LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, November 30,
1992
The House met at 8 p.m.
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE
(Second Day of Debate)
Madam Deputy
Speaker (Louise Dacquay): Order,
please. The hourbeing 8 p.m., will the
House please come to order.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Madam Deputy Speaker,
indeed it is apleasure to stand up here and talk today on the throne speech,and
it is similar to when you are in school.
One of the firstassignments you have when you get back into class from
theEnglish teacher is, how did I spend my summer? You have to lookback and say, well, this
summer has been tremendously excitingand changing for myself on a personal
basis here and thefunctions and the things that I have had the opportunity toattend. The summer of '92 will certainly go down as
one of mymost eventful summers in my life.
Firstly, what I would like to do, Madam Deputy Speaker,
issend out some congratulations to the new faces here in theLegislature, and it
is my pleasure really to extendcongratulations to the new member for
I would also like to extend best wishes, salutations and
goodhealth to the Leader of the Second Opposition, the member for
An Honourable Member: How come
you are always so nice when theyare going?
Mr. Reimer: When
they are going, we are always nice.
I would like to also take the time to extend best wishes
andgood health to our Lieutenant‑Governor (Mr. Johnson) who was nothere
for the throne speech, but I understand that he is gettingbetter, getting back
into fine form. He was missed during thethrone
speech, and I wish him a speedy recovery and good health.
In looking back, as mentioned, when you look at your
summerand what happened in the summer of '92, I have to look back atsome of the
events and some of the things that I will just takesome moments to sort of
highlight in a sense. I guess when welook
at
From the Fringe Festival, we had the Folk Festival here
inWinnipeg‑‑not necessarily here in
Also, naturally there is Folklorama. Here in
An Honourable Member: Every
one?
Mr. Reimer: Every
one, and I will tell you it was something tosee if you had not been to them,
and I imagine most of us have.
The involvement, the volunteerism was at an all‑time
high,the attendance was at an all‑time high. It just goes to show,here in
*
(2005)
Going on to the Speech from the Throne, as it was broughtforth
a little while ago, I cannot help but repeat a couple ofthe paragraphs that
came out right at the very, very beginning.It seemed so very apropos here in
Manitoba when we talk aboutwhat is happening.
I would just like to quote from the Speechfrom the Throne, and the lines
are:
"The winds of change are sweeping the globe. Walls andboundaries that have traditionally
defined nations, internationaltrade, national economics and individual
lifestyles are tumblingdown. This
revolutionary process is affecting every continentand touching virtually every
nation and every community.
"History teaches us that the most durable and
enduringsocieties are those best able to cope with change, adapt theirway of
life and take advantage of the new opportunities."
It seems that it should be repeated–the line "best
able tocope with change, adapt their way of life and take advantage ofthe new
opportunities." On a personal note,
I can attest to thatvery, very easily, because at times we do have to go
through somedifficult changes. We have
to adapt and we have to look forwardto new opportunities. As anybody, you have to turn the page andyou
keep moving.
Here in
We are very fortunate here in
Today's society, with the mass amount of communications
andchange that comes about, makes what is normal today obsolete bytomorrow, so
we have to position ourselves to change.
As agovernment, one of the things that we strive for very diligentlyis
to be aware of the people, to be aware of what is going on inthe economy of
We have to look at what they are coming up with and what
theyare suggesting as a way of doing business and the way of going tothe
community and try to see where their answers are and wheretheir directions
are. The Leader there, the member for
Concordia(Mr. Doer), kept talking about and criticizing this governmentfor the
studies and the reform and the changes that thisgovernment was bringing forth,
and saying it is the same oldrhetoric rehashed and it is brought forth again
and again, but wehave to look at what their agenda is. Then they come out with avery broad spectrum
of statements, and actually it is so broad itonly takes up, I believe, two
pages‑‑priorities for the sessionwhich take up two pages.
