Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 44 (35th Legislature, 5th Session)

35-5-44

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Sessi on • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the lllllhorily of Tlu Honourable Denis C. Rocan SpeiiUr Vol. XLIII No. 44 • 1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 9, 1994 ISSN OS42-5492

NAME ASHI'ON, Steve BARRE'IT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CBRD..LI, Marianne CHO.MIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregol)' DOBR,G81)' DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, T1m, Hon. EVANS,Clif EVANS, Leonard S. Fll.. MON, G81)', Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon.

FRIESEN, Jean MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and PoUtical AlftUatlon CONS'ITIUENCY Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Stc.Rose Seine River Roblin- Russell Selkirk Conconlia Arthur- Vinlen Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley GAUDRY,Neil Gll.LES HAMMBR, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli HELWER, Edward R. HICKES, George KOWALSKI, G81)' LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATIRJN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gonl MALOWAY, T1m MANNES S, Clayton, Hon.

MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCORMICK, Nonna McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. P ALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, DIUI'Cn, Hon. REID, D81)'1 REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry STEP ANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosem81)'. Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Point Douglas The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St.

Johns Elmwood Morris Bllii'OW S Sturgeon Creek Osborne Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Rossmere Kirldield Parle FlinFlon La Verendrye Fort Garry Swan River PARTY. NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal Liberal NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC Liberal PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP

3247 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, June 9, 1994 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTENEPROCEEDINGS Introduction of Guests Mr. Spe aker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the atte ntion of honourable members to the gallery , where we have with us this afternoon from the R.H.G. Bonnycastle School sixty-five Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs . Rasmussen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs . V odrey).

Bt aussi cet apres-midi, nous tenons � vous signaler Ia presence, dans Ia galerie publique, de 22 �tudiants de Ia sixieme � de 1 'Ecole St. Germain sous Ia dire ction de Madame Allard. Cette institution est situ� dans Ia circonscription du �pu� de Seine River (Madame Dacquay). [Translation] Also this afternoon, we have twenty-two Grade 6 students from the St. GeDDain School under the direction of Mrs . Allanl. This school is located in the constituency of the member for Seine River (Mrs . Dacquay). [English) On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. •

(1335) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Grain Transportation Proposal Impact on Port of Chur chill Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the rust Min ister. Since 19 92, we have been opposed to the red uction in support for the railways in the transportation of grain that was announced in the original sta tement by Mr.

Mazankowski in the previous go ve mmeDL This reduction in payments has been accelerated in the last federal bud get, and we have been given notice that the federal Minister of Transport intends on cutting some $650 mill ion from western produce rs. [interjection] If the Liberal Leader (Mr. Edwards) wants to defend the federal Liberal governme nt, that is fine by us, Mr. Speaker. We are here to defend the farm ers, the railway worlcers and the Port of Churchill. Mr. Speaker, we have one fe deral minister previous to the election promising a million tonnes of grain .

We have another fe deral minister, the Minister of Agriculture , meeting with agricultural producers and railway workers across western Canada and consulting with them, and a third fed eral minister promi sing to cut $650 million out of the budget for tran sportation. The fe deral Minister of Transport says farmers will now have to haul grain by trucks. The last time we looked, in the province of Mani toba there was no road to Churchill. I would ask the Premier (Mr.

Ftlmon) what impact this will have on the Port of Churchill to have this massive reduction in tra nsportation subsidies to the railways and the transfer of grain by truck in tenns of the Port of Churchill? Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportati on) : Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the member opp osite for this kind of a question today because -[interjection] The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) is very right . This is a very serious issue. It has hit us like a lightning bolt. We did not expe ct in any fashion that the fe deral Liberal government would do what they are doing to us today.

In my previous life as Minister of Agriculture , we talked about changing the method of paym ent . We never, ever talked about eliminating the payment. The past two federal budge ts have eliminated 15 percent, and that is moving towards

3248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 our commitment to the GA'IT process. Nowhere in the GA'IT process was there any request that we must eliminate the entire support to western Canadian agriculture. This present Liberal govermnent is talking about doing away with safety nets, which have kept grain farmers in business the last four years and for the next two or three years. Now they want to do away with the transportation subsidy. This is our birthright in terms of Confederation in western Canada. Mr.

Speaker, we have a U.S. government who is out there maligning us all over the world in tenns of what we are doing in the grain industry, and we get a federal Liberal government that is playing right into their hands by taking away our subsidies that will cause us to collapse in western Canada in the grain industry if they follow through with their agenda that Mr. Young ann ounced yesteiday. Gov ernm ent Inte rvention Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House were opposed when Mr.

Mazankowski made the first cut, and we are further oppo sed with this massive cut by the year 1995. Mr. Speaker, after the GA'IT set of negotiations, the federal Minister of Agriculture said, and I quote, that no producer, no farmer would lose any income as a result of the GA'IT negotiations. Today, the federal Minister of Transport is saying that we will have a situation where $650 mill ion is reduced from the railways without any indication of what alternatives will be in place for grain. I would ask the Premier (Mr.

Film on), will be be contacting the Prime Minister to get a handle on the two conflicting messages from the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport, and ask the federal government to put this $650-million cut on bold, so we can have an intelligent debate in western Canada and keep the payments to the railway and keep Churchill viable in the province of Manitoba? •

(1340) Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, what this will cost the western grain industry is app roximately $20 a tonne, or 50 cents a bushel will be taken right out of their income side to pay for what the federal government is taking away from western Canada. Both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enos) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and our ent ire government are very, very concerned about what direction we are going in at this time. I want to table the letter that has been sent to Mr. Young, the Minister of Transport, copy to Mr.

Goodale, the Minister of Agriculture, signed by both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enos), and myself, the Minister of Highways, laying out our very serious concern that we will not accept this because this is a birthright for western Canada, and if they follow through with this, it will shut down the grain industry in western Canada . Rest assured, we as the provincial government did not put hundreds of millions of dollars into a safety net program to have a Liberal government come along and destroy the industry overnight. Legal Opinion Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr.

Speaker, the federal Minister of Transport, who I think really does undermine our negotiating position with the Americans, has said that this is GA'ITable and therefore it must be eliminated. Now, this is a federal minister, of course, whose statements can be used as evidence by the U.S. government. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has already been quoted as saying that it is not GATTable, that it is not subject to GATT. We were not told after GATT was signed that this would be subject to GATT. I would ask the Premier (Mr.

Filmon): Does be have any legal opinion that the Transport minister is absolutely wrong in his legal

interpretation and is just using GA 'IT as a way to eliminate $650 million to the producers of western Canada, to the railway wolkers of western Canada and to the Port of Ch urchill which relies on railway shipments?

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3249 Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a paragraph out of the letter that we have sent The option of eliminating the WGTA bas never been discussed or considered in western Canada GATT does not require its elimination. Only a 36 percent reduction over the next six years is required in GATT. In the last two federal budgets, they have already eliminated 15 percent. The federal minister is absolutely wrong on this. It does not require the elimination of the WGTA subsidy to meet the GATT. Mr.

Speaker, what be bas really done is sold out to American interests who are trying to kill our grain industry in western Canada. He sold out completely. The Winnpeg Jets Provindal Obligation Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, yestenlay, after many attempts by my Leader and members of the caucus to get information on the de gree of potential liability the province faces in terms of its agreem ent with the Wmnipeg Jets, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Downey) tabled some figures that suggest that in 1991, the province and the Premier of the province knew that the province may be on the hook for some $43.5 million. At that time, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the province and the mayor of Winnipeg signed a letter of endorsation, signed a letter that said we give our personal endorsement to this package. Can the Premier tell the people of Manitoba why he did not identify what the province's obligations might be when be signed this agreement? Boo. Gary Filmon (Premier) : Mr.

Spea ker, I find it a little unusual- I should not find it unusual to see a degree of hypocrisy from the members oppo site on any issue, but on this particular issue, members opposite did not jump all over this issue and say out loud that they were very opposed to this issue. No, no. The Leader of the Opp osition (Mr. Doer) played possum on this issue because he said he did not want to make this a political issue. He bid in his shell on this issue because be did not want to go out on it. The reason is, first and foremost, there were figures put out. Mr.

Sbenkarow projected l osses -they were well covered in the book-that were even in excess of what is in that estimate. This government took that as a best -case scenario; that is, their best guess at the worst possible obligation. This government did it on the basis of one thing and on e thing on ly, that the revenues to government from the operation of the team here , the total revenues to the three levels of government is double what the cost is estimated to be, even in the worst-case scenario.

When you can make an investment of $1 to get a return in direct revenues to gov ernm ent and taxation of $2, we thought that was a reasonable business proposition. New Democrats may not believe that. New Democrats, of course, believe in investing $1 to get 10 cents back, Mr. Speaker, but that is not the way we do business. •

(1345) Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, of course, Manitoba taxpayers were not surprised that we did not leam that the liability was some $43 million to the taxpayers of Manitoba. The Premier's comments about the economic benefits are likely as bogus as his claim that the people knew that. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the Leader of the Op position (Mr. Doer), my Leader, indicated at the time that signing a blank cheque to the Wmnipeg Jets was wrong. On top of that, be said that we bad got no commitment to keep the Jets. Mr. Spea ker , my question is to the First Minister. Given that Mr.

Bettman bas now said today that unless we build a new arena, there will be no major league hockey franchise in the city of Winnipeg, given that we have now incurred the losses, no guarantee of the Jets staying and we are being blackmailed into an arena, will the First Minister acknowledge this, that he got us into a boondoggle that is going to cost us all millions of dollars?

3250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, over the period of the agree ment in which there was a potential risk of $43 million, $90 million comes back to the three levels of government-not economic benefit to the community, direct revenues to three levels of government, a retum that is twice as much as what is put at risk in this agree ment. That is the basis on which a decision was made. Mr. Storie: Mr. Spe aker, will the Premier answer a further question? We have now not received a report from the Bums committee.

Can the First Minister indicate what it will cost the province, not only in terms of the losses but any commitment that will be made in terms of an arena? If the First Minister's objective of keeping the Jets here is fulfill ed, what is the additional cost to the taxpayers of Manitoba? Mr. Film on: No commitment has been made to an arena, and we will collectively make that decision as to whether or not we can afford an arena in Manitoba for the benefit of all entertainment, sports and anything else that may use it, including the Wmnipeg Jets, Mr. Speaker.

If New Democrats are opposed to it, they can say so, and they can be part of the debate. The Winnipeg Jets Projected Losses Mr. Paul Ed wards (Leader of the Second Opposition) : My question is for the Premier. In resp on se to the first question from the member for F1in Pion (Mr. Storie), I thought I heard the Premier say that Mr. Shenkarow had, in fact, put forward another set of estimates at the time these negotiations were ongoing. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Premier to clarify. I believe he said that Mr.

