Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call Resolution 70?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Prior to calling Resolution 70, I think it would be helpful if I tell members that notwithstanding subrules 1 and 2, speeches during the private members' hour or during debate on a private members' order called by the government pursuant to subrule 20(2) shall be limited to 15 minutes.
Res. 70--CFB Winnipeg
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mrs. McIntosh), that
WHEREAS CFB Winnipeg and Air Command Headquarters serve a vital role in Canada's military; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Armed Forces employ more than 2,400 military and another 1,300 civilian personnel; and
WHEREAS the base and its personnel inject approximately $122 million into the Manitoba economy annually; and
WHEREAS Winnipeg's central location and low cost of living make the setting ideal for military operational headquarters; and
WHEREAS CFB Winnipeg contributes to the federal and provincial tax base as well as an annual grant of $6 million in lieu of taxes to the City of Winnipeg; and
WHEREAS the federal government is currently considering the future of existing military installations.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba send a strong and united message to the federal Minister of Defence that CFB Winnipeg and Air Command Headquarters be maintained.
Motion presented.
Mr. McAlpine: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House knows that yesterday I rose to seek leave of this Chamber to bring forward Resolution 70, CFB Winnipeg, for debate. It was the first opportunity for Private Members' Business this session.
On December 6, Mr. Speaker, I served notice to all members of the House that I would seek their leave to debate this matter at the first opportunity. Hansard will show that I rose before Private Members' Business commenced yesterday and sought leave to bring this matter forward. The Liberal House leader, before his party denied leave, then impugned motives and made comments that I take personally. He stated that he would deny leave because I was not sincere.
Mr. Speaker, I was duly elected to serve the people of Sturgeon Creek, which includes the Air Command Headquarters in Winnipeg. I also believe that all members of this House are honourable members and wish to serve their constituents. In trying to serve my constituents by discussing a matter that is of great importance to the people of Sturgeon Creek, to St. James and the surrounding area, including the entire province of Manitoba, I felt this matter deserved urgent attention, Mr. Speaker.
The Liberal House leader questions my integrity when I try to serve my constituents. He should try to impress upon the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) and his friend, Mr. Harvard, the federal Liberal representing Winnipeg-St. James, how important this issue is for Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards), without having first-hand knowledge of the proceedings in the Chamber yesterday, then proceeded to do a radio interview and further cast aspersions on me, the member for Sturgeon Creek.
The Liberal Leader told CJOB this morning, and I quote: Mr. McAlpine's motion came late in the day and interrupted the motion of Mr. Kowalski, the MLA for The Maples. Mr. McAlpine just got up and essentially had the press release in his hand and ready to go, slamming us before he got up to make the motion. So it was an entirely concocted thing. He was erroneous. He had enormous opportunities as a government member to stand up in Question Period, to put it on the Order Paper in a proper fashion. He just chose to make a show and a spectacle of himself, and that was the whole point behind this.
He also went on to accuse me of using every opportunity to be political. Mr. Speaker, I resent those remarks from the member for St. James, who should be representing his constituents who work at the base. If he chooses to do otherwise, he should do the honourable thing.
The point of seeking leave was to serve my constituents on this important issue, the important issue of the Air Command Headquarters in Sturgeon Creek, serving all of Manitoba, serving all residents of this country. I was elected to do, and will continue to do, the best in my ability to do this.
* (1530)
The Liberal Leader also stated falsely that the matter was not on the Order Paper in the proper fashion. All members have the opportunity to place resolutions on the Order Paper at the beginning of this session. I did so. Through the luck of the draw, this urgent matter was unfortunately given 70th spot.
Seeking leave to move a matter up for discussion because it is dated or urgent is not an unusual occurrence. I asked to have the matter raised earlier because, by the time he would have gotten to the resolution under normal circumstances, it may be too late to present those cuts by the federal Liberals of many Air Command jobs there in Winnipeg by transferring them to Ottawa.
The Leader of the third party's comments about the press release are upsetting only because of the fact of what this represents to the people of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. I received yesterday, from 17 Wing headquarters in Winnipeg, the statistics as of December 14, 1994. The size of this facility includes 2,977 acres, 114 buildings, 883 married quarters, personnel--you must understand that this includes all of CFB Winnipeg--but personnel on the base, over 4,000 people; 3,000 military and 1,000 civilian.
