown, I would expect that probably the member for Transcona
andmyself will probably know at about the same time, because usuallyhe has his
connections with the union and gets the information asfast as or faster than I
do from time to time.
That is the concern that I had, and I was talking to my
stafftoday and saying, here it is a few weeks before Christmas, andthe anxiety
of potential layoffs, whether it is with Air Canada,whether it is with
Canadian, whether it is with CN or CP, it mustbe really stressful for
people. If you have a house mortgage,you
have a wife and a family, a young family, you have workedwith this company or a
corporation for 15, 20 years, and all of asudden the potential of a layoff
comes along. I would considerit very
stressful. I think it is always tragic.
We debate here and say, well, what have you done, or whathave
you not done? Ourselves, as government,
we cannot make thedecision for CN as to should they lay off or not lay
off. They make their own decisions‑‑the
same thing for the corporations,Canadian, Air
It is a difficult decision-making time for people
involved,and I am sure that the people who basically end up finally givingnotice
to individuals that their jobs are terminated do not enjoyit either. It is a tough, competitive world out
there. Dramaticchanges have taken place
in the whole transportation industry.Reference was made by the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) to theMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) in terms of
the method ofpayment and potential changes coming. I expect that the federalgovernment has
chosen that course, and the impact that it willhave on Manitoba, Saskatchewan
and Alberta, these are things wehave to be very careful of to make sure that
we, in our view,bring forward the best arguments we can in terms of making surethat
the impact is the least on our people.
These are tough decisions that we make at a changing
time.When things are going well, money is there, everything is flowingfine, it
is easy to be government, because you are going to lookgood. But it is not easy to be government when you
have to maketough decisions and you make the decisions that are affectingpeople's
lives. That is the thing that always
bothers me most,even when we go through the agony of trying, going through thebudget
process, trying to achieve certain targets and it is goingto affect people's
lives. I would like to think that
everybodyis compassionate. It bothers
me. It bothers me that some peopleare
going to be without a job, because I have four children,three of them married,
who are affected by these things, haveexperienced first‑hand, the
layoffs, being out of a job. I thinkthat
is a real tough thing under the circumstances that we havetoday.
I keep thinking back when I got out of school, at that
timeGrade 12, and I had one year university.
If you wanted to work,jobs were there.
Jobs were there, but now, when you post a jobfor any position, we have‑‑what?‑‑150,
200 applications. Itshows that people
want to work, that all we need is the jobs, butwe cannot control the national,
international economy. We areaffected by
those things. For example, as the
Minister ofAgriculture has indicated, the GATT agreements affect what ishappening
to our farm communities. Dramatic change
is takingplace. The method of payment is
going to affect that. It willaffect my
department, and I raise this when we have ourdiscussions in terms of, if you
pay the producer, what will it doto my infrastructure? These are things that all have a bearingon
it. That is why we are challenged with
the decisions that wehave to make, and they are not always easy.
*
(2150)
Mr. Speaker, there are two other areas that I wanted to
touchon, and I could belabour for a long time the issue of Churchill.Churchill,
for myself, has been one of the most frustratingexperiences in this office that
I hold. The record of grainmoving through
the
I thought this year with the Russians, with the changes
thattook place in the Eastern Bloc, the Russians wanting grain, nothaving
money, that under the credit system that we should havebeen able to dictate to
them where they take the grain.Obviously our message‑‑and I do not
mind being critical of theWheat Board‑‑I think they had the
opportunity even with the shortshipping season that we have which could be
extended in my view,especially with the Russians who are used to dealing with
thosekinds of situations, that we should have capitalized and had abanner year.
I want to tell and I repeat again, the enemies of
Churchillare many. The
There are many enemies out there. We have the emotionalsupport from many
municipalities, from certain farmers, but Iwant to indicate that I think that
we are in a crucial time interms of decision making with the federal government
andChurchill. The rail cars are being
depreciated and deleted. Ido not know
whether we could even deliver any more or CN coulddeliver any more with the
present system of using the rail cars.I still feel we could use the hopper cars
down there. You know,the line
rehabilitation is a major problem. So
many componentsto this thing and if there was a real desire by the federalgovernment,
I think there would be no problem.
We have tried to instill that desire as best we can and Ihave
to indicate that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) himself has takena very active role
this year in terms of trying to promote theactivities of Churchill. I know that my colleague the Ministerof I, T
and T (Mr. Stefanson) has been dealing with the Murmanskpeople in
We have the potential rocket range out there. We have thepotential national park. There are many things that are stillout there
positively, but there has to be that desire.
How weinstill that desire aside from the components that we can dealwith,
there has to be a broader acceptance of that.
If we couldever get somebody like‑‑I have said this before
and I make noapologies‑‑if the Port of Churchill was located in
Quebec, itwould be a thriving, humming industry, and I make no bones aboutthat.
I would hope that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)
asksabout the feasibility study on the rocket range. My colleaguethe Minister of I, T and T (Mr.
Stefanson) is prepared toprobably deal with that when he has the opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, time goes fast when you are having fun, but
Ihave many issues in my department which I would like to address.The other is
the Highways issue. I am just glossing
over some ofthem very fast in terms of issues that I have, but Highwaysitself
and that is always a very challenging and exciting thing.When my department
builds a new road, it is there. You can
seeit. It is living proof and the
appreciation is there. The onlyfrustration
I have is there is not enough money there all thetime.
Mr. Speaker, the national highways program‑‑I
am hoping,fingers crossed, that there is still going to be an announcementcoming
down. We have been up and down with
enthusiasm from thisspring when the First Ministers met and they talked about
thepotential of a national highways program coming down which wouldbe some cost‑sharing
with the federal government. This will
bethe first time that Canada would have that kind of a program.There has been
some cost‑sharing on specific projects, but we aretalking of a 10‑year
national highways program‑‑an excitingthing. We are the only developed industrial western
country thatdoes not have a national highways system.
If it happens, I have made some kind of remarks about
what Iwould do if it was announced. I do
not think I want to put it onrecord; somebody might hold me to them, but I want
to telleverybody here that my deputy and myself have been the strongestpromoters.
I am looking forward with some mixed emotions andanticipation
for Wednesday when Mr. Mazankowski will be bringingdown the economic statement. Maybe the national highway programis in
there. Mr. Speaker, if that happens, I
may not be here fora day or so because I would be rather excited, but we are
hopingthat will happen.
In terms of the provincial construction, and when I comparethe
record of this government, to us it has been a priority. Itis important that our capital programs‑‑highways,
hospitals,schools‑‑have not been deleted, that they have been the
biggestever I believe. Right?
When you consider what poor
I am looking forward to further debate on many of the
issuesthat I have covered here. I have
tried to highlight some ofthem. I have
expressed my views.
Mr. Speaker, once again, it has been a pleasure toparticipate
in the throne speech. I look forward to
listening tocomments from other members of the House. I hope there is somesubstance to some of the
discussions that will take place,instead of just having the sort of meaningless
discussion thattakes place from time to time.
It has been a pleasure, thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is it
the will of the House to call it ten o'clock?
The hour being 10 p.m., this House is now adjourned andstands
adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).