Shenkarow put forward worse estimates or different estimates than we saw yesterday after the deal has been in place for over three years. Can the First Minister indi cate what the projections put forward by the majority owners were at the time that these negotiations were being undertaken in November of '91? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, the estima tes that we used were the best available estimates. 1bere were other speculative estimates that were even higher that were put forward publicly, and the member knows full well. I invite him to just get press clippings from 1991 to find them. Mr.

Edwards : Mr. Speaker, the First Minister says that they were speculative and that they were projections, and that is what he said yesterday. Clearly, we are all very interested to see those because those were the things that were relied upon when this government entered the deal. We see the government's estimates of 43.5 over that period of time which has come forward yesterday after three years of the deal being in place. What were the estimates put in writing to the province and the city at the time this deal was en tered into by the majority own ers of the Wmoipeg Jets? What was their estimate?

Was it more or less than what the government's were? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker , these are the estimates that were based on the best information we could get from all available sources, including the majority owners. Mr. Edwards: My final question for the Premier: The Premier bas consiste ntly indicated that the rationale at the time was that double the amount of money being put at risk was going to be direct benefit to the government. I think I have that correct. That is what he said yesterday and has said again today. Mr.

Mauro, in his report, found that 97 percent of the people who attend Jets games and are responsible for the revenue of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey aub are Manitobans. That is money that is here in the pockets of Manitobans being spent to support the Winnipeg Jets. Will the Frrst Minister (Mr. Fllmon) give us an in dication as to what bas to be factored out therefore of that $90 million, once you take account of all that money being spent somewhere else in this economy? •

(1350) June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3251 Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, tbis just reconfirms what was being said yesterday in terms of the Leader of the Second Opposition requiring some economics courses. Again, tbis is entertainme nt money that is being spent by individual Maoitobaos.

It could be spent on a whole range of other entertainment activities, could be spent on going down to activities in the United States, could be spent on holiday activities, a whole range of options that would be available to individuals who want to spend that money , money being spent outside of Manitoba. Here is an opportunity to keep that money here in our province, to maintain an economic engine here in our province that will generate $90 million of direct taxation for three levels of government Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the second opposition party, you put your question, sir.

The minister is attempting to answer it Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, here is an opportunity for Manitobans to spend their entertainment dollar, their personal dollar here in our province, a choice that they make to support an entity. It is done willingly. It is done because they want to participate in that particular activity. As a result of that, it generates $90 million over six years of direct taxation to the three levels of governme nt, more than twice the projections of the worst-case scenario losses during that time factor.

That is not taking into consideration the hundreds of jobs created as a result of the inv estment, the 36 percent investment in a $50-m ill ion ass et and the kinds of annual economic benefits that it brings to our province. Judicial System Acco untability Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). Manitobans have had some increasing concern about how the misconduct of provincial court judges is dealt with under this gov ernm ent, so the Minister of Justice (Mrs.

Vodrey) promised Manitobans that the law would be changed to make judges more accountable to the public, and, in fact, the throne speech stated that judicial accountability is as essential as legislative accountability. My question to the First Minister is, can be explain then, why, by a bill now introduced to tbis House, there is to be greater accoun tability when the government had just proposed increasing the power of judges on the Judicial Council while reducing the number of members of the general public? Point of Order Bon. Jim Ernst (Gove rnment House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, there is a bill presently before the House having had first reading, and I suspect that the member's question is out of order. There is ample time for debate of the bill when it is before the House for consideration. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, sir, I ref er you to Bea uchesne's 409( 12): "Questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day, but should be reserved for the debate ." At tbis time, sir, I do not know if we are calling Bill l5 orBill 16 under Orders of the Day. Mr. Ernst: Mr.

Speaker, Bill 16, The Provincial Court Amendment Act, has been, in fact, tabled in the House, read a first time and is now distributed, from whence the member drew his question. So it is my undem tanding, and, of course, subje ct to your ruling, Sir, that once the bill is properly before the House, which it has been as a result of fiiSt reading having taken place and the bill having been distributed, that questions with respect to that bill are inapprop riate, out of order, and debate should range when the bill is called for that purpose. Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable gov ernm ent House leader, sir, at this time, I am not being informed that Bill 16 is proceeding during Orders of the Day, theref ore Beauc hesne 's 40 9(12): "Ques tions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day, but should be reserved for the debate ."

3252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 I am of the opinion that we are not debating Bill 16 today, therefore the honourable member's question is in order . ••• Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Justice. •

(1355) Mr. Mackintosh: A supplementaly question, and the First Minister can answer it now or later, or not at all if the Minister of Justice (Mrs . Vodrey) answers it Given increasing concems by Manitobans about the independence of the provincial court from the cabinet, particularly in light of statements by the First Minister that- Mr. Speaker: Order, pl ease. The member for St. Johns, with your question. Mr. Maddntosh: My question is, is it government policy now that cabinet power to name investigators and m embers of the Judicial Council is proper?

My question specifically is, does the First Minister think our judges should be accountable to the cabinet, rather than to the public of Manitoba? Mr. Speaker: Order, please . The honourable member's question seeks an opin ion, therefore is out of order . The honourable member for St. Johns , kindly rephrase your question, sir. Mr. Mackintos h: What is the policy of this government with reganl to the accountabil ity of judges to the public rather than to cabinet? Mr. Fll mon: Mr. Spea ker, the polic y of our government with respect to this matter is contained in Bill 16. Mr.

Mackintosh: My final supplementar y, Mr. Speaker, is to the First Minister. Why does Bill 16 not deal with appoin tments to the bench to ensure that the public has greater acce ss, that there is more ope nness in the process , rather than perpetuating the cabine t's power? Bon. James McCrae (Acting Minister of Justice and Atto rney Genera l): The honourable member 's colleagues will rec all we brought in amendments to The Provincial Court Act in a previous session which dealt with the issue of appointments of members of the judiciary .

We have a commi ttee system in Manitoba under which appointments are made, and that was brought in by the present gov ernment Previous to that, in all of those NDP ye ars, judges were chosen at the whim of the cabinet. Francophone Schools Governance Fle xibility Mr. Jo hn Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Last year, the government and the previous Education minister responded to the Supreme Court decision on Francophone education in the form of Bill 34, which was passed in this Legislature.

One year later, there seem to be major problems which have developed in its implementation. This morning, I met with Franco phone parents from Notre Dame de Lourdes who rep resent parents of 11 0 students who have pleaded with this minister, to no avail, to find a way to accommodate their cbildren's needs in a 50-50 program in Notre Dame, but not part of the Francophone division.

I want to ask the Minister of Education whether he can tell the Legislature and the Parents for a Fair Education from Notre Dame whether the Francophone Schools Governance act, Bill 34, drafted by his pred ecess or, is suffi ciently flexible to deal with the plight of these 11 0 students whose parents do not wish to be part of the Francophone division. Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): This most sensitive issue has been captured with respect to Bill 34. Bill 34, as presented, allowed very little discretion on the Legislature, and I fully indi cate , Mr.

Speaker, this was a bill that was brought bef ore the House, which, as I recall, received full support by the House. It provided very little discretion for the ministry's office with respect to matters dealing with gove rnance in single-program schools .

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3253 Constitutional advice indicated that if the government of the day was to have any significant discretion beyond the powelS of the community to vote through the registration process, indeed the whole issue may once again be challenged and most certainly would be lost within the Suprem e Court. Mr. Speaker, that is the basis of the history of Bill 34, and indeed, the gov ernment always hoped that comm on sense would prevail and that there would be a meeting of two minds on this issue . That has not happe ned to this point in time. •

(1400) Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, none of us should be afraid of common sense in this Legislature. We are talking about simple common sense and fairness. I want to ask the minister , is he now say ing to this Legis lature that Bill 34 was so seriously flawed that there is no regulation that this minister can bring in now to e nsure that the needs of those parents and those studen ts-- 110--are met in their own community, and they do not have to be bussed to other communities because of this legislation this minister brought in?

Is he saying it is so seriously flawed he cann ot bring in a regulation to deal with that? Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying the bill -which the membelS opposite supported, by the way-is seriousl y fla wed. What I am saying is that the regulations that flo w therefrom dealt most specifically with putting into place the new governance board which put into place the whole election process. 1bere has not been a bill that has been brought forward to this Legi slature which called so little upon regulation and therefore had more of the details spelled within it than Bill 34. That is why, Mr.

Speaker, when this Legislature, amongst all parties, agreed to accept it, it agreed to accept basically all of the detail that was encompassed within that particular bill. So it was not that it was flawed. It was in keeping with the consti tutional advice that we received from many lawyers who dictated that, once the votes took place , it had great consequence in all communities . Mr. Ploh man: Mr.

Speaker, in light of the fact that the bill provides for the making of regulations by the cabinet, by the Lieut enant-Governor-in Council , I want to ask the minister, since the parents have waited since last fall for this minister to provide some kind of answ er, some solution, for fairness for their children in Notre Dame de Lourdes, and they are now facing the middle of June still not knowin g what is going to happen to their childre n--ki ds are going to have to be bussed out of their own communi ty-will this minist er now ensure that he takes action to provide a solution that will meet all of the nee ds, a common sense solution in Notre Dame, a sharing of the facilities and services?

What are we talking about? What is so diffi cult here? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, why did the member not express that view in debate on Bill 347 Why did he not indicate at that time that a school can only be governed by one authority7 1be member opposite for Dauphin, indeed every member in this House who has been watching this very sensitive issue over the course of the last three months, knows how hard the government has tried to find a reasonable answer between the providing division and indeed the new division.

We have used every power, every persuasive power within our ability to try and find a common sense solution, but the legislation- An Honourable Member: Change your regulations. Mr. Manness: No, no. It has nothing to do with the regs, because the regs take their power from the legislation, and the legislation is very, very, very specific. It says, Mr. Speaker, that within a single program school , those

Section 23 parents who have a right to vote will detennine who governs that activity of that school. I know some may want to call into question the process of how the vote went, but nevertheless, once the votes were cast, Bill 34 laid bef ore everybody the procedure with respect to what happened after that. It is most unfortu nate , Mr. Speaker, as you know full well, that common sense, up to this point, has not prevailed.

3254 LBGISLA11VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 Economic Growth Status Report Mr. Brian Pallist er (Portage Ia Prairie): Mr. Speaker, just yestelday, I was pleased to learn that Salomon Brothers, respected investment dealer, one of the most respected investment dealers in the United Stat es, released a report which had high praise for the Manitoba governmenL 1bis flies in the face of the doom and gloom we ofte n hear from members opposite .

Just this mornin g, a respected radio ann ouncer in Wmnipe g, Peter Warren, said, and I quote: If this means that the Filmon economic policies are following into line and New York is listen ing, then Gary Doer and Paul Edwards bad better stop playing cock of the walk and start listening. My question for the Minister of Finance is, in the face of this constant doom and gloom from members opposite, what are the negative implications for Manitobans of this cock-of-the -walk attitude by pessimistic members opposite? Bon. Eric Stef anson (Minister of Finance) : Mr.