This is an integral part of our economy here in Manitoba and the economic impact that this has on Sturgeon Creek and the other constituencies that border Sturgeon Creek, including the constituency of Winnipeg-St. James, which Mr. Harvard represents, is significant.
I would urge that all members unite together in this Chamber and deal with this important issue in an honourable way and not try to bring aspersions on the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) that I am making this a political issue. This is far too important an issue to make this a political issue. These are lives that are being affected in Sturgeon Creek, and simply to transfer the Air Command Headquarters from Winnipeg--we have the state-of-the-art facility that was built only recently at CFB Winnipeg representing all matters across this country and international issues. To simply transfer this facility and the personnel along with it to Ottawa is a terrible, terrible mistake, Mr. Speaker.
I will stand up, unlike the honourable member for St. James, in representing the people of Sturgeon Creek on this very important issue, and I will stand up without the assistance of the honourable member for Winnipeg-St. James, Mr. Harvard. Mr. Harvard has had opportunity a number of times to approach me on this issue. He knows my concern over this issue but has been absent by his silence.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a terrible issue because it affects the lives of so many people who love and live in this area of Sturgeon Creek. Members on this side of the House, including the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), have people working on the base; the honourable member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), the honourable member for Kirkfield (Mr. Stefanson), the honourable member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst). Being in real estate, I know that a lot of these people live within the boundaries of these constituencies.
I think that we also have to come together to address this very important issue before it is too late. That is my urgency. My urgency is to impress upon the Minister of Defence before the cuts are made, because when the cuts are made or the transfers are implemented, it is far too late.
Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for St. James suggests that he does not have enough information to debate this issue. He said that on CJOB this morning. I think that the honourable member should take it upon himself--I mean, it is his responsibility to represent the people, and if he does not have the information, then he should seek it out. If he would want my assistance in writing his script for him, I will give him every co-operation to do that. I think that he should take the responsible action and be in touch with his Liberal colleague, the Minister of Defence in Ottawa, Mr. David Collenette, whom I wrote to on the 14th of November but yet have not had a reply.
An Honourable Member: Has the member for St. James written?
Mr. McAlpine: I do not know whether the member for St. James has taken the responsible position and written. I have not seen anything from the member for Winnipeg-St. James, Mr. Harvard. I have not seen anything going forward from there. He is taking the position that he does not know whether--in Liberal fashion, he cannot seem to make up his mind on this issue.
I do not think the member for St. James, the Leader of the Liberal Party, has yet made up his mind, because he maintains, in talking to CKND TV, that he is not in a position, that he felt that there should be--it is important, I think, not to be entirely partisan and political, but it is to deal with these things in a reasonable and rational way. I am just trying to find, Mr. Speaker, the quotes Mr. Edwards had in the media. Rather than waste my time on that, I will address the other issues.
I have been active on this issue all the way through. I issued news releases on this matter December 2, following the release of the white paper when it first came out. I have heard nothing from the member for St. James who is adjacent to the constituency of Sturgeon Creek. Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member for St. James to work on this issue.I would ask him to consult with the member for Winnipeg-St. James, because we have to go united on this in the interests of representing our respective constituencies.
I would ask every member of the Liberal Party because these are supposedly the friends that they have in Ottawa. Regardless of whether they agree with what the Liberal government is doing in Ottawa or whether they disagree, I think that they still should represent the people in Manitoba. Rather than falling in line with their Liberal friends, do the honourable thing.
I will stand up for the people in Sturgeon Creek on this issue. I will work with anybody in the interests of the Air Command, jobs for Manitoba. I will work to maintain the Air Command Headquarters here in Manitoba. To ensure that the jobs and the Air Command Headquarters, with the economic impact that this has on Manitoba and everybody in Manitoba, all our lives, I will stand up and speak for them, on behalf of them. I urge everybody to participate in this very, very urgent economic issue in Manitoba. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a few comments on the record.
First of all, I think a resolution of this nature should not be ambiguous. It should be very clear that we want to maintain CFB and the Air Command Headquarters in Winnipeg, not just be maintained. I would suggest to the member opposite that we should not have ambiguity in a resolution like this, because you can keep the CFB in Winnipeg and you could maintain the air headquarters in Ottawa and that would be consistent with the resolution we are passing in this Legislature. Just reading the resolution, I would suggest that if we want to send a clear message as a House, we should do so in a clear way.
