Fifthon Sessi • Thirty-FifthLegislature

of the

Legislative Assembly of DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS

(Hansard)

Publishedunder the lllllhorilyof TluHonourable Denis C. Rocan SpeiiUr

Vol. XLIII 44No. • 1:30p.m., Thursday,June 9, 1994

ISSNOS42-5492 MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-FifthLegislature

Members, Constituenciesand PoUticalAlftUatlon

NAME CONS'ITIUENCY PARTY. ASHI'ON,Steve Thompson NDP BARRE'IT,Becky Wellington NDP CARSTAIRS,Sharon RiverHeights Liberal CBRD..LI,Marianne Radisson NDP CHO.MIAK, Dave Kildonan NDP CUMMINGS, Glen,Hon. Stc.Rose PC DACQUAY,Louise SeineRiver PC DERKACH,Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell PC DEWAR,Gregol)' Selkirk NDP DOBR,G81)' Conconlia NDP DOWNEY,James, Hon. Arthur-Vinlen PC DRIEDGER,Albert, Hon. Steinbach PC DUCHARME,Gerry, Hon. Riel PC EDWARDS,Paul St.James Liberal ENNS,Harry, Hon. Lakeside PC ERNST,T1m, Hon. Charleswood PC EVANS,Clif Interlake NDP EVANS,Leonard S. BrandonEast NDP Fll..MON,G81)', Hon. Tuxedo PC FINDLAY,Glen, Hon. Springfield PC FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley NDP GAUDRY,Neil St. Boniface Liberal Gll.LESHAMMBR, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa PC GRAY,Avis Liberal HELWER, Edward R. Gimli PC HICKES, George Point Douglas NDP KOWALSKI, G81)' The Maples Liberal LAMOUREUX,Kevin Inkster Liberal LATIRJN,Oscar ThePas NDP LAURENDEAU,Marcel St. Norbert PC MACKINTOSH, Gonl St. Johns NDP MALOWAY,T1m Elmwood NDP MANNESS, Clayton,Hon. Morris PC MARTINDALE, Doug Bllii'OWS NDP McALPINE,Gerry SturgeonCreek PC McCORMICK,Nonna Osborne Liberal McCRAE,James, Hon. Brandon West PC MciNTOSH,Linda, Hon. Assiniboia PC MITCHELSON,Bonnie, Hon. River East PC ORCHARD,Donald, Hon. Pembina PC PALLIS TER,Brian PortageIa Prairie PC PENNER,Jack Emerson PC PLOHMAN,John Dauphin NDP PRAZNIK, DIUI'Cn,Hon. Lacdu Bonnet PC NDP REID, D81)'1 Transcona REIMER,Jack Niakwa PC PC RENDER,Shirley St. Vital NDP ROBINSON,Eric Rupertsland PC ROCAN,Denis, Hon. Gladstone PC ROSE, Bob Turtle Mountain NDP SANTOS,Conrad Broadway NDP SCHELLENBERG,Harry Rossmere PC STEPANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirldield Parle NDP STORIE,Jerry FlinFlon PC SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye PC VODREY,Rosem81)'. Hon. Fort Garry NDP WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River 3247

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday,June 9, 1994

TheHouse met at 1:30 p.m. previous govemmeDL Thisreduction in payments has beenaccelerated in thelast federal budget, and PRAYERS we have beengiven notice that thefederal Minister ROUTENE PROCEEDINGS of Transport intends on cutting some $650 million from western producers. [interjection] If the Introductionof Guests LiberalLeader (Mr. Edwards) wantsto defend the Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I federal Liberal government, that is fineby us, Mr. direct theattention of honourable members to the Speaker. We are here to defend the farmers, the gallery, where havewe withus this afternoon from railwayworlcers and theChurc Portof hill. the R.H.G. BonnycastleSchool sixty-five Grade 5 Mr. Speaker, we have one federal minister students under the direction of Mrs. Rasmussen. previousto theelection promising a milliontonnes This school is located in the constituency of the of grain. We have another federal minister, Ministerof Justice (Mrs. Vodrey). Minister of Agriculture, meeting with agricultural Bt aussi cet apres-midi, nous tenons � vous producers and railway workers across western signaler Ia presence, dans Ia galerie publique, de Canada and consulting with them, and a third 22 �tudiants de Ia sixieme � de 1 'Ecole St. federal ministerpromi sing to cut $650 million out Germain sous Ia direction de Madame Allard. of the budget for transportation. The federal Cette institution est situ�dans Iacirconscription Minister of Transport says farmers willnow have du �pu� de SeineRiver (MadameDacquay ). to haul grain by trucks.The last time we looked, in [Translation] the province of Manitoba there was no road to Churchill. Alsoafternoon, this we have twenty-two Grade 6 students from the St. GeDDain School under the I would ask the Premier (Mr. Ftlmon) what direction of Mrs. Allanl. Thisschool is located in impact this will have on the Port of Churchill to the constituency of the member for Seine River have this massive reduction in transportation (Mrs. Dacquay). subsidies to the railways and the transfer of grain [English) by truckin tenns of thePort of Churchill? On behalf of all honourable members, I would Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and like to welcome you here thisafternoon. Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank • (1335) the member opposite for this kind of a question today because-[interjection] The member for ORAL QUESTIONPERIOD Dauphin(Mr. Plohman) is very right. Thisis a very seriousissue. It has hit us likelightning a bolt. We Grain TransportationProposal did not expect in any fashion that the federal Impact on Port of Churchill Liberal government would do what they aredoing Mr. (Leaderof theOpposition): Mr. to us today. Speaker, my questionis to therust Min ister. In my previous life as Minister of Agriculture, Since 1992, we have been opposed to the we talked about changing themethod of payment. reduction in support for the railways in the We never, ever talked about eliminating the transportation of grainthat was announcedin the payment. The past two federal budgets have original statement by Mr. Mazankowski in the eliminated 15 percent, and that is moving towards 3248 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

ourcommitment to theGA'IT process. Nowhere in Bon. GlenFindlay (MinisterHighways of and the GA'IT process was there any request that we Transportation): Mr. Speaker, what thiswill cost must eliminate the entire support to western the westerngrain industry is approximately $20 a Canadianagriculture. tonne, or 50 cents a bushel will be taken right out of their income side to pay for what the federal Thispresent Liberal govermnent is talking about government istaking away from westernCanada. doing away withsafety nets, which have kept grain farmers in business thelast four years and for the Boththe Minister of Agriculture(Mr. Enos) and nexttwo or threeyears. Now they wantto do away the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and our entire with the transportation subsidy. This is our government are very, very concerned about what birthright in terms of Confederation in western direction we are going in at this time. I want to Canada. table the letter thathas been sent to Mr. Young,the Minister of Transport, copy to Mr. Goodale, the Mr. Speaker,we have a U.S. government who is Minister of Agriculture, signed by both the out there maligning us all over the world in tenns Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enos), and myself, of whatwe aredoing in the industry,grain and we the Minister of Highways, laying out our very get a federal Liberal government that is playing serious concern that we will not accept this rightinto theirhands by takingaway our subsidies becausethis a is birthrightfor westernCanada, and that willcause us to collapse in westernCanada in ifthey follow through with this,it will shut down thegrain industry if they follow through with their the grainindustry in westernCanada . agenda thatMr. Young announced yesteiday. Rest assured, we as the provincial government GovernmentInte rvention did not put hundreds of millions of dollars into a safety netprogram to have a Liberal government Mr.Gary (Leaderof theOpposition): Doer Mr. come along and destroy the industry overnight. Speaker, members on this side of the House were opposed when Mr. Mazankowski made the first cut, andwe are further opposed with thismassive LegalOpinion cut by the year 1995. Mr. GaryDoer (Leader of theOpposition) : Mr. Mr. Speaker,after the GA'IT setof negotiations, Speaker, the federal Minister of Transport, who I the federal Minister of Agriculture said, and I think really does undermine our negotiating quote, thatno producer, no farmerwould lose any position with the Americans, has said that this is income as aresult of theGA'IT negotiations. GA'ITable and therefore it must be eliminated. Today, the federal Minister of Transport is Now, this isa federal minister, of course, whose saying that we will have a situation where $650 statements can be used as evidence by the U.S. million is reduced from the railways without any government. indication of what alternatives willbe in place for TheSaskatchewan WheatPool hasalready been grain. quoted as saying that it isnot GATTable, that it is I would askthe Premier(Mr. Filmon), will be not subject to GATT. We were not told after contacting the Prime Minister to get a handle on GATT was signed that this would be subject to the two conflicting messages from the Minister of GATT. Agriculture and the Ministerof Transport,and ask I would ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Does be the federalgovernment to putthis $650-million cut have any legal opinion that the Transport minister on bold, so we can have an intelligent debate in is absolutely wrong in his legal interpretation and and keep the payments to the is just using GA'IT as a way to eliminate $650 railway and keep Churchill viable in the province million to theproducers of western Canada, to the of Manitoba? railway wolkersof westernCanada and to the Port • (1340) of Churchillwhich relies on railway shipments? June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 324 9

Bon. GlenFindlay (Minister ofHighways and He bidin hisshell on thisissue becausedid be not Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to wantto go out onit. sent reada paragraphout of theletter that we have The reason is, first and foremost, there were The option of eliminating the WGTA bas never figures put out. Mr. Sbenkarow projected losses been discussed or considered in western Canada -they were well coveredin the book-that were GATT does not require its elimination. Only a 36 even in excess of what is in that estimate. This percent reduction over the next six years is government took that as a best-case scenario; that requiredin GATT. In thelast two federalbudgets, is,their best guess at theworst possi ble obligation. they have already eliminated 15 percent. The federalminister is absolutely wrongon this.It does Thisgovernment did it on the basisof one thing not require the elimination of theWGTA subsidy and one thing only, that the revenues to to meet the GATT. government from the operation of theteam here, thetotal revenues to thethree levels of government Mr. Speaker,what be basreally done issold out to American interests who are trying to kill our isdouble what the cost isestimated to be, even in grain industry in western Canada. He sold out the worst-case scenario. When you can make an completely. investment of $1 to get a returnin direct revenues to government and taxationof $2, we thought that was a reasonable businessproposition. TheWinnpeg Jets ProvindalObligation New Democrats may not believe that. New Democrats, of course, believe in investing $1 to Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, get 10 cents back, Mr.Speaker, but thatis not the yestenlay,after manyattempts by my Leader and way we do business. members of the caucus to get information on the • (1345) degree of potential liability the province faces in terms of its agreement with theWmnipeg Jets,the Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, of course, Manitoba Minister of Industry, Trade andTourism (Mr. taxpayers were not surprisedthat we did not leam Downey) tabled some figures that suggest that in that the liability was some $43 million to the 1991, the province and Premierthe of the province taxpayers of Manitoba. The Premier's comments knew that the province may be on the hook for about the economic benefits arelikely as bogus as

some $43.5million. hisclaim thatthe people knew that . At that time, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the Mr.Speaker, the factof thematter isthe Leader province and the mayor of signed a of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), my Leader, letter of endorsation, signed a letter that said we indicatedat the time that signing a blankcheque to give our personal endorsementto thispackage. the Wmnipeg Jets was wrong. On top of that, be said that we bad got no commitment to keep the Canthe Premier tell the people of Manitobawhy he did not identifywhat theprovince's obligations Jets. might be when besigned this agreement? Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Boo. (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I Minister. Given that Mr. Bettman bas now said findit a little unusual-I shouldnot findit unusual todaythat unless we build a newarena, therewill to see a degree of hypocrisy from the members be no major league hockey franchise in thecity of opposite on any issue, but on thisparticular issue, Winnipeg, given that we have now incurred the members opposite did not jump all over this issue losses, no guarantee of theJets staying and we are and say out loud that they were very opposed to being blackmailed into an arena, will the First this issue. No, no. The Leader of the Opposition Minister acknowledge this, that he got us into a (Mr.Doer) played possum on thisissue because he boondoggle that isgoing to cost us allmillions of said he didnot want to make this a politicalissue. dollars? 3250 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, over the period of the Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the agreement in which there was a potential risk of estimates that we used were the best available $43 million, $90 million comes back to the three estimates. 1bere were other speculative estimates levels of government-noteconomic benefitto the that were even higher that were put forward community, direct revenues to three levels of publicly, and themember knows full well. I invite government,a retumthat twice is as much aswhat him to just get press clippings from 1991 to find isput at riskin thisagree ment.That is the basis on them. which a decision wasmade. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister Mr.Storie: Mr. Speaker, willthe Premier answer says that they were speculative and thatthey were a furtherquestion? projections, and that is what he said yesterday. We have now not received a report from the Clearly, we are all very interested to see those Bums committee. Can the First Minister indicate because those were the things that were relied what it willcost the province, not only in terms of upon when this government entered the deal. We thelosses but anycommitment that bewill made in see the government's estimates of 43.5 over that termsof an arena?If the FirstMinister's objective period of time which has come forward yesterday of keeping the Jets here is fulfilled, what is the after threeyears of thedeal being in place. additionalcost to thetaxpayers of Manitoba? What were the estimates put in writing to the Mr. Filmon: No commitmenthas been made to an province and the city at the time this deal was arena, and we willcollectively make thatdecision entered into by the majority owners of the as to whether or not we can afford an arena in WmoipegJets? What was their estimate? Was it Manitoba for the benefit of all entertainment, more or lessthan what the government's were? sportsand anything elsethat may useit, including Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, these are the estimates theWmnipeg Jets, Mr. Speaker. If New Democrats that were based on the best information we could are opposed to it, they cansay so, andthey canbe get from all available sources, including the partof thedebate. majority owners. Mr. Edwards:My final uestion for the Premier: The Winnipeg Jets q The Premier bas consistently indicated that the Projected Losses rationaleat the timewas thatdouble the amount of Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second money being put at risk was going to be direct Opposition): My questionis for the Premier. benefit to the government. I think I have that correct.That is what hesaid yesterday and hassaid In response to the first question from the again today. member for F1in Pion (Mr. Storie), I thought I heardthe Premier say that Mr. Shenkarow had, in Mr. Mauro, in his report, found that 97 percent fact, put forward another set of estimates at the of the people who attend Jets games and are timethese negotiations were ongoing. responsible for the revenue of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey aub are Manitobans. That is money that Mr.Speaker, perhaps I could askthe Premier to ishere in the pocketsof Manitobans being spentto clarify. I believe he said that Mr. Shenkarow put support the WinnipegJets. forward worse estimates or different estimates than we saw yesterday after the deal has been in Will the Frrst Minister (Mr. Fllmon) give us an place for over three years. indication as to what bas to be factored out therefore of that $90 million, once you take Can the First Minister indicate what the account of allthat money being spent somewhere projections put forward by the majority owners else in thiseconomy? were at thetime that thesenegotiations were being undertakenin Novemberof '91? • (1350) June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3251

Bon. EricStefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. makejudges more accountable to thepubl ic, and, Speaker, tbisjust reconfirms what was being said in fact, the throne speech stated that judicial yesterday in terms of the Leader of the Second accountability is as essential as legislative Oppositionrequiring some economics courses. accountability. Again,tbis entertainme is nt moneythat is being My question to the First Minister is, can be spent by individual Maoitobaos. It couldbe spent explainthen, why, by abill now introducedto tbis on awhole range of other entertainment activities, House, there is tobe greater accountability when could be spent on going down to activities in the the government had just proposed increasing the UnitedStates, could be spent on holiday activities, power of judges on the Judicial Council while a whole rangeof optionsthat would be available to reducing the number of members of the general individuals whospend want to that money , money public? beingspent outside of Manitoba. Point ofOrder Here is an opportunityto keep that money here in our province, to maintain an economic engine Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): herein our province that generatewill $90million Mr. Speaker, there is a bill presently before the of directtaxation threefor levels of government Househaving had first reading, and I suspectthat Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable the member's question is out of order. There is Leader of the second opposition party, you put ample timefor debate of thebill when it isbefore your question, sir. The minister is attempting to the House for consideration. answerit Mr. Speaker: Onthe point of orderraised by the Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, asI have indicated, honourable government House leader, sir, I refer here is an opportunity for Manitobans to spend you to Beauchesne's 409(12): "Questions should their entertainment dollar, their personal dollar not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day, but here in ourprovince, a choice that they make to should bereserved for thedebate ." support an entity. It is done willingly. It is done At tbis time, sir,I do not know ifwe are calling because they want to participate in that particular activity. Billl5 or Bill16 underOrders of theDay.

As a result of that, it generates $90million over Mr. Ernst:Mr. Speaker, Bill 16, The Provincial six years of direct taxation to the three levels of Court Amendment Act, hasbeen, in fact,tabled in government,more than twice the pro jectionsof the the House, reada firsttime and isnow distributed, worst-case scenario losses during thattime factor. fromwhence themember drew his question. Thatnot is takinginto consideration the hundreds So it ismy undemtanding,and, of course,subje ct of jobs createdas aresult of theinv estment,the 36 to your ruling, Sir, that once the bill is properly percentinvestment in a $50-million asset and the before the House, which it has been as resulta of kindsof annualeconomic benefits that it brings to fiiStreading having takenplace andthe billhaving our province. beendistributed, that questions with respectto that bill are inappropriate, out of order, and debate JudicialSystem should range when the bill is called for that Accountability purpose. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker: Onthe point of order raised by the my questionis to theFirst Minister (Mr. Filmon). honourable government House leader, sir, at this Manitobans have had some increasing concern time, I am not being informed that Bill 16 is about how the misconduct of provincial court proceeding during Orders of the Day, therefore judges isdealt with underthis government, so the Beauchesne 's 409(12): "Questions should not Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) promised anticipate a debate scheduled for the day, but Manitobans that the law would be changed to should bereserved for thedebate ." 3252 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

I amof theopinion that we arenot debatingBill member's colleagues will recall we brought in 16 today, therefore the honourable member's amendments to The Provincial Court Act in a questionin is order. previous session which dealt with the issue of ••• appointments of membersthe of judiciary .

Bon.Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will We have a committeesystem in Manitobaunder take that question as notice on behalf of the which appointments are made, and that was brought in by thepresent government Previous to Ministerof Justice. that, inall of thoseNDP years,judges were chosen • (1355) atthe whim of the cabinet. Mr.Mackintosh: A supplementaly question, and theFirst Minister can er answ it now or later,or not Francophone Schools Governance at all if the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) Flexibility answersit Givenincreasing concems by Manitobans about Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I the independence of theprovincial court from the have a question for the Ministerof Education. cabinet, particularly in light of statements by the Last year, the government and the previous FirstMinister that- Education minister responded to the Supreme Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Themember for St. Court decision on Francophone education in the Johns,with your question. form of Bill 34, which was passed in this Legislature. Oneyear later, thereseem to bemajor Mr.Maddntosh: My questionis, is it government problems which have developed in its policy now that cabinet power to name implementation. investigators and members of theJudicial Council is proper? My question specifically is, does the This morning, I met with Francophone parents First Minister think our judges should be from Notre Dame de Lourdes who represent accountableto the cabinet,rather to than thepublic parentsof 110 studentswho have pleadedwith this of Manitoba? minister,to no avail,to finda way to accommodate Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable their cbildren'sneeds in a 50-50 program in Notre member's question seeks an opinion, therefore is Dame, but not part of the Francophonedivision. out of order. I want to askMinister the of Education whether The honourable member for St. Johns, kindly hecan tell theLegislature andthe Parentsfor a Fair rephraseyour question, sir. Education from Notre Dame whether the Mr. Mackintosh: What is the policy of this Francophone Schools Governance act, Bill 34, government with reganl to the accountability of draftedby his predecessor, is sufficiently flexible judges tothe public rathercabinet? thanto to deal with theplight of these 110 students whose parents do not wish to bepart of the Francophone Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, the policy of our division. governmentwith respect to thismatter is contained in Bill 16. Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister ofEduca tion and Training):This most sensitive issue hasbeen Mr.Mackintosh: My final supplementary, Mr. captured with respect to Bill 34. Bill 34, as Speaker, isto theFirst Minister. presented, allowed very little discretion on the Why doesBill 16 not dealwith appointments to Legislature, and I fullyindi cate, Mr. Speaker, this the bench to ensure that the public has greater was a bill that was brought before the House, access, that there is more opennessin theprocess , which, as I recall, received full support by the ratherperpetuating than thecabine t's power? House. It provided very little discretion for the Bon.James McCrae (ActingMinister of Justice ministry's office with respect to matters dealing and Attorney General): The honourable with governancein single-program schools. June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3253

Constitutional advice indicated that if the by the cabinet, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in­ government of theday was tohave anysignificant Council, I want to ask the minister, since the discretionbeyond the powelS of thecommunity to parents have waitedsince lastfall for thisminister vote through the registration process, indeed the to providesome kind of answer, some solution, for whole issue may once again be challenged and fairness for their children in Notre Dame de most certainly would be lost within the Supreme Lourdes, and they are now faci ng the middle of Court. June stillnot knowing what is going to happento Mr. Speaker, that is the basis of the history of their children--kids aregoing to have to bebussed Bill 34, andindeed, the gov ernment always hoped out of their own community-will this minister that common sense would prevail and that there now ensure that he takes action to provide a would be a meeting of two minds on this issue. solution thatwill meet allof theds, nee a common­ That hasnot happe nedto thispoint in time. sense solution in Notre Dame, a sharing of the • (1400) facili ties andservices? What arewe talkingabout? so Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, none of us should be Whatis difficult here? afraid of common sense thisin Legislature. We are Mr. Manness:Mr. Speaker, why did themember talkingabout simple commonsense and fairness. not express that view in debate on Bill 347 Why I want to ask theminister, is he now saying to did he not indicate at that time that a school can this Legislature that Bill 34 was so seriously only be governed by one authority7 1be member flawed thatthere is no regulationthat this minister opposite for Dauphin, indeedevery memberin this canbring in now to ensurethat the needsof those House who has beenwatching this very sensitive parents and those students-- 110--aremet in their own community, andthey do not have to bebussed issue over the course of the last three months, to other communities because of this legislation knows howhard the government has tried to find a this minister brought in? Is he saying it is so reasonable answer between theproviding division seriously flawed he cannot bring in a regulation to andindeed thenew division. deal withthat? We have used every power, every persuasive Mr. Manness: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying powerwithin our ability to try findand a common­ the -whichbill the membelS opposite supported, sensesolution, but thelegislation- by theway-is seriously flawed. WhatI amsaying is that the regulations that flow therefrom dealt An Honourable Member: Change your most specifically with putting into place the new regulations. governance board which put into place the whole Mr. Manness: No, no. It has nothing to do with election process.1bere has not been abill that has the regs,because theregs take their power from the been brought forward to this Legislature which legislation, and the legislation is very, very, very called so little upon regulation and therefore had specific. It says, Mr. Speaker, that within a single­ moreof the details spelledwithin itBill than 34. program school, those Section 23 parents who Thatis why, Mr. Speaker,when this Legislature, have a right to vote will detennine who governs amongstall parties, agreedto acceptit, it agreedto thatactivity of thatschool. accept basically all of the detail that was encompassed within that particular bill. So it was I know some may want to call into questionthe not that it was flawed. It was in keeping with the process of how the vote went, but nevertheless, constitutional advice thatwe received from many once the votes were cast, Bill 34 laid before lawyers who dictated that, once the votes took everybody the procedure with respect to what place, it had greatconsequence in allcommunities . happened after that. It is most unfortunate, Mr. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact Speaker, as you know full well, that common that thebill provides forthe making of regulations sense, up to thispoint, has not prevailed. 3254 LBGISLA11VE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