*
(2010)
It becomes quite a budget speech for the NDP in the sense
ofwhere their priorities are. In here
you see words likeperformance, and you see words like reform, and you see likestudies
and you see like boards and commissions, and you see alot of the same type of
thing that they are talking about overand over again. They talk about their positive thrust, of
whatthey feel they should be doing, but they seem to be doing thesame old
rhetoric and the same old rehashing of how they used todo things. They look backwards all the time as to what
should bebrought forth to the people of
He did happen to mention about being out of touch. He keptsaying that this government is out of
touch. It has to go acrossthe road and
take a walk across the street, and he talked aboutthe fact that the delegates
at the convention, the ProgressiveConservative convention‑‑in fact,
I should point out that at theConservative convention that was just held, we
had over 500members in attendance and we had a tremendous turnout of themembership. I guess he is referring back to a guess when
hisconvention was on just a few weeks ago where they had, I think,it was only
200 memberships or people out. So, when
he talksabout the interest in the party and his strong mandate, when heis
talking about his 200 delegates, and the conference that wejust went through
where we had over 500, you can see where theinterest is and the direction of
priorities.
In one of the comments made by the member for Concordia
(Mr.Doer), the Leader of the New Democratic Party, he talks about ourbeing out
of touch, the delegates at our convention, but I haveto look back at one of the
comments and one of the directivesthat came out from the NDP convention, and
this was theinstructions that they had for the youth. This was a packagethat was distributed to the
youth of the NDP, and some of thethings that they were saying that they should
be involved with.One of the things they said is they should have a conference,they
should get together, and they asked the youth to pick up, asan item of
conversation and discussion, the Regina Manifesto.The Regina Manifesto is what
the youth of the NDP should use as aguiding light in discussions.
Now, when you talk about the Regina Manifesto, you aretalking
about 1930s policy. This is what the
executive of theNDP are telling their youth to use as a guide, the ReginaManifesto
of 1930. My gosh, how could you use that
as aguideline? How could you use the
1930s as a guideline for the1990s? This
is the youth of the NDP that they are trying to getgoing. I mean, you have to get more in tune over
there. Youjust cannot look backward and
look backward.
I have to revert back to when I talked one other time,
and Icalled it the new dinosaur party.
My gosh, I guess it still isthe new dinosaur party. I mean, we just keep looking backwardand
backward across that way. Mr. Doer also,
I believe, came upwith the line–I have to make sure I have it right here–when
hewas talking about the junkets. I
believe what he was talkingabout was the Premier (Mr. Filmon) being the junket
king of allpremiers. This is attributable
to Mr. Doer. He was talkingabout the
various trips that our Premier had made overseas.
We have to look back and say, well, what was the reason
forthese trips? Well, when the Premier
took the three trips–theywere talking about the trips to
Who did he take with him when he went over there? He tookbusinessmen, and they paid for their
own way, not at thetaxpayers' expense. I
believe when he went over to the Orient,there were about half a dozen
businessmen. When he went over to
They say, why should he be going over there? I have to lookback to 1987 when the then
Pawley government took a trip to theOrient also. Yes, they took people there too, but did they
takebusinessmen? No. They took cabinet ministers. [interjection]No,
it was a trip to the Orient, a 10-day trip to exotic places.
*
(2015)
Now, how did it go over in the newspaper here in
Mr. Eliesen, as we all know, has gone on to bigger and
betterthings from here. In fact, he has
gone on to
From there he decided there were little greener pastures
whenthere was a little bit of a change in government. He ended up in
In the paper there the other day I could not help but
noticea picture of Premier Bob next door.