Speaker, I think this is a very important question, because it was just a couple of weeks ago when the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwanls) stood up with glee when the Canadian Bond Rating Service adj usted Manitoba 's rating . I said at the time-and it is an important issue -the true test is the confidence that the people have who sell your bonding, sell your paper, and the people who buy your paper have in the province. The reaction of Salomon Brothers is complete verifica tion of everyt hing we have said. They speak very highly of Manitoba.

They say we are one of two provinces in all of Canada deserving of a credit rating upgrade. The further proof of what Salomon Brothers is saying is one week ago, Wood Gundy released their summa ry of the borrowing spreads of provinces, and Manitoba bas the third-best borrowing rate in all of Canada , behind only Alberta and British Columbia. Por t of Churchill Gove rnment Commitment Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsl and): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transportati on.

We have raised many questions during the session concernin g the Port of Churchill and a lack of commitment for our grain shipments this year. Since the Minister of Agriculture has said that the death of Churchill was immine nt, can the minister tell the House what action be has taken, aside from the letter that has been tabled in the House to the fed eral transportation minister, and what plans are in place with respect to dealing with the cuts ann ounced by the fe deral minister? Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportatio n): Mr.

Speaker, we have been very surprised at the lack of support that the fe deral Liberal government has instituted since they came into power, after they had ann ounced in the red book that they were going to export a million t onnes of grain through the Port of Churchill. That is a level of commitment that we support, and we want to see it happen. The Liberal government has been exceedingly quiet on this in recent montm, shown no effort to meet their commitment to export the million tonnes. We are very concerned about the Port of Churchill, because there is no consistent fe deral support for that port at this time.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the same fe deral minister, the fe deral Minister of Transport told me in a letter that it was not practical to guarantee grain volumes at the Port of Churchill, given the fluctu ating grain market and despite the election promise that has been mentioned by the Transport minister of a mill ion tonnes of grain . My supplementary question is, what other products will be shipped out of the Port of Churchill this year through the eff orts of this government? Mr. Findlay : Well, Mr. Speaker, the Port of Churchill is a fe deral commitment, a fe deral responsibility.

The rail is owned by CN, which is a fed eral Crown corporation. We are awaiting what

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 3255 commitments the federal government is going to make about continuing that port and using the rail line; in fact, upgr ading the rail line so further economic activities can happen in and around the Port of Churcbill. Arctic Bridge Agreement Status Report Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland) : Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the same minister. What happe ned to the ann ouncements made last year by this government that the Arctic Bridge would produce 500,000 tonnes of grain being shipped out of the Port of Churchill? Ron.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transport ation) : Mr. Speaker, a study bas been done-it is ongoing-involving three departments of this government to determine where the opportunities exist in terms of a two-way trade between Russia and the Port of Churcbill; in fact, anywhere from the Port of Churcbill. That analysis is ongoing. We hope there is good news from that. Mr.

Speaker, as I have said in answers to previous questions , the tourism potential up there is significantly good, and certainly the AKJUIT project is a very significant project that is up and runnin g, which we as a government supp ort very, very strongly. Health Care System Reduced Workweek Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwo od): Mr. Speaker, we saw a welcome flexibility from the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae ) when he agreed to be more flexi ble on Bill 22 in terms of allowing personal care homes and hospitals to reduce their budgets through other than Bill 22, and hospitals such as Ste.

Rose, as an example , are very pleased they are able to provide patie nt care and still reduce the 2 percent in their budgets without jeopardizing patient care . My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he support the ratio nale and logic used by the Minister of Health? Is he prepare d to look at Bill 22 and expand the option such that essential services in the Department of Health such as home care and also child protection services are not subje ct to Bill 227 Ron. Eric Stef anson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think in response to a similar question not long ago, the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) indicated that in certain situations, we are prepared to be flexible with Bill 22 where there is a requirement to meet the public need. Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a supplementary to the Minister of Fmance: Does he not consider programs such as home care to the elderly and child protection services to children as being those kinds of progra ms? Mr. Stef anson: Mr. Speake r, if the member for Cresc entwood has specific examples of the .kind of appl ication that she is referring to, I would welcome receiving them .

We work with all of our departments in government in terms of the application of Bill 22 and provide them with the opportunity to come forward to address any areas of concern, any areas where it is not wo rking, any areas where ad justment needs to be made to meet the public need and the requirements of the public. We are prepare d to continue to do that. So if she has some very specific suggestions, specific examples of proble m areas, we would be more than pleased to look at them , Mr. Speaker. Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary to the Minister of Finance.

Is the Minister of Finance saying then that no one within any of the departments has come forward and expressed concer ns about the application of Bill 22 as it relates to essential services? If he is asking for examples, is he then suggesting that no one in the civil service bas come forward and expressed con cerns? Mr. Stefanso n: No, I did not for a minute suggest that no one did.

The member for Cre scentwood indicated that there were some particular dep artment areas that she was somewhat concerned with, and if she has some specific examples in those areas-there have been some examples, but I have to outline for this House very

3256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 clearly that, by and large, there are not many examples. Bill 22 is working very well. It is addressing the needs of all of the departments. It did last year save us-and we have the final num bers-the government and the taxpayers of Manitoba $22 mill ion and at the sam e time preserved 500 jobs for Manitobans. So Bill 22 has served the public, it served the government, and it served employees very well in tenns of meeting all of our nee ds. •

(1410) Health Care Facilities Budgets Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kll donan) : Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me a letter from the president of the Victoria Hospital to staf f outlining the regrettable situation of the government budget cuts. Last week, we tabled a letter in the Legisla ture from the pre sident of the Health Sciences Centre talking about the deplorable simation that has resulted from the government 's budget cuts. My question to the minister is quite simple.

Will the minister now at least provide this House and the public of Manitoba with details of the budget cuts, the $100-million budget cuts to the hospitals in Wmnipeg? Will he at least provide those details of those individual cuts to us so we can dis cuss this issue with our constituents? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health) : Mr.

Spea ker, the fiscal reality we have in this country may be seen by the honourable member to be re grettab le , ma y be seen by others to be regrettable, but it also presents us with an opportunity to address some long-standing health system deficiencies which have been all owed to build up over the years, as has also been told to us by hospital administrators, that over the years we have allowed many, many practices to devel op in our hospitals and elsewhere, and we have an oppo rtunity today to address those things.

I suggest that if we wer e to fo llow the honourable member's advice and not address the waste in the health system and the effici encies that can be found, we would be doing the citizens of Manitoba a great disse rvice. That is why I reject all of the suggestions of honourable members in the New Democratic Party to hack and slash and bum our way through health care renewal. Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, it took three years and the Provincial Auditor to get the figures on the potential losses fo r the Jets, and this minister is refusing now to give us details about what the government has cut in the hospital budgets in the city of Winnipe g. Why is the minister refusing to provide this infonnation to the public of Manitoba? Mr. McCrae: I do not think there has ever been a time, Mr.

Speaker , when this government or any government in Manitoba has been more open in dis cussing health care issues with Manitobans and with consumers and with health care providers, not only discus sing and talking down to them as the honourable member would like us to do, but listening to what they have to say and acting upon their advice. Mr . Chomiak : Mr. Spea ker, my final supplementary to the minister is, why is the minister afraid to provide budgetary infonnation about the hundred-million-dollar cuts to urban hospitals?

Is he afraid that the public of Manitoba will not accept those cuts and the deteriorating patient care? Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speake r, the only thing besides waiting for your ruling. from yesterday that really frightens me is where we would be if we fo llowed the advice of the honourable member opposite and his colleagues and those of his colleagues in other provi nces who have hacked and slashed their way through in the name of health care ren ewal, the appro ach like the one used by the member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leona rd Evans) and his colleagues at Brandon General Hospital in 1987, of hacking their way through Brandon General Hospital and calling that ref onn. Point of Order Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the present Minister of Health should stop insulting the

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3257 previous Minister of Health Larry Desj anlins, who I thought was a tremendous Minister of Health for the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of older. ••• Mr. McCrae: Maybe the honourable member will ask me some questions about Larry Desjardins, because Larry Des jardins bas been extremely helpful to us in a nmnber of ways since be left the New Democratic Party benches. Environmental Legis lation Enforc emen t Ms. Marianne Ce rilli (Radisson) : Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Environment, in Estimates, told us that last year, there was $43,000 collected by the government for env ironmental regulation violations, but the minister went on to say that this is not a good indication. The total amount of fines is not a good indication of gove rnment enforce ment or compliance with regulati ons. I would ask the minister to explain what indicators the governm ent does use to evaluate its environment regulation enf orcement program. Bon . Glen Cu mmings (Minister of Environ ment): Mr.

Speaker, to begin with, I do not start off by attacking members of the Department of Environment, as that member did at a public meeting about the capabilities of enforcement by the dep artment. This depar tment, comparably across this country, is doing a very good job of enf orcem ent, and I am quite proud of their record. Fines Levied Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr.

Speaker, can the minister tell the House and explain, even though the total fines allowa ble under The Environment Act are in some cases up to a milli on dollars, why is the total amount of fines only $43,000, and bow are the total fines detennined when there is a violation under The Environment Act? Bon . Glen Cu mmings (Minister of Environm ent): Mr. Speaker, in many cases, that is a judgme nt of the court. I can only point to a more recent example that is probably as obvious as any, the penalty under the stubble-bu rning regulation is up to a maximmn of about $1,325, I believe, which is very, very substantial.

The range of fines that were, in fa ct, concluded under that

section last fall ranged from $1 to $1, 325. That is a decision that the court in its wisdom will make. I think the member perhaps is challenging the court on the decisions they are making. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questi ons bas expired . MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANC E Port of ChurchiB Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent public importance . I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton), that under Rule 27.(1) the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, changes to the structure of the Western Grain Transportation Act that threaten the future of the Port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay bayline along with the farmers in the catchment area for the Port of Churchill. Mr.

Speaker: Bef ore recognizing the honourable member for Rupertsland, I believe that I should remind all members that under our Rule 27 .(2) the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member of each of the other parties in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately . Mr. Robinson: Mr.

Speaker, I bring this matter forward today due to an announcement made by the fe deral Minister of Transport that be is elim inating the Western Grain Transp ortation subsidy next year-a possi bility that is very strong -a subsidy which bas existed for decades and bas been essenti al for the flow of grain to the Port of

3258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 Churchill and for indeed the majority of fann ers in this pro vince. If this decision is allowed to go ahead and if indeed it becomes a rea lity, it could ruin the future of the Port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay bayline. This is just not another broken election promise, Mr. Spea ker, but one of the most important policy changes to occur in agriculture and transportation in decades. Manitobans deserve a debate on such an important matter, and it is critical that they get an opportuni ty.

The Port of Churchill, Canada 's only Arctic seaport, bas many important elements to it for the shipment of grain and other products. Also, the spaceport pro ject, which the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Findlay) talked on earlier in Question Period, depends on the bayline and the port. Churchill bas the potential to grow directly in the next few years pumping mill ions of dollars into the Manitoba economy should the spaceport proje ct continue to go ahead.