Economic Growth Port of Churchill StatusReport GovernmentCommitm ent

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage Ia Prairie): Mr. Mr. EricRobinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, Speaker,just yestelday,I was pleasedto learn that my question is also for the Minister of Salomon Brothers, respected investment dealer, Transportation. one of the most respectedinvestment dealers in the We have raised many questions during the United States, released a report which had high sessionconcernin g the Portof Churchilland a lack praise for the Manitoba governmenL 1bis flies in of commitment for our grain shipments this year. theface of thedoom andgloom we often hearfrom Since the ofMinister Agriculture hassaid that the membersopposite . death of Churchill wasimminent, canthe minister tell theHouse what actionbe has taken, aside from Just thismornin g, a respected radio announcer the letter that hasbeen tabled in the House to the in Wmnipe g, Peter Warren, said, and I quote: If federal transportation minister, andwhat plans are thismeans thatthe Filmoneconomic policies are in place with respect to dealing with the cuts following into lineNew and Yorkis listening, then announcedby thefe deral minister? Gary Doer and Paul Edwards bad better stop Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and playing cockof thewalk and start listening. Transportation): Mr.Speaker, we have beenvery My questionfor theMinister of Financeis, in the surprised at the lack of support that the fe deral face of this constant doom and gloom from Liberal governmenthas instituted since they came members opposite, what are the negative into power, after they had announced in the red implications for Manitobans of this cock-of-the book that they were going to export a million -walkattitude by pessimistic members opposite? tonnesof grainthrough the Port of Churchill.That is a level of commitment that we support, andwe Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. want to seeit happen. Speaker, I thinkthis is a very important question, The Liberal government has been exceedingly becauseit wasjust a coupleof weeksago whenthe quiet on this in recent montm, shown no effort to Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwanls) stood meet their commitment to export the million up with glee when the Canadian Bond Rating tonnes. We are very concerned about the Portof Serviceadj usted Manitoba's rating. Churchill, because there is no consistent fe deral I said at the time-and importantit isan issue support for thatport at this time. -the true test is the confidence that the people Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the have who sell your bonding, sell your paper, and same federal minister, the federal Minister of the people who buy your paper have in the Transport told me in a letter that it was not province. practical to guarantee volumesgrain at the Portof Churchill, given the fluctuating grain market and The reaction of Salomon Brothers is complete despite the election promise that has been verification of everything we have said. They mentioned by theTransport minister of a million speak very highly of Manitoba. They say we are tonnesof grain. one of two provinces in allof Canada deserving of My supplementary question is, what other a creditrating upgrade. products will be shipped out of the Port of The further proofof what Salomon Brothers is Churchill this year through the efforts of this saying is one week ago, Wood Gundy released government? their summary of the borrowing spreads of Mr. Findlay: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Port of provinces, and Manitoba bas the third-best Churchill is a fe deral commitment, a federal borrowing rate in all of Canada, behind only responsibility. The israil ownedby CN,which is a Alberta andBritish Columbia. federal Crown corporation. We areawaiting what June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 3255

commitments the federal government is going to care and also child protection services are not make about continuingthat port andusing the rail subjectto Bill 227 line; in fact, upgrading the rail line so further Ron. EricStef anson(Minister ofFinance): Mr. economic activities can happenin and aroundthe Speaker, I think in response to a similar question Port of Churcbill. not long ago, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicated that in certain situations, we are prepared to be ArcticBridge Agreement flexible with Bill 22 where there is arequirement Status Report to meetthe public need. Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, Ms. Gray:Mr. Speaker, with a supplementary to my finalquestion is to thesame minister. the Minister of Fmance: Does he not consider What happenedto theouncements ann madelast programs such as home care to the elderly and year by this government that the Arctic Bridge child protection servicesto children asthose being would produce 500,000 tonnes of grain being kindsof programs? shipped outof thePort of Churchill? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, ifthe member for Ron. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Crescentwood has specificexamples of the.kind of Transportation): Mr. Speaker, a study bas been application that she is referring to, I would done-itis ongoing-involving threedepartments welcome receiving them. of this government to determine where the opportunities exist in terms of a two-way trade We work with all of our departments in between Russia and the Port of Churcbill; in fact, government in terms of theapp lication of Bill 22 anywhere from the Portof Churcbill.That analysis andprovide them with the opportunity to come isongoing. We hopethere isgood news from that. forwardto addressany areas of concern, any areas Mr. Speaker, as I have said in answers to where it is not working, any areas where previous questions, the tourism potential up there adjustment needs to be made to meet thepublic is significantly good, and certainly the AKJUIT need and the requirements of the public. We are project is a very significantproject that is up and prepare d tocontinue to dothat. running, which we as agovernment support very, So if she has some very specific suggestions, verystrongly. specific examples of problem areas, we would be more thanpleased to look at them, Mr. Speaker. Health Care System Reduced Workweek Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary to theMinister of Finance. Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker,we Is the Minister of Finance saying then that no saw a welcome flexibility from the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) when he agreedto be more one within any of the departments has come flexible on Bill 22 in terms of allowing personal forward and expressed concerns about the care homes and hospitals to reduce their budgets application of Bill 22 as it relates to essential through other than Bill 22, and hospitals such as services? If he is asking for examples, is he then Ste. Rose,as anexample , are verypleased theyare suggestingthat no one in thecivil service bascome able to provide patient care and still reduce the 2 forwardand expressed concerns? percent in their budgets without jeopardizing Mr.Stefanso n: No, I did not for a minute suggest patient care . that no one did. The member for Crescentwood My questionis for the Ministerof Finance.Does indicated that there were some particular he support the rationale and logic used by the department areas that she was somewhat Minister of Health? Is he prepared to look at Bill concerned with, and if she has some specific 22 and expand the option such that essential examples in those areas-there have been some services in theDepartment of Health such ashome examples,but I haveto outline for thisHouse very 3256 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

clearly that, by and large, there are not many can be found, we would be doing the citizens of examples. Manitobaa greatdisse rvice.That why is I reject all Bill 22is working verywell. It is addressingthe of the suggestions of honourable members in the needsof all of thedepartments. It did lastyear save New DemocraticParty to hack andslash andbum us-and we have the final numbers-the our way throughhealth renewal. care government and the taxpayers of Manitoba $22 Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, it took three years million and theat same timepreserved 500 jobs for andthe Pro vincialAuditor toget thefigures on the Manitobans. potential losses for the Jets, and this ministeris refusing now to give us details about what the So Bill 22 has served the public, it served the government, andit served employees very well in government has cut in the hospital budgets in the tennsof meeting allof our needs. city of Winnipeg. Why is the minister refusing to provide this • (1410) infonnation to thepublic of Manitoba? Health CareFacilities Mr. McCrae:I do not thinkthere hasever been a Budgets time, Mr. Speaker, whenthis government or any Mr. Dave Chomiak (Klldonan): Mr. Speaker, I government in Manitoba has been more open in have in front of me a letter from the president of discussinghealth careissues with Manitobans and the Victoria Hospital to staff outlining the with consumers andwith health careproviders, not regrettable situation of the government budget only discussing and talking down to them as the cuts. Last week, we tabled a letter in the honourable member would like us to do, but Legislature from the president of the Health listeningto what they haveto say andacting upon Sciences Centre talking about the deplorable their advice. simationthat hasresultedfrom the government's Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final budget cuts. supplementary to the minister is, why is the My questionto the minister is quite simple. Will minister afraid to provide budgetary infonnation the minister nowat least provide this House and about the hundred-million-dollar cuts to urban the public of Manitobawith details of the budget hospitals? Is he afraidthat the public of Manitoba cuts, the $100-million budget cuts to thehospitals will not accept those cuts and the deteriorating in Wmnipeg? Will he atleast provide those details patient care? of thoseindiv idual cutsus to so we candis cussthis Mr.McCr ae: Mr. Speaker, theonly thing besides issue with ourconstituents? waiting for your ruling. from yesterday that really Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. frightens me iswhere we wouldbe if we followed Speaker, the fiscalreality we have in this country the advice of the honourable memberopposite and may be seen by the honourable member to be his colleagues andthose of hiscolleagues in other regrettable, may be seen by others to be provinces who have hacked and slashed their way regrettable, but it also presents us with an through in the name of health care renewal, the opportunity to address some long-standing health approach like the one used by the member for system deficiencies which have been allowed to Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) and his build up over the years, ashas also been toldto us colleagues at Brandon General Hospital in 1987, by hospital administrators, thatover the years we of hacking their way through Brandon General have allowed many,many practices to develop in Hospital andcalling that refonn. our hospitals and elsewhere, and we have an opportunitytoday to address those things. Point ofOrder I suggest that if we were to follow the Mr.Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On honourable member's advice and notaddress the a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the present waste in the health system andthe effici encies that Minister of Health should stop insulting the June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3257

previousMinister of HealthLarry Desj anlins,who Bon. Glen Cummings (Minister of I thought was a tremendous Ministerof Healthfor Environment): Mr. Speaker, in many cases, that the Province of Manitoba. is a judgment of the court. I can only point to a morerecent example that is probably asobvious as Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable any, the penalty under the stubble-burning member doesnot have a pointof older. regulation is upto a maximmn of about $1,325, I ••• believe, whichis very, very substantial. Mr.McCr ae: Maybethe honourable member will Therange of finesthat were, in fact, concluded ask me some questions about Larry Desjardins, under that section last fall ranged from $1 to because Larry Desjardins bas been extremely $1,325. That is a decision that the court in its helpfulto us in a nmnberof ways sincebe leftthe wisdom will make. I thinkthe memberperhaps is New DemocraticParty benches. challenging the court on the decisions they are making. EnvironmentalLegis lation Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions bas Enforc ement expired. Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, MATTEROF URGENT PUBLIC the Ministerof Environment, in Estimates, told us IMPORTANC E that last year, there was $43,000 collected by the government for environmental regulation Port of ChurchiB violations,but the minister went on to say that this is nota goodindication. Thetotal amountof fines Mr. EricRobinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, is not a good indication of government I rise on a matterof urgent public importance. enforcement or compliance with regulations. I move, secondedby themember for Thompson I would ask the minister to explain what (Mr. Ashton), that under Rule 27.(1) the ordinary indicators the government does useto evaluate its business of the House be set aside to discuss a environmentregulation enf orcementprogram. matter of urgent public importance, namely, changes to the structure of the Western Grain Bon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Transportation Act that threaten the future of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I do Port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay bayline not start off by attacking members of the along with the farmers in the catchment area for Departmentof Environment,as that member did at the Port ofChurchill. a public meeting about the capabilities of enforcement by the department. Mr. Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member for Rupertsland, I believe that I should This department, comparably across this remindall members that under ourRule 27 .(2) the country, is doing a very goodjob of enforcement, mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public and I amquite proud of theirrecord. importance and one member of each of the other parties in the House is allowed not more thanfive Fines Levied minutes to explain the urgency of debating the Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, matter immediately. canthe minister tell the House and explain, even Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I bring this matter though the total fines allowable under The forward today due to an ouncementann made by EnvironmentAct arein some cases upto a million the fe deral Minister of Transport that be is dollars, why is the total amount of fines only eliminating the Western Grain Transportation $43,000, and bow are the total fines detennined subsidy nextyear-a possi bilitythat is very strong when there is a violation under The Environment -a subsidy which basexisted for decades and bas Act? beenessenti al for the flow of grain to the Portof 3258 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

Churchilland for indeedthe majori tyof fanners in producers in Manitoba, indeed, to all people in thispro vince. Manitoba. If this decision is allowed to go ahead and if You have beanlour ministershere on thisside of indeedit becomes a reality,it could ruinthe future the House speakof the very great concern they of the Port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay have for the lingcripp effect thatthis action by the bayline. This isjust not another broken election federal government will have on grainproducers promise, Mr. Speaker, but one of the most here in our province. Eighty percent of the grain important policy changes to occurin agriculture produced in this province is exported under the andtransportation in decades. Manitobans deserve WGTA. That provides bundieds of thousands of a debate on such an important matter, and it is dollars into the pockets of prairie producers in criticalthat they get an ty.opportuni Manitoba, and thousands of jobs in the transportationindustry related to that. The Port of Churchill, Canada's only Arctic seaport, bas many important elements to it for the Mr. Speaker, the issue is certainly of great shipment of grain and other products. Also, the importance to thepeople of Manitoba, but I amnot spaceport project, which the Minister of sure that under Section 27 of our rules that you Transportation (Mr.Findlay) talkedon earlier in would beable to find that the matter would be in Question Period, depends on the bayline and the order.I suspect thatthe matteris out of orderunder port. Churchillbas the potential to grow directly in our rules because of other opportunities, but thenext few years pumping millionsof dollars into because it is so importantand because we onthis the Manitoba economy should the spaceport side feel itis so important, I would askthe member for Churchillto motion to set aside the projectcontinue togo ahead. amend his ordinary businessof today in orderto debate this I fear,like manyothers in thisChamber, thatthe important matter, and we will give unanimous eliminationof the graintransportation subsidy will consent. not just burt the shipment of grain from the Mr. (Second Opposition Churchill catchment area,but it will also burt our House Leader): Mr. Speaker, it is, in fact, largestindustries, agricultureand transportation, in abundantly clear through listening in Question Manitobaand western Canada . Period that there is genuine lack of knowledge Mr. Speaker, aside from that, the human inside thisChamber in tenns of what isgoing on element, such basicnecessities as groceries and withrespect to thefann ers,and this, in principle, is supplies to the bayline communities must be the reason why the Liberal caucus is going to considered; doctor and dental visits to support this in-an-emergency debate, because we communities on thebayline thatour people rely would like to bear exactly where it is that the on, people who live on the bayline rely on as a government and the New Democratic Party are basichuman right, those we believe arebeing put coming from. intoquestion. I think it isimportant, it isin fact in thepublic's I would like to thank you andmembers of this best interest, and I would quote right from the House for this opportunity to allow me to put this letterwhich theminister himselftabled, and this is matterto the floorof thisChamber this afternoon. the reason why it is in the public's best interest: Thankyou. ''The Producer Payment Panel appointed by the Federal Government bas been evaluating the • (1420) options of paying the subsidy directly to farmers Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): rather than to the railroads. This would promote Mr. Speaker, there is no question, I think, in further diversification in agriculture and more anyone'smind in thisChamber that this an is issue market responsive adjustment in the entire of extreme public importance to the grain agriculture andagri-business industry ." June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3259

Mr. Speaker, the minister said yesterday, from I acknowledgethat subject the of thehonourable what I understand: Federal Transportation member's motion is an extremely important one MinisterDoug Young said yesterdaythat Ottawa which affects all Manitobans, but I am not would end the practice of providing the railways convincedthat public the interestwill suffer if it is with a subsidy to transport prairie grain to port. not debated today. There are, in my opinion, other Instead, Young said, Ottawa should bepaying the opportunities for the honourable member for moneydirectly to producers. Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) to debate this issue: theEstimates of theDepartment of Highways and I believe thateven the government two days ago Transportation, which will underbe consideration. was infavour of trying to seemore money going Inadd ition, I notethat honourable the memberfor into pockets of the farmers as opposed to the Rupertsland could also raise this matter under railroads. It is only two days ago that the New Grievance as he has not used thertunity oppo for Democrats were yelling and yapping from their debate in thissession. seats to stop financing the big COipOrations. The railways are also coipOrations. Beauchesne'sOtation 387 indicates also that a matterof urgent public importance must bewithin What is important andwhat needs to be talked theve administrati responsibility of the provincial about hereis the toneed ensurethat the fannersof government. In this case, the responsibility rests are the province of Manitoba the benefactors of with the federal government. I amtherefore ruling any subsidy, and that is,in fact,what the Liberal that thematter isout of orderas amatter of urgent provincial caucus will ensure, that thedialogue public importance. and debatethe is going to bein thebest interests of the farmersof theprovince ofManitoba, not what Despite the procedural shortcomings I have isin thebest interests of theNew Democrats,who drawn to the attention of the House, I note that are so low in the polls-it will only be by a few there is a gnesswillin to debate thismatter today. percentage points from the Conservatives-as to Therefore, the question before the House is, shall why thatlikely is the reason theywhy broughtthis thedebate proceed? particular issue up. In the sense of trying to Some HonourableMembers : Agreed. broaden the knowledge of the official opposition Mr.Speaker: It is agreed. party and to hopefully get the government behaving in a more responsible manner, we are Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wantto thank the more than happy to enter into that dialogue this members of thisHouse for allowing thisdebate to afternoon. carry on. We, on this sideof the House, view the matterbef ore us asvery important. Mr.Speaker: I would like to thankall honourable members fortheir advice asto whetherthe motion I would like to begin my few comments this proposed by the honourable member for afternoon by readingletter a and putting on record Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) should be debated a letterI received on the 6th of Januacy based on today. I did receive the notice required underour inquiries I made to the federal Minister of subrule 27.(1). Transport. According to Rule 27 and Beauchesne's In his letter he says: "At the outset, I should Otations 389 and 390, thereare twoconditions explain that decisions concerningthe ports through which must bemet in order for a matter of urgent which grainis exported aremade by the Canadian public importance to be proceededwith. They are: Wheat Board on the basis of marketing (a) the subject mattermust be so pressing that the considerations as theBoard pursues its objectiveof ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it maximizing returns to producers. It isgovernment to be brought on early enough; and (b) it must be policy not to interferein these decisions. shown that the public interest will suffer ifthe "'t isnot practical to guarantee grainvolumes at matteris not givenimmediate attention. the Port of Churchill given the fluctuating grain 3260 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

ma.Iket.1be port's traditional customers bave not 1be fact istbat the Port of Churchill can save been buying grain in recent years. Efforts to prairie farmers on transport costs compared to diversify the cargo base from, grain particularly Thunder Bay and St.the Lawrence Seaway. with Russia, bave not been successful to date. I The Liberal agenda also went on to say that should note that other ports are experiencing using Churchill is also a sound environmental similarhardships. Annual grain trafficof attheend policy. Shorter distances mean less consumption September 1993 was down a total of 4.7 million of fossil fuels, and thrivinga port and maintenance toones ascompared to September 1992 at the ports of the rail linecould pave the way for economic of QuebecCity, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. diversification of Churchill. Port facilities and a • (1430) rail linkmake it a leading world contender as a "The Port ofChurchill is reviewing allexpense spaceport satellite launching centre, and new components underits control to ensure thatcosts opportunities in northern tourism also depend are directly related to the level of activity at the heavily on theconti nuation of the line.rail port. Efforts to control costs will ultimately Then they conclude by saying: Therefore, improve the port'scompetitive ness. ManitobaLiberals will press a newgovernment for "As the government has a responsibility to look the export of a million tonnes ofgrainthrough the seriously at the long-term outlook of the port, Portof Churchillyear. each Transport Canadacontinues to gatherinformation Mr. Speaker, those promises were made by the which will be taken into consideration when the ManitobaLiberals in lastyear's federal campaign. decisions about the future of the port are made." Thissigned is by thefederal Minister Transport, of Again,I would liketo reiterate in thisHouse that theHonourable Douglas Young. this matter is brought forward today due to the announcement by this Minister of Transport that I would like totable that letter now for members he quite possibly will beeliminating theWestern of the House. Grain Transportation subsidy next year. This Mr. Speaker, I would like to alsoquote fromthe subsidy hasbeen around for decades andhas been ManitobaLiberals ' agendafrom 1993 in which the essential for the flow of grain to the Port of Liberal agenda said that theof Port Churchill has Churchill; indeed. the majority of farmers in this beenone of thevictims of nine yearsof do-nothing province will affectedbe by it. Tory economicpolicy. Whereworld-weary Tories I would like to also put on the record that the see a lost cause, Manitoba Liberals see an port has lost money almost every year since 1988 opportunity. The Liberal policy on Churchill is with tonnage as low as just 50,000 tonnes. The anchored in a very straightforwaro set of facts. previous federal government did a secret study on Prairie grain producers bave the opportunity to the future of the port which has never been export theirproduct through a port situated closer released. according to my understanding, anyway. to their fanns, closer to major export markets and Also, duringthe last fed eral election, the Manitoba which is simply lesscostly than theSt. Lawrence people-! would like to reiterate that a million Seaway or the West Coast. Churchill makes tonnesof grainwould begoing through the port. economic sense for prairie farmers and also for Manitoba. As of today, Port Manager Allan Johnson has hadno word from the Canadian Wheat Boaroand Still with the Manitoba Liberal agenda, Mr. just 15 tradespeople are worlcing at the elevator Speaker, they go on to say that Churchill is today. He is also concerned about the upcoming approximately 1,270 kilometres from Prince layoffs at the CNRon and thebayline . Albert, butMontre al ismore than 3,500 kilometres away via Thunder Bay and also the seaway. It is , the Minister of Transport, of more than 800 kilometres closer to Churchill than course, said yesterday that the Western Grain to Montreal. Transportationsubsidy, whichhas been paying out June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3261