* (1540)
Mr. Speaker, I have raised this question in the House. We all have our own interests politically. We do too, and I want to be straight up about that, but I think if we go too far over the edge and make it so transparent that our goals are not economic but may be a bit partisan, we will lose our cause. We have a good cause. There is no question in this House--we raise it in this House because we believe that the air headquarters should be not maintained but remain in Winnipeg, in Manitoba.
It is consistent with our vision that says there is more to this country than Ottawa and Hull. We do not want to see Air Command and Sea Command and Land Command all in the Ottawa-Hull area. We think that these jobs must be maintained outside of the traditional triangle or the traditional Ottawa capital area, so I think it is important to speak as one voice.
We will support the resolution. I think we should be strong about the federal Liberal government--this is two reports that have come out--but we cannot be so obviously transparent that we lose our sincerity because sincerity is also part of the debate.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of conviction. We are concerned on this side about the whole aerospace industry and the air command industry in Manitoba. It is a real important issue to us because there have been commitments made to the people of Canada, to the people of Manitoba that have been contained in the documents before the federal election that I believe have been broken. I think we should say that on top of this resolution.
When I read the red book, it says that there will be a military conversion strategy to deal with changes that are going to be made to military decisions in Canada. When one looks at the proposal on the Air Command in the city of Winnipeg, when one looks at Bristol, when one looks at Boeing, when one looks at the corporation, Standard Aero, I think that promises have been broken. It was very fair to say to people, yes, if we are elected, we are going to cancel this contract; but, when you also say to people that we are going to put other jobs in place as a conversion strategy from military contracts to nonmilitary contracts or civilian contracts, I believe that it is important to have the second shoe on this policy, which, I think, is not there in terms of the federal government.
We have raised this issue. This is a very big payroll in Manitoba, and I am extremely disappointed that some members of the federal Liberal caucus that reside and represent those constituencies have not made it a clear issue, Mr. Speaker, about where they stand. I know there is a bit of regional thinking on military decisions, but it really comes back to the fundamental vision of Canada. Do we want a country with all our resources, as I say, in the Ottawa-Hull area, or do we want to have these kinds of head office jobs outside of the Ottawa-Hull area in places like Manitoba, in places like Winnipeg?
They also provide those jobs. The direct military jobs also provide a number of civilian jobs and provide a very, very positive payroll to the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg. We cannot lose any more good-paying, high-quality jobs in this city. Whether it is at CN or whether it is at the Air Command Headquarters or whether it is other decisions dealing with Manitoba jobs, we cannot afford to lose them, and we have to stand as one voice in this House on a resolution of this nature.
We, as I say, have raised this issue before in the House. There have been promises made about military decisions. There would be task forces and committees to report on the military in Canada. To some degree, we see some of this action, you know, some of the parallels in Canada now of the United States, where they have committees that report to the legislative bodies to take some of the politics out of regional decisions. I do not know whether you could ever do that in this country, whether you close Portage base with the former government, whether you close the air headquarters as proposed by this government. Regional jobs and high-quality jobs and good-paying jobs mean a lot to our communities and should mean a lot to the whole federal caucus at Ottawa.
We have discussed this issue with our member of Parliament. We do not have very many from Manitoba, I regret to say, but I am pleased that I was able to outpredict the Premier in our membership in the federal House of Commons. I thought we would have double the members that he would have after his support of Kim Campbell in the last federal election. I did not think it would be one-nothing. I have to admit that, Mr. Speaker.
It is important that we all speak with one voice, but it is also very important that we have a strategy. When I asked this question on Day One in this Chamber, we asked the provincial government, the provincial Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism to have a strategy, because we had not one, but two reports recommending the centralization, the Ottawa centralization of the Air Command Headquarters in the Ottawa-Hull area.
We should be working with Nova Scotia in terms of the decision on the sea headquarters, the navy headquarters. We should be working with a number of other people all across western Canada. We should not have what we had in the CF-18 debate, where Conservatives acted like Conservatives and New Democrats acted like New Democrats and nobody acted like western Canadians. I thought it was disgusting when Grant Devine supported Brian Mulroney when the CF-18, against all merit, was not given to the province of Manitoba but was awarded to the province of Quebec. It was a disgrace that western Canadians did not stand up together against that project.
I recall the former Premier of Alberta, Don Getty, also supporting Brian Mulroney. Being a Tory came before being a western Canadian, and I thought that was absolutely wrong