I fear, like many others in this Chamber, that the elimination of the grain transportation subsidy will not just burt the shipment of grain from the Churchill catchment area, but it will also burt our largest industries, agriculture and transportation, in Manitoba and western Canada . Mr.

Spea ker, aside from that, the human element , such basic necessities as groceries and supplies to the bayline communities must be consi de red; doctor and dental visits to communities on the bayline that our people rely on, people who live on the bayline rely on as a basic human right, those we believe are being put into question. I would like to thank you and members of this House for this opp ortunity to allow me to put this matter to the floor of this Chamber this afternoon. Thank you. •

(1420) Bo n. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there is no question, I think, in anyone's mind in this Chamber that this is an issue of extreme public importance to the grain producers in Manitoba, indeed, to all people in Manitoba. You have beanl our ministers here on this side of the House speak of the very great concern they have for the cripp ling effect that this action by the federal government will have on grain producers here in our province. Eighty percent of the grain produced in this province is exported under the WGTA.

That provides bundieds of thousands of dollars into the pockets of prairie producers in Mani toba, and thousands of jobs in the transportation industry related to that. Mr. Speaker, the issue is certainly of great importance to the people of Manitoba, but I am not sure that under

Section 27 of our rules that you would be able to find that the matter would be in order. I suspect that the matter is out of order under our rules because of other opp ortunities, but because it is so important and because we on this side feel it is so important, I would ask the member for Churchill to amend his motion to set aside the ordinary business of today in order to debate this important matter, and we will give unanimous consent. Mr. Kevin Lamo ureux (Secon d Oppos ition House Leader): Mr.

Spea ker, it is, in fact, abundantly clear through listening in Question Period that there is genuine lack of knowledge inside this Chamber in tenns of what is going on with respect to the fann ers, and this, in princip le, is the reason why the Liberal caucus is going to support this in-an-emergency debate , because we would like to bear exactly where it is that the government and the New Democratic Party are coming from.

I think it is important, it is in fact in the public's best interest, and I would quote right from the letter which the minister himself tabled, and this is the reason why it is in the pub lic's best interest: ''The Producer Payment Panel app ointed by the Federal Government bas been evaluating the options of paying the subsidy directly to farmers rather than to the railroads. This would promote further diversifica tion in agriculture and more ma rket responsive adjustment in the entir e agriculture and agri-business industry."

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3259 Mr. Speaker, the minister said yesterday, from what I understand: Federal Transportation Minister Doug Young said yesterday that Ottawa would end the practice of providing the railways with a subsidy to transport prairie grain to port. Instead, Young said, Ottawa should be paying the money directly to producers. I believe that even the government two days ago was in favour of trying to see more money going into pockets of the farmers as opposed to the railroa ds.

It is only two days ago that the New Democrats were yelling and yapping from their seats to stop financing the big COipOrations. The railways are also coipOrations.

What is important and what needs to be talked about here is the need to e nsure that the fanners of the province of Manitoba are the benefactors of any subsidy, and that is, in fact, what the Liberal provincial caucus will ensure, that the dialogue and the debate is going to be in the best interests of the farmers of the province of Manitoba, not what is in the best interests of the New Democrats, who are so low in the polls-it will only be by a few percentage points from the Conserv atives-as to why that is likely the reason why they brought this particular issue up.

In the sense of trying to broaden the knowledge of the official opposition party and to hopefully get the government behaving in a more responsible manne r, we are more than happy to enter into that dialogue this afternoon. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members for their advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) should be debated today. I did receive the notice required under our subrule 27.(1).

According to Rule 27 and Bea uchesne 's Otations 389 and 390, there are two conditions which must be met in order for a matter of urgent public importance to be proceeded with. They are: (

a) the subject matter must be so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought on early enough; and (

b) it must be shown that the public interest will suff er if the matter is not given immediate atte ntion. I acknowledge that the subject of the honourable member's motion is an extremely important one which affe cts all Manitobans, but I am not convinced that the public interest will suffer if it is not debated today . There are, in my opinion, other opportunities for the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) to debate this issue: the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportati on, which will be under consideration.

In add ition, I note that the honourable member for Rupertsland could also raise this matter under Grievance as he has not used the oppo rtunity for debate in this session. Beauc hesne's Otation 387 indicates also that a matter of urgent public importance must be within the administrati ve responsibility of the provincial government. In this case, the responsibility rests with the federal government. I am therefore ruling that the matter is out of order as a matter of urgent public impo rtance.

Despite the procedural shortcomings I have drawn to the atte ntion of the House, I note that there is a willin gness to debate this matter today. Therefore, the question before the House is, shall the debate proceed? Some Honourable Members : Agree d. Mr. Speaker: It is agree d. Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of this House for allowing this debate to carry on. We, on this side of the House, view the matter bef ore us as very important.

I would like to begin my few comments this afternoon by reading a letter and putting on record a letter I received on the 6th of Januacy based on inquiries I ma de to the fe deral Minister of Transport. In his letter he says : "At the outset, I should explain that decisions concerning the ports through which grain is exported are made by the Canadian Wheat Boa rd on the ba sis of ma rketing considerations as the Board pursues its objective of maximizing returns to produ cers. It is government policy not to interfere in these decisions.

"'t is not practical to guarantee grain volumes at the Port of Churchill given the fluctuating grain

3260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 ma.Iket. 1be port's traditional customers bave not been buying grain in recent years. Efforts to diversify the cargo base from grain , particularly with Russia, bave not been successful to date. I should note that other ports are experiencing similar hardships.

Annual grain traffic at the end of September 1993 was down a total of 4.7 million toones as compared to September 1992 at the ports of Quebec City, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. • (1430) "The Port of Churchill is reviewing all expense components under its control to ensure that costs are directly related to the level of activity at the port. Efforts to control costs will ultimately improve the port's competitive ness.

"As the government has a responsibility to look seriously at the long-term outlook of the port, Transport Canada continues to gather information which will be taken into consideration when the decisions about the future of the port are made." This is signed by the federal Minister of Transport, the Honourable Douglas Young. I would like to table that letter now for members of the House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also quote from the Manitoba Liberals ' agenda from 1993 in which the Liberal agenda said that the Port of Churchill has been one of the victims of nine years of do-nothing Tory economic policy.

Where world-weary Tories see a lost cause, Manitoba Liberals see an opportunity. The Liberal policy on Churchill is anchored in a very straightforwaro set of facts. Prairie grain producers bave the opportunity to export their product through a port situated closer to their fanns , closer to ma jor export markets and which is simply less costly than the St. Lawrence Seaway or the West Coast. Churchill makes economic sense for prairie farm ers and also for Manitoba. Still with the Manitoba Liberal agenda, Mr.

Speaker, they go on to say that Churchill is approximately 1,270 kilometres from Prince Albert, but Montre al is more than 3,500 kilometres away via Thunder Bay and also the seaway. It is more than 800 kilometres closer to Churchill than to Mon treal. 1be fact is tbat the Port of Churchill can save prairie farmers on transport costs compared to Thunder Bay and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Liberal agenda also went on to say that using Churchill is also a sound environmental policy.

Shorter distances mean less consumption of fossil fuels, and a thriving port and maintenance of the rail line could pave the way for economic diversification of Churchill. Port facilities and a rail link make it a leading world contender as a spaceport satellite launching centre, and new opportunities in northern tourism also depend heavily on the conti nuation of the rail line. Then they conclude by saying: Therefore , Manitoba Liberals will press a new government for the export of a million tonnes of grain through the Port of Churchill each year. Mr.

Speaker, those promises were made by the Manitoba Liberals in last year's federal campaign. Again, I would like to reiterate in this House that this matter is brought forward today due to the ann ouncement by this Minister of Transport that he quite possibly will be eliminating the Western Grain Transp orta tion subsidy next year. This subsidy has been around for decades and has been essen tial for the flow of grain to the Port of Churchill; indeed. the majority of farmers in this province will be affected by it.

I would like to also put on the record that the port has lost money almost every year since 1988 with tonnage as low as just 50,000 tonnes. The previous federal government did a secret study on the future of the port which has never been released. according to my understanding, anyway. Also, during the last fed eral election, the Manitoba people-! would like to reiterate that a million tonnes of grain would be going through the port. As of today, Port Manager Allan Johnson has had no word from the Canadian Wheat Boaro and just 15 tradespeople are worlcing at the elevator today.

He is also concerned about the upcoming layoffs at the CNR and on the bayline . Doug Young, the Minister of Transport, of course, said yesterday that the Western Grain Transportation subsidy, which has been paying out

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3261 some $600 milli on each year, must be eUminated because of GATT. Also, the same minister previously endorsed the CN-CP merger, the layoff of

section crews on the bayline, and wrote to myself sayi ng, again, as I said earlier: "It is not practical to guarantee grain volumes at the Port of Olurcbill .•.• " Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are not only talking about the Port of Cburcbill but also indeed western Canada, Manitoba, and the people that live on a bay line will be drasti cally affected if this occurs . Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honoured to speak on this issue on behalf of the people of Cburcbill, and I would think on behalf of the people of Manitoba and western Canada Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : I am pleased to join-1 did not want the debate to adj ourn after one speaker because I know a lot of members on our side want to speak to this issue, and I know a lot of other members in the Chamber want to speak. I, first of all, believe that all of us sincerely want the Port of Churchill to survive and to be stronger, and I believe and I think we saw witnessed today an all-party consensus to proceed with this debate. I understand the Liberal House leader said that there was more infoimation to be put on the reCOid.

Any information we can get, any security that we can get in this House that the Port of Churchill will be saved, that it will be enhanced, that it will be maintained, that it will be part of the vision of Manitoba, would make us very happy. Mr.

Speaker, the Golden Boy on top of this Chamber faces north, and Premier after Premier and governments after governments have always believed that the vision of this province, the future of thi s province believes in a strong northern vision for the province of Manitoba Are we not lucky in the province of Manitoba to have a port that bas access to the sea right in the middle of this beautiful country of Canada and right in Manitoba in teimS of northern Manitoba? Mr.

Speaker, history is full of countries that have gone to war for a port like Cburcbill, and this, of course, is part of our democratic birthright to have the Port of Churchill in our province and at our disposal.

So I am pleased today that we have an opportuni ty to debate this issue and that all parties agree because it is very important that the federal government understand very simply that we cannot have a situation where the subsidy to the railw ays is diminished and reduced and even reduced to the extent promised by the fe deral Minister of Transport yesterday in the House of Commons commi ttee and that the alternative is to ship our grain by truck. (Mrs . Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) There is no road to the Port of Churchill.

The alternative of having grain transportation only by truck, I would suggest, would mean, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) bas said, the imminent death of the Port of Churchill, unfortunately for the shipment of grain through that magnificent facility that we have on our northern shores. I was first inform ed about the Port of Olurcbill and was educated about the Port of Cburcbill by an old friend of mine , who is a person named Edd ie Johanson, and be is a resident of The Pas that bas been involved in the Port of Churchill efforts since after the war. I can still remember the speeches from Ed Johanson.