some $600 million eachyear, must be eUminated Mr. Speaker,history is fullof countriesthat have because of GATT. Also, the same minister gone to war for a port like Cburcbill, andthis, of previously endorsedthe CN-CP merger, thelayoff course, is part ofour democraticbirthright to have of section crews on the bayline, and wrote to the Port ofChurchill in our province and at our myself saying, again, as I said earlier: "It is not disposal. So I am pleased today that we have an practicalto guaranteegrain volumes at thePort of opportunity todebate this issueall andthat parties agree because it is very important that thefederal Olurcbill.•.• " government understand very simply that we Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are not only cannot have a situation where the subsidy to the talkingabout thePort of Cburcbillbut also indeed railways is diminished and reduced and even western Canada, Manitoba, and the people that reduced to the extent promised by the federal live on a bay line willdrasti be callyaffected ifthis Minister of Transport yesterday in the House of occurs. Commons committee andthat the alternative is to Mr. Speaker, I honouredam indeed to speakon ship our grainby truck. this issue on behalfof thepeople of Cburcbill, and (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the I would thinkon behalfof the peopleof Manitoba Chair) andwestern Canada There is no road to the Port of Churchill. The Thankyou, Mr. Speaker. alternative of having grain transportation only by Mr.Gary Doer (Leader of theOpposition) : I am truck, I would suggest, would mean, as the pleased to join-1 did not want the debate to Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) bas said, the adjourn afterone speakerbecause I lotknow a of imminent death of the Port of Churchill, members on our side want to speakto this issue, unfortunately for theshipment of grain through that magnificent facility that we have on our and knowI a lot of other membersin theChamber northernshores. want to speak. I, first of all, believe that allof us sincerely thewant Port of Churchillto survive and I was firstinform ed aboutthe Port of Olurcbill to be stronger, and I believe and I think we saw andwas educatedabout thePort ofCburcbill by an witnessedtoday an all-party consensus to proceed old friendof mine, who is a personnamed Eddie withthis debate. Johanson, and be is a resident of ThePas that bas beeninvolved in thePort ofChurchill efforts since I understand the Liberal House leader said that afterwar. the therewas more infoimation to beput on thereCOid. Any information we canget, any security that we I can still remember the speeches from Ed canget in thisHouse that Port the of Churchillwill Johanson. Vive le nonl, be used to say and talk be saved, that it will beenhanced, that it will be about the vision of northern Manitoba He would maintained, that it will be part of the vision of infoim us of the great exploits of the fur trading Manitoba,would make us veryhappy. industrythrough our beautiful rivers, and wouldbe talk about the tremendous vision that we have to Mr. Speaker, the Golden Boy on top of this have for the Port of Churchill and the kind of Chamber faces north, and PremierPremier after investment we have to make to make that vision and governments after governments have always bold true forour province. believedthat the vision of thisprovince, thefuture of this province believes in a strong northern We were critical of the previous fe deral vision forthe province of Manitoba government in 1992. We did not support the original Mazankowski decision to reduce by 10 Arewe not lucky in theprovince of Manitoba to percent in the '92 budget the transportation have a port that basaccess to the sea right in the subsidies to western Canadian producers. We middle of this beautiful country of Canada and further did not support that when that was right in Manitobain teimS northernof Manitoba? entrenchedin thebudget, thelast Mulroney budget 3262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

of 1993. We were critical. We were critical to numberof peoplewho are working in railwayjobs. membenopp osite.We askedthem questions about We havepeople all along thebayline wotking in railway jobs. We asked them questions about railway jobs. So this does not only hit the shipment of grain through the ports in the United producer; it alsobits people wotkingin therail line States rather thanthePort of Churchill. We asked industry. questions about what this would mean for The government's own study indicated that if producers,and we werevery concerned aboutthis we proceedwith the reduction in this subsidy, we issuein 1993. will see greater transportation of grain from the • (1440) United States.We wouldsee agreater loss of grain Again in 1994, when the federal government transportation with the railways, andwe would see announced a further reduction, a virtual xerox a $50-million cost in terms of highways in copy of the Mazankowski decisions, in the first Manitoba with the increased trucking that was liberal budget, we were extremely disappointed. predictedby the report. We have not changed our position on this issue. Finally, MadamDeputy Speaker, this will be a We believe the existing transportation policies in great, greaterosion of the role of Churchillin the Canada make sense for a country like Canada, Manitoba economy with the loss of grainthrough which is a very distant country. We need a the support program intransportation. sovereign transportationpolicy in Canada. We We were not told in December of 1994 thatthe need regulateda transportation policy in Canada. GATT deal would mean the end of the programs We have adistant country. We have a country that for transportation in western Canada. It was only does not have the population base of European shortly after that that the federal government countries and the United States. We do not have started to hint that meetings that actually were the federal Treasury necessarily of the United held, I believe, in January of this year that the States, and we need a sovereign transportation federal government was starting to interpret the policy which we believe goes along with a GATT agreement to mean that transportation sovereign food policy in western Canada That is programs badto becut. what we believe in. So, when we raised the I cannot imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a question in '92 andwe raised thequestion in '94, we believe we are being absolutely consistent on weaker position to go to the Americans on the what we believe. actual action that they are bringing forward on Wheat Board and transportation policies than a Thepractical implications of thispolicy change, federal minister of the Crown saying that these Madam Deputy Speaker, are very serious for things arecontrary to GATT. I mean, how do you Manitoba.The government has already pointedout possibly argue in front of the U.S. tribunals that the potential loss of 50 cents a bushel with a our grain industry issoverei gn andnot GATTable reduction of the $650 million. enFann in western and not NAFrA-able because in fact it stands on Canada cannot afford another reduction in the its own two feet and it is just a made-in-Canada costs that they get for their products. They are solution for our transportation challenges and for already getting hammeredon the oneside for input the challenges of producing fo od for the world costs and on the other side for price for their from ourgreat western provi nces? products. We cannot see another massive Madam Deputy Speaker, to hear a federal reductionin income for western Canadian fannen. Minister of Transport yesterday say that this is Manitoba also bas a situation where many now goingto be GATTable and thatwe therefore people working directly and indirectly in the must reduce thisby $650 million by the year 1995 railway industry existright alongmany of our rail is absolutely unconscionable. I believe thefe deral lines,right along thecommunity ofWmnipeg with Minister of Tramport should resign. He should be the two major railways. We have a very high fired from cabinet, because he has no right June 9, 1994 LEGISLAllVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3263

weakeningthe Canadianposition on grain, andbe Churcbill. I everybodyurge tojoin in on this great has no right continueto hisassault on the Port of resolutionhere today. Thankyou. Chmchill. Madam Deputy Speaker: Priorto recognizing At aprevious committeemeeting of Parliament the honourableMinister of Agriculture(Mr. Enos), this transportation minister said be is not I would justlike tohonourable remind all members responsible for moving grain through the Portof that, accolding toRule 27.(4), each member who Churchill. He accepts no responsibility for the wishesto take part in thediscussi on in a matterof promise made by the ManitobaLiberals in good urgent public policy is limited to 10 minutes conscience in the last federal election to ship a debate. million tonnes of grain through the Port of Bon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Chmchill. Hesays be has no responsibility to do MadamDeputy Speaker,I ampleased to have this this.He will justlet thegrain go where will,it and opportunity toengage in this debate. I think there our sourcesin the ontransportati industrysay that is something very important that is being said in this government wants to ship more and more this Chamber when Her Majesty's official grainthrough the seaway, not through thePort of opposition and the government indeed find Churcbill. themselves in a nonpartisan way accepting the 1bey are more concerned about the culture in responsibility of the seriousness of this situation Quebec right now than they are concerned about and in fact debating on the same side on this jobs here in the Port of Churchill andManitoba. I particularissue . hope that is wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker, Let me make it very clear that there are, of because it is certainly not very good for our course, two issues that the resolution before us province. presents the Chamber with, that is, the specific We have met withthe people of Churchill.We issue of the maintenance of the Port of Churchill, have met withpeople allalong thebayline, andfor and Iciate appre themover of theresolution for this every argument that CN can put in place against emergency debate bas a specialinterest, as we all the Port of Churchill and against the bayline, we have, in themaintenance of the Portof Churchill. know there are 10 to 100 arguments in favour of Quite frankly,the Leader of theOpposition (Mr. that line. Doer) spoke eloquently in that regard about the future vision, the importance that we should not It hasthe capacity to cauygreater weights. It has lose sight of with respect to that site, recognizing the capacity to cauythe bigger hopper cars. It has the capacity to handle more ships in two-way the immedia�and even in the immediate past, transportation. It has the capacity to bethe type of you know, economic difficulties and the cost that port that our forefathers and foremotbers taxpayers of Canada, taxpayers of Manitoba have envisioned when they courageously set up the badto pay in the maintenance of that port. It isnot Hudson Bay Route Associationand the Friendsof the first time that we have been called upon to Churchill years ago. cauy for a while the concept and idea, a project even thoughit is not necessarilyreturning dollars We just celebrated the 50th anniversary last to the federal or provincial treasuries. summer of the Port of Churchill, and it is an the case of Manitoba, we have taken very absolute disgrace that there is not one ship In strong positions. My predecessors in committed today for the Port of Churchill in this transportation, present and past, and the the51 st yearof that magnificentport. government as awhole-we understand thatthere Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe in are, for instance, in these few areas alone, maintaining a sovereign transportation policy in opportunities for that northern port. Tourism westernCanada for ourproducers. We wantjobs in certainlyshould not beoverlooked. When welook the railway, and we wantthe future of the Portof at what is happening in northern tourism, and the 3264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

equal type of tourists that are being attracted in alternatives? That is avery critical questionto ask greaternumbers to the North, to Yellowknife and about thePort ofChurc bill. places like thatis That certainly an opportunity for We needsomething otherthan just grain,in the us that weooly are beginning to scratchthe surf ace long term, to move throughthat port, particularly a on. backhaul that could well involve the countries of We think that together with the federal Russia and the Ukraine, which are, by the way, government in establishing a national patk-as it Madam Deputy Speaker, not unfamiliar with was my privilege to take the first step in that northern waters. They live and know what direction by setting aside a very substantial area conditions arein theirnorthern ports ofMurmansk for the formation of a nationalpatk-could addto and others , to name some. So coming to the that tourism thrust that we should all be northern Port of Churchill is not unfamiliar to endeavouring, that could well generate hundreds them, andthey in fact have been, over thepast, our and thousands of people coming to that part of most steady customeiS thathave used that facility. Manitoba So that isreason enough forus not to allow just a • (1450) unilateral actionis that being contemplated by the federal government to take place. We are of course keeping our fingeiS crossed I think collectively, and we wish the local Thisnot is to beconfused, for instance, with the organizationin theChurcbill areaevery success in action thattook place, I believe, by another Liberal the possible reinvigorating of the rocket site that government when it shut down the railway onthe we have at Churchill. Members are aware that province ofNewfoundland.But that was only done significant wodc is being undertaken both by the after lengthy negotiations and, quite frankly, a private and publicthe sector in thatevent, which I fairly substantial arrangement whereby I believe am pleased to be part of a government that is some $400 million was provided by the fe deral supporting it, and that could spell-again, these government to provide other alternative routes of are ifs andmaybes, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, transportation andhighways in lieu of the monies we have to live in hope. We have to have faith in that the federal government was providing in a the future of our province, because ifwe do not railway service on the island, on Newfoundland, have it, who elsewill? that wasnot economic. I think this calls for a demonstration of faith, That is the kindof arrangement that maybe we continued hope,that atleast there aremoves afoot should belooking fo r, andin fact arelooking to, if that make this continuous support on our part for we are goingsee to the substantive changes that we the Port of Churchillnot just wishfuldreaming or know are happening to the Western Grain hope or faith, but there arein fact some physical Transportationpolicy program. things that are happening right now that are My colleague the Minister of Transportation moving towards that direction. The efforts to (Mr. Findlay) isabsolutely right when he says we reinstigate lifein therocket site is oneof them. have, on many occasions, acknowledged the I want to indicate that while it was not my concern that has been expressed by some of our privilege, but I know that the trade minister-! chief trading partners, notably the Americans, believe the former Minister of Finance, my about the Crow or about the WGTA, but never in Premier, in a visit to the Soviet Union, to the our discussions have we talked about not providing Ukraine,came back with some serious discussions some ongoing and continuing support to western andhopes thatmay there well belong-term future agriculture. That is what is so disconcerting, trade opportunities developing between those MadamDeputy Speaker, thatwe have thisobvious countries, and certainly, as the member for lack of liaison between two senior federal Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) asked, what other ministers, the Minister of Transport and the June 9, 1994 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3265

Minister of Agriculture, that is taking place in Mr. Goodale has assured our major trading Ottawaright now. partner,the United States,that, for instance, we are preparedunilaterally, to in fact, change the Crow We are preparing to host the national benefit with respect to any grain that possibly agricultural meeting here inWmni peg in a very could move into their marlcets. We have talked short while, the weekfirst of July. I know thatthe openly aboutthe change. Mr. Goodalesaid has and federal colleague Mr. Goodale will be, among puton public recOidthat-and do I not blame him many other things, discussing the wide range of for this-while he has accepted the former agricultural support programs to agriculture at Minister of Agriculture's, Mr. CharlieMay er's these meetings, including possible changes or move and position on appointing a producer's shiftswith the dollars thatOttawa hasfor so many panel tostudy the nature of change that shouldtake years--since Confederation just about, or very place, he hasacknowledged-and as I say, I do not closeto it,about 90 years-acknowledged that this fault him, he is not necessarily bound by that form of support forthe westem agriculturalbase of advice--but he will certainly listento it and take this great country of ours was appropriate, was the time to listen to it.is What important right now justifiable, in lieu of some of the decisions that is that we have to take the time to listen to this were made that, quite frankly, aided andabetted important debate. the industrial buildup of the central provinces, notably Ontario andQuebec. Mrs.Sharon Carstairs (River Heights) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I amdelighted to join with the This was our share of the Confederation pie, if other two parties in this debate this afternoon, you like. So, for thatto befundame ntallychanged because it is a critical debate, not only to the without consultation, is really quite uncalled for province of Manitoba but, I would suggest, to all andquite unacceptable. western provinces and certainly to all grain MadamDeputy Speaker, withthose commentsI producersin westernCanada want to assure honourable members that I will It is interesting. I woke up this morning in certainly be in concert with all of my colleagues, Calgary and, as aresult, I have read a number of but as Minister of Agriculture will be keenly newspapers today. It started with the Calgary interested in the developments, particularly aswe Herald. I got on theplane and readI the Globe. I have the opportunity in a few short weeks to lay thengot theFinancial Post, andthen I headedinto thismatter directly before my fellow Ministers of Winnipeg and picked up the Free Press. What Agriculture as we gather in theual ann national there is clearly in all of the newspapers is agricultural ministers' meeting here in July and confusion, serious confusion aboutwhat it is that willhave inour presence the federal minister, Mr. the federal government said yesterday. Of what Goodale, as well, to try to put this issue into they said, there are some things that seem to be perspective. apparent. There may be some disagreement, but I In the meantime, I think it is a most valuable am doing my best to read what I have been usage of ourtime in thisChamber to spenda bit of presented withtoday. time so thatthere can nobe doubt left,not just to My firstdisagreement seems to be thatthere has the ministers involved, Minister Young and Mr. not been, apparently, any discussion at the federal Goodale, but to the 12 Liberal members of cabinet table about this particular matter. I think Parliament who represent Manitoba in Ottawa. I we have to believe the Minister of Agriculture, want, whether it is the member representing the , who says this has not yet been Brandon area or the Dauphin area or urban broughtto cabinetfo r a decision-makingprocess . members here, St. James and so forth, and our ministersrepresenting the province, to have a very Mr. Enns: I hope you right.are clearunderstanding of theimportance of thisissue. Mrs. Carstairs: Well,the Minister of Agriculture There will change.be We accept that. for our province says, hehopes I amright. Well, I 3266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

thinkwe allhope I amright, quite frankly,because thanthe SL Lawrence Seaway or the West Coast. obviously thereto needs bemuch more input into Churchill makes economic sense for prairie this discussion than the federal Minister of farmers andfor Manitoba. For example, Churcbill Transport presentlyhas in his understanding of the is approximately 1,270 kilometres from Prince importance of thePort of Churchillto the province Albert, but Montrealis more than3,500 kilometres of Manitoba and the importance of the grain away viaThunder Bay andthe seaway. transportationsubsidy. Murmansk, Russia is an important destination TheMinister of Agriculttuethe for province has for Canadian grain exports. It is more than 800 goneon reconltoday, as hehas in thepast andas kilometres closer to Churchill than to Montreal. hispredecessor has in the past,in recognizing that The simple fact is that the Port of Churcbill can thereis going to have to besome change. Change save prairie farmers ontransport costs comparedto is inevitable. We have entered into a new global Thunder Bay and the St. Lawrence. Using maiket strategy, andchange must occur. But what Churchill is also sound environmental policy. must not occur,and I think partiesall three have to Shorterdistances mean less co nsumption of fossil be in agreement in this, if nothing else, is that fuels. monies presently being used for agriculture in A thriving port maintenance of the whichever ways they are being given must and rail line could pave theway for economic diversificationin continue to begiven to agriculttuein thiscountry. Churchill. Portfacilities and arail linkmake it a Inthis, I thinkI have no disagreement. leading world contender as a spaceport satellite • (1500) launching centre. New opportunities in northern I have heanlin this House a number of claims tourism also depend heavily on thecontinuation of about the 100,000 or 100 million-what is it? therail link. -one million tonnes of grain through thePort of Yet, the rail link andallof its spin-offbenefits Churchill. I have heanlit referredto as aprom ise. depend on grain exports through the Port of I have heanlit referredto aspart of the book, red Churchill. The port requires 600,000 tonnes per but in fact it isnot in the red book. But it is very year to break even. However, in last years it has clearly in a statement of the then-members of seen less than 300,000 tonnes. The port could Parliament, Liberal members of Parliament, from easily handle one milliontonnes per year without the province of Manitoba. I want to put that expensive upgrading of either the rail linkor the statement in the reconl because I can assure the portfacility itself. members of this Chamber that those same M.P.s, all of whom wereelected andjoined bya number Exciting opportunities are within reach for of colleagues, will be held accountable for this Churchill. For example, talks are underway on statement, not only by members of this barter arrangements with Russia which would see governmentor membersof the official opposition, Canadian grain exports paid for with phosphate but members of theLiberal caucus . rock. Churchill could bethe linchpin in substantial two-way trade flows between the Prairies and the This is what they had to say. The Port of new democracies of Europe. Churchill hasbeen oneof thevictims of nine years of do-nothing Tory economic policy. Where Therefore, Manitoba Liberals will press a new world-weary Tories see a lost cause, Manitoba government for the export of a million tonnes of Liberals see an opportunity. Liberal policy on grainthrough the Port of Churchill each year. That Churchill isanchored in a very straightforwanl set isa policy, Madam Deputy Speaker, with which I of facts. Prairie grain producers have the am in full agreement andwhich I can support and opportunity to export their product through a port which I think all members of this House can situated closer to their farms, closer to major support. This is the policy that this government export markets and which is simply less costly must beheld accountable to. June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3267

Now, whatexactly happened yesterday? Well, I then this debate will have been a very positive think we bad a minister at the federal level, contributionto thislegislative session. Transport Minister Doug Young, who said a I think allof us in this Chambershould put our number of things. He said be would end the views on the record today insomuch as it is practiceof providingthe railways with a subsidyto possible. I know there are some members who transport prairie grain to port, but be also said have other commitments and who cannot be in Ottawa wouldpay themoney directly to producers here this afternoon to make those presentations who could then use the funds to pay for the -but manyas of us aspossible of all threeparties, ttansportationof theirchoice . so thefederal gov ernment canbear one voice from If, indeed, those statements mean that all of the Province of Manitoba. a clear voice on this· those fundsare going to be remaining withinthe issue from the Province of Manitoba. Thank you, agricultural community, then I have some Madam DeputySpeaker. concerns as to the transfer, but I am concerned Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and about the dollars going into an alternative Transportation): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is program.That my is big concernright now. indeed unfortunate that we have this situation in An Honourable Member: He did not say any of frontof ustoday . tbal As Minister of Agriculture for a number of years, there no question thata lot of discussion Mrs. Carstairs: Young said Ottawa would pay is the money directly to producers who could then tookplace on WGTA andhow that shouldbe paid in the use the fundsto pay for thettansportation of their future. choice. He did not indicate thatthe money would Madam Deputy Speaker, the previous federal be usedfor analternative purpose, and that isthe government formed a producer payment panel to critical issue, I think. analyzewhat isthe rightway to paythat money out I thinkit isalso clear, however, that bedid catch in western Canada That money bas been paidin the Agriculture minister at the federal level by western Canada since 1897. Members opposite, particularly those from urban communities, must some surprise, who felt there was not any such understand that we consider it a birthright in discussion. He said, for example, and Ralph western Canada. Federal monies and effort for Goodale said, a decision on themethod ofpaying decades were devoted to supporting the subsidies under the Western GrainTransportation manufacturing, processing industries in central Act isstill 12 to 15 months away. He said beis still Canada. The jobs were there, the population is waitingfor a reportfrom the Tory-appointedpanel there and western Canada harvested natural reviewingpossible changes to the way the subsidy resources. There was support to our ability to ispaid. That panel basbeen asked to analyze what export those raw resources, particularly effects the recently signed General Agreement on agricultural products, to help us get those Tariffsand Trade willhave . commodities to salt water, whether it was I thinkwhat we must do in thisdebate today is to Churchill or Thunder Bay or whether it was make it veryclear to the federal government that Vancouver. Thatbeen bas abirthright of oursfor a Manitobans, as represented by all three parties in long, long time. this Chamber, want a guarantee that the monies There werecertainly arguments that maybe the will stay within the agricultural community. We farm community was not responding in terms of want a guarantee that furtherdiscussions will take diversifying to where the ruralmarkets are andto place with the governments of all of the prairie where there were strong worldpri ces versus weak provinces with respect to any changes prior to world prices. That is why the discussion about those changes being made. I think if this debate whether the payment of that monies would be today can lead to those two positive conclusions, better done in some other fashion than direct to 3268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

railroads, but thatbeen bas abirthright of western jumpto thenext paragraph is which a quote: Under Canadian farmers, agriculture and certainly for the new tradingarran gements thereis no room left ruralManitoba. for traditional types of subsidies. Along the way, Europe got started in its export Madam Deputy Speaker, that is absolutely subsidies andcertainly startedto distort the world wrong. The GAIT process has talked about grain trade. The United States got into it big time reducing trade-distorting subsidies by some 36 in the mid-1980s with the Export Enhancement percent over six years, and the last two federal Program.Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the worst budgets have reduced the WGTA subsidies by trade-distorting subsidy that ever existed in the some 15 percent. So we arewell along the path of history of theworld. meeting those trade requirements, and we can continue to meet those over the next number of To see the current United States administration years. That isclearly theGATT rule. with their Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Espy, talkingabout the terrible trade-distorting subsidies MadamDeputy Speaker, for the federalminister of the Canadian grain industry, flies in the factof to say, we must get it readimmediately is not the reality, where they arethe creators ofthe greatest truth at all. That is why certainly I am not atall trade-distorting subsidy in the world, the EPP happy with whatis going on. Ifthere isconfusion program. To have himdown inMexico and Brazil out there, it bas been created by Mr. Young and talking about theterrible Canadiam andwhat they Mr. Goodale not being in sync. Ifthey have not aredoing, well, heis doing theworst thing possible discussed it at cabinet, I am astounded that one and saying thatwe are somehow the architects of would go out and talk like this. That is our ownproblem . unacceptable. I thinkevery memberin thisHouse understands the sensitivity of this issue, the • (1510) significantsensitivity. I am really disappointed that the federal Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): They must be government has not been more proactive in using some rookies. defendingwhat is the basis westernof Canada, our capacity to produce and export the best quality Mr. Findlay: Well, you can get up-themember grain to the world, particularly wheat. for Dauphin--andsay that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to add further Madam Deputy Speaker, the discussion, the evidenceto theHouse of what Mr. Goodale saidin producer payment panel and the processor in is The Globe and Mail is undoubtedly what he stillongoing. Thefirst report bas beenput in to the thinks. Whetherit isgovernment policy or not,that federal Minister of Agriculture and a subsequent is for them to decide and eventually clarify reportis to follow. becausethen theymust. But Mr. Young made his Mr. Young was very clear in his statement in speech last Friday in Thunder Bay to kick off TheGlobe and IMail. know themember for River NationalTransportation Week,which is thisweek. Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) has commented there is Thisdated is June 3. Thisright is straight from the confusion in the paper. Absolutely I agree with federal government. her. There is confusion in the paper. I mean, The He goes on to identify a lot of subsidies that go Globe andMail-if anybody should get it right, it on in the transportation industry. He is talking should be The Globe and Mail. Let me read what about $1.6 billion of subsidiesin thetransportation they said. industry, andhe lists six of them. The very first one The transportation department will stop paying he identifies is $590 million spent on the Western grain freight subsidies next summer because they GrainTransportati on Act. Later on, he goes on to willno longer beallowed under theUruguay round talk about, well, we have to give the taxpayer a trade agreement. Mr. Young told reporters break. haveWe to have a reality check andrealize yesterday that government paid-sorry. I will thatthis cann ot go on forever. June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3269