It is a picture of PremierBob at the telephone, and I think he is
phoning either–no, he isnot phoning home, it is from the Taiwan Hotel. My gosh, he isover there on a business trip
too. Yes, Premier Bob, the fellowfrom
over in
Our Premier (Mr. Filmon) goes to three places. He goes to
*
(2020)
Here is Premier Bob doing all these trips. I mean, you justhave to wonder where the
priorities are on this. I have to goback
to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was talkingabout when he was
talking about wanting to get things happeninghere in
Now, we have to ask, where is the Jobs Fund, and where
arehis priorities? Back in 1983, the
same Gary Doer, while speakingabout the Jobs Fund, and I quote: It is bloody immoral in mymind, he says. The government does not understand the
differencebetween a make‑work job and a structured economy. He is talkingabout the Pawley government at
that time. Any economist willtell you a
structured job is more beneficial to the economy.
He went on further to criticize the NDP government for
itsJobs Fund which he likened to the government dropping people whofixed pot
holes in the highway to hiring people to cut flowersalong the sidewalk. My goodness, this is the same Gary Doer. Atthat time, he was MGEA president. So at one time, it is bloodyimmoral in my
mind, he is quoted as saying. Now he is
saying weshould be getting the Jobs Fund going again. [interjection] Quitedishonest
in fact, because it comes from all areas that way.
What we have to ask Mr. Doer is, where is this money
going tocome from in the Jobs Fund? I
mean, if he is going to come forthwith a Jobs Fund, we have to look out and
say, well, where is themoney going to come from? Where is Mr. Doer going to get themoney
from? Well, we got a bit of a hint when
we see a quotefrom the–this is from the Swan River Star & Times, September
23,1990. This is from
I would think that the Leader of the NDP always gets a
littleapprehensive when he goes into
There is duplicity there.
In fact, if we talk aboutduplicity, we are talking about the duke of
duplicity over onthat side right now because of the flip‑flop, the
insincerity.He is going to use the social assistance budget for job trainingand
for jobs for the Jobs Fund. So that is
where he feels thatthe money should be coming from. So when we look at the JobsFund and the
blueprint for monies paying for it, we should lookalso to where other monies
are being spent.
We look at
*
(2025)
Now, the Jobs Fund in
So, in looking at the comparison, we look at
We have the NDP governments, and not only that, what ishappening
with the NDP governments in other parts of Canada–finally realizing that there
is such a word as fiscalrestraint. We
are looking at cutting of jobs. They
talk aboutcutbacks into their funding to education. They are talking abouttheir welfare
cuts. They are doing a lot of things
that are notreally going contrary to what they are supposed to be doing whenthey
talk about the fairness and the equity to people.
So we look at what we are trying to do here in
As has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr.Doer), when we had the Economic Innovation and Technology Councilthat was
just here in
It is this type of involvement and this type of
appreciationto try to make things happen that will make and bring Manitobainto
a better position here in
One of the things that was presented and was built upon
isWorkforce 2000 which is looking at a training force of almost25,000 people by
the time it is finished, and these are peoplewho are being trained in the work
force themselves by theemployers and the employees helping each other. A lot of theemphasis and the direction is to
try to help people buildthemselves up.
*
(2030)
The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Concordia
(Mr.Doer), talked about the Crocus Fund and how all these things werebrought
forth by his government. In fact, the
impression that Igot from when I was listening to him speak was that most of
thedirection, the emphasis and the content of the throne speech isactually as
it was for the former Pawley governments and theSchreyer governments. Well, if that is such a true case, I wouldsee
no reason in the world why he would be voting against thethrone speech and
bringing in amendments to it, if he comes outso strongly saying that the
direction and the emphasis that is inthis throne speech is old hat for
him. So we have to look atwhat the
Leader of the Opposition is trying to bring to us whenhe talks about trying to
make a new beginning or rehash some ofthe things that are talked about here in
the throne speech.
There are a number of other indicators that we can look
at,economic indicators here in
Unemployment has dropped to 10.3 percent in July to 10percent
in August of '92. The first eight months
of 1992 showeda 30.3 percent increase in housing starts in
So these are all very positive indicators of our
confidencehere in
It is just like the old Chicken Little scenario, the sky
isfalling, the sky is falling, but at the same time the Leader ofthe Opposition
is like the rooster. He is the rooster
in theChicken Little scenario and, like the rooster, he likes to crowin the Sun
every morning. The Sun we will refer to
is The Sunpaper with the little 10‑second clips there.