Vive le nonl, be used to say and talk about the vision of northern Manitoba He would infoim us of the great exploits of the fur trading industry through our beautiful rivers, and be would talk about the tremendous vision that we have to have for the Port of Churchill and the kind of investment we have to make to make that vision bold true for our province. We were critical of the previous fe deral government in 1992. We did not support the original Mazankowski decision to reduce by 10 percent in the '92 budget the transportation subsidies to western Canadian producers .

We further did not support that when that was entrenched in the budget, the last Mulroney budget

3262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 of 1993. We were critical. We were critical to memben opposite. We asked them questions about railway jobs. We asked them questions about shipment of grain through the ports in the United States rather than the Port of Churchill. We asked questions about what this woul d mean for producers, and we were very concerned about this issue in 1993. • (1440 ) Again in 1994, when the fe deral government ann ounced a further reduction, a virtual xerox copy of the Mazankowski decisions, in the first liberal budget, we were extremely disappo inted.

We have not changed our position on this issue. We believe the existing transporta tion policies in Canada make sense for a country like Canada, which is a very distant country. We need a sovereign transportation policy in Canada. We need a regulated transportation policy in Canada . We have a distant country. We have a country that does not have the population base of European countries and the United States.

We do not have the fe deral Treasury necessarily of the United States, and we need a sovereign transportation policy which we believe goes along with a sovereign food policy in western Canada That is what we believe in. So, when we raised the question in '92 and we raised the question in '94, we believe we are being absolutely consistent on what we believe . The practical implications of this policy change , Madam Deputy Speake r, are very serious for Manitoba. The government has already pointed out the potential loss of 50 cents a bushel with a reduction of the $650 million.

Fann en in western Canada cannot afford another reduction in the costs that they get for their products . They are already getting hammered on the one side for input costs and on the other side for price for their pro ducts. We cannot see another massive reduction in income for western Canadian fann en. Manitoba also bas a situation where many people working direct ly and indirectly in the railway industry exist right along many of our rail lines, right along the community ofWmnipeg with the two ma jor railways. We have a very high number of people who are working in railway jobs.

We have people all along the bayline wotking in railway jobs. So this does not only hit the producer; it also bits people wotking in the rail line industry. The government 's own study indicated that if we proceed with the reduction in this subsidy, we will see greater transportation of grain from the Unite d States. We would see a greater loss of grain transportati on with the railways, and we would see a $5 0-million cost in terms of highways in Manitoba with the increased trucking that was predicted by the report.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, this will be a great, great erosion of the role of Churchill in the Manitoba economy with the loss of grain through the support program in transportation. We were not told in December of 1994 that the GATT deal would mean the end of the programs for transportation in western Canada. It was only shortly after that that the fe deral government started to hint that meetings that actually were held, I believe, in January of this year that the federal government was starting to interpret the GATT agreement to mean that transportation programs bad to be cut.

I cannot imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a weaker position to go to the Americans on the actual action that they are bringing forward on Wheat Board and transportation policies than a fe deral minister of the Crown saying that these things are contrary to GATT. I mean, how do you possibly argue in front of the U.S. tribunals that our grain industry is soverei gn and not GA TTable and not NAFr A-able because in fact it stands on its own two feet and it is just a made-in- Canada solution for our transportation chall enges and for the challenges of producing food for the world from our great western provinces?

Madam Deputy Speaker, to hear a fe deral Minister of Transport yesterday say that this is now going to be GATTable and that we therefore must reduce this by $650 mill ion by the year 1995 is absolutely unconscionable . I believe the fe deral Minister of Tramport should resign. He should be fire d from cabinet, because he has no right

June 9, 1994 LEGISLAllVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3263 weakening the Canadian position on grain, and be has no right to continue his assault on the Port of Chmchill. At a previous committee meeting of Parliament this transportation minister said be is not responsible for moving grain through the Port of Churchill. He accepts no respo nsibility for the promise made by the Manitoba Liberals in good conscience in the last federal election to ship a million tonnes of grain through the Port of Chmchill. He says be has no responsibility to do this.

He will just let the grain go where it will, and our sources in the transportati on industry say that this government wants to ship more and more grain through the seaway, not through the Port of Churcbill. 1bey are more concerned about the culture in Quebec right now than they are concerned about jobs here in the Port of Churchill and Manitoba. I hope that is wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is certainly not very good for our province . We have met with the people of Churchill.

We have met with people all along the bayline, and for every argument that CN can put in place against the Port of Churchill and against the bayline, we know there are 10 to 100 arguments in favour of that line. It has the capacity to cauy greater weights. It has the capacity to cauy the bigger hopper cars. It has the capacity to handle more ships in two-way transportation. It has the capacity to be the type of port that our forefathers and forem otbers envisioned when they courageously set up the Hudson Bay Route Association and the Friends of Churchill years ago.

We just celebrated the 50th anniversary last summer of the Port of Churchill, and it is an absolute disgrace that there is not one ship committed today for the Port of Churchill in this the 51st year of that magnificent port. Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe in maintaining a sovereign transportation policy in western Canada for our producers. We want jobs in the railway, and we want the future of the Port of Churcbill. I urge everybody to join in on this great resolution here today. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enos), I would just like to remind all honourable members that, accolding to Rule 27.(4), each member who wishes to take

part in the discussi on in a matter of urgent public policy is limited to 10 minutes debate . Bon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to engage in this debate. I think there is something very important that is being said in this Chamber when Her Majesty 's official opposition and the government indeed find themselves in a non partisan way accepting the responsibility of the seriousness of this situation and in fact debating on the same side on this particular issue .

Let me make it very clear that there are, of course, two issues that the resolution bef ore us presents the Chamber with, that is, the specific issue of the maintenance of the Port of Churchill, and I appre ciate the mover of the resolution for this emergency debate bas a special interest, as we all have , in the maintenance of the Port of Churchill. Quite frankly, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer) spoke eloquently in that regard about the future vision, the importance that we should not lose sight of with respect to that site, recognizing the imm edia�and even in the immediate past, you know, economic diffi culties and the cost that taxpayers of Canada, taxpayers of Manitoba have bad to pay in the maintenance of that port. It is not the first time that we have been called upon to cauy for a while the concept and ide a, a project even though it is not necessarily returning dollars to the federal or provincial treasuries. In the case of Manitoba, we have taken very strong positions.

My prede cesso rs in transportation, present and past, an d the government as a whole-we understand that there are , for instance, in these fe w areas alone, opportunities for that northe rn port. Tourism certainly should not be overlooked. When we look at what is happening in northern touris m, and the

3264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 equal type of tourists that are being attracted in greater numbers to the North, to Yellowknife and places like that That is certainly an opportunity for us that we are ooly beginning to scratch the surface on. We think that together with the federal government in establishing a national patk-as it was my privilege to take the first step in that direction by setting aside a very substantial area for the form ation of a national patk-could add to that tourism thrust that we should all be endeavouring, that could well generate hundreds and thousands of people coming to that part of Manitoba •

(1450) We are of course keeping our fingeiS crossed I think collectively, and we wish the local organization in the Churcbill area every success in the possible reinvigorating of the rocket site that we have at Churchill. Members are aware that significant wodc is being undertaken both by the private and the public sector in that event, which I am pleased to be part of a government that is supporting it, and that could spell-again, these are ifs and ma ybes, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have to live in hope. We have to have faith in the future of our province, because if we do not have it, who else will?

I think this calls for a demonstration of faith, continued hope, that at least there are moves afoot that make this conti nuous support on our part for the Port of Churchill not just wishful dreaming or hope or faith, but there are in fact some physical things that are happening right now that are moving towards that dire ction . The efforts to reinstigate life in the rocket site is one of them .

I want to indicate that while it was not my privilege, but I know that the trade minister -! believe the form er Minister of Finance, my Premier , in a visit to the Soviet Union, to the Ukraine, came back with some serious discussions and hopes that there may well be long-term future trade opportunities developing between those countries , and certainly, as the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) asked, what other alternative s? That is a very critical question to ask about the Port of Churcbill.

We need something other than just grain, in the long term, to move through that port, particularly a backhaul that could well involve the countries of Russia and the Ukraine, which are, by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, not unfamiliar with nor thern waters. They live and know what conditions are in their northern ports ofMurmansk and others , to name some. So coming to the northern Port of Churchill is not unfamiliar to them, and they in fact have been, over the past, our most steady customeiS that have used that facility.

So that is reason enough for us not to allow just a unilateral action that is being contemplated by the federal government to take place . This is not to be confused, for instance, with the action that took place, I believe, by another Liberal government when it shut down the railway on the province ofNewf oundland.

But that was only done after lengthy negotiations and, quite frankly, a fairly substantial arran gement whereby I believe some $400 million was provided by the fe deral government to provide other alternative routes of transportation and highways in lieu of the monies that the fe deral government was providing in a railway service on the island, on Newf oundl and, that was not economic. That is the kind of arrangement that maybe we should be looking for, and in fact are looking to, if we are going to see the substantive changes that we know are happening to the Western Grain Transportati on policy program.

My colleague the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Findlay) is absolutely right when he says we have, on many occasions, acknow ledged the concern that has been expressed by some of our chief trading partners, notably the Americans, about the Crow or about the WGTA, but never in our discussions have we talked about not providing some ongoing and continuing support to western agricul ture. That is what is so dis concerting, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have this obvious lack of liaison between two senior fe deral ministers, the Minister of Transport and the

June 9, 1994 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3265 Minister of Agriculture, that is taking place in Ottawa right now. We are preparing to host the national agricultural mee ting here in Wmni peg in a very short while , the first week of July. I know that the fe deral colleague Mr.

Goodale will be, among many other things, discussing the wide range of agricultural support programs to agriculture at these meetings, including possible changes or shifts with the dollars that Ottawa has for so many ye ars--s ince Conf ede ration just about, or very close to it, about 90 years-acknowledged that this form of support for the westem agricultural base of this great country of ours was appropriate , was justifiable, in lieu of some of the decisions that were made that, quite frankly, aided and abetted the industrial buildup of the central provin ces, notably Ontario and Quebec.

This was our share of the Confederation pie , if you like . So, for that to be fundame ntally changed without consultation, is really quite uncalled for and quite unaccep table.

Madam Deputy Speaker, with those comm ents I want to assure honourable members that I will certainly be in concert with all of my colleagues , but as Minister of Agriculture will be keenly interested in the developments, particularly as we have the opportunity in a few short weeks to lay this matter directly before my fellow Ministers of Agriculture as we gather in the ann ual national agricultural minist ers' meeting here in July and will have in our presence the federal minister, Mr. Goodale, as well, to try to put this issue into perspective.