So there is no question, althoughhe did not say have talked about it in cabinet or they have not it exactly in this speech, thatthinking his is there talked about it in cabinet. Tbis is not the sort of are toomany subsidies. We cannot do it anymore. thingwe needto have floatingaround, thiskind of For Treasuryreasons, we have toreduce these . He uncertainty. talks about commercializing thewhole Transport What bas really happened here is the federal department, the federal Transport department, government saying in westem Canadayou have to which bas alot of implications, not only in the beable to pay your costsin the grainindustry. You so grain industry, but airtraffic control and many have to survive on the world market. In other otheraspects of TransportCanada words, our grain farmers in western Canada, So, clearly, he is on a mission to save money. particularly ourwheat producers, have to be able Some of the things he talks about, we would to compete with the U.S. Treasury. That is probably not disagree with, but the principle that impossible. You cannot do it. he talked yesterdayabout in tenns of eliminating Now onecould say, well, we do not haveenough next year the WGTA subsidy puts ourfarmers in taxpayer will or capability to fight the U.S. significant difficulty. If the farmers were told Treasuryin all ofCanada Thatmight betrue, but I instantly they have to pick up another 50 cents a canassure you isif that true,there is anawful lot of bushelwhere wheat may only be worth$2 a bushel theeconomic baseof westem Canadathat is going andthe cost of producing it may be $3.50 to $4 a to be hurt ifthe grain industry, particularly the bushel, you can see economically-how are they wheatindustry, is sabotaged by theU.S. Treasury. goingto survive? Madam Deputy Speaker, what Mr. Young and The federal government bas also been talking Mr. Goodale have been doing in the last few through the election-and the Minister of months in tennsof dealingwith our counterpartsin Agriculture (Mr. Enns)is morein touch with this the United States basnot been standing up strong now-but abouthow they are going tochange the enough for us. It basnot been supporting the long GRIP program, how they are going to extract tradition of good trade relations we have had themselves from it at a time when the grain around the world. When Mr. Espy goes down to community cannot afford them to extract Mexico andBrazil andmakes those statements he overnight-WGTA, extract themselves from it did about westemCanadian agriculture,well, he is overnight. We cannot survive in thisenvironment, creating trade subsidies of the world's greatest uncertainty being created. magnitude right backin hisback yard. I can imagine the discussions going on in the I did not likewhat hesaid down there,and sureI banking communitytoday if thiswhat is is goingto did not appreciate the lack of response from the happen. There area lot ofloansout thereinvolving federal government in sort of straightening the the grain industry, grain farmers, machinery record out, because we do not look good, Madam dealers and, boy, this is not the kind of news that Deputy Speaker, with those kinds of comments thebanking industry wantsto hear. They towant from the United States going on. Now we have a hear the government standing behind the grain federal Liberal government right now who is industry as we evolve through this difficult trade supporting what theU.S. is saying about westem situation. We have been involved, particularly Canada, saying we are not going to be in the with the United States, so we are put in a great business any longer. situationof uncertainty. If you take away these kind of supports from Some members may say, well, we overreact, but westem Canadian agriculture, we are going to be this is not an issue we can leave sitting idly by in a verydifficult position to stay in the graintrade while we wait forthe federal government todecide business.That is exactly what the U.S. wants is to whether one cabinet minister is rightor the other drive us out of the industry.grain I do not like us cabinet minister is right or decide whether they living with that agenda, but it seems that the 3270 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

federal government is prepared to follow that andI do not knowand I do not understandthe logic agenda. Following on what the member for River of Ibisfederal Minister of Transport when hesays Heights (Mrs. Carstairs)said, ifthere isconfusion that ifwe take away thesubsidies that we utilize to out there at the federal level, please clear it up transportthese products to eitherexport market or instantly,instantly because there is greatconcern to our customers in North America, how are we in western Canadaright now about what direction going to keep the costs, the transportation costs they aregoing andwhat it means to usin the grain downfor theseproducts ? It would seemreasonable industry at thispoint in time. 1bankyou. to me to expect that these fi gures, these Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Deputy percentages would increase, to move ourproduct Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on this either to export position or to our customers in matter today. It is a veryimportant matter for the NorthAmerica. So I do notunderstand the logic of province of Manitoba because our history is one the fe deral Ministerof Transport when he is saying basedon 1:ra�:mportation, and, of course,we want to that we needto eliminate the subsidies, and at the maintain and insome way hopefully enhance that. sametime he issaying thatour 1:ral:mpo rtation costs Ifyou look at the comments that have beenmade areof the figures that I have already indicated. by the federal Minister of Agriculture and the federal Ministerof Transport, there isindeed some • (1520) confusion that is taking place on the part of the The transportation minister also indicates federal government on how they aredealing with that-and there seemsto be aglaring discrepancy the matter. in the comments that he has made, in comments I canonly go back to some of the comments that recently to the people of Thunder Bay, when he have beenmade by the ofMinister Transport just was addressing hisaudience there. saysHe that we this year, in fact, on March 10, 1994, when the have some difficult and tough choices to make, federal Minister of Transport said that he was andthen he talks about the subsidies andthe cost to looking to redirectthe subsidies that arepayable to the Canadiantaxpayers. At the same time he goes thetransportati on network of thecountry. Now we on to talk about how good we are in thiscountry, areseeing thatthe federal Ministerof Transportis how efficient our system is, and that we have a saying that he wants to kill $1.6 billion worth of world-class network of transportation. So even in transportation subsidies to the various hisown comments thathe hasmade as aminister, tmnsportation sectors in our country. So here is a hecontradicts himself. minister, a fe deral Minister of Transport, from March 10, 1994 to June 7, 1994, flip-flopping on The minister also goes on in this presentation. his position on what he is going to do with the He talksabout the mismanagement of the railways tmnsportation subsidies of OW' country. Of course, and theovercapacity of the railways. Now, thelast that is going to have a devastating impact uponus timeI talkedto thepeople who operatethe trains in in theprovince of Manitoba ifwe aregoing to lose thisprovince , Madam Deputy Speaker, we cannot the subsidies that we have in place to preserve, to get enough rolling stock equipment in this protect the programs that we have for province to move theproducts or the items that we transportation of our grain products and other produce, whether it be grain or whether it be products by way of manufacture. manufactured goods. All our rolling stock I look at the recent statement that the federal equipment is tied up in moving. So I do not Ministerof Transport hassaid wherein-andI will understand how this fed eral Minister of Transport use his figures, Madam Deputy Speaker. He says can say that we have overcapacity. That is that 18 to 45 percent of the price of primary definitely not the case. I think he had better start products in Canada are transportation costs and talking to thepeople who aredoing these jobs and that 5 to 17 percent of manufactured goods are get a better understanding of what ishappening in transportation costs. Well, I amnot anaccountant, thetransportation market. June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3271

We bad at the same time this same federal AKJUIT, therocket range people whenthey were Minister of Transport, who is now telling us we makingtheir presentation. They told us that if that have tokill the subsidies, as inthe past, and atthe bay line is there,not thatrocket range facility will same time, when be was talking in the House of not operate ever,It period. willbe down thetubes, Commons just this March, be says, railways are as theMinister of Agriculture (Mr.Eons) says. romanticismand nostalgia of the past.Now , hereis So we need the Portof Cburcbil1 to operate, to Minister of Transport that is supposed to be a export ourproducts, andwe needto have that line buildingthe transportation network of ourcountry, in place to move the grainproducts there, and at not ttying to tear it down, which be is obviously the same time it will give us the opportunity to doing bythe statements be basmade. have the reactivation of the rocketrange to create I listenedto the commentsthat have beenmade new high-tech opportunities forus in theprovince by the Minister of Highways and Transportation of Manitoba, andnew job opportunities aswell. (Mr. Findlay) when be made reference to the fact Also, at the same time, I believe we bad some in Question Period today that we are moving 37,000 of resupply to the Northwest Territories, towards meeting the requirements ofthe GATT our neighbours to the north, part of our own agreement, and wethat have already cut some 15 country, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ifwe lose the percent. In 1991,we were paying the railways of bayline, we lose theresupply for our people in the this country $721 million in transportation north. There areno otheropp ortunities for them to subsidies. Thisyear, I believe it is,we arepaying bringproduct in year-round. We needthat rail line. some $590 million in transportationsubsi dies. At the same time, VIA Rail, when they Now just imagine for a moment, Madam Deputy announcedjust afterthe federal electionin thefall Speaker, what isgoing to happento theproducem of '93, VIAann ounced they were going tocut 21 of this province and, indeed, all the prairie jobsin theprovince of Manitoba. Lloyd Axwortby provinces ifwe eliminatethe $590million? I take stood up andsaid: No, be isgoing to put it on bold; a look at the studies that have been done in past be iscancelling the layoffs. But, at thesame time, yearsto look at the options for producemto tmck whenbe said be cancelled the layoffs, we lost 11 the grainproducts downto theiss Miss ippi. What jobs. Thepublic does not know that, but we lost 11 willthat mean to theHighways and onTransportati jobs out of that because some of those 21 job Department ofthisprovince by the increased wear layoffs bad already taken place, so we did lose andtear on our highways? Inadd itionto that,what jobs. will it mean to the railways that would normally transportthose products?What does it meanto the Then the federal minister appointed a thousands upon thousands of railway jobs that two-pemon task force to bold bearings in the depend on thetransportation of theseproducts? province of Manitoba. What did they come back with? Well, they said, on the one band, we think This federal minister does not seem to that there is ahigh amount of subsidy going to the comprehend the realities and the necessityof the passenger rail setvice for remote services in this transportation network of this country, and I province, and, on the other band,we think that we listened to the comments of my colleagues here should maintain remote essential services in our today where theycalled upon the federal Minister province. Well, you cannot have it both ways, of Transportto resign.think I that is indeed a very Madam Deputy Speaker. You have to have a good suggestion; thisminister should resign. position staked out on what you actually believe When we bad theVIA bearings in thispro vince, we need for the province of Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am talking now In addition to that, for the 21 jobs that had been about the bayline, because it is essential to the announced for the loss of VIA Rail, when I was province of Manitoba and central to the Port of touring in the northern part of the province this Churchill. I listened to the presenters from pastwinter, when Iwas up there meetingwith the 3272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

people of the northern communities, we lost So with those few words I call on the federal another30 maintenancejobs on the CNin line the Minister of Transport to reconsider hisposition to North, on the bayline maintenance jobs, while we eliminate the transportation subsidies in our were up north. So do not let the Liberal Party tell countryand to look seriously at thedecisions that us thatthey arenot cutting furtherjobs in theNorth he has to make and toake m sure that we are not and they are not cutting the services to maintain going to seeany negative consequences as aresult those lines. This cut of another $1.6 billion is of thedecisions of thefederal Liberal government. further going to erode and cut the railway jobs in Thank:you . thisprovince . Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): MadamDeputy Speaker, no, I amnot going todefend anybody. I listened to the comments of theLiberal House leaderwhen he was talkingthe at beginning of this It gives me greatpleasure to rise to speak on this section. He called the Western Grain MUPI this afternoon, andt i was aple asure to see Transportation payments to the railways of this people co-operating and to debate an important countty subsidies or supports or welfare to the big issue in Manitoba. It is for the interest of cotporations of this country. I do not think this Manitobans, and I wethink all have interest. The Liberal memberof the Legislatureunderstands the Ministerof Agriculture (Mr.Enns), the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Findlay), I think both spoke significance of thosepayments to therailways and, very eloquently in regard to the farmers of in fact, how it enhances the transportation Manitoba and interestthe thatwe have, ratherthan opportunities forthe producers of thisprovince . If enduring all thisthat crap goeson all the time here he would take the time to study what those during QuestionPeriod. payments mean, I am surewould he have a better comprehensionof what itmeans to the province of Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Manitoba. These are not payments or welfare Mr. Gaudry: I apologize if I used the wrong payments to the big co1p0rations. This ismeans a word. Just like Question Period today, we had to provideequitable andfair transportation for the people in the gallery here and theions discuss that grain products of our province, Madam Deputy go on and the name callingall and these things, I Speaker, and I wishLiberals the would understand will be very honest, Madam Deputy Speaker, I that detestthat with a passion when I seekids sitting in the gallery andwhat goes on here during Question The Minister of ffighways and Transportation Period. (Mr. Findlay) says that this is a birthright starting An Honourable Member: Now tell us about back from the Crow benefit from 1897. I believe transportation. that it is abirthright for our province of Manitoba, and I call upon the federal Minister of Mr. Gaudry: Yes, it is very important to Transportation to understand what thesesupport Manitoba, and I think about all these things that payments mean to the province of Manitoba and were said by everybody who got up today in regard thepeople of Manitoba. to jobs and what it means for Manitobans, how important it is for Churchillto remain a port and a In my own community, Madam Deputy place of shipment for grain for the farmers. As Speaker, I have some 1,700 railway people, over several have mentioned that ifthe grain shipment 1,700 railway people, that depend upon these would cease in Olurchill,it Ithink would destroy payments going to therailway so that we will be Churchill, and the railroad for the northerners is able to provide the transportation services at very important. It has been mentioned time and reasonable cost to the producers but at the same time again, and it is not only this year, it is last time create railway jobs and employment year, the year before. Every time the question of opportunities for thepeople ofmy community and grain shipment to Churchill comes up, these theprovince of Manitoba. comments come up. June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3273

• (1530) mentioned it during my-[interjection] Sure, I would go andfight theLiberals. Sure, why not? However, lilce the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstaiis)mentioned it very clearly today, An Honourable Member: You will fight against you read the papers, and there sure seems to be thoseLiberals? some confusion in whatbeing is said and what is Mr. Gaudry: Sure, but I indicated during beingreported in the different papers. It isthe not Estimates, MadamDeputy Speaker, thatit isvery firsttime that there basbeenconfusion in what is important to worlc co-operatively. For example, I being said by different members or different wentto Komamo for the hogfarmers. I thinkthat, ministers. It has taken just a change of word whenwe come right down to it,it isimportant that sometimes in what they report that might have a we support these job creations, but going to different meaning. Komamo, it seems that there was lack of infonnation. It wasonly oneside of thefare, I felt, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think all of us are when I went there. There should have been very concerned with what bas come out in the government involved giving the other side ofthe papertoday. As theminister of transportationwas story, the other side of the coin. so that people ng, for example, the banking industry is indicati understood exactly what went on and give them certainlylooking at whatis happe ningin Manitoba infonnation, communication with these people, today. We talked about the rating of the and Iwe think talkabout confusion. government, the bondrating. This could have an effect on the bond rating of Manitoba, and who I think it is probably lack of communication would be to blame? It would be the Liberal within the federal government, and it is very importantthat we all get together. My suggestion government.If it was a Torygovernment, it would at thistime is thatwe all support whatbas gone on bethe Torygovernment. today, and I our-think We talk about the government that is in power AnHonourable Member: What areyou going to this time because we could go back and discuss tell them when we all get together? What is your what theTories did for nine years.would There be position? lots to discusswas that not in favour of Manitoba because we have lived through the nine years of Mr. Gaudry: My position is thatI thinkwe want the Tories. During the last six years of Tory to help the farmers and to keep what the government in Manitoba, they did not get along Manitobans want. We communicate with the Manitobans. with the Tories in the federal government. Hopefully,they will have a betterrelationship with An Honourable Member: We want to stand up the federalgovernment thistime. for thefanners ; that iswhat we want to do. Maybe something shouldbe done. Wetalk about Mr. Gaudry: Yes, stand up for the fanners. My the three parties today discussing the MUPI in recommendation is what we talked with the favour of Manitoba. What would be wrong with farmers. We feel that we have worked together. the threeparties to meet theMinister of Transport We have talked, the three of us, together before or the Minister of Agriculture and criticsthe from going. We have a position that we can present a both sides, as we did for the Shilo, for example, position that the government of Manitoba wants andthat it isunanimous. when we all went to Ottawa? It would probably show that Manitoba is in favour of supporting AnHonourable Member: Come on, Neil. Do not Manitoba as such. [interjection] Well, it was let them you.harass proven in the Shilo situation. We all went to Mr. Gaudry: No, thatokay. is I am not bothered Ottawa, andwe won our case. I think attime this , by thisof kind nonsense. I have seenenough of it thiswhat is we shoulddo. I thinkit isvery pleasant in the last six and a half years, and I will not to work co-operatively, and I think I have tolerate that itwill bother me. WhatI want todo is 3274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

co-operate and wmkfor theManitob ans, andwill I Vancouver labour dispute. That has been a continue doing that I willsupp ort theManitobans problem facing westernfor farmers years. in whatever the Manitobans want through the We have had to put upwith the labourdisputes, government and through the opposition. We will the problems the railways have had, all kinds of work for that. Thank you very much, Madam things, and now we have to fight the federal DeputySpeaker. government again. They have said they are not Mr. Edward Belwer (Gimll): It is areal pl easure going to help us. Theyare going to takethis money thisafternoon to riseon thisvery important subject away fromthe western farmers. We cannot accept andput a few remarks onthe record. that, MadamDeputy Speaker. We have to standup I think this isone of the most important issues together and work together and fight together facing Manitoba andwestern Canadian fanners at against thisof kind actionto protect our fanners. the time. There are many people in western Canada, in AnHonourable Member: AndGimli. Manitoba, rural Manitoba especially, who have a Mr. Helwer: Well, do not forget about Gimli. I big investment in the grain-trade business, abig have a lot of farmersin my constituency. I want to investment in the grain-handling systems, a big protect and work for the farmers in my investmentin the agribusiness.Many farmers have constituency. Where are the Liberals? What did a big investmentto produce the products that other thefonn er PrimeMinister Trude autell the farmers countries want to buy from us, which is our hard of western Canada years ago? He told them to go redspring wheatwhich issome of the bestquality sell their own wheat. He did not standup for the wheat in the world and makes some of the best farmerswestern of Canada bread in theworld. Whereis ourfederal government today? Where AnHonoura ble Member� Pasta. is Doug Young? Where is Mr. Goodale? He is Mr. Helwer: Well, pastatoo. We have a durum goingto cut$590 million from the ersfann just like thatmakes pasta.That is right. that We want to protect our markets. To do that, we Remember what happened to the Liberals after must have a transportation system that canhandle Mr. Trudeau told the fanners to sell their own our grain.We must have a system that we cansell wheat. They did not elect a Liberal member in our grain to. We have a port in Manitoba which is western Canadafor 25 years. They probably will Churchill.which could handlemore grain and help not electanother member for another25 years. The the trade situation also and create more jobs in Liberalshave a record.They have never ever stood Manitoba. up for the fanners of western Canada. They have never been able to sell their grain. It took the When we talk about pay the producer, Conservatives. In Manitoba, we have made some personally, myself, I fee l that is a good option. I major changesto improve the safety net programs, think that we should pay the producer. It would such as the Crop Insurance program, the GRIP make the railways more accountable and make program. them probably more competitive. Theyhave made some improvements in the past, such as just in 1be erfonn federal government has brought in recent years they have incentives whereby they some programs: the NISA program, the GRIP canload 50 carsat a time or 100 cars at a time,and program, andhelped with some of the changeswe that will give the grain companies some discount have made in the Crop Insurance. They have also on the rail freight. made some very important changes to the Grain Transportation Act. They have made the railways So there have been improvements made and more accountable so that they could improve the there continues to be. I think if given the system to handle the farmers products, even opportunity and given a free market opportunity, though we had major setbacks, such as the we will make some improvements to the June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3275

grain-handlingsystem, and railwaysthe willhave start standing up for the farmers who do produce to improve, or we will otherfind options Olderin to good high-quality wheat herein Manitoba? sell andship our grain. An Honourable Member: Do you not think I rememberyears ago I was part aof committee Axworthy isworthy of axing, too? in theIntedake whereby we weretrying toprotect Mr. Helwer: Ob, I will not get to that. Other therailways under the rail line abandonment that members canhave an ortunityopp to speak a little therailways were tryingto do at that time. At that laterand get to that,but I certainly want to say that time, a lot of these raillines were committed to we want to protect this industry we have in stay tillthe year2000. Manitoba. Well, in some cases, there have been We have a good industry. We have a good improvements made to the system and to the quality product. Our farmers produce a good elevators on these lines, and thesehave lines been quality product. Our farmers are efficient. We approved to 100-pound steel, whereby they can wantto help them continue tostay in business so cars, handle the large producer 100-ton producer we can provide the employment that is required cars, and this is an improvement to the system. here in Manitoba, that this province can grow and This bas made the transportation system much expand the exportmarlcet andexpand also some of more competitive andimproved the whole system. the value-added production that we can possibly But I cannot believe that the federal Ministerof get out of thegrain system . Transport Doug Young would go and make this I think that is where I support the pay-the­ kind of a statement without consulting anybody, producer method of payment because I think this without consulting his colleague, even, the Ministerof Agriculture. will give some companies in Manitoba an opportunity to expand makeand use of or go to the An Honourable Member: He did not consult value-addedproduction, maybe to get a pastaplant anybody? herein Manitobaso we canproduce our own pasta Mr. Helwer: No, be didnot consult. and someuse of our ownwheat, andcome upwith other innovative ideas, such as the Can-Oat AnHonourable Member: I am sureconsulted be Millingplant in Portage which is a goodexample with Reggie. of bow we can get into value-added production. Mr. Helwer: I doubt it. Here they are making rolled oats and cereals that • (1540) areexported throughout the world That brings up a goodquestion, a good point, 1bere are many things that we can do to make MadamDeputy Speaker. Whereour are 12 Liberal value-added a factor and employ more people in MPs from Manitoba? Why are they not standing Manitoba to use our products and make this up for the farmers of Canada,of Manitoba? Where provincemore competitive in the business. are they? Where is ? Where is John With that, I appreciate the opportunity to put Harvard? Where is Jon Gemmi? Where are these these few remarks on the record. Thank you, guys? Madam Deputy Speaker. AnHonourable Member: Right. Whereis Uoyd Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Axworthy? Where Liberalare the Party? Where is Deputy Speaker, I rise today to put my comments Paul? on the record on this very important issue. I am Mr. Helwer: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad pleased that partiesall could agreeto discuss this someone brought that up. I think that is a very issue, which is an announcement that is going to good point. When arethey going to start standing have a devastating effect, as the member for up for us in Manitoba here.When arethey going to Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) bas indicated, on the 3276 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