An Honourable Member: But he
is no little red hen.
Mr. Reimer: No
little red hen, no.
In fact, the Conference Board of Canada, which the
members ofthe opposition often refer to, predicts that
One of the noticeable things is that when we talked to
thepeople there, when I had the chance to talk to some of the peoplefrom other
parts of Canada–in fact, there were people there fromother parts of the world–they
talked about the positive attitudethat this government has shown in trying to
attract mining andinvestment here in Manitoba.
Mining and exploration can be avery big boon not only to northern
In northern
But at the same time if there is a growth factor
involved,this province and this government should take advantage of it andtry
to encourage this type of development in
In going back to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer),
hewould feel that any type of work force or any type of jobcreation has to have
some sort of tangent to it or ring so thatthere is a concern that all factors
are being attuned to. Wehave to go back
to what the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) wastalking about in his reply to
the throne speech when he wastalking about large corporations and the
corporations moving andthe movement of capital with these various companies andcorporations.
We must remember what a corporation is, and we have to
lookat the definition of a corporation. The
definition of acorporation actually is shareholders. Shareholders are peoplethat invest money in a
company, and one of the things that theyput forth to the directors of that
company is the fact that theyhave to be profit-oriented. Profit is not a dirty word; profitis
something that makes the economies grow.
If a company doesnot have profit, it will not stay around.
The NDP in one of their philosophies in one of theirstatements
at the convention just recently said that they wouldmake
How can you encourage business on one hand and tell them
tocome here and then tell them, we are going to regulate yourprofits, we are
going to tell you how much money you can make, weare going to tell you when you
can close and when you can open?What kind of hypocrisy is that? The duke of duplicity has got itall. You cannot have it both ways.
When you talk about companies, you talk about
corporations,you talk about profit.
There is nothing wrong with making money,and if you are going to make
money you are going to stay inbusiness.
If you are going to stay in business, you are going tocreate jobs and,
when you create jobs, you create money.
Moneymakes taxes and taxes pay for the social services that thisgovernment
wants and which all governments want.
We are not going to have that if we have tough
legislationand legislation that is going to say that you cannot close yourplant
when the thing does not become profitable.
There has to besome sort of regulation where people can do that, but no,
theyare going to sit there and say that you cannot close. That isone way to get corporations to
It just does not make sense that they can come up with
such astrong statement and bandy this around.
This is a new resolutionfrom the NDP that this is the way you attract
government, this isthe way you attract jobs, this is the way you attract businesshere. Do not bring a shop to
Madam Deputy Speaker, I see by the flashing light on my
tablethat I have no more time left.
Thank you very much for my time,and I thank you that I had this great
opportunity to talk on thisthrone speech.
If anything matters, the positive attitude willcontinue on this side,
and we will continue to try to make thingsbetter and best for Manitobans.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
*
(2040)
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciatethe
opportunity to speak on this so‑called throne speech here. Itwas about
the eleventh‑‑yes, it was one of the most dismal thronespeeches
that I have seen here. It ranks right
down there withthe '91 throne speech that we had in this House.
I want to, before I get into some of the debate on that,congratulate
the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I found it kind of interesting when
themember for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) was speaking about trying torationalize the
junkets of the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Of
course,I know all about that. When I was
the Minister ofTransportation, the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard), at thattime
as critic, said that I was on a junket when I went
I have to admit, I did not have as good taste as the
Premierhas and a number of these ministers as they become worldtravellers, as
has been done in the last number of months by thePremier and certainly a number
of the ministers as well.
Inside of five months the Premier went to
Now, I will not dwell on that too long except to say that
ifthe member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) cared to look at all thestatistics for the
Then he said these are all good news indicators for the
An Honourable Member: Get your facts straight.