In the meantime, I think it is a most valuable usage of our time in this Chamber to spend a bit of time so that there can be no doubt left, not just to the ministers involved, Minister Young and Mr. Goodale, but to the 12 Libe ral members of Parliament who represent Manitoba in Ottawa. I want, whether it is the member representing the Brandon area or the Dauphin area or urban members here, St. James and so forth, and our ministers representing the province, to have a very clear understanding of the importance of this issue. There will be change. We accept that. Mr.

Goodale has assured our major trading partner, the United States, that, for instance , we are prepared to unilaterally, in fact, change the Crow benefit with respect to any grain that possibly could move into their marlcets . We have talked openly about the change. Mr. Goodale has said and put on public recOid that-and I do not blame him for this-while he has accepted the former Minister of Agriculture 's, Mr.

Charlie Mayer's move and position on appointing a produ cer's panel to study the nature of change that should take place , he has acknowledged-and as I say, I do not fault him , he is not necessarily bound by that advi ce--b ut he will certainly listen to it and take the time to listen to it. What is important right now is that we have to take the time to listen to this important debate . Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (River Heights) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to join with the other two parties in this debate this afternoon, because it is a critical debate , not only to the province of Manitoba but, I would suggest, to all western provinces and certainly to all grain producers in western Canada It is inte resting. I woke up this morning in Calgary and, as a result, I have read a number of newspapers today. It started with the Calgary Herald. I got on the plane and I read the Globe. I then got the Financial Post, and then I headed into Winnipeg and picked up the Free Press.

What there is cle arly in all of the newspa pers is confusion, serious confusion about what it is that the fe deral government said yesterday . Of what they said, there are some things that seem to be apparent. There may be some disagreement, but I am doing my best to read what I have been presented with today. My first disagreement seems to be that there has not been, apparently, any discussion at the fe deral cabinet table about this particular matter. I think we have to believe the Minister of Agriculture, Ralph Goodale , who says this has not yet been brought to cabinet for a decision-making process . Mr.

Enns: I hope you are right. Mrs . Carstairs: We ll, the Minister of Agriculture for our province says, he hopes I am right. Wel l, I

3266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 think we all hope I am right, quite frankly, because obviously there needs to be much more input into this discussion than the fe deral Minister of Transport p resen tly has in his understanding of the importance of the Port of Churchill to the province of Manitoba and the importance of the grain transportation subsidy. The Minister of Agriculttue for the province has gone on reconl today, as he has in the past and as his predecessor has in the past, in recognizing that there is going to have to be some change. Change is inevitable.

We have entered into a new global maiket strategy, and change must occur. But what must not occur, and I think all three parties have to be in agreement in this, if nothing else, is that monies presently being used for agriculture in whichever ways they are being given must continue to be given to agriculttue in this country. In this, I think I have no disa greem ent. •

(1500) I have heanl in this House a number of claims about the 10 0,000 or 100 million-what is it? -one million tonnes of grain through the Port of Churchill. I have heanl it referred to as a prom ise. I have heanl it referred to as part of the red book, but in fact it is not in the red book. But it is very clearly in a statement of the the n-members of Parliament, Liberal members of Parliament, from the province of Manitoba.

I want to put that statement in the reconl because I can assure the members of this Chamber that those same M.P.s, all of whom were elected and joined by a number of colleagues, will be held accountable for this statement, not only by membe rs of this government or members of the official opp osition, but members of the Liberal caucus . This is what they had to say. The Port of Churchill has been one of the victims of nine years of do-nothing Tory economic policy. Where world-weary Tories see a lost cause, Manitoba Liberals see an opportunity.

Liberal policy on Churchill is anchored in a very straightforwanl set of fac ts. Prairie grain producers have the opportunity to export their product through a port situated closer to their farm s, closer to major export markets and which is simply less costly than the SL Lawrence Seaway or the West Coast. Churchill makes economic sense for prairie farmers and for Manitoba. For example, Churcbill is approximately 1,270 kilometres from Prince Albert, but Montreal is more than 3,500 kilometres away via Thunder Bay and the seaway. Murmansk, Russia is an important destination for Canadian grain exports.

It is more than 800 kilometres closer to Churchill than to Montreal. The simple fact is that the Port of Churcbill can save prairie farmers on transport costs compared to Thunder Ba y and the St. Lawrence . Using Churchill is also sound environmental poli cy. Shorter distances mean less consum ption of fos sil fuels. A thriving port and maintenance of the rail line could pave the way for economic diversification in Churchill. Port facilities and a rail link make it a leading world contender as a spaceport satellite launching centre.

New opportunities in northern tourism also depend heavily on the continuation of the rail link. Yet, the rail link and all of its spin-off benefits depend on grain exports through the Port of Churchill. The port requires 600,000 tonnes per year to break even. However, in last years it has seen less than 300,000 tonnes. The port could easily handle one million tonnes per year without expensive upgrading of either the rail link or the port facility itself . Exciting opportunities are within reach for Churchill .

For examp le, talks are underway on barter arran gements with Russia which would see Canadian grain exports paid for with phosphate rock. Churchill could be the linchpin in substantial two-way trade flows between the Prairies and the new democracies of Europe. Therefore, Manitoba Liberals will press a new government for the export of a million tonnes of grain through the Port of Churchill each year. That is a policy, Madam Deputy Speaker, with which I am in full agree ment and which I can support and which I think all members of this House can sup port.

This is the policy that this government must be held accountable to.

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3267 Now, what exactly happened yesterday? Well, I think we bad a minister at the fe deral level, Transport Minister Doug Young, who said a number of things. He said be would end the practice of providing the railways with a subsidy to transport prairie grain to port, but be also said Ottawa would pay the money directly to producers who could then use the funds to pay for the ttansportation of their choice .

If, inde ed, those statements mean that all of those funds are going to be remaining within the agricultural community, then I have some concerns as to the transfer, but I am concerned about the dolla rs going into an alternative pro gram. That is my big concern right now. An Honourable Member: He did not say any of tbal Mrs. Carstairs: Young said Ottawa would pay the money directly to produ cers who could then use the funds to pay for the ttansportation of their choice. He did not indicate that the money would be used for an alternative purpose, and that is the critical iss ue, I think.

I think it is also clear, however, that be did catch the Agriculture minister at the federal level by some surprise, who fe lt there was not any such discussion. He said, for example, and Ralph Goodale said, a decision on the method of paying subsidies under the Western Grain Transportation Act is still 12 to 15 months away. He said be is still waiting for a report from the Tory- appo inted panel reviewing possible changes to the way the subsidy is paid. That panel bas been asked to analyze what effe cts the recently signed General Agree ment on Tariffs and Trade will have .

I think what we must do in this debate today is to make it very clear to the federal government that Manitobans, as represented by all three parties in this Chamber, want a guarantee that the monies will stay within the agricultural communi ty. We want a guarantee that further discussions will take place with the governments of all of the prairie provinces with respe ct to any changes prior to those changes being made . I think if this debate today can lead to those two positive conclusions , then this debate will have been a very positive contribution to this legislative sessi on.

I think all of us in this Chamber should put our views on the record today insomuch as it is possible. I know there are some members who have other commitments and who cannot be in here this afternoon to make those presentations -but as many of us as possible of all three parties, so the federal governm ent can bear one voice from the Province of Manitoba. a clear voice on this· issue from the Province of Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation ): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that we have this situation in front of us today.

As Minister of Agriculture for a number of years, there is no question that a lot of discussion took place on WGTA and how that should be paid in the future. Madam Deputy Speaker, the previous fe deral government fo rmed a producer payment panel to analyze what is the right way to pay that money out in western Canada That money bas been paid in western Canada since 1897. Me mbers opposite , particularly those from urban communities , must understand that we consider it a birthright in western Canada.

Federal monies and effort for decades were devoted to supporting the manufac turing, processing industries in central Canada. The jobs were there, the population is there and western Canada harvested natural resources. There was support to our ability to export those raw resour ces, particul arly agricultural products , to help us get those comm odities to salt wa ter, whether it was Churchill or Thunder Ba y or whether it was Vancouver. That bas been a birthright of ours for a long, long time.

There were certainly arguments that maybe the farm community was not responding in terms of diversifying to where the rural markets are and to where there were strong world pri ces versus weak world pr ices. That is why the discussion about whether the payment of that monies would be better done in some other fashion than direct to

3268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 railroads, but that bas been a birthright of western Canadian farm ers, agriculture and certainly for rural Manitoba. Along the way, Europe got started in its export subsidies and certainly started to distort the world grain trade. The United States got into it big time in the mid- 1980s with the Export Enhancement Program. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the worst trade-distorting subsidy that ever existed in the history of the world. To see the current United States administration with their Minister of Agriculture, Mr.

Es py, talking about the terrible trade-distorting subsidies of the Canadian grain industry, flies in the fact of reality, where they are the creators of the greatest trade-distorting subsidy in the world, the EPP program.

To have him down in Mexico and Brazil talking about the terrible Canadiam and what they are doing, well, he is doing the worst thing possible and saying that we are somehow the architects of our own problem . • (1510 ) I am really disappointed that the fe deral government has not been more proactive in defending what is the basis of western Canada, our capacity to produce and export the best quality grain to the world, particularly wheat. Madam Deputy Speaker, the discussion, the producer payment panel and the processor in is still ongoing.

The first report bas been put in to the federal Minister of Agriculture and a subsequent report is to fo llow. Mr. Young was very clear in his statement in The Globe and Mail. I know the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) has commented there is confusion in the paper. Absolutely I agree with her. There is confusion in the paper. I mean, The Globe and Mail-if anybody should get it right, it should be The Globe and Mail. Let me read what they said.

The transportation dep artment will stop paying grain freight subsidies next summer because they will no longer be allowed under the Uruguay round trade agreement. Mr. Young told reporters yesterday that government paid-sorry . I will jump to the next paragraph which is a quote : Under the new trading arran gements there is no room left for traditional types of subsidies. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is absolutely wrong . The GAIT process has talked about reducing trade -distorting subsidies by some 36 percent over six years, and the last two federal budgets have reduced the WGTA subsidies by some 15 percent.

So we are well along the path of meeting those trade requirements, and we can continue to meet those over the next number of years. That is clearly the GATT rule. Madam Deputy Speaker, for the fed eral minister to say , we must get it read immediately is not the truth at all. That is why certainly I am not at all happy with what is going on. If there is confusion out there, it bas been created by Mr. Young and Mr. Goodale not being in sync. If they have not discussed it at cabinet, I am astounded that one wo uld go out and talk like this. That is unacce ptable.

I think every member in this House understands the sensitivity of this issue, the significant sensitivity. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): They must be using some rookies . Mr. Findlay : We ll, you can get up-the member for Dauphin--and say that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to add further evidence to the House of what Mr. Goodale said in The Globe and Mail is undoubtedly what he thinks . Whether it is government policy or not, that is for them to decide and eventually clarif y because then they must. But Mr.