Port of Churcbill, but more so on rural Manitoba Even in regard to the Port of Churcbill, which andon the farming community of Manitoba. this debate is about along with the farming community, the members across the way say It is a great disappointment to hear that this that they support the Port of Churchill, but Ihave to federalgovernment isin such a stateof confusion remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when that they cannot get their message together the transportationdocumem wasput out-and that between the Minister of Agriculture and the was put outby a fe deral Conservative government Minister ofTransportation. As a result, what we and endorsed by this provincial Conservative have is an announcement that the transportation government-they did not even take into subsidy isgoing tobe eliminated, andthis justwill consideration the Port of Churchill. ThePort of put farmers out of business. Farmers will not be Churchill is not a high priority with this able toaff ord thecost of transporting theirgrain to governmem. maiket withthese increasedcosts. I amdisappo imed to learnthat theLibera ls, who I think we have to look back a bit at the indicated in their pre-election period in their transportation policy of this country and why the election promise that they were supportive of the subsidy wasput in place. Many years ago people Port of Churchill, that they would move towards recognized in government that as an exporting moving a lot of grainthrough thePort of Churchill, country of grain there was disparity between have brokenthat prom ise. There is,in fact, a move different regions of the country, and ifwe were towards getting rid, to really basically killing the going to export grain we bad to put in supports Port of Churchill, because theport cannot survive there to bring some equality to the farming without the railway and the railway without the community because some of the farmers are just transportationassistan ce.If we change and ifthese too far from port. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, subsidies are cut, we are going to see much more theports have not moved anycloser to thefarmers. rail line abandonment, and we are going to lose We stillhave toship that grain a long way. some very important industries. The tourism industryin theNorth is growing, and we have real Although I am disappointed that the federal opportunities there. We have a responsibility to governmem basmade this announcement, I think provide services to northern communities, and thatthis whole processstarted many years ago. It with the abandonment and change in subsidies we started with theConservative federal government, aregoing to seethat opportunity lost. and the Conservative federal government was My colleagues talked about the opportunities supported by these Conservatives here in moving that we have at the rocket range. Again, here is a towards changing the method of payment. This group of people who have worked very bard to government bas supported it. In fact, when the rebuild an industry, to rebuild their community, transportationreport just came out recently we saw and what we are going to have is a lost industry that report isgoing to have a much more negative and losta development in the North ifthis rail line impact on Manitoba than on otherprovinces, but cannot bemaimained. Thefederal governmentbas we did not see this government stand up with the anobligation to maintain those servicesto northern Manitoba farmers and say that this isnot good to people, and I am disappointed that the change the method of paymem. They arestanding announcements that we are bearing from the upwith the farmers today, and I thinkthat isgood. federal government isthat this will be changed. I I think finally people are recognizing the am disappointed that this announcement by the importance of thegrain industry in Manitoba and federal Minister of Transport is made before a they are saying today that they will stand up with committeebas been struck to decide how the grain the farmers and try to save the transportation transportation subsidy should bedistributed . Why subsidy, that it is an important part of our is this government not showing respect for those economy. people who are on that committee and trying to June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 32TI

comeup with some ideason how theycan save the agreement, and assoon asthey were elected, they ttansportation industry in Canada? Why will they signed it. not recognize the worlt theseof people who areon So you can see that this isa government that that committee, and instead, announce that they changes its mindvery quickly. They will say one are going to abandon theon transportati subsidy at thing to get elected and then completely abandon a much quicker rate than the Conservative what they have said. They have abandoned their governmentplanned to do? commitment to the Port of Churchill. We hear Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an nothing about shipping more grainthrough that abandonmentof thefarming community andof the port, weand know thatby shipping grainthrough North. We have tolook at whatrail-we know and the Port of Churchill there is an opportunity to the studies have shown that were done, and even reducethe ttansportation costs. the results of thettansportation ta1ks indicate, that if themethod ofpayment were changed topay the They have not fulfilled their commitments that producer, wewould see railabandoned. lines With theymade inGATT. Theyhave let farmersdown the elimination of this payment at a much higher there. They have let farmers down, as Ihave said, rate, we will see the rail line abandonment on the NAFTA. They were going to negotiate acceleratemuch more quickly . further on that. This government appears to be Now what is going to happen to our small more interested in moving to a north-south trade communities? The small communities that are pattern.Yesterday Mr. Goodaleounced ann that he looking very much at a way to diversify their is goingto be eliminating subsidies in the United economy, to have some value-addedjobs, we need States. He is eliminating those subsidies, but he is those railways to help those communities to not negotiating toughly with them, asking them to ttansporttheir product to marlret. eliminate theirexport-enhancement program. (Mr. Speakerin theClair) We have a weak minister here, a Minister of Agriculture, whois caving in to thedemands theof We are also concerned that, with rail line American government and is not standing by abandonment, farm values are going down. Canadian producers. This is a great dis­ Farmers are in a big enough crunch right now. They cannot afford to have their farmland go appointment andone that I am very surprisedthat down, particularly those farmers, and there are the governmentfederal would make.[interjection] manyof themin Canada, who ageare atan where Yes, I thought that there were a few Manitoba they are thinking about retirement. This istheir members of the Liberal government who would retirementpackage . Thischange is going to have a standup for Manitoba. I thinkif we checkback to devastating effecton the retirement package that some of the comments that were made in the last these farmers have put together for themselves, sessionwhen some of thosemembers were around, basicallytheir land. It isgoing to go downin value. they may have or when they were in opposition, speaking out against the Conservative government • (1550) when the Conservativegovernment was moving to So I think that there is real confusion in the reduce the Crow benefit. I think that you would federal government. They have taken a very weak probably find that some of those Liberals, John standfar as as it goes for standing up for farmers. Harvard, for example, were speaking out to save Theypromised to take a strongposition at GATI', the Crow benefit. andthey were weakthere. Theypromised to take a strong stand at the NAFI'A, Free Trade But we have a Minister of Transportation who Agreement, andthey caved in to those andare not hasmade someint erestingcomments . He issaying standing up for farmers asthey had indicated they that we arenot moving fast enough to change the would. There is weakness in-[intetjection] That method of payment. Somebody has to bite the is right. They saidthat they would not sign the bullet. Well, the federal Ministerof Agriculture is 3278 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

certainly biting the bullet and destroying the take this as a serious matter and will indeed structure- support Manitobans and Manitobarural farmers.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable You know, Mr. Speaker, I was told once that if member'stime has expired. you were to stand on one of the buildings on Bon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Portage A venue at night and have all of the Development): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to buildings lit upon PortageMain, and and then you made a few comments with respect to this startedturning out the lights of the buildings that particularfaux pas, ifyou like, or this particular hadanything to do with agriculture, you would see action that has been undertaken by the federal a big black hole atPortage and Main. Liberalgovernment I thinkthis is not only a shock Mr. Speaker, thisjust shows you theimpact that to us, but it should be a shock to all Manitobans, agriculture bas, not only on rural Manitoba, but and indeed the Liberal Party of Manitoba should indeed on this city as well. For years, the subsidy be on the phone and certainly petitioning and that has been paid to farmers has been paid for a ensming thatindeed their position is known on this purpose. It was not just to fatten the pockets of matter. Today I am hoping that the Leader of the farm ers; indeed there was a reason for it, and the third party (Mr. Edwards) will speak on this reason is vecy clear. The reason is that we are a particular issue becausethis isnot onlyimportant longdistance from theports; the reason is that you to members of thisHouse, but it is important to all cannot move grainto the ports, charge the fullrate Manitobans. and expect the farmer to make a profit on growing Mr. Speaker,we just heardfrom the memberfor grain with thegrain prices where they are. Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) who indeed comes Indeed,our countcy, ourfarm ers,have had toput from an agricultural area and understands the up with subsidies that are paid in other countries impact that this kind of a move would have on for grain, and we have had to fight that. You farmerswho depend on moving their grainby rail cannotexpect the farmer to fight the treasuries of to the ports. I come from anareawhere we have countries like the United States and Europe. It is had some rail abandonment andcertainly that has just not possible. It is for thatreason we have asked not beeneasy todeal with. the federal government to support the grain When you talk about rural Manitoba, Mr. industry through a transportation subsidy that is Speaker,let usnot forget that thisgovernment bas, paidon anequitable basis to farmers,depending on over thelast six years,been mpting atte to revitalize the distance thattheyare from the port.The system the ruralcommunities so that indeedyoung people hasworked, andwhen we went through theGATT canfind Manitoba rural an ctive attra place to live negotiatiom, it was vecy cl ear that not all of the and raise their families. But it is actions of this subsidy should be removed because it was not all naturethat aregoing to destroy thaLNot only that, GATT-able, that indeed there was a reason for they are going to destroy a lifestyle and a supplying that kind of a subsidy to the farmers of livelihoodin our provincerural that willnot come ruralManit oba. back, because ifyou take $20 a tonne out of grain Mr. Speaker,I wonder where Minister Young is that todayis barely worththe cost of production, coming from when he makes this statement. We you know thatfarmers cannot exist onthe farm . heard the Liberals say that they were going to be Mr. Speaker, let us not fool ourselves. The conducting themselves according to the red book impact on rural Manitoba is not just on rural and that nobody should fearlosing a job. Well, I Manitoba. Indeedthat impactwill febe lt right here want to ask the Liberal today, where is the red in the city of Wmni peg. I am hoping that although book, where is the commitment to jobs, where is the Liberal Party does not have a lot of rural the commitment to keep Manitoba farmers members, at least the urban members who come working and on the land? Is this a sample of that from Winnipeg inthe Liberal caucus are going to commitment? June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3279

Indeed,I want totoday bear from the Leader of railway system is very important to us. Certainly the provincial Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) in the subsidization of grain transportation to the . Manitoba, because Iwanttobearfrom himwhat ports is important to allof uswho live in rural and be has to say to rural Manitoba farmers and the urbanManitoba. position betakes with this kindof aninitiative that • (1600) was reportedin theFree Press today. Maybe it is Speaker,this is not a partyissue. This is an too easy for him to stayof out the Chamber, or I Mr. issue that is importantto farmers.It is anissue that should not say that . I retract that, but perhaps we have tomake ourpositions known very clearly. -yes, I do retract that-be should take very We have to send the message to the Liberal seriously thismatter andspeak on this matter and government in Ottawa saying that this is not do morethan that.it Ithink is incumbent upon the acceptable. Our Minister of Transportation (Mr. Liberal Party of this province to write to Minister Findlay) and Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enos) Young expressing their dismay at this kind of today didthat, and I hopefulam thatthe opposition statement andthis kind of ach,an appro especially parties will follow suit and do a similar kind of in light of the commitment that was made to thing. farmers in tenns of the amount of grainthat was going to beshipped out ofthe Port of Cburcbill. Mr. Speaker, we have beard fromthe ruralcritic for the Liberal Party, but indeed I am anxious to We all know thatduring theelection campaign bear from more of their members to see exactly there was a commitment made to ship something where they standon this issue. Especially, I want like amillion tonnesout of the Port of Cbun:bill. to bear from the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Where thatis commitment today? Are we going to Edwards) asto where be standson thisissue. see a mill ion tonnes of grain shipped out of the Port of Olurcbill?From the actionswe that see to Mr. Speaker, roral Manitoba is an important date theis reverse happening. Asa matterof fact, I place in this province. It is important to have thinkis there anabandomnent oftbe Cburcbill port Manitobansliving throughout ruralthe of part this andalso the railline that leads to Cburcbill. province raising their families there, working in livelihoods which will sustain their families and Mr. Speaker, I live in the westem part of the indeedwhere the young people in our provincecan province that isjust south of the line thatleads to findattractive an place live.to If wecontinue this Cburcbill. knowI thatif we wantedto affectsome kindof approach, ifwe follow up this kind of an efficiencies in transportation of grain it could be approach I can daretha say t ruralManitobans are done intemally with the railways, and we could not going to find very comfmuch ort in living in probably ship a l ot more grain much more rural Manitoba. Indeed, greater disparity will efficiently thanwe aretoday. happenbetween rural urban and people inte110s of I want to use a little example of what happens income, and there will not be any young rural rightnext to my farm.look I to thewest and I see a Manitobans who want to live in ruralManitoba as railway thatis just to thewest of me about a mile. longas they cannotmake a decent living for their It is strange-it isjust a little spur J.ine--.tbe train families in that partof theworld. does not come up there during theweek. It comes It goes counterto everything the Prime Minister up through that railway on Sundays. It comes up was talking about during the election campaign, on Easter Sunday and wethen see it come up on because be talked about people living in small Christmasand Day days like that. I think maybe communities. He talked about people living in there is alittle bit ofa problem in having a rail line roral Canada and be said very clearly that these onlyserviced during those kinds of days.So I think people should have hope in that Liberal there efficienciesare withinthe system that can be government becauseit wasgoing to give them the achieved. I will stand up anywhere and say that, opportunity to raise their families and have jobs because I do believe that very strongly. The that they can count on and they could sleep easy, 3280 LBGISLA11VEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

be said. He said, they could sleep easy because have decided they are not going to support they would have jobs to go to. Mr. Speaker, this anything that afederal government does because goes counterthat. to that federal government is not of their political stripe andthey have already condemned any kind The agriculture industry in Canada is an of debate or change from the status quo that goes important one. It is a big industry and if you on. The only change in the status quo that our wantedto measure the impact of that industry, all friends on the left support is to try to get official you have to do is cut it off for a month and you statusin theHouse of Commons. It is unfortunate wouldfind the impactwould bedevastating on the that ourfriends on theleft do not spend more time economy of this country. Therefore, when we debating the substantive issues of the day as stand up and speakparticular tothis motion, we opposed worryingto about getting official status in certainly want to indicate clearlythat our support the House ofCommons . is for rural Manitoba, for the farmeiS and for all Manitobansand . I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I politicians, membeiS of labour unions, farmen, am verypleased to risetoday todebate thismatter members of agricultural organizations not be of urgent public importance. afraidof debating the issues. This is what we are talking aboutWe are talking about the debate of I note the particular motion that was put forth the Western Grain Transportation Act. We are talksabout, namely, changes to thestructure of the talking about the future of agriculture in western Western GrainTransportation Act. It goes on to Canada and the future of agriculture for the talk about the Port of Cburcbill andother issues. economic impact of everyone here in Canada. When one reads this particular motion, one is almost led to believe that decisions have been I agree with theof Minister RuralDevelopment made, andlistening tothe debate thatbas gone on (Mr. Delkacb) about the importance of agriculture in theHouse fromthe official oppositionand from and bow, ifwe did not have agriculture in this the government, it would appear that they province and in this country, what a devastation somehow feelthat decisionshave beenmade. there would be. There is no question that our federal Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable I am a little SUiprised atthegovernment I am Mr. Goodale, is very much in tuneto the needs of not necessarily sutprisedat theofficial opposition, thefarmeiS acrossthis country andno decision bas because they do not usually get theirfacts right, been made in regard to this particular but usually the government of the day bas an transportationact. understanding of what goes onin government and also bas an understanding of bow decisions are I wasple asedwhen I readthe comments of the made and processeswithin thatoccur cabinet I am provincial Minister of Highways and quite smprisedthat thegovernment of theday feels Transportation (Mr. Findlay) and the provincial that decisions have been made in regard to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enos)when they talk Western Grain Transportation Act, because, of about theimportance subsidiesof goingdirectly to course, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very clear to us in farmen, as opposed to railroads. They obviously the House, as the Liberal Party to our fe deral recognize that there is a value to establishing colleagues outin ruralManitoba, federal membeiS systems whereby monies can go directly to the of Parliament, that in fact decisions have not been producers, as opposed to going through middle made. systems or middle men. We support the ministeiS on this. I find it quite interesting that when issues for debate arise, whether it be thisissue or whether it I know that my federal counterparts, the be the socialsecurity safety net, there are couplea Ministers of Agriculture and Transport and my of things that usually happen across our country. federal members of Parliament in rural and in One, we automatically get groups onthe left who urban Manitoba, support changes to a system that June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3281

will allow farmers more control over decision Transportation Act, the debate around Crow making, will allow farmers the opportunity benefit, thosehave beenissues ongoing forthe last perhaps for more diversification in tenns of the 15 and20 years. I thinkit is veryimportant the that type of agriculture that they now have on their government of the day in Ottawa is prepared to farms, will allow farmers more control over their discuss some of thesekey issues notand shy away own destiny. 'lbese are some of the changes that from them. we needto see,Mr. Speaker. • (1610) It is going to be very important that in fact we Yes, it was all well and good for the fonner hear from the federal panel which was a Conservative government federally to put into Tory-appointed panel, but nonetheless there are place a panel, but they knew that panel would individuals on that panel who will bereporting to neverhave to reporL Theyknew thatthe election the federal government. The Minister of would be called and that they would not be Agriculture federally hasmade it veryclear that he government andthey would not have to dealwith wantsto hear fromparticular that panel. Weknow these issues. [interjection] that there is a report in regard to the GTA The The Minister of Highways and Transportation government of theda y in Ottawawill lookingbe at (Mr.Findlay) asksme how I amgoing to deal with thatparticular report. it. I amquite confidentthat the Ministerfederal of The other thing the federal Minister of Agriculture and his cabinet are fully aware of all Agriculture hasmade veryclear and I amthe sure theimpl icationsof the changes in regardto GATI, provincial Minister of Agriculture and the in regard to potential changes to the transportation provincialMinister of Highways would support, is act, and I am fully confident the federal thatthere to has be extensive consultation with all government and their colleagues will make the of the stakeholders. That is going to be very bestdecision, andthat best decision will forbe the crucial,Mr. Speaker, and not just the farmersand fannersthe and province of Manitoba andfor the the agricultural organizations, but of course the farmers acrossthis country. railroads aswen That consultation is going to be Mr. Speaker, I am bearing comments from the extremely important as we look at the impact of government benches saying this government will the GATI agreement, as welook at theimpact of make the best decisions for central Canada. I do NAFI'A not support that argument and, in fact, neither did We know that there is an effect oo the GATI the people of Manitoba, which is why in the last agreement. We know that some of our policies federal election, we elected so many rural here Canadain may be considered countervails in members,so manyrural Liberal members. regard to even the NAFI'A agreement. We know These individuals are working very hard to that we are going to have to look at changes in secure-individuals such as Marlene Cowling, what we do herein Canadacountry. asa It is going who probably knows moreabout agriculture than to be so very important that those changes reflect many of the members on the front bench of this what is bestfor the fanners in thisprovince andin particular government. Those individuals will other provinces of Canadaand also reflect what is definitely take the messageof fanners toOttawa. I bestfor everyonehere in thiscountry . have no doubt about that. So thereis no questionthat we wantto put more Theother commentwe hearfrom the benches of decision making into the hands of the farmers. We government is all these comments about the red wantto give themm orecontrol. We wantto ensure book. I wasparticular ly swprised byMinister the that their future and therefore the future of this of Highways andTransportation because I always country, is going to be thebest possible that it can consider him an individual who does not be andthat requires moving away fromthe status manipulate thetruth. I wish I could say that about quo. The debate around the Western Grain all of the other members in the House, but I can 3282 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA Juoe 9, 1994

certainly say that the Minister of Highways and whether we canin fact retain thatport andimprove Transportation does not tend to manipulate the transportation for not only the agricultural truth. He did talk about the Port of Churchill and community in Manitoba but also the agricultural the promise in the red book about the Port of community in Saskatchewan andpart of Alberta. Churchill. It is painfully obvious that the fe deral Liberal Heknows verywell that,in fact, thatwas notin governmentin Ottawais slipping back into its old thered book,what but be doesknow, and I am not policy regime that was prevalent under thePierre afraid to put thison therecord, wasthat the federal Elliott Trudeau administration. The transportation M.P.s here in Manitobasent out a press release and policies that are emanating out of this government talked about the importance of the Port of areclearly a reference back to theold ways that the Churchill and their ability and what they were LiberalParty in Ottawa used to govern. Most of us going to do to ensure that the Port of Churchill remember all too vividly Pierre Elliott Trudeau, would remain viable. the then-Leaderof the Liberal Party and Primethe ThePort of Churchillis anotherissue. It is a very Minister of Canada telling western Canadian difficult issue. Whatwe can do to ensure that the fanners,no, I willnot sell yourwheat for you; you Port ofChurchill does become a viable port? There cansell your own wheat. Secondly, none ofus will is no easy answer to that particular question. If soon forget him travelling by trainacross western therewas an easy answer, then somebody would Canada and pointing his fingers at the farm have come up with it by now and would have community in western Canada. That is basically implementedit. where Transport Minister Young, in my view, is Thereis not an easyanswer to the questionof the today. Portof Churchill.We needto look atthat port. Isit I findit absolutely utterlyastounding that part of going to be viable in terms of a port for grain the Liberal caucus in this province will in fact transportation? Is it something that can be support the proposal that hasbeen put out by Mr. developed in terms oftourism 7 Right now the Young and indicating clearly their support to pay method of getting grain to Churchill is via rail. the producer. Veryfew parties, political parties in Whatis going to happenin thefuture? western Canadaeastern or Canada have taken that These are questions that have not been kindof a position on the transportation initiative at answered, Mr. Speaker, and it will remain to be any time. It is interesting to note that under the seen whatissues will comeup in regardto thePort previous Conservative administration under Brian of Olurcbillwhat and solutions can lookedbe at. Mulroney, which has been criticized rather Getting back to the issue of this, I wanted to severely by theLiberal Party in thisprovince asof finish, Mr. Speaker, by saying the decisions have late, and the agricultural policies supported and not been made, and I have every faith in the federal enunciated by that government areprobably some government in terms of their ability t� of the bestmost and economically supported times that fanners in western Canadahave ever seen. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member'stime hasexpired. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the debate that went on Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, it during theperiod of 1986, '87 and '88 in Ottawa, certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise during thatperiod of time when western Canadian today to enter into thedebate on a most important fannerswere atwits ' end inhow to maintain their issue to the agricultural community in this operations. Fanners and fann organizations made province and specifically members and the representation to the then Progressive agricultural community in some of our northern Conservative government inOttawa and indicated communities in this province,and how that might clearly that they needed some federal government impact on our only waterport in this province and support, andthey needed it immediately. June9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3283