Mr. Plohman: Well,
the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) does notlike me referring to the government
before the Pawley governmentas the
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Now, I find it interesting that the member for Niakwa
(Mr.Reimer)‑‑I am going to take a few minutes to deal with hisspeech‑‑that
he would talk about NDP governments not knowing thedefinition or the meaning of
fiscal restraint. He said they didnot
know that, but what he forgot to mention was the Torygovernment in
Now look at these guys, Mr. Speaker. We have the Minister ofNorthern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) talking about his record that heseems so proud of. He has taken it from a $50 million surplus in1988
to a $642 million deficit in 1992. That
is a turnaround of$700 million the wrong way by these Tories, and they say thatthey
are fiscally responsible, and they have the gall to stand upand believe their
rhetoric and believe that somehow the previousgovernment was less fiscally
responsible than this bunch overhere at this particular time. Nothing could be further from thetruth. Clearly the record shows, so let them not use
thatcomparison because clearly they have gone backward. They areirresponsible.
When they put in last year's throne speech they intend tospend
carefully and manage wisely, nothing could have beenfurther from the facts in
this province because we saw what theirrecord has produced. We have seen it over the past year, we haveseen
it over the past four years, and we will see it, I am sure,unfortunately, for
another couple of years in this province, butno longer, Mr. Speaker. We will not see it more than two yearsbecause
the people of
The Minister of Finance is quite proud of the fact that
hecan talk about freezing personal taxes for four years. It soundsvery much like the
Now what has this personal income tax freeze done for the
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, Iwonder if the member would
submit to a question?
Mr. Plohman: Mr.
Speaker, this member has been around longenough in this House to know very well
that there is plenty ofopportunity to ask a question with leave after the
speech, and Iwould be pleased for him to do that at any time, but I kind ofresent
the fact that he wants to cut into my time right now.
When they talk about freezing the personal tax rate, theyshould
be honest about it with the people of
An Honourable Member: Where?
Mr. Plohman: That is
precisely the question I wanted the memberfor Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) to
ask. He said, where are theygetting
it? Well, we know where they are getting
it. They aregetting it from the property
taxpayers of this province. Theyunderfund
education, they transfer it onto the municipalities,and they have to assess the
taxes.
*
(2050)
It is called the GFT.
The minister does not recall the GaryFilmon tax. They have not admitted the fact that these
taxeshave been put in place precisely because this government hastransferred
responsibilities, funding responsibilities andprogram responsibilities onto the
municipalities. So they arenot being
honest with the people of this province when they onlytalk about one side of
the equation. They only talk aboutpersonal
income taxes.
The other thing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
shoulddo in this province is stand up once a year if not more often, atleast
once a year, and he should thank Eugene Kostyra for puttingin place the
infrastructure in the tax system that would ensurethat we would have surpluses
in this province. That is the onlyreason
this minister has been able to freeze personal incometaxes that he likes to
brag about and take personal credit forthe last four years because of the fact
that he was left withrevenues that were more than adequate to ensure a positivesurplus
in the budget in this province, not a deficit.
So it hasbeen through no good management of this minister that he has
beenable to freeze those taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a few minutes to lookthrough
the previous speech that was brought into this House, the1991 speech, because
from that I think it can tell us a greatdeal about how much credibility we can
place in the kinds ofcommitments and promises that this government makes in its
thronespeech this year, if we look at past throne speeches, look attheir track
record and see whether in fact they will produce onwhat they say.
When you look through it, first of all we find the
completereversal from what they talked about as spend carefully andmanage
wisely. We have not seen that. We have a record deficitin this
province. Obviously, they failed on that
count.
They talked about a new Economic Development Board of
Cabinetin last year's throne speech.