Young made his speech last Friday in Thunder Bay to kick off National Transportation Week, which is this week. This is dated June 3. This is right straight from the federal government. He goes on to identify a lot of subsidies that go on in the transportation industry. He is talking about $1.6 billi on of subsidies in the transportation industry, and he lists six of them. The very first one he identifies is $590 milli on spent on the Western Grain Transportati on Act. Later on, he goes on to talk about, well, we have to give the taxpayer a break.

We have to have a reality check and realize that this cannot go on foreve r.

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3269 So there is no question, although he did not say it exactly in this speech, that his thinking is there are too many subsidie s. We cann ot do it anym ore. For Treasury reasons, we have to reduce these. He talks about commercializing the whole Transport de partment, the fe deral Tran sport department, which bas a lot of impl ications, not only in the grain indu stry, but air traffic control and so many other aspects of Transport Canada So, cle arly, he is on a miss ion to save money.

Some of the things he talks about, we would probably not disa gree with, but the principle that he talked about yesterday in tenns of eliminating next year the WGTA subsidy puts our farmers in significant difficulty. If the farmers were told instantly they have to pick up another 50 cents a bushel where wheat may only be worth $2 a bushel and the cost of producing it may be $3.50 to $4 a bushel, you can see economic all y-how are they going to survive ? The federal government bas also been talking through the elect ion-and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns) is more in touch with this now-but about how they are going to change the GRIP program , how they are going to extract themselves from it at a time when the grain comm unity cannot afford them to extract overnight- WGTA, extract themselves from it overnight. We cann ot survive in this environment, uncertainty being created. I can imagine the discussions going on in the banking community today if this is what is going to happen. There are a lot ofloans out there involving the grain industry, grain farmers, ma chinery dealers and, boy, this is not the kind of news that the banking industry wants to hear.

They want to hear the government standing behind the grain industry as we evolve through this difficult trade situation. We have been involved, particularly with the United States, so we are put in a great situation of uncertainty. Some members may say, well, we overreact, but this is not an issue we can leave sitting idly by while we wait for the federal government to decide whether one cabinet minister is right or the other cabinet minister is right or decide whether they have talked about it in cabinet or they have not talked about it in cabinet.

Tbis is not the sort of thing we need to have floating around, this kind of uncertainty. What bas really happe ned here is the federal government saying in westem Canada you have to be able to pay your costs in the grain industry. You have to survive on the world market. In other words , our grain farmers in western Canada, particularly our wheat producers, have to be able to compete with the U.S. Treasury. That is impossib le. You cann ot do it. Now one could say, well, we do not have enough tax payer will or capability to fight the U.S.

Treasury in all of Canada That might be true, but I can assure you if that is true, there is an awful lot of the economic base of westem Canada that is going to be hurt if the grain industry, particularly the wheat industry, is sabotaged by the U.S. Treasury. Madam Deputy Speaker, what Mr. Young and Mr. Goodale have been doing in the last few months in tenns of dealing with our counterparts in the United States bas not been standing up strong enough for us. It bas not been supp orting the long tradition of good trade relations we have had around the world. When Mr.

Espy goes down to Mexico and Brazil and makes those statements he did about westem Canadian agricult ure, well, he is creating trade subsidies of the world's greatest magnitude right back in his back yard. I did not like what he said down there, and I sure did not appre ciate the lack of response from the fe deral government in sort of straightening the record out, because we do not look good, Madam Deputy Speaker, with those kinds of comments from the United States going on.

Now we have a federal Liberal government right now who is supporting what the U.S. is saying about westem Canada, saying we are not going to be in the business any longer. If you take away these kind of supports from westem Canadian agriculture, we are going to be in a very difficult position to stay in the grain trade business. That is exactly what the U.S. wants is to drive us out of the grain industry. I do not like us living with that agenda, but it seems that the

3270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 fe deral government is prepared to follow that agenda. Following on what the member for River Heights (Mrs . Carstairs) said, if there is confusion out there at the federal level, please clear it up instantly, instantly because there is great concern in western Canada right now about what direction they are going and what it means to us in the grain industry at this point in time . 1bank you. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona) : Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my ple asure to rise to speak on this matter today.

It is a very important matter for the province of Manitoba because our history is one based on 1:ra�:mportation, and, of course, we want to maintain and in some way hopefully enhance that. If you look at the comments that have been made by the fe deral Minister of Agriculture and the federal Minister of Transport, there is indeed some confusion that is taking place on the part of the federal gov ernment on how they are dealing with the matter.

I can only go back to some of the comments that have been made by the Minister of Transport just this year, in fact, on March 10, 1994, when the fe deral Minister of Transport said that he was looking to redirect the subsidies that are payable to the transportati on network of the country. Now we are seeing that the federal Minister of Transport is saying that he wants to kill $1.6 bill ion worth of transportation su bsidies to the various tmnsportation sectors in our country.

So here is a minister, a fe deral Minister of Transport , from March 10, 1994 to June 7, 1994, flip-fl opping on his position on what he is going to do with the tmnsportation subsidies of OW' country. Of course , that is going to have a devastating impact upon us in the province of Manitoba if we are going to lose the subsidies that we have in place to preserve, to protect the programs that we have for transportation of our grain products and other products by way of manuf acture.

I look at the recent statement that the fe deral Minister of Transport has said wherein-and I will use his figures, Madam Deputy Speaker. He says that 18 to 45 percent of the price of primary products in Canada are transportation costs and that 5 to 17 percent of manufactured goods are transportation costs.

We ll, I am not an accountant, and I do not know and I do not understand the logic of Ibis federal Minister of Transport when he says that if we take away the subsidies that we utilize to transport these products to either export market or to our customers in North America, how are we going to keep the costs , the transportation costs down for these products ? It would seem reasonable to me to expect that these figures, these percentages would increase, to move our product either to export position or to our customers in North America.

So I do not understand the logic of the fe deral Minister of Transport when he is saying that we need to eliminate the subsidies , and at the same time he is saying that our 1:ral:mportation costs are of the figures that I have already indicated. •

(1520) The transportation minister also indicates that-and there seems to be a glaring discrepancy in the comments that he has made, in comments recently to the people of Thunder Bay, when he was addres sing his audience there. He says that we have some difficult and tough choices to make, and then he talks about the subsidies and the cost to the Canadian taxpayers. At the same time he goes on to talk about how good we are in this country, how efficient our system is, and that we have a world-class network of transportati on. So even in his own comm ents that he has made as a minister, he contradicts himself.

The minister also goes on in this presentation. He talks about the mismanagement of the railways and the overcapacity of the railways. Now, the last time I talked to the people who operate the trains in this province , Madam Deputy Speaker, we cann ot get enough rolling stock equipment in this province to move the products or the items that we produce , whether it be grain or whether it be ma nufactur ed goods. All our rolling stock equipment is tied up in moving. So I do not understand how this fed eral Minister of Transport can say that we have overcapacity . That is definitely not the case.

I think he had better start talking to the people who are doing these jobs and get a better understanding of what is happening in the transportation market.

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3271 We bad at the same time this same fe deral Minister of Transport, who is now telling us we have to kill the subsidies, as in the past, and at the same time, when be was talking in the House of Commons just this March, be says , railways are romanticism and nostalgia of the past. Now, here is a Minister of Transport that is supposed to be building the transportation network of our country, not ttying to tear it down, which be is obviously doing by the statements be bas made.

I listened to the comments that have been made by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) when be made reference to the fact in Question Period today that we are moving towards meeting the requirements of the GATT agreem ent, and that we have already cut some 15 percent. In 1991, we were paying the railways of this country $721 million in transportation subsidies. This year, I believe it is, we are paying some $590 million in transporta tion subsi dies.

Now just imagine for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, what is going to happen to the producem of this province and, indeed, all the prairie provinces if we eliminate the $590 million? I take a look at the studies that have been done in past years to look at the options for producem to tmck the grain products down to the Miss issipp i. What will that mean to the Highways and Transportati on Department of this province by the increased wear and tear on our highways? In add ition to that, what will it mean to the railways that would normally transport those produ cts?

What does it mean to the thousands upon thousands of railway jobs that depend on the transportation of these products? This federal m inister does not seem to comprehend the realities and the necessity of the transp ortation net work of this country, and I listened to the comments of my colleagues here today where they called upon the fe deral Minister of Transport to resign. I think that is indeed a very good suggestion; this minister should resign.

When we bad the VIA bearings in this province, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am talking now about the bayl ine, because it is essential to the province of Manito ba and central to the Port of Churchill. I listened to the presenter s from AKJUIT, the rocket range people when they were making their presentation. They told us that if that bay line is not there, that rocket range facility will not operate ever, period. It will be down the tubes, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eons) says .

So we need the Port of Cburcbil1 to operate, to exp ort our products, and we need to have that line in place to move the grain products there, and at the same time it will give us the opportunity to have the reactivation of the rocket range to create new high-tech opportunities for us in the province of Manitoba, and new job opportunities as well. Also, at the same time, I believe we bad some 37,000 of resupply to the Northwest Territ ories, our neighbours to the north , part of our own country, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we lose the bayline , we lose the resupply for our people in the north.

There are no other opportunities for them to bring product in year-round. We need that rail line. At the same time , VIA Rail, when they ann ounced just after the federal election in the fall of '93, VIA ann ounced they were going to cut 21 jobs in the province of Manitoba. Lloyd Axwortby stood up and said: No, be is going to put it on bold; be is cancelling the layoffs. But, at the same time, when be said be cance lled the layoffs, we lost 11 jobs. The public does not know that, but we lost 11 jobs out of that because some of those 21 job layoffs bad already taken place, so we did lose jobs.

Then the federal m inister appointed a two-pemon task force to bold bearings in the province of Manitoba. What did they come back with? We ll, they said, on the one band, we think that there is a high amount of subsidy going to the pass enger rail setvice for remote services in this province, and, on the other band, we think that we should maintain remote essential services in our province . Well, you cannot have it both ways, Madam Deputy Spe aker. You have to have a position staked out on what you actually believe we need for the province of Manitoba.

In addition to that, for the 21 jobs that had been ann ounced for the loss of VIA Rail, when I was touring in the northern part of the province this past winter, when I was up there meeting with the

3272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 people of the northern communities, we lost another 30 maintenance jobs on the CN line in the North, on the bayline maintenance jobs, while we were up north. So do not let the Liberal Party tell us that they are not cutting further jobs in the North and they are not cutting the services to maintain those lin es. This cut of another $1 .6 billion is further going to erode and cut the railway jobs in this province . I listened to the comments of the Liberal House leader when he was talking at the beginning of this section.

He called the Wester n Grain Transportation paym ents to the railways of this countty subsidies or supports or welfare to the big cotporations of this country. I do not think this Liberal member of th e Legislature understands the significance of those payments to the railways and, in fact, how it enhances the transportation opportunities for the producers of this province . If he would take the time to study what those payments mean, I am sure he would have a better comprehension of what it means to the province of Manit oba. These are not payments or welfare payments to the big co1p0rations.