So the Mulroney government, the Progressive transportation system in this country. Yet, when I Conservative government of Canada of the day, listen to my Liberal friends in this House, it did not only meet the needs of the western becomes apparent thatthey are in support of that Canadian farm community immediately by kind of confused statement that has come out of injecting in 1987 some $2 billion into thewestern Transport Minister Young and/or Agriculture Canadian economy through the special grains MinisterGoodal e. program, and they did it immediately, something Now, does thatnot leadus backto theold debate that a previous Liberal administration in Ottawa under Pierre Elliott Trudeau when there were hadnever done. major discussions going on amongst the farm In 1988 and '89, they raisedthe contribution to community? No, the farm community was not agricultureto almost$4 billion, a precedent-setting involved. 1be farm community wasnot invited to amount. Yet I hear nothing but criticism from beinvolved, but amongst thedecision makers, the Liberal members in this House of that kind of cabinet ministers and the Liberal Party were administration. Had it not been for that kind of discussingways andmeans of how to get rid of the policy andthat kind of financial injection into the Crow benefit and how to move ourselves into a fann community in westem Canada at that time, system of transportation that would see the the fann community, as we knowit today, would decimation andthe olution diss of the branchlines. not exist. I amconvinced of that. It would costCanada, not only the export position of Thunder Bay, in my vi ew, or Vancouver, it Now, continually throughout that debate, the would cause the transportation system to change farm community and through the farm from an east-west kindof a transportation system organizations maderepresentation to Ottawa to try that we are used to and that we support and convince Ottawa that there should be an economically, that has driven Manitoba's enhancement and support of the grain economy for decades-we would support that transportation system in the retention of the -yet it is clearly intended to drive the branchlinesto ensuresmaller that our communities transportationinto a north-southmode. There is no and agricultural communities would be questionin my mindabout that. maintained, suchas the Swan River areaand other areas, that we retain the Churchill line,that we 1be Liberal government in Ottawa is not only enhance movement of grain through the Port of going to drive thatp rocess, but is, in fact,fo rcing it Churchill. That, of course, was supported by through these kinds of discussions and debates. government policy in most of the western Some will make the case, as Mr. Young has provinces. inferredthat he might support, that grain farmers in westem Canadacan survive without a railsubsidy . • (1620) Thatmight well be thecase , thatsome of thegrain Yet I amastounded today that the Liberal Party industry can survive underthat kind of scenario. in thisprovince willsupport thedecimation of our Those living in areas that are conducive to transportation system through the kind of policy broad-based diversification. and maybe some of enunciation that we have seen made by the southern Manitoba is in that kind of position. transportation minister. I agree thatMr. Goodale, However, let me make the case that there are the Agriculture minister, has continually led the communities in this province that simply depend debate to try to bring the fann community into a on grain production asthe basis of their existence. position where there can be some agreement, and It is very difficult for them to make the change or he has continually said that he will wait for the diversify into other crops simply because of not report of the committee that was established by only weatherconditions, s oil conditions andmany that previousMulroney administration to dealwith other agronomic type of issues that enter into that the matter of grain transportation and how to pay kindof a process. We are standinghere , saying that whomever to ensure that we will have a proper we are willing to pass judgment on those 3284 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

communities and those individuals who are opportunities with Churchill, and that the dependenton grainproduction in thisprovince. Manitoba Liberals want to see export of a million Secondly, we have continually, as our tonnes of grainthrough the Port of Churchilleach government, the Conservative government of this year. province, supported not only the retention of the Mr. Speaker, why arewe so worriedtoday when bayline, as some of the members opposite have we hear the statements made by Doug Young? I stated, but we have also asked continually for the did morethan just look at the mediareports about expansion of that transportation system, Mr. what the ofMinister Transport said. I also read the Speaker. I say to you, that is where wantwe to be speech that the minister gave called, New and that is whatwe wantto see supported by the Directiom for Transportation, A Reality Check. I federal government, and the retention and the want to say, this kind of talk that is in this debate ended on anote of agreement among all the document wasnowhere beto found in theelection. farm organizatiom in thispro vince. I wantto readsome of the statements that arein Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I thisdocument, because I ammore concerned after remember a number of years ago when then­ reading this than any of the media reports I have Comervative cabinet ministerJobn Crosbie said, seen, because it shows a fundamental and I quote: If I told you what I was going to do misunderstandingof thenature of thiscountry , not afterthe election, you would never votefor me. just of transportation issues but the nature of this I amreminded, as Ilisten to theLiberal members countty. I wantto readthe sections that talkabout today, that Mr. Crosbie started hispolitical career not having thepolitical willto bite thebullet, much as a Liberal, because in many ways we areing see less pull thetrigger. in this debate that the federal Liberals have been This is the Minister of Transport talking about doing thesame thing. pulling thetrigger. I want to readwhat theminister I want to start with the statement here. By the defines is the problem in transportation: We are way, for the member for Crescentwood (Ms. bmdenedby toomuch of what we do not need. We Gray), the commitment to one million tonnes of are weakened by too little willingness to adapt to grain through the Port of

a rail line that went all the way across western Parliament, Elijah Harper. I say to Elijah as Canada someone I have known, just say no to thekind of federal policies that are very dangerously being I say to you, Mr.Speaker, ifit was not for that proposed by this minister. rail line and the Crow benefit,the exchange that took place, which, as the Minister of So, as I stand here and I say to the Liberal Transportation said, was partthe of birthright of members,I appreciate thosewho have gone a little western Canada, we today would not be part of bit further, certainly thansome, in expressing their Canada. We would have been absorbed in the concern. We can talk about the politics of this UnitedStates a long timeago. It ispart ofthe very issue. There is another bottom line here. Ifwe do basisof Canadajust asmuch as theConstitution is. not act soon, the very future of the Port of But what scares me about this minister is I have Churchill is going to be at stake. We have dealt with this minister. I have written on sacrificed much for thatport Onevery kilometre numerous northern issues, and I will tell you the of railline there areoften dozens, Mr. Speaker, of wordto describe this minister.It is "arrogant" graves of the worlcers who died to putthat rail line When I wrote on the CN cuts to maintenance to the Portof Churchill.It wasvery much the issue that took place right afterthe election,I also wrote of western Canadian farmers in the 1880s and to Paul Tellier,the head of CN. You know what the 1890s. It is ourhistory . It is ourbirthright. It isour Minister of Transport wrote back? He said, I read future. Mr. Tellier's letter; I agree with it, and I have Ifwe are so stupid as to stand idly by when a nothing furtherto add. He did not even deal with government that has aMinister of Transport who any of the concerns-the most arrogant letter I does not understand this country, we make the haveseen from a minister ever. same kind of mistake we make ifwe deal with AnHonourable Member: Was he aLiberal? other threats to national unity from separatists in Mr. Ashton: A Liberal, Mr. Speaker, most Quebec, because this country will only survive definitely. when every single region is treated fairly. I amreminded what of Pierre Trudeau usedto do Transportationissues are as important to western all the time in terms of western Canada, and I Canada as the Constitution has been to, say, appreciate that some of the Liberals trust the Quebecand other regionsof thecountry, and willI current government. But I say to you that if not standidly by onbehalf of my constituents and westernCanada and northern Canadians and those let any federal government take away our of us who are concerned about the bayline are to birthright aswestern Canadians. have anytrust in this government after reading the Mr.Bob Rose (Turtle Mountain): Speaker, Mr. I statements being made by this minister on certainlyappreciate theopportunity to take part in transportation, on VIA Rail, I have the debate this afternoon. I appreciated the correspondence I will be glad to table in this comments of the member for St. Boniface (Mr. House, on the CN cuts to maintenance, on the air Gaudry) that perhaps this will be a more traffic control tower in Thompson. On each and productive afternoon thanwe sometimes put in, in every one of these transportation issues, this this Chamber. minister has taken an arrogant and high-handed I want to begin by commenting on the House approach. leader from the second opposition party who • (1630) indicated earlier on that there was a needfor this I say, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say this debate because it would lead to understanding publicly, that I expect that the members of the among the members. I look forward to that, and I federal caucus, all of the MP.s in this province, I hope that all themembers of the third opposition would hope they will speak out immediately on party who do not have any members from rural this issue. I include my own member of Manitoba have been listening very carefully to 3286 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MANITOBAOF June 9, 1994

them this afternoon so that it willincrease their death of the Liberal Party, provincially and understanding of the importance of the federally in Manitoba, and I know she is quite announcement that bas beenmade at the federal aware of that becauseshe often comments--!think level. the comment was even in her book-about I want to pickup onsome of the history lessons travelling out to TurtleMountain, andthey would that we have hadthis afternoon from the member have their annual meeting in the back seat of for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) and the member for somebody's car. They wodted very hardTurtle in Emerson (Mr. Penner). It is not so much the Mountain, andthey wodted very harduntil finally announcement itself that we are concerned about the federal Liberal government was soundly today but because we are fitting it in to the past defeated and replaced by a Progressive history of what the Liberal Party bas done in this Conservative government and a progressive country. We look backto the days of the Liberal government. Gradually, the prayers of the Turtle governmentand what happened inwestern Canada Mountain Liberals turned around, and so they andthe drop of popularity of Liberals, in fact, the could have an ualann meeting ina hall, where they destruction of theLiberal Party inManitoba. Why brought out the new Leader of the Liberal Party. I did that happen? It was not because of Doug was very pleased that evening to go and listen to Campbell. It wasnot becauseof a seriesof leaders the Leader of the new Liberal provincial party in that were elected later on to lead the provincial Manitoba. Liberals. It happened because the people of Their starstarted to riseagain because they were western Canada realized that the Liberals simply no longer shackled with the fe deral Liberal Party didnot have anunderstanding of what thewestern that does not understand western Canada. So here part of theircountry was all about. we are,less than a year after they have been It wasindicated time andtime again during the elected, with great evidence that they still do not administrationof theLiberal government, and that understand western Canada iswhy we are so concerned today because all of a What do we have, Mr. Speaker? What do we sudden with federala Liberal government who, we all hoped, would provide a new kind of have this afternoon in thish searc for knowledge government for Canada, different from what they that the House leader of the second opposition hadin the past, less than a year from thetime they party suggested we would have this afternoon? have been elected, we have the Minister of What do we have from the provincial Liberal Transport saying that the grain transportation Party? subsidy, or the money that isthe right of western Well, we have again the member for River Canada under the binhright, as the Minister of Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) standing up and saying, Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) bas do not worry, folks. We support Churchill. I will said, willbe reduced to nothing. read to you a document from ourposition before I do notthink they fullyunderstand the impact of the election. Here it is. thatkind of a statement. That iswhy I ampleased Now, I could not help but wonder, Mr.Speaker, that we have had the opponunity to have this at the time if there was a document of the educational session this afternoon, and I am not candidates, the current and federal Liberal M.P.s, going to spend a lot of time repeating the impact concerning the location of the environmental that it is going to have in not only ruralManitoba centre. Did they at the time before the election or rural western Canada but in the urbancentres as suggest to us that it would inthe end be apolitical well. decision and be put in Montreal? Did they at the I want to comment on the comments of the time say, as the Leader of the provincial Liberals member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) said in a debate in this House, well, that was a because, as I referredto earlier on, there was the regrettable decision? June9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3287

Canwe expectthat ifin facttbis suggestion that Now, what does thatmean? Well, I amnot sure hasbeen put forth by theHonourable Doug Young what that means. It reminds me of the old story ---can we expect the Leader of the provincial aboutthe politician who camedown finn ly on both Liberals to stand in this House andsay, well, that sides of the fence. He is going to standup for the was a regrettable decision? I wonder. farmers, but how? Does he agree with the statement that was made?Does he want to belike Where were the Manitoba Liberal M.P.s when the member for Crescentwood andsay, do not the environmental centre went to Montreal? Did worry, decisions have not been made yet? Is he theystand up for Manitoba? Where arethey now? going to be like the member for River Heights Thehonourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. (Mrs. Carstairs) thatsays, well, we cango back to Gray) stands up in this debate and says, do not the statementbefore the election andindicate that worry. Decisions have not been made. We do not our federal MPs support the Portof Churchill, and need to worry because decisions have not been we aregoing to move a million tonnesthrough it? made, andwe have a finefederal M.P. in Marlene Mr. Speaker, I appreciated many of the Cowling, who understandsmore about agriculture contributions that have beenmade to the debate thanmany of thepeople on the front bench of tbis this afternoon, and I wanted to comment, too, on govemment. the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), who Well, I do not disagree that Marlene Cowling pointed out that the Liberals cannot have it both understands a great deal about agriculture in ways.That seemsto bewhat we see alltoo often in Manitoba, butI have not heardone peep out of her these debates. We seem to see a party that is on thisissue. Whereis she? Where isposition her unwilling and perhaps unable, I am not sure. In on this? Why is she not standing up for rural agricultural issues, perhaps they are akin to their Manitoba? federal counterparts and do not have an understanding of western Canada. Where is Mr. McKinnon? Where is Mr. • McKinnon from Brandon-Souris? The last time I (1640) saw Mr. McKinnon was lastSaturday, andhe did I do not thinkis that right, but they do not seem not even mention anything about grain to have the ability to put a position on the table. transportation. He never suggested to me, he did They donot seem to have theability to let us in tbis not say: Bob, what do you think about this? We House andlet thepeople of Manitoba knowwhere were sitting around the caucus room the other day they stand on important issues like the Grain in Ottawa, andthe Honourable Doug Young said, TransportationAct. by golly, I thinkwe should just wipe out this $500 At least with the member for Swan River (Ms. million or $600 million that we subsidize the Wowchuk), and I believe I am reading her transportation or provide for the transportation of correctly in saying that she indicates that the grain from western Canada. He did not mention transportation should beleft paid to therailw ays. I that We talked about a lot of things, but hedid not do not agreewith thatposition. I thinkit should be mention that. directed towards the fanners, but at least we have Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the member for St. positions. At least we can exchange views, and at Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), and haveI a great deal of leastpeople canjudge on that debate which would admirationfor themember for St. Boniface. I think bethe better answer. he has a greatdeal of sincerity. I wasintere sted to So far we have no positions from the Liberal hear his position representing the provincial Party. The only positions we have are from the Liberals. I was interested to hearhis position on federalLiberals who again, after years andyears of this issue �d on agricultural issues. He said that evidence, are indicating that they do not even we will stand up for the fanners,period. understandwhat it is allabout. 3288 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

I quote from the letter that our ministers, the money in these transportation agreements along Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and the with the provincial NDP govemment in 1984 to Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. ensure thatin factwas there a future for Churchill, Findlay), immediately sentto the federal Minister and the federal Liberals put that money in. So on of Transport: "The option of eliminating the the one handLloyd Axwortby would have seemed WGTA hasnever been discussedor considered in to be supportive of Churchill.John Harvard would WesternCanada " certainly have made those kinds of statements prior to the election. Marlene Cowling has been Here we have a federal minister eliminating it. noticeably silent. I amsure she supports Churchill. Thankyou. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I wantto join in this On the other side, we see Conservatives who veryimportant debate on the futureof Churchill.I have been against Churchill, from Quebec the think it appropriate that we, as members of the federal ministers and from other parts ofCanada Legislature, have an opportunity once again to Even our own Charlie Mayer who should have discussthis important issue for Manitoba. been the strongest advocate of Churchill was embarking on policies that were extremely I am not going to engage in a lot of federal harmful and inthat fact laid the futureof Churchill Liberal bashing at thisparticular point. I thinkwe in jeopardy from the word go. That is, as long as have heard a number of members do that It sounds they were intent on getting rid of the Crow very political, and actually I think would make subsidy, as long as they were intent on changing everyone quite cynical to listen to, especially the method of payment, they were working against coming fromthe Tories acrossthe way, whenall of Churchill's long-telDl interest. There is no doubt a sudden, they are greatadvocates of Churchill and about that, and the present Conservatives have to they were so quiet when there was a federal acknowledge that, andthe present Liberals in this Conservative govemment in Ottawa. House. Thepay the producerdooms Churchill. I do not anyone would attach much think that (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau,Acting Speaker, in the credibility to what they aresaying todaybecause it Chair) is a complete change of heart,it and bothers me to see that. Simply the change with the political The reason it does, andeven the Conservatives windshere, when it is opportune they speakingare when they embarked on their meetings about up in favour of something. It hasgone on toolong. changing the transportation subsidy, had in their Now, I do not want to appear holier than thou. I public meetings, andI was atthe one in Dauphin, have engaged in my share of debates that have theyhad presented alternatives once the method of beenof a political nature in thisHouse, butI want payment was changed, and they gave scenarios to point out that both the Liberals and the that involved the United States, ports through the Conservatives are embarldng on a direction with Mississippi, they gave alternatives involving the regard to Churchill that is harmful because of their St. Lawrence, but they did not even mention policies that are related. not because of what the Churchill as one of theoptions in their scenario. I fed eral ministersaid. think that they understood that immediately that you do away with the pay the railways you will We know that they are all over the map, the find that Churchill has no future because the federal Liberals, onwhere they stand on Churchill. railways are offering incentive rates at port points There are eastern Liberals who are probably not in southernManitoba that willdraw the business to aware of the importance of Churchill to western other points than Churchill, because, Mr. Acting Canada and to Manitoba,just likethere areeastern Speaker, there is an unreliability in rolling stock Tories over the years or Tories from Quebec or because of the railway's opposition to Churchill. whatever who do not understand thisissue. I mean, we had Lloyd Axwortby who apparently seemed The CNhas made no secret that they have been to be a strong supporter. He put in all kinds of against Churchill for years. Doug Campbell has June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3289

beenspeaking outas the seniorvice- president for that, you are dooming Olurchill, and wantI them CN, and now as his other role in the Grain to consider changing it. Commission be bas continued to be against AnHonourable Member: That isnot true. Olurchill, made no bones about it, continuously Mr. Plohman: Yes, it is automatically true like spoke against it almost a radical movement becauseas soon asyou have incentive rates being against it. It was just unbelievable. He bas offered and trucking options being offered, the continued to do that. So therailways do not want Churchill line is gone. We know that, Mr. Acting Olurchill to go. WhenI say theydo notwant it to Speaker, and let them not tty to bide from that. go, theydo not wantit tobe retained. They would Why do they not acknowledge thatpolicies their like to get rid of Churchill, and so they are not areone and the same, andthey areanti-Church ill. going to provide reliable service unless they are dictated to, it is decreed by the govemment that Point ofOrder Olurcbillis going to remaina long-tennpart of the Mr. Penner: Mr. Acting Speaker, on a point of Canada grainbarvll ing system in order. I thinkthe honourable member forDauphin should be coming out and (Mr. Plobman) shoulde nsure thatbein fact keeps saying that right now. Cut this nonsense out his comments accurate when be puts them on completely. He should make an unequivocal recordbecause some of thethings thatbe hasbeen statement aboutthe futureChurchill of right now, referringto asbeing Conservative Partypolicy are andthat isit, no ifs, andsor buts,that it isgoing to simply not correct. I think be should indicate that remain along-term part of our grain handling clearly to this House and remove them from the systemin thiscountry, period. That is it. record. The Conservatives also provincially should be Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, making those statements. The Minister of please. The honourable member did not have a Agriculture (Mr. Enos), the Minister of point of order. It isclearly a dispute overthe facts. Transportation (Mr. Findlay) should be making ••• those statements. When we were in govemment, we ensured there was provincialmoney to ensure Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Speaker, themember the long-term viability of Churchill. Millions of should be ashamed of himself for interrupting. dollars went into that, Mr. Acting Speaker, Through this debate, I have listened to many because we believed in it. Between those two members who have stood up andgiven theirpiece levels of government, with the support of on this andwithout interruption, andthis member Saskatchewan who have indicated a willingness, standsup andinterrupts my speechon this. Thisis Churchill's future could be guaranteed, but this my opportunityto givemy views on this. I find it government provincially is more interested in reprehensible that be would try to destroy my political posturing, going after the Liberals arguments because they are hitting home. These federally, than they are about really doing members know, the Liberals know and the something aboutit. Conservatives know that by recommending, by advocating a change of the method of payment, I find itextremely unfortunate thathere we have they are in fact worldng against Churchill. Isaid these two going at each other, and ifthe member thisbecause there is ample evidencethat Olurchill for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) would have will have no opportunity for increased shipping listenedfrom the beginning,said I I havemade my unless there is a policy statement by the federal share of political speeches in here, but I find it Liberals andby the provincial Conservatives that unfortunate today to see this kindof ganging up, Churchill will remain and always will be part of and instead of dealingthe with issue andthat is the long-tenn grainhandling system in Canada. It theirpolicy, both the Liberal and Conservative has to be done, and a new agreement pursuant to policies of pay theproducer. lf you aregoing to do theones that were negotiated in 1984 hasto beput 3290 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA Iune 9, 1994

in place. Thatis the ooly way to ensure it. That is I had the privilege of being the Minister of theway to takethe politics out of it. Highways and Transportation for five and a half years and,contrary to what the member for • (1650) Dauphin was ttying to put on the record here, this The members, the 12 M.P.s for Manitoba have government bas always been a very strong to stan right now by saying that they reject what supporterof Churchill.All the things thatwe could bas been stated publicly by their ministers. The do within our power as a provincial government provincial ministers should be standing up,this we did to try and keep Churchill alive and Ministerof Agriculture (Mr.Eons) and Ministerof expanding. Transportation (Mr. Findlay), saying under no Mr. Acting Speaker, atthe time when I was the uncertain terms will they allow the demise of minister, we badset up a jointcommittee between Churchill, and they will be doing everything in all parties, you know, where we tried because we their power to negotiate agreements to ensure the said, this is not a provincial political thing, we long-term viability of Churchill. That bas never could all agree that Churchill should stay, but beendone bythis government They have rejected subsequent to-and we shouldall worktogether. that Theyhave otherpartners. Theyhave CNand they have the Saskatchewan government They Invariably, in this building, though, everything couldhave a four-way partnership. gets to bepolitical after a while and,I mean, we are entitled to differences of opinion, as the member Let me say that the reason, as I said earlier, for Dauphinjust put hisviews in terms of paying Churchill is doomed under a producer-pay the producers versus the Crow. That debate has scenario is because of theincentive rates that are evolved and developed over a long period of time, going to be offeredin southern Manitoba, thevast andthe factthat the statement be made, that paying abondomnent of railwaysin thisprovince thatwill the producer isgoing to do away with Churchill, I result from that. We know thatis going to happen thinkcompletely different from that. and yetthese parties standup and say, oh,yes, we axe are in favour of Churchill, yet they advocate I personallydo nothave a big to grindwith policies that doom Churchill. I say, they should paying the producer, but the one position that I alwaysput forwardto my colleague theMinister of rethink that policy once and for all, because there Agriculture (Mr. Enos), at that time, is that ifwe is no way that this birthright that the Minister of move into those discussions, the one element that Agriculturetalked about isgoing to beretained. should always be involved is some consideration He thought it wasokay if Charlie Mayer got rid for the impact once we move into that area of of 10 percent of the birthright and maybe 15 paying the producer that we should deal with the percent of it. That is okay, but by God, it is a impact it will have on our road system, both birthrightand wemust retain it Well, ifthey really municipally andprovincia lly. believe it, ensurethat they retainit withpay to the Regardless, ifyou are going to go with paying railwaysand ensure service isnot ooly maintained the producer, ultimately thenthere hasto besome but enhanced. Performance guarantees, that is consideration, because a lot of that grain is going what we all have to work for. ThenChurc hillshall to start moving, as it bas even now, by way of beviable andwill be inplace for the yearsto come. trucks, andit has a damaging effect on municipal Thankyou, Mr. Acting Speaker. roads and provincial roads.But I have no argument myselfspecifically whether it is pay the producers The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): The or pay the railway . In fact, I think that by paying honourable member'stime basexpired. the producer, becausewe have always stressed the Bon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural point that it was cheaper shipping through Resources): I am pleased to be involved in this Churchill, andif we aregoing to pay theproducer debate. bewill be shipping where it isthe cheapestthing to June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3291