What results has that new cabinetcommittee had over the past year in
this province? What has ithad besides
one of the highest unemployment rates in thisprovince's history? Where is the economic development in therural
areas of this province? Why are people
flocking out of theprovince instead of returning for all of these jobs and economicactivity
that this cabinet committee would seem to indicate havetaken place here? They are not here. They have not produced.They got zero, and
then when the Minister of Northern Affairs(Mr. Downey) talks about zero he is
absolutely right. That isthe record of
this government. If I was giving them a
mark itwould be zero out of 10, Mr. Speaker, quite correct. I have togive the Minister of Northern
Affairs his dues on that.
Let us look at the review of the Manitoba Crop InsuranceCorporation. They said they were going to conduct a review
andthe minister appointed a‑‑he announced that in the '91 thronespeech. What have we seen from it? He got his report from thehardworking people
he appointed to that committee who travelledaround the province and reviewed
the Crop Insurance Corporationin this province, as was their mandate. He received this reportin June of 1992. Now, five months later, he has not evenreleased
it to the public. He does not want us to
see it,despite repeated requests that we have made to him in person, byphone,
in writing, despite repeated requests being made by hiscommittee that he
appointed. People from his committee
havephoned the minister and pleaded with him and written to him.
The Keystone Agricultural Producers have asked him to
releaseit. Farmers from across
Now that is what we get from this government's
reviews.Theonly time that they act quickly on reviews is when they can hackand
slash and cut programs. Then they will
move quickly, Mr.Speaker. But when it
comes time for making improvements anddealing with difficult problems, we see
no action from thisgovernment. That is
what we can expect from review upon reviewupon study by these ministers and
this government. It is clearlya method
that they use to get them past the next election, to getthem past difficult
problems to delay dealing with the difficultissues that they must deal with in
this province. We have seenit in that
particular case.
Now what about the statement that they are going to
identifyopportunities in environment, health, information technology?Mr.
Speaker, they have the Green Team. The
member forRoblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) today, the Minister of RuralDevelopment,
talked about his Green Team. He talked
about some200 jobs. Now I think all that
he did with that money is producecaps and maybe 200 part‑time jobs he
talks about.
The member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) is complaining about
the675 jobs he says
Let us look at the deregulation of MTS. Now I want to take afew minutes to talk about
that, because I am sure that thecabinet ministers were not very pleased when
they saw these twoheadlines in the press back to back, Mr. Speaker. Air messblamed on deregulation and right
below, the member for
We believe Manitobans want the opportunity of choice, hesaid,
and he knows if he would learn from the Minister ofTransport who knows the
facts on this deregulation of transport,particularly the air industry and rail,
that in fact this hasbeen terribly detrimental to the
Mr. Speaker, now will they say, well, deregulation is notworking
even though they follow right on the heels of LloydAxworthy, the previous
Minister of Transport under the Liberalgovernment when he was moving as quickly
as he could before the'84 election to deregulate the air industry, because he
thoughthe could get some quick fixes, he could get some low faresquickly. The people say, who gave us those low
fares? Oh, itmust have been Lloyd
Axworthy. Let us vote for Lloyd. That iswhat he wanted to do in 1984. He could not put it in place quitequickly
enough. Mazankowski realized this
beautiful opportunityhe had and jumped right in, because it was completely in
tunewith the philosophy of the federal Conservative government.These two go
side by side, the Liberals and the Conservatives andthe deregulation side of
it.
Now, on the other hand, when it does not suit their
agenda,their corporate agenda, then they want to regulate more. Now letus look at the regulation in the
pharmaceutical industry. Theywant to
provide greater regulations, greater protection for thesecompanies. Yet, on the other hand, they want to
deregulate inthe transportation. When it
fits their agenda, on the one handthey will deregulate and regulate on the
other hand.
*
(2100)
I say there is no consistency in the philosophy, just asthere
is no consistency in the philosophy of this Minister ofHealth (Mr. Orchard)
here today when he stood up and denouncedfinally the reregulation, the greater
protection for the namebrand drug companies, while his First Minister, his
Premier (Mr.Filmon) refuses to denounce the North American Free TradeAgreement,
which includes precisely that provision that willenshrine it in an
international trade agreement, which makes itmore difficult to change in the
future.