This is a means to provide equitable and fair transportation for the grain products of our province, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wish the Liberals would understand that The Minister of ffighways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) says that this is a birthright starting back from the Crow benefit from 1897. I believe that it is a birthright for our province of Manito ba, and I call upon the federal Minister of Transportation to understand what these support payments mean to the province of Manitoba and the people of Mani toba.

In my own com munity, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have som e 1,700 railway people , over 1, 700 railway people, that depend upon these payments going to the railway so that we will be able to provide the transportation services at reasonable cost to the producers but at the same time create railway jobs and employment opportunities for the people of my community and the province of Manitoba.

So with those few words I call on the fe deral Minister of Transport to reconsider his position to eliminate the transport ation subsidi es in our country and to look seriously at the decisions that he has to make and to m ake sure that we are not going to see any negative consequences as a result of the decisions of the federal Liberal government. Thank: you. Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface) : Madam Deputy Speaker, no, I am not going to defend anybody.

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this MUPI this afternoon, and i t was a ple asure to see people co-operating and to debate an important issue in Manitoba. It i s for the interest of Manitobans, and I think we all have interest. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Findla y), I think both spoke very eloquently in regard to the farmers of Manitoba and the interest that we have, rather than enduring all this crap that g oes on all the time here during Question Period. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Gaudry: I apologiz e if I used the wrong word.

Just like Question Period today, we had people in the gallery here and the discuss ions that go on and the name calling and all these things, I will be very honest, Madam Deputy Speaker, I detest that with a pass ion when I see kids sitting in the gallery and what goes on here during Question Period. An Hon ourable Member : Now tell us about transportation. Mr.

Gaudry: Ye s, it is ver y important to Manitoba, and I think about all these things that were said by everybody who got up today in regard to jobs and what it means for Manitobans, how important it is for Churchill to remain a port and a place of shipment for grain for the farmers. As several have mentioned that if the grain shipment would cease in Olurchill, I think it would destroy Churchill, and the railroad for the northerners is very important. It has been mentioned time and time again, and it is not only this year, it is last year, the year before.

Every time the question of grain shipment to Churchill comes up, these comments come up.

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3273 •

(1530) However, lilce the member for River Heights (Mrs . Carstaiis) mentioned it very clearly today, you read the papers, and there sure seems to be some confusion in what is being said and what is being reported in the diffe rent papers. It is not the first time that there bas been confusion in what is being said by diff erent members or diff erent ministers. It has taken just a change of word sometimes in what they report that might have a diffe rent meaning. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think all of us are very concerned with what bas come out in the paper today.

As the minister of transportation was indicati ng, for example , the banking industry is certainly looking at what is happe ning in Manitoba today. We talked about the rating of the government, the bond rating. This could have an effect on the bond rating of Manito ba, and who would be to blame? It would be the Liberal government. If it was a Tory government, it would be the Tory government. We talk about the government that is in power this time because we could go back and discuss what the Tories did for nine years.

There would be lots to discuss that was not in favour of Manitoba because we have lived through the nine years of the Tories. During the last six year s of Tory government in Manitoba, they did not get along with the Tories in the fe deral government. Hopefully, they will have a better relationship with the federal government this time. Maybe something should be done. We talk about the three parties today discussing the MUPI in favour of Manitob a.

What would be wrong with the three parties to meet the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Agriculture and the critics from both sides, as we did for the Shilo, for examp le, when we all went to Ottawa? It would probably show that Manitoba is in favour of supporting Manitoba as such. [inter jection] Well, it was proven in the Shilo situation. We all went to Ottawa, and we won our case. I think at this time , this is what we should do. I think it is very pleasant to work co- opera tively, and I think I have mentioned it during my-[int erjection] Sure, I would go and fight the Liberals. Sure, why not?

An Honourable Member: You will fight against those Liberals? Mr. Gaudry: Sure, but I indicated during Estimates, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is very important to worlc co-operatively . For example , I went to Komamo for the hog farmers. I think that, when we come right down to it, it is important that we support these job creations, but going to Komamo , it seems that there was lack of infonn ation. It was only one side of the fare, I fe lt, when I went there .

There should have been government involved givin g the other side of the story, the other side of the coin. so that people understood exactly what went on and give them infonnation, communication with these people , and I think we talk about confusion. I think it is probably lack of communication within the fe deral government, and it is very important that we all get together. My suggestion at this time is that we all supp ort what bas gone on today, and I think our- An Honourable Member: What are you going to tell them when we all get together? What is your position? Mr.

Gaudry: My position is that I think we want to help the farm ers and to keep what the Mani tobans want. We communicate with the Manitobans. An Honourable Membe r: We want to stand up for the fanners ; that is what we want to do. Mr. Gaudry: Yes, stand up for the fann ers. My recommendation is what we talked with the farmers. We fe el that we have worked together. We have talked, the three of us, together before going. We have a position that we can present a position that the government of Manitoba wants and that it is unanimous. An Honourable Member: Come on, Neil. Do not let them harass you. Mr.

Gaudry: No, that is okay. I am not bothered by this kind of nonsense . I have seen enough of it in the last six and a half years, and I will not tolerate that it will bother me. What I want to do is

3274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994 co-operate and wmk for the Manitob ans, and I will continue doing that I will supp ort the Manitobans in whatever the Manitobans want through the government and through the opposition. We will work for that. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Edward Belwer (G imll ): It is a real pl easure this afternoon to rise on this very important sub ject and put a few remarks on the record. I think this is one of the most important issues facing Manitoba and western Canadian fann ers at the time. An Honourable Member: And Gimli. Mr.

Helwer: Well, do not forget about Gimli. I have a lot of farmers in my constituency. I want to protect and work for the farm ers in my constituency. Where are the Liberals? What did the fonn er Prime Minister Trude au tell the farmers of western Canada years ago? He told them to go sell their own wheat. He did not stand up for the farmers of western Canada Where is our federal government today? Where is Doug Young? Where is Mr. Goodale ? He is going to cut $590 million from the fann ers just like that Remember what happened to the Liberals after Mr. Trudeau told the fanners to sell their own wheat.

They did not elect a Liberal member in western Canada for 25 years. They probably will not elect another member for another 25 years . The Liberals have a record. They have never ever stood up for the fann ers of western Canada. They have never been able to sell their grain. It took the Conservatives. In Manit oba, we have made some ma jor changes to improve the safety net programs , such as the Crop Insurance program , the GRIP program. 1be fonn er federal government has brought in some programs: the NISA program , the GRIP program, and helped with some of the changes we have made in the Crop Ins urance.

They have also made some very important changes to the Grain Transportation Act. They have made the railways more accountable so that they could improve the system to handle the farm ers products, even though we had ma jor setbacks, such as the Vancouver labour dispute . That has been a problem facing western farmers for years. We have had to put up with the labour disputes, the problems the railways have had, all kinds of thi ngs, and now we have to fight the fe deral government again. They have said they are not going to help us. They are going to take this money away from the western farmers.

We cann ot accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have to stand up together and work together and fight together against this kind of action to protect our fann ers. There are many people in western Canada, in Manitoba, rural Manitoba especially, who have a big investment in the grain -trade business, a big investment in the grain-handling syst ems, a big investment in the agribu siness.

Many farmers have a big investment to produce the products that other countries want to buy from us, which is our hard red spring wheat which is some of the best quality wheat in the world and makes some of the best bread in the world. An Honoura ble Member� Pasta. Mr. Helwer : We ll, pasta too. We have a d urum that makes pasta. That is right. We want to protect our markets . To do that, we must have a transportation system that can handle our grain. We must have a system that we can sell our grain to.

We have a port in Manitoba which is Churchill. which could handle more grain and help the trade situation also and create more jobs in Manitoba. When we talk about pay the producer, personally, myself, I fee l that is a good option. I think that we should pay the producer. It would make the railways more accountable and make them probably more compe titive . They have made some improvements in the past, such as just in recent years they have in centives whereby they can load 50 cars at a time or 100 cars at a time, and that will give the grain companies some discount on the rail frei ght .

So there have been improvements made and there continues to be. I think if given the opportunity and given a free market opportunit y, we will ma ke some improvemen ts to the

June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3275 grain-handling system, and the railways will have to improve, or we will find other options in Older to sell and ship our grain. I remember years ago I was part of a commi ttee in the Intedake whereby we were trying to protect the railways under the rail line abandonment that the railways were trying to do at that time. At that time, a lot of these rail lines were committed to stay till the year 2000.

Wel l, in some cases, there have been improvements made to the system and to the elevators on these lines , and these lines have been approved to 100 -pound stee l, whereby they can handle the large producer cars, 100-ton producer cars, and this is an improvement to the syst em. This bas made the transportation system much more competitive and improved the whole syst em. But I cann ot believe that the federal Minister of Transport Doug Young would go and make this kind of a statement without consulting anybody , without consulting his colleague, even, the Minister of Agriculture.

An Honourable Member: He did not consult anybody? Mr. Helwer: No, be did not consult. An Honourable Member: I am sure be consulted with Reggie. Mr. Helwer : I doubt it. •

(1540) That brings up a good question, a good point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Where are our 12 Liberal MPs from Manitoba? Why are they not standing up for the farm ers of Canada, of Manitoba? Where are they ? Where is Reg Alcock? Where is John Harvard? Where is Jon Gemmi? Where are these guys ? An Honourable Member: Right. Where is Uoyd Axworthy? Where are the Liberal Party? Where is Paul? Mr. Helwer : Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad someone brought that up. I think that is a very good point. When are they going to start standing up for us in Manitoba here.

When are they going to start standing up for the farmers who do produce good high-quality wheat here in Manitoba? An Honourable Member: Do you not think Axworthy is worthy of axing, too? Mr. Helwer: Ob, I will not get to that. Other members can have an opp ortunity to speak a little later and get to that, but I certainly want to say that we want to protect this industry we have in Manitoba. We have a good indu stry. We have a good quality product. Our farmers produce a good quality product. Our farmers are efficient.

We want to help them continue to stay in business so we can provide the employment that is required here in Manitoba, that this province can grow and expand the export marlcet and expand also some of the value-added production that we can possibly get out of the grain system .

I think that is where I support the pay-the producer method of payment because I think this will give some companies in Manitoba an opportunity to exp and and make use of or go to the value-added production, maybe to get a pasta plant here in Manitoba so we can produce our own pasta and use some of our own wheat, and come up with other innovative ideas, such as the Can-Oat Milling plant in Portage which is a good example of bow we can get into value-added production.

Here they are making rolled oats and cereals that are exported throughout the world 1bere are many things that we can do to make value-added a factor and employ more people in Manitoba to use our products and make this province more competitive in the business. With that, I appreciate the opportunity to put these fe w rem arks on the rec ord. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise today to put my comments on the reco

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-5-44
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 5th hansardpdf 44.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c860cd1b51bc585f3feba995b7a8480a7ff6d591

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