do where we would not have all theother players theywill go down with it Theeuphoria is going to that basically were making the decision as to fadeaway and isthis one of thefirst big gaffes that where the grain should go, whetherit should go theyhave seen.The other, of course , isthe fact that eastem seaboard ordown to Vancouver, B.C., or theyhave changed theirposition on the GST. Itis whether it should go throughCburcbill. easy enough to make statements beforehand in termsof whatwe will do. Onceyou are elected you If the producers themselves are going to be have to perform and produce, and Mr. Acting having the money, they will be looking at the Speaker, that is a challenge that our government cheapest way to move their grain, so I think it is basfaced now for over six years, fighting as best definitely anadvantage to do that. So I think that we could. part, the statements that the member for Dauphin made, saying that if thefederalgovernment under I rememberthe tremendous frustrationsin terms theirpolicy direction wanted to pay theproducer, I of tryingsee to whetherwe couldget some action do not think that baswith anythingtodo whether going through Churchill, expanded action, but Churchillstays alive or not then, it is easy enough to say government forced them to do that. You have to understand the I think thequestion that is the burning question components that are involved with that, with is basically whether the federal Liberal something like the Wheat Board who basically government should do away with the subsidy, makes the major decision, and its right. CN whetherit ispaid to theproducer or to therailway, basically bas never been a strong proponent of and that is the burning question here andthe one ChurchilL They would just as soon give the line creates that concern. I will tell you something, if back to theprovince or do something else with it anybody ever made apolitical gaffe,it musthave other than operate it. That bas been no secret been the federal Liberals not being co-ordinated either. Thenyou have thelobby from the eastern between the two ministers, one saying, well, we seaboard, the St Lawrence seaway people, which bad not really discussed that, and the other one isa very stronglobby thatplay theirgame. saying we willdo away with it. Thereare so many components in there,it isnot Theseare the kinds of statements that ultimately that easy. If it bad been that easy, then we as a burt politically and will burt the now still pretty Legislature here in Manitoba could have made a well-respected federalLiberal government. This is decision and said, we are going to ship as much one of the many gaffes that they are going to grain through Churchill to make iteconomically continue to make, and I findit interesting that my viable. We would have all agreed. There would colleagues on my immediateright are here caught have been no argument, but it is not us that bas in a bit of a dilemma as to should they speak in been making the decision. We have been supportof theirfed eralLiberals that now theyhave doing-all we could do islobby. made a big gaffepoliti cally,or wheredo they stand on this thing now? I can relate to that honestly. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plobman) when Whenthe Conservatives were in power federally, be wasMinister of Highways and Transportation, there were many, many times that our provincial and bewas then thechampion for Churchill,as we views were different than theirs, and I want to have all taken our turns atdoing it, accomplished caution the provincial Liberals, do not get booked nothing more than anybody else bas since that in too tightly with your federal countetparts. time. The only thing that be did was make more noise in the House, but in terms of action, there An Honourable Member: Is that talking from was never that much more action. He could not experience, Albert? perform any better than anybody else, not his Mr. Driedger: Yes, it is. I give good advice here party, just facing thesame difficulties that we bad. right now. Because ifyou start going arm in arm So let himnot standthere and rant andabout rave with them, thatpopularity is going to go but one the accomplishments that they could and what way and that is going to go into a nosedive, and everybodyshould do. 3292 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

The seriousquestion. I come back again. is the thetransportation of grain.This should be amatter fact that the federal government would even that the federal government should look at very considerdoing away withthis subsidy. Thedebate, seriously to allow us to be competitive in a very I repeatagain. as to whetherit shouldbe paid to the competitive world marketthese days. producer or whether the Crow rate should be So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I thinkthe member for retained, that debate is evolving and ultimately it Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) istrying to cloud the issue willhappen. There will be achange coming. There by bringing in issues, but he hasalways been a bit is no way that you can hang on to the Crow rate foggy, and we have differences of opinions inthis underthe circumstances theway they areevol ving. House. In this particular case, and that is not the I will tell you something, the railways first time and surely not the last time that I will themselves arechallenged. I amnot a supporter of have a difference of opinion from memberthe for therailways perse, but they are cballenged with Dauphin. but I think that ifwe want to make this operating more efficiently. The American lines debate effectivethat we shouldbe synchronized in thatwe have to thesouth of us areoperating much saying, federal government, you have to, you have more efficiently, andunl essthey startmeeting the anobligation to retainpaying a subsidy to thegrain cballenges because they are Crown co1p0rations, producers in the westernpart of Canada. how long are we going to keep paying them and Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Acting subsidizing them? They have to start biting the Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I think bullet andlearning how to beefficient aswell. history and the facts would prove memberthe for I want to say to all of us here, I thinkthe debate Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) to be wrong when he -it is very seldom that we all agree to have an says thatthe previous government and particularly emergency debate, butthis issue isone thatI think my colleague for Dauphin, who acknowledged, should be brought home very strongly to the did support the Portof Churchill. federal government, telling them, do not move in The fact of the matter is that the previous that direction. You arekilling thewestern grain governmentcommitted more provincial funds than fanner ifyou dothat. any government in the history of this province to Onpaying the producer,I wantto go back to that the community of Churchill. We not only again. I think there are some merits that this supportedthe port but theunity comm of Churchill. province could gain out of it, certainly from my We did along with, as was mentioned before, the areaand the southeast areawho arevery livestock federal government have an agreement that was intensive andgoing to bebenefactors of paying the almost exclusively designedto support the Port of producers, and that will be expanded. My people Cburchill,use the of therail lineinto Churchilland out there would just as soon see the government to support the community of Churchill; some $93 pay the producer because there is tremendous hog million in a joint federal-provincial agreement. We expansion that we arepromoting. It istaking place built the land-based hydro line. We improved the rightnow aswe speakin that area, and we utilize a rolling stock. We helped to dredge the harbour, lot of thefe ed grainsthat areavailable . There will and, of course, the then-Ministerof Highways and bemore and moreof that happening if we move to Transportation was extremely successful in the area of paying theproducer. negotiating reduced insurance rates for ships • (1700) heading into the Port of Churchill as well as extending the season which could have been, So that is not the argument that I think that we obviously, veryuseful to the Port of Churchill. are debating here, whether we should pay the producer, retain the Crow or whether that would I want to talkabout I guess my concern over the save Churchill or not save Churchill. Ithink the knee-jelk support of the federalLiberal position by debate that ishere today isthat there be retention my Liberalcoll eagues. Mr. Acting Speaker, we all of the subsidy that hasbeen paid to the fanners for recall the days when Lloyd Axworthy had a June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3293

national dreamfor a social safety net thatdid not I want to say that because when this minister include cuts to unemployment insurance, a talks about paying the producer and when national dream for a transportation system that members opposite talkabout paying theproducer, worked, a national dream that included the they areinevitably suggesting that the vision that importance of thePort of Churchill. we had of a railtransportation system that linked our communities across this country, that served We areseeing that dis appear. Weing aresee that the northern part of our country and the northern disappear rightin front of our eyes, and we are part of our province, isdead. seeingthat what we get fromLiberal a government federally is what we gotfrom a Tory government Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to also indicate that federally.Absolutel y, no different. theargument thatMinister the of Transport and to some extentthe Conservative previous Ministerof I want to talk about something else that is Transport used in his argument, that somehow disturbing. The member for Steinbach (Mr. therewas some inevitability to abandoningthe rail Driedger) talked about the inconsistencies that have become obvious between the Minister of transportation system, is nonsense. It is time that Transport and the Minister of Agriculture we got ourcollective headsout of the sandwhen it federally. comes to the obligations that we have under NAFI'Aand GATIthe agreement. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker,the offact thematter is that even the Minister of Transportationin his Here isthe irony of thissituation. Becauseof the own remarlcs is incredibly inconsistent. He is one way in which we have subsidized the confusedMinister of Transport. I want to begin by transportation of goods in this country, it is saying thatin thisdocument, and I amreferring to immediately recognizable by other countries, by a speech that the Minister of Transport gave on international trade negotiators, that we are June 3 in Thunder Bay, Ontario, this minister at applying a subsidy to the transportation of goods. one point says: We need a broad national vision, The Crow, rate the Westem GrainTransportation one that emphasizes safety and efficiency of the Act is the most obvious example of a subsidy, a transportationind ustry. subsidy which now the federal liberals and the Conservatives are saying we must abandon About three or four pages later, the same because of our commitments under GATI and minister in the same speech says: The national under NAFI'A. dreamof iron horses,steel rails and steam dead. is Mr. Acting Speaker, what we have continually He has no vision when it comes to rail downplayed or ignored is the fact that every transportation. [interjection] Thatis what he says. country in the world subsidizes its transportation He says, the national dream of iron horses, steel network. The Americans subsidize their railssteam and is dead. transportation network in a completely different Well, I will give him one out of three. Mr. way. The Americans subsidize the watetway, the Acting Speaker, ironhorses are still with us, and Mississippi watetway, to the tune of hundreds of they are more efficient than ever and, of course, millions of dollars a year. It is not recognized steel rails are still the most efficient form of immediately as a transportation subsidy to the transportationthat we know. Certainlyin a country benefit of agricultural producers. our size when we are transporting-[interjection] Thesame is true ofthe federalhighway system . Well, unfortunately, there arevery few highways In the United States, they have created afederal that run east-west-1 mean, riverways that run highway system. State and municipalgovernments east-west. contribute very little, and they pay hundreds of Mr. Acting Speaker, the point of the matter is millions of dollars to support that infrastructure, thatthis ministersimply does nothave any vision that transportation infrastructure that is not when it comes to thequestion of transportation. immediately recognizable as asubsidy. 3294 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

Mr.Acting Speaker,we haveto quit buying into subsidy to manufactures andproducers and allthe the argument that somehow we have to strangle rest of it ourselves, that we have to commit hari-kari by • (1710) eliminating the Western Grain Transportation Let us not abandon communities. Let us not subsidy,cutting by off routes thatare unprofitable abandon farmers simply because the Americans becausethey may be viewed as asubsidy. Simply and the GATT negotiators who do not live in because it does not meet the U.S. criteria of Churchill, anddo not live on the bayline, and do national infrastructure, it isviewed as asubsidy. not live in Swan River, and do not live in areas Mr. Acting Speaker, rather than slit our own where the pay-the-producersystem isnot going to throats when it comes to transportation, or more work to their advantage. We do, and we need particularly slit the throats of my colleague's representatives including on the front bench on constituents in Churchill by abandoning the that side and hopefully the Liberal Party who are Churchill route, and that is what the federal going to stand up and say that, no, we have the governmentis doing if it startstalking about"pay same kind of infrastructure needs as any other the producer" as the only solution, then it is time countty in the world. Ratherthan simply abandon we got back to the position of having a dream, of the producers and abandon thecommunities, let us findmore a constructive way of doing it. having a commitment to connecting our communities and providing transportation Mr. Acting Speaker,I said whenthe government opportunities. started talking about its infrastructure renewal program that weshould not bere-siding municipal Even though theymay besubsidized indirectly, garages, we should not be building 1,600 feet of we stillhave to have that dream, because ifwe do sidewalk, we should bedoing what we need todo not have that dream, then what we are doing is to develop our infrastructure, our real infra­ abandoning ourregions. I willtell you, Mr.Acting structure. Instead of 250 projects across the Speaker, ifyou want to know who is going to be province of $30,000, we should becommitting to hurtmost quickly and most directly by this new the development of that infrastructure.1be fe deral changein directionat the federal level, it is going government, ifit has any brains or any dream or to be Atlantic Canada andnorthern Canada. The any vision, is going to take the $590 million that minister in his remarks onJune 3 highlighted the we are spending on the Western Grain factthat millions of dollais-andhighlights he it, Transportation Act, if they are so inclined to $590 million is being identified as a subsidy to abandon thathistorical agree ment, and if it isgoing producers in Canada to abandon rail passenger service to the tune of $330 million or $100milli on to ports, then it bad Well, I can tell you that the federal U.S. better make sure that somehow that money finds governmentspends dozens of timesthat amount of its way into the infrastructure that we all agree,or money in supporting water transportation, road should agree, thatwe need. transportation andrail transportation in the United States that is not identified as direct subsidy to It istime that theLiberal Transport minister got producers or manufacturers, and Canadians are his head out of the sand and recognized that the gutless,they say nothing about it They do not call national dream that Liberals and Conservatives and Canadians fought for for 130 years- the Americans on it. Instead, what do we do? We have this meek little response: well, GATI' says The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, we cannotsubsidize in thisway. Well,if we arenot please. The honourable member's time has going to subsidize in this way, then let us find a expired. more creative way to make sure that the Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Acting infrastructure is owned by Canadians, is not Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to identifiable as an immediate subsidy or direct speak to this motion. Although I was born and June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3295

raised in the city, I have always known the Just as the First Minister(Mr. Filmon) had his importance of agriculture not only in the rural Agricultureminister his and Minister of Highways areas of thisprovince but to the entire province. andTranspo rtation(Mr. Findlay), we hadour critic My father and his parents were grain farmers in of Agriculture and Rural Development and our Charleswood, andmy motherand herparents were critic for Highways and Transportationdo speak.I · grain farmers in Hadashville, Manitoba. not thinkwe should tryto make some kindof gain. We are a teamwe and worktogether. You can take Thesemedia reportshave causedconfusion. The fromconseosus our here today, position.our confusion will bein clear the coming days. I have confidence in the federal Liberal government that 1bespectre Trudeau of raised by themember for has done so much in a shortperiod of time after Emerson (Mr. Penner), well, Trudeau did not have nine yearsof Toryrule. 12 members from the province of Manitoba to advocate forwhat was best forwestern Canada. So Mr.Acting Speaker, I donot think it isnecessary you canexpect to see betterfor western Canadain to repeatwhat my colleagues in caucus have said this government 1be oldfo lklore taleof Trudeau today, but the member for River Heights (Mrs. saying, why should I sell your wheat-what Carstairs) hassaid, and I cocan nfinn my support people forget is that was a rhetorical question to thepoints she made,that there is needfor more followed up by many reasons given by Trudeau discussion, that there is a need for change. The why he should sell the wheat of western Canada. status quo may be comfortable but is not possible Thatis folklore that people like to propagate. The in a changing world, thatthe redbook promise a of memberfor River Heights, being a fonnerhistory million tonnes at Olurchill isin not the redk, boo teacher would be glad to give a lesson to people but is a commitment from Manitoba M.P .s to who donot understandtrue the facts. advocate for this. Ourprovincial caucus willjoin I have never heard the word "Liberal" with others to hold them accountable to this mentioned so oftenas it was today and thankI the commitment. other parties for keeping on saying the word We have heard calls from the opposition to get "Liberal." It gives me confidence on the on the phone to our colleagues in Ottawa. No importance of our presence here in the House. Thank you very much for repeating the word problem. Who better to work with the federal "Liberal" over and over again. I am sure Hansard Liberals inOttawa than the hereLiberal MLAs in willwear outthose keys on their typewriters. Manitoba, becausedo we not try tomake political gainfrom everymistake they make. Our Liberal caucus will continue to support Manitoba farmers, but we are not willing to fix AnHonourable Member:We have already been yesterday's problems with adhoc programs. We on thephone . need to focus on the future to find alternative Mr. Kowalski: We have been on the phone markets and to find new value-added products. already, and we will continue to work with the Our caucus will continue to support Manitoba federal Liberals in Ottawa for the benefit of all farmers.Thank you. Manitobans. Mr. George Dickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Acting Much hasbeen tried to be made of the fact that Speaker, I ampleased to beable to put a few things our Leader has hadnot anopportunity to speak to on therecotd here, because in 1929 the railway to this, yet more than 50 percent of our caucus has Churchill was built, and it was a vision for the spoken to thismotion, and I hope50 percentof the North. caucuses from the other parties speak to the Mr. Acting Speaker, if the elimination of the motion. [interjection] No, we are not like the grain subsidy takes place, thatvision will be lost. federal Conservative caucus. We are abouttalking WhenI just heardthe member for TheMaples (Mr. the Liberal caucushere in Manitoba. Kowalski) making a few comments about their 3296 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

federalcousins Ottawa in andsaying that we arein services, they get $330 million from a subsidy the best position to make gainful gains, I just program. Ifthe subsidy program wasnot there, and wonder where they were when they raised the it was only the raillines thatmade a profit for VIA tobacco tax, when they extended unemployment Railthat would be inbu siness,the only one thatwe insurance andmade it harder for individuals. So I would see would be the central Canada networlc cannot see how it would be positive ifwe even that goes from Quebec toWindsor, because thatis have more Liberals elected, because when the the only VIA line thatis making anyprofit at all. federal Liberals make a negative move, they are So without subsidies, what happens to the very, verysilent andvery quiet money-losing rail lines like the ones going up Mr. Acting Speaker, the announcement by the North to Lynn Lake, to Churchill and other federal Minister of Transport eliminating the communities, Sherridon, those lines would be Western Grain Transportation is really going to abandoned That is thewhole scarypart. hurt northern Manitoba. I say that, because I am I hearmembers talk about, well, give thesubsidy going to be speakingfrom experience. WhenI was to the fanners. That sounds fine.If you have roads growing up in the community of Churchill,I used going into the communities toship your grain out, to see a lot of ships comein anda lot of graincars thatis fine. What ifa fanner lived 10 miles away coming up. When those ships came to Churchill, from a grain elevator, another one lived 220 miles they always brought goods. We usedto have cars or 300 miles away from a grain elevator, Mr. come over from England and on top of that, we Acting Speaker, how will we ensure that the used to get whiskey and Scotch whiskey from fanner who has to travel a great distance gets the Scotland, andwe usedto get faun equipment from proper subsidy for his grain? That also has to be other countries. explained Whatyou will see is a lot of the grain When they came, they came with goods, and being transported by truck, so for surethat would then they took back the grain andbarley and the guarantee the elimination of the rail line going other products we had there. So there is a through 1he Bay communities and to the Port of possibility of having two-way trade out of Churchill,when that happens. Churchill. It does not have to be only grain and • (1720) barley going out it takes is the gnesswillin of What Allyou have to do is look at Churchill.As a kid the provincial government and willingness of the growingup, I rememberI usedto live on what they federal government to makesure that this happens. called "the flats."It is crossa the tracks, and that is Mr.Acting Speaker, the bigimpact that this will where a lot of the poorer families lived, and we have-and I thinkit hasto be ed-isaddress when livedin very small shacks, thatis exactly what they you look at the communities along the bayline. were. Underthe Schreyer administration, they had You have communities there that the individuals the wisdom to try and build MHRC-housing that have lived in for years andyears and years, andit would beavailable for all. is their home. 1he only way that the individuals So the houses we lived in in those times, those living in Thicket Portage, Ilfotd, Pikwitonei, the substandatd houses now you will see are almost only transportation mode they have is railway. empty and abandoned because people areliving in There nois scheduled airlines,no scheduledflights a lot morecomfortable houses where there is sewer going in and out of the communities. There is no andwater, andwe have a beautiful big centrein the roads going into those communities. So the only community of Churchill that houses the hospital, way that they can get their groceries, their mail,go the curling rink, the hockey arena, a library, the and see theirdoctor, their dentist, isby railline. town administration office. That was the vision When we lookat the possibility ofelimination of that a governmenthad in those days, andthat is the the grain subsidy, all we have to do is look at the vision that I am afraid the federal Liberal whole VIA Rail services, because VIA Rail government is losing, because you have to June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3297

maintain a vision in order to makelifestyles and You look at the whole area of tourism. I living and job opportunities for all citizens, not remembermany, manydays that weused to have only if youlive in the south. trainloads of touriststhat used to come to Cllurcbill or get off the train, spend aday and they would 1hereare many people that live in theNorth that tour around town and they would buy souvenirs need assistance fromthegovernments because the andlots of things. You spenda lot of money. So, if freight is so costly and the costof living is much higher. Also, if you look at the whole process, they close thatrail line, that is another industry that whatis going on in theNorthwest Terri toriesright isgoing to be verynegatively impacted. now, Mr.Acting Speaker? You have whatyou ca1l I cannot emphasize enough the possibility and Nunavut which is a new territory that is being thepotential thatwe have for Churchill under the developed, and what community is the closest to spaceportprogram. Even in theconstruction phase that territory? It is the community of Churchill. alone, you are looking at about 400 jobs. I was There issuch a greatpotential for this government speaking to some of my friends andtheir children and federalthe government to get intonegotiations up at Churchill. They are already planning and with the new territory of Nunavut that will be looking at, dreaming of getting employment established. [interjection] opportunities in high-techemployment jobs. They Well, I am glad to hear that because it has so are talking about staying in school, continuing much promise, because a lot of the goods right their education, going on to university because now are stillgoing through,but therereal is serious they see hope. That is the kind of dreams and talk right now in the Northwest Territories of visionsthat havewe to make surethat thepeople in shipping everything through Montreal to Rankin the North willalways have theopportunities for. Inlet and then sending it to other communities That grain port is so keyto the community and from there, so I am glad to bear that the so key to the North. If we lose the Port of governmentis on topof it, and wishI themsu ccess Churchill, we losethe railway transportation, and it because we have to make sure that we in in we lose everything that people have dreamed Manitobawill benefit from the opportunities that about for northern Manitoba because you know thisnew territorycreate will for us. that there is not a road that goes beyond Gillam. Whenyou look at the mmberof goods,because There is a roadthat goes up to Gillam, andthat is you cannot fly everythingbecause people the want where it stops. So, when you look at fu11illing to purchase three-wheel Hondas, boats, motors, people's dreams,you have to makesure that we try skidoos andfo ur-wheeltmclcs- and help people to ful1ill those dreams and do An Honourable Member: You could flythem in whatever it is possible for people to achieve their with a Here. goals. Mr. Dickes: Well, you can fly them in with a I am really, really pleased when I hear young Here,but it is verycostly, so we have NTCLwhich children in Churchill talking about staying in is operating out of Churchill right now. Whatthey school, getting their education because they say, do isthey ship all thegoods up by railcar andthen we will have the opportunity of good, high-tech they unload them in Churchill. Then, in the jobs at the spaceport, which, to me, is very summer season,even houses they have shippedup encouraging because a lot of timeskids drop out of there,they have prefabbedthem, andthey put them schoolwhen they seeno hope. So, when I see that, on barges andthey use a tugboat andship them up it brings me great joy, and it also makes me feel North. So that is a greateconomic opportunity for positive of the community and the North. That is Manitobans thatwe could really utilize ifwe keep what we have to ensure as governments, that rail line open. Without the grainsubsidy, that provincial, federal, opposition, all parties-to railline will be one of the first linesthat will be ensure that we contime that dream for the North abandoned, and thatis only part of theim pact. that hasalways been there. 3298 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

Thankyou, Mr.Acting Speaker. the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) himself Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Acting hadmade reference to. Speaker,this is a veryserious issue, and isthis the I do takesome exception to whatthe Minister of primaryreason why we felt,as Ihad stated earlier, Highways has said when he talked in terms of that it was important that we allow today's abolishingthe full Crow rate in favourof putting it business beputto theside so that we can geta into theproduceiS . better understanding in tenns of where the three AnHonourable Member: A typical Liberal. political parties areon this particular issue. I am sure that, in fact, it will be somewhat useful for • (1730) Members of Parliamentof all political peiSUasions Mr. Lamoureux: 1bemember for Dauphin(Mr. in Ottawa to beable to findout in tenns of where Plohman)says, a typicalLiberal. Well, Mr. Acting people in theprovince of Manitobaare coming. Speaker, I believe thatyou if takelook a at what I want to comment specifically on a couple of has actually beensaid andwhat has been done, it things. First is to acknowledge the fact that I will clearly demonstrate that this is not a cabinet believe, asthe Liberal Party believes, that there is decision at this stage, that Mr. Goodalemade has a need to look atthe Crow, and I believe thatthe comments to theopposite. Conservative Party in the past has also Unfortunately, ministers-and I would suggest acknowledged that thereis that need. Ifound out maybe that this particular Minister of Highways today thatthe New Democratshave feltthat is that did make a mistakein terms of some of the things not, in fact, a need. that he said. He is not the only minister that has maybe misspokenhimself, and doI not know the I made reference to a letter earlier today in context in which it was said. I recall when the speaking to the MUPI and the reasons why. The former Minister of Highways of this letter was in fact theletter that the minister sent administrationtalked about tolls onhighways and out. It was signed by a number of different how quickly he was quiet on thatparticular issue . ministers and was tabled by the minister this afternoon.I madereference to the oneparagraph. I Members from across the floorhave said, where do believe,Mr. Acting Speaker, thatthere is a need arethe Members of Parliament? Well, Mr. Acting to repeatit It says: "TheProducer Payment Panel Speaker, I have confidence that the MembeiS of appointed by the Federal Government has been Parliamentthat represent the province of Manitoba evaluating the options of paying the subsidy will do likewisewhat the provincial Liberal caucus directly to farmeiSrather than to therailroads. This will do, and that is to express the needs and the would promote further diversification in requirements andwhat is in thebest interests of the agriculture and more market responsive provinceof Manitobafirst andfo remost. adjustment in the entire agricultural and Ifwhen a decision is made, andthe Minister of agribusinessindustiy ." Agriculture anticipates that adecision will likely I believe that there is a significant number of bemade in the next 12 to 15 months,if at that point farmers that are out there that are looking and in time we look at the decision and the decision is hoping that they would see a government take not in fact in the best interests of Manitoba, and the some sort of a direction andrecognize theneed to farmers in particular and the town of Churchill, getmore of those dollaiSin the produceiS' hands. I well, then, Mr.Acting Speaker, I am surethat you believe thatfarm eiS,given the opportunity, will be will see the reaction that will not necessarily be in better equipped if they had the additional favour of what thefed eral government is doing. resources, better equipped to be able to provide Mr. Acting Speaker, the fe deral members of more and create more jobs in rural Manitoba, and Parliament, I am sure, and I posed the question this inis factwhat theMinister of Agriculture (Mr. across the floorto the Minister of Agriculture, did Enos) hasbeen talking about This is infact what hephone hismember of Parliament? His response June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3299

was, no, he did not phone his member of government hasdone in nineyears, more positive Parliament but indicated tbata itwas goodidea. things in terms of living up to commitments. Yes, I believe itis a goodidea thatall members of The ofMinister Agriculture talks about the red the Chamber possibly get in contact with their book and the commitment of what the Liberal membersof Parliament. Party said prior to the election. Well, Mr. Acting Mr. ActingSpeaker, I would argue thatthey will Speaker, it was not in the redbook, one the million listen.Whether or not they willhave the ability to tonnesof grain. Therewas a commitmenttbat was win the day, we do not know. We will notknow made from the federal Liberal candidates in the untilthe decision itsel f hasbeen made. province of Manitoba to attempt to get that commitment approved. 1be New Democrats and the Conservatives, in thewords thatthey have said on the record today, Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. would give you the impression that thedecision Mr. Lamoureux: They say, oh. Let me read hasbeen made. 1bereason whythey want to make exactly whatwas said. It was:therefore, Manitoba that impression is that they are hoping to try to Liberals willpress a new governmentfor anexport make thisantigovernment, an federal government of one million tonnes of grain through the Port of -it is called fed-bashing, andtbat is why we had Churchill each year. And, Mr. Acting Speaker, I members talk about, remember Trudeau years. believe it wasprinted in bold. Onemember made referenceto theenvironmental So I trustthat some memberis going to stand up office-no comparison, compared to the CF- 18, today andspeak somewhat in a way in which will absolutelyno comparisonwhatsoever. be more productive, more of a positive They tried to associate,Mr. ActingSpeaker, that contribution to thatdecision that ultimately will be this, whether the government, and they do not made. I have done my ownfedbashing in thepast, acknowledge-one, I believe, did acknowledge but I believethat there tends to be,at leastfrom the that the Minister of Agriculture hasbeen worldng debate thathave I heard here, more of a political with representatives from the industry, grain agendathan real a agenda of trying-[interjection] companies, the railroads, the Canadian Wheat I guess they are saying, the Leader of the New Board, Canadian Grain Commission, Grain DemocraticParty, thattoo I have done my share of fedbashingmyself. Transportation Agency, unions and management and farmers. The federal government has been (Mr. Speaker in theClair) worldngand dealing with thisvery sameiss ue,and no decisionhas been made. Point ofOrder Yes, maybe one minister has made some Mr. Doer: On apoint of order, I believe it should comments in citing a personal opinion but, Mr. be very clear that the member for Inkster (Mr. Acting Speaker, I can assure you that the Lamoureux) has said he has done his share of information that I have been provided, and I fedbashing. Thereis a difference between standing believe that informationis accurate,that a decision up for Manitoba and fedbashing for political has not been made. I believe that the members of purposes. Parliament will in fact have a good, thorough We do not want to impugn motives at all, Mr. discussion, and what is in the best interests of Speaker. Maybe the member for Inkster used to Manitoba and Canadawill served.be fedbash. We just believe it is very important, our Until thatdecision ismade, Mr. ActingSpeaker, relationship with the fe deral government. No I willhave more faithin the current administration matter who is in office it is a very crucialpoint for than the previous administration. I would argue all Manitobans. thatthe current Liberal government hasdone more Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable in the last six, nine months than the previous Leader does not have a point of order. The 3300 LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

honourable member for Inkster has 18 seconds • (1740) remaining. Now, Mr. Speaker, we hadthe fo nnerLeader of ••• theLiberal Party and the member for Inkster(Mr. Mr.Lamoureux: Mr.Speaker, very interesting. It Lamoureux), who should have beenthe Leader of is not fedbashing when theNew Democratic Party the Liberal Party, develop the most clearly stands up. I think thatthey made it into a fine art enunciated positions of all of theLiberals I heard. during the '70s when we saw the amount of The member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) fedbashing that wenton, andwhen the minister- admitted that there was confusion at the federal level. I know that is probably a gross under­ Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable statement on this issue, because you have one member's timehas expired. minister saying, the Minister of Transport saying, Bon. Donald Orchard (Ministerof Energy and thisCrow benefit should beeliminated in an effort Mines): Mr. Speaker, this debate hasbeen very a to sustain deficit control. Then you have the other necessary one in this House because the issues fe deral minister, Mr. Goodale, the Minister of before us, namely ChurchiU and resolutionthe of Agriculture, saying, well, no we really have not the payment of the Crow benefit, are two very decidedyet. importantiss uesto thisprovince. Why this debate was important-even though The debate had to take place because I do not we do not .know whereprovincial Liberalsstand on think there is any confusion as to where the New this issue, we do not know where the Liberals Democrats stand in either of those issues. They stand onthis issue provincially-we would have have supportedthe Port of Churcbillwe as have as enjoyed hearing advice on how they are a party. There is a erence,diff admittedly, between recommending this policy be dealt with, that where the New Democrats approached the advice going to their federal counterparts. The payment of the Crow benefit from where I think closestwe got to that advice wasfrom themember themajority of our party believes it shouldbe, and for Inkster. I give him credit for that, because he that isfair. The NewDemocrats favourpaying the has been forthright most of the time. He did railroads, and we favour paying producers, indicate that there ought to be apayment to the becausewe thinkin thelong run thatimprove will producers of the Crow benefit I have to assume, the agricultural economy of Manitoba. The Mr.Speaker, in theabsence of theLiberal Lead er's importance of thisdebate was to have the position commentson thisue, iss thatthe person whoshould clearly enunciated of the Liberal Party of have been the Leader of the Liberal Party Manitoba onboth of these issues. provincially, the member for Inkster, has put the Mr. Speaker,I haveto say to you thatI listened Liberal Party 's position on the record that Crow intently to severalLiberals speak,and, regrettably, benefit (a) should not be eliminated in Paul Sir, we have not heard from the Liberal Leader Martin's desire to lower the deficit and that it (Mr. Edwards) in Manitoba. The Liberal Leader, should bepaid to theproducers. asis usual, hasmade himself exceptionally unable Well, I have to concur with my honourable to be here to speak and deliver policy. He may friendthe member for Inkster andif that werewhat have duties that carried him disallowed him and the provincial Liberals communicate to their from being here, and I respect that But, surely, federal counterparts, that would be good advice. Manitobans, as we approach maybe an election We haveto assume thatthat may bethe advice that within a year, ought to know more about the is fo rthcoming. LiberalParty and the LiberalLeader and where the Liberal Party stands, other than the fact they Now, what l wantto tell you, Mr. Speaker, is the support everything that the federal Liberal benefitthis of debate is, my honourable friends in government does. Me-tooism is not goodenough the Liberal Party are scrambling. They are in developingpolicy for thepeople of Manitoba. scrambling to say, well, you know, there was this June9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3301

confusion between ministers.They reallydid not Lamoureux) hasenunciated wherethey stand and mean what they said because, Sir, they say, and thatthey in fact will communicatingbe with their oneof the Liberalsjust bas reinforced that,that no federal confreres that the Crow benefit ought to decisionhas beenmade, thatthis whole confusion remain and paidbe to producers, as acommittee is was just maybe trial balloons, maybe no currently under study, andsecondly, thatthey will communicationat thefederal leve l. Maybethey do back the federal government away from what I not have any ideaof whatthey are going to do, but believe are plans to eliminate the CN Rail to if there is one thing debate has potentially Churchill. That is important to the province of accomplished today, that would be, I hope, Sir, Manitoba from grain transportation, fromimport thatwe back federalthe govermnent, Mr. Chretien from the BalticStates andother areas of thefo rmer and Mr. Axworthy and the eight or nine other Soviet Union andimportant if we aregoing to tum Liberal MPs in Manitoba away from the Churchill into a world-class spaceport, because enunciatedposition of theTransport minister, Mr. that rail is needed for transshipment of rocketsto Young, that this Crow benefit should be taken nortbemManitoba. away from westernCanadian farmers. If this debate does anything but get the Liberal H thatis thebenefit of thisdebate , it would not govermnent in Ottawa to be honest and to treat be the firsttime that this Minister of Agriculture Churchill appropriately and deal with integrity (Mr. Enns) bas intervened positively on behalf of with the Crow benefit, then thisdebate hasindeed Manitoba fanners and western Canadian farmers. been worthwhile. I congratulate the member for You mightrecall, one month ago, approximately, Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) for bringing this when the fed eralMinister of Agriculture,one Mr. matter of urgent public importance before the Goodale, was about to cave in to the American House for debate. lobby against our wheatimports and make a deal But, Mr. Speaker, I have some significant which would have compromised every single reservations in termsof where theLiberal Partyof wheatproducer in esternw Canada for the benefit Manitobareally does stand, becausein theabsence of, again, oureastem Ontario andQuebec friends, of a clearly enunciated statement by theirLeader, because the Liberal Party nationally always none of these folks really, really count asmuch as compromises the West for the benefit of Toronto the Leader in terms of enunciating policy. and Montreal-never fail. Well, the active [interjection] My honourable friend, the newly intervention of our Minister of Agriculture a elected Liberal, is saying, well, our Leader did not month ago backed the federalLiberal govermnent away andMr. Goodaleaway on thatissue . speak. How many cabinet ministers have you beard Now, ifwe could just silence Mr. Young, who enunciate the position that I have put forward says we have to get rid of this Crow benefit today? You have beard numerous of them, andin because it is against trade agreements and is these issues cabinet ministers do tend to develop actionable, which is anabsolute misunderstanding and speak policy on behalf of the Province of of the issue, ifwe can back him away, ifnothing Manitoba. But regrettably andunf ortunately, with else happens than themember for St James (Mr. members of opposition parties, unless the Leader Edwards) uses part of his $55,000 taxpayer­ enunciates the policy, which the New Democrats supported, Liberal-donated expense account to have done, you can say, oops,it wasnot in our red buy a roll of tape to shut the mouth of the federal book;we reallydid not meanit; we reallywere not Minister of Transport, we would allbenefit serious. Manitobans on these two very key and Mr. Speaker, even though we have not beard the crucial and important issues do not know where position of theLiberal Leader ofthis Liberal Party the provincialLiberals stand, and isthat anissue of Manitoba (Mr. Edwards) on this issue, I take that cannot go unrecognized andunc hallengedand comfort that the member for Inkster (Mr. unanswered. 3302 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

IfManitobans believe thatthey are going to get contradictory to that commitment during the consistent positions on policy from this Liberal election. Party under the leadership of the disappearing • (1750) memberfor St. James(Mr. Edwanls),who basnot put his position on the record in this House on They made commitments that there would be anything in this session, thatis not good enough. support for the Port of Churchill,they and would That will not allow Manitobans to make the be shipping one million tonnes of grain from the judgment as to the worth and value of provincial port. We can see thatis not going to happenthey as Liberals to beelected to thisin Legislature thenext eliminate the subsidy for that northern line. They provincialelection. spoke of renewing our infrastructure program, improving the transportation system andreducing Mr. Speaker, regrettably, once againit is the job input costs to make farming more viable, and we of members on this side of the House to inform could see that again all of those things are not rural Manitobans that there is no position of the happening. Liberal Party on the Crow benefit, provincially. Theyhave no ideas,no sense of where theywill go On issue after issue after issue we see the on thisissue because their regrettabLeader, ly, bas Liberals implementing Conservative policy at the again not used any of his $55,000 expense federal level, whether it is NAFrA, whether it is allowance to buy apolicy on grain transportation the cruisees, missil whetherit is the cutsto the UI. subsidizationfor the Port of Churchill. Onissue afterissue we see that the Conservative policies are being implemented by the Liberal I do not know what he uses that expense government, and they are betraying this countcy. allowance for, thatthe taxpayers of Manitobahave Theyare betraying the people of thiscountty. They subsidized through the income tax relief of arebetraying the people of Manitoba. donators to the Liberal Party provincially. But I want to standhere today, Mr. Speaker, andtell whatever he is using that $55,000 for, I urge the you I amreally gladthat BillBlaikie was elected to members of the Liberal Party to use it to at least continue to represent the communities of East buy some policies, buy some principles so Kildonan andTranscona and the whole province Manitobanswill .know where Liberals stand. and speak out on behalf of Manitoba to tell this Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I am pleased Liberalgovernment thatthe Portof Cllurchilland to speaktoday as the cabooseon thisdebate, and I the yanlsCN in Transcona arenot up for grabs. welcome the chance to- Mr. Speaker, this government obviously hasno An Honourable Member: Ah, an endangered vision. They do not see the importance of the species. railway to thiscountcy. Theydo not see that going Ms.Cerilli: The caboose is anendangered species into the next century the railway in thiscountcy is under Liberal and Conservative governments one of the most important industries, because we across thiscountcy. have to start lookingat theenvironmental realities Mr. Speaker, this is a classic debate we have in this country, and there is no better way to here today. We seethat the Liberals in government transport dangerous goods, there is no better way to transport commodities like grain than with the are noerent diff from the Tories. We have lists of railways. what the Liberals said they would do in governmentduring theelection. They claimed that If we go back to the 1980s, and I remember they would take a different path than the when I was in university and the debate and the Conservative government. They said that the fight that wehad on the Crow rate. Who was the railwayjobs that were beinghemorrhaged thefrom ministerthen, the Minister of transportation? None countty from VIA Rail and CN would stop, that other-[interjection] lloyd Axworthy was the the bleeding would stop. Then we see an action minister thatimplemented the firstchanges on the like we have today totally in conflict and Crow rate to start takingaway those subsidies that June 9, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA 3303

were goingto therailways to transportgrain across kettle, if you will, with the elimination of the thiscountry. subsidy. Theeffect is going to bemuch the same. The effect is going to be much the same, He still bas the same agenda, even though he particularly on the railways and all those talks one way during the election campaigns. communities in theNorth andin rural Manitoba There were bigpromises made to the Transcona that rely on those railway services. Shopsduring the last federal election,big promises about lots of wotkthere in theTranscona yards. Therewas a reportby thenational transportation industry that said that this was going to cost I tell can you, Mr. Speaker, with the linegoing farmers $500 million andwe are going to see that and up to Churchill the closing of that port, the thatis what is going to happen. people that wotk inthose yards in Transcona are going to be affected. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that I have heard membersopposite talk about how since Mr. Speaker, theother thing that ispart of this 1897 thiskind of program hasbeen a birthright to betrayal and partof this narrow vision that the the farmers in Manitoba. I do not think the Liberals have is related to NAFrA. We heard the government across the way bas done everything memberfor F1inFlon (Mr. Storie) talkabout this. they could to standup for therailway in Manitoba Onthe one hand, before the election, the Liberals andfor thisprogram that is going to integrate and claimed they were going to renegotiate NAFrA. link the railway and the farming sector of this No sooner were they elected than they quickly, province. before the GATT negotiations were completed, went ahead and implemented NAFrA, and now They are allowing the economy to be they are taking away the infrastructure that is unravelled. They are allowing this inter­ going to allow usto maintainour grain industry in relationshipto be undone, andthey are not seeing thiscoun tty,and they are giving up the ghost. the value in keeping a strong rail system in Manitoba andin thiscountry to ensurethat we are Mr. Speaker, back in the '80s there was an going to have the Port of Churchill and all those inquiryby EmmettHall, from thejudiciary, andhe othercommunities thatrely on thisprogram. said that the Crow ratewas not bargainable. He saidthat once the rateCrow was on the bargaining It isthe railway jobs, Mr. Speaker, but it is far table andbegan to be tampered with that it would more than that.It is allowing thiscountry to have all be lost. We can see that that is what has some accessto ruralnorthern and areas so that we happenedand it is theLiberals did who it initially can have development outside of the large urban and it is the Liberals who are finishing it off in centres. It is a very big issue,Mr. Speaker. government. We talk over and over again about the I do not want, though, to let this Conservative displacement of people, the young people who government think that there is no responsibility leave the rural areas, and then we have there because, ifyou also look back andyou look governments take actions like this which are at the Lyon government at thattime which, by the totally in conflict with any kind of vision of way, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was a part of and developing rural areas and are totally promoting supported the policies, the Lyon government also the draining of young people and of jobs and of supported thesame policy. people out ofthe ruralnorthern and areas. Letthe Conservativesback look andsee they are So I just do not understand the thinking of alsoincomistent andwe cannot, as themember for Conservative and Liberal governments across this Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) bas said, separate these country. I remember when I was about 10 years two issues. We cannot separate these two issues, old, andour family took the totrain Churchillfor a andwe have to lookat theConservative positionof summer holiday. I remember going up there and putting the subsidy to the farmers in the same walking from the rail line into the Northwest 3304 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLYOF MANITOBA June 9, 1994

Territories andrealizing and looking on the map at Mr. Speaker, I must say that I would not callit how farnorth we were. Wedid thattrip back inthe federal Liberal-bashing, as the honourable '70sbefore it wasa fashionableor popular thing to memberfor Inkster(Mr. Lamoureux) has said. do assumme r tourism, andwe took thattrip into an I knowwhen our federal cousins inwere power, areaof northernManitoba that I hadnever been to our Premier stood strong when our federal before. I wantto go back there, and I think that Conservative cousins were in power and stood many people in thisprovince want to takethe train strongagainst them whenthe y took initiatives that andgo to ChurchillThere is aof lot potential for were against theProvince ofManitoba. I have not development in theNorth, andwe cannot lose this heaid the honourable member for St James (Mr. grain subsidy. We cannot lose the rail line to Edwards) today stand up and take a stand for Churchill. Wehave to make sure thatthe Liberal Manitoba, and I thinkwas that wrong. Instead, he govemmemand Conservativethe governments are isout inSt Norbert tonight, woddngto tiyand get heldaccountab le. Thankyou veeymuch. some otherLiberal elected. Thankyou. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 Speaker, I know the time isshort so I willmake it p.m., this now concludes the matter of urgent veey brief. I would like to thank the honourable publicimportance. member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) for The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now bringing forward thisdebate . I have really thought adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. it wasa veey imeresting debate. tomorrow (Friday). LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, June 9, 1994

CONTENTS

RO� PROCEEDINGS Matter ofUrgent PublicImportance Port of Oum:bill OralQuestions Robinson 3257 Grain Transportation Proposal Emst 3258 3247 Lamoureux 3258 Doer; Findlay Speaker's Ruling 3259 TheWinnipeg Jets Robinson 3259 Doer 3261 Storie; Filmon; Edwards; Stefanson 3249 Eons 3263 JudicialSystem Carstaiis 3265 Findlay 3267 Macldntosb; Flmon; McCrae 3251 Reid 3270 Francophone Schools Governance Gaudry 3272 Helwer 3274 Plobman; Manness 3252 Wowcbuk: 3275 Derkacb Economic Growth 3278 Gray 3280 Pallister; Stefanson 3254 Penner 3282 Ashton Port of Cllurcbill 3284 Rose 3285 Robinson; Findlay 3254 Plohman 3288 Driedger ArcticBridge Agree ment 3290 Storie 3292 Robinson; Findlay 3255 Kowalski 3294 Hiekes 3295 Health CareSystem Lamoureux 3298 Gray; Stefanson 3255 Orchard 3300 Cerilli 3302 HealthFacilities Care Laurendeau 3304 Cbomiak; McCrae 3256 EnvironmentalLegislation Cerilli; Cummings 3257