I say that these ministers are all over the map. They knownot whereof they speak. They have no plan. They have noconsistent philosophy except that
the corporate agenda is theonly agenda for this country and for this
province. They followalong on the
Mulroney agenda that we have seen that has been putin place in this country
over the last number of years that hasbeen discredited. They will, undoubtedly, see the end of theMulroney
government in the near future, but unfortunately if itis a Liberal government
federally, I do not think that there willbe much change in the direction of the
nation under JeanChretien, the tired old lieutenant of Trudeau in his province.
Mr. Speaker, I want to also raise some other major issuesthat
I believe should have been in this throne speech that werenot in this throne
speech by this government.
This throne speech has one very small section onagriculture. There are about three small paragraphs. In one,obviously, the minister has seen that
the farmers of Manitobawant some action on the sugar industry and so, because
of thewriting campaign that was undertaken, he finally figured he hadto put
something in the throne speech. So he
pushed for having amention of the sugar beet industry and broadening
opportunitiesfor processing, hopefully, in this province.
This is long overdue just like the reference todiversification. While this government has talked aboutdiversification
for five years, they have done nothing.
Now theyare going to have a forum; that is their great project indiversification,
a forum. No action, Mr. Speaker, ondiversification. They have cut back on research.
At the same time they have done nothing on a sugar
policy.We can go back into the 1970s, we can go back into the 1980sunder New
Democratic governments when we were pushing the federalgovernments to put in
place a national sugar policy that wouldensure a vibrant sugar beet industry in
this province and acrossthis country.
This party was nowhere on that at that time. Theywere not supporting it, Mr. Speaker. Now, suddenly they get afew letters coming
in, and they realize it might be popular atthis time, so now they say they are
going to call on the federalgovernment for a national sugar policy. It is a fact that 90percent of
We support the fact that this is mentioned in this thronespeech,
but it should have been acted upon and dealt with manyyears ago by this
government when they had the opportunity.
Theyhave not done that. They have
not supported that concept overthe last number of years, so the sugar beet
industry can indeedmake, I think, a great impact on the economy in the province
of
Certainly, in the member for Steinbach's (Mr. Driedger)constituency
and the Interlake area and perhaps many other areasof this province, we can see
tremendous growth in the sugar beetindustry.
It is something that this minister and this governmentmust move
aggressively on in order to ensure that the federalgovernment puts in place a
national sugar policy.
I do not believe that they will do it, Mr. Speaker,
becausethey will say that is protectionist and the Free Trade Agreementwill not
let them do it, but here they have it in their thronespeech that they are going
to take action on sugar beets. Wewill
wait and see whether in fact there is anything substantialor whether it is just
more words, more rhetoric, for the peopleof
We see no mention in this throne speech, Mr. Speaker, inagriculture
by this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) withregard to the proposals that
are being made with regard to theCrow benefit, major proposals by the former
Deputy Minister ofTransport, Ramsey Withers, under the Liberal government,
underLloyd Axworthy, when the Western Grain Transportation Act was putin
place. He started the dismantling of the
Crow then, and hewants to finish his work now under the Conservative
government.
Ramsey Withers has put forward a proposal to the
ministersthat would see the massive dismantling of our graintransportation rail
system in this country, particularly in the
There is no agreement at GATT, and we should not, Mr.Speaker,
be giving away the Crow benefit or using that as anexcuse, as Charlie Mayer is
doing, the Minister of Grains andOilseeds federally, or it seems supported by
this Minister ofAgriculture that he is too using that as an excuse.
Now, we do not have any mention of that issue in this
thronespeech, any mention of that issue to stand up for the farmers ofManitoba,
to ensure that our interests are protected, that therail system is protected,
that we have some protection for ourroad network in this province–nothing in
this throne speech.
Of course, before the federal government has done its
evildeeds for this country, it wants to deregulate agriculture in
We see a drop of 8 percent in the farm population, from
'86to '92 as well, something else that the Minister of Agriculturecannot be
proud of. He cannot sit there and say
that agricultureis looking rosy, even though we just have a report that we have
anear record harvest, according to Statistics Canada, albeit feedwheat worth
less than two bucks a bushel.
Let us take a look at what this minister is silent on
withregard to the Wheat Board and other Agriculture Canadaregulations. Mr. Speaker, from the information I have, not
onlyare they looking at removing barley from the exclusivejurisdiction of the
Wheat Board for a dual system on a NorthAmerican market, which we oppose and
believe the Wheat Board cando a better job of supporting or of marketing our
barley, we areinterested in finding out where the minister sits on that andwhether
he, in fact, is going to stand up to these moves by thefederal government.
[interjection]
It started with oats.
The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
An Honourable Member: Who is
going to kick him out, AudreyMcLaughlin?
Mr. Plohman: Well,
the people of
An Honourable Member: No, they
are not.
Mr. Plohman: Yes,
they are, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] He iscertainly not going to be in
government, so he is not going to bein that position; so he is trying to do as
much damage as he canright now.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to taking out barley and
removingbarley from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, thereare
other major implications of the deregulation which includethe country's grading
system. Now the minister has not
mentionedany of these initiatives.
I raise this in the Throne Speech Debate because there isnothing
in Agriculture in the throne speech other than themention of sugar beets and a
forum on diversification. Nowheredoes
the minister mention the tremendously serious problemsfacing Manitoba farmers
on these issues of the Crow benefit, onthese issues of the Wheat Board and the
deregulation, and GATT.This minister is not dealing with those issues in this
thronespeech, and I think he has been negligent in putting them forwardto the
Premier and ensuring that they are in this throne speechto indicate some kind
of action on his position.
(2110)
I believe he is lying low on those issues. He wants to seewhich way the wind is blowing
before he starts taking somepositions.
Clearly, we know from his philosophical bent that heis probably
supportive of any of the moves that Charlie Mayer ismaking with regard to the
Wheat Board, any of those he is makingon the Crow benefit. As a matter of fact, it was this Ministerof
Agriculture who stood up apparently at the Agriculture meetinglast spring and
indicated that he would like to see the Crowbenefit paid–or at least a review
undertaken to see the Crowbenefit paid differently to each province and managed
under theprovincial jurisdiction.
So he started that–[interjection] Well, the Minister ofAgriculture (Mr.
Findlay) can clarify that at some future time.I am sure he will have an
opportunity to do so, and I lookforward to that.
Let us look at the grading system that would be
deregulated,Mr. Speaker. Red meats, feed
grains and potatoes perhaps couldbe removed from regulation under the
agriculture grading systemin this country.
It advocates that
The report, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, also
recommendsthat livestock grading become the responsibility of the industryrather
than government and that grading be carried out on acost‑recovery basis
and even then it could be optional under somecircumstances, which is absolutely
ridiculous. So I believe thatwe stand to
lose a great deal because we have a very respectedgrading system with high
standards in this country, and we shouldnot allow this federal government with
no mandate to do thesekinds of things at this time to dismantle many of theseregulations
that are going to hurt our reputation as a supplierto international markets of
many different commodities and fordomestic use.
So I say that this minister has not represented the
interestsof agriculture well in this throne speech. I see that there isno mention of the
livestock industry, the decimation of thepacking industry in this
province. Many people are raisingconcerns,
many farmers that I talk to. What initiatives
is thisgovernment taking to try and turn that around? Are they justsimply going to resign and say,
oh, well, who killed it? How isthat
going to solve the issue right now?
There is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). I thought hecould ask slightly more intelligent questions than that. He mustdeal with solutions to these problems. He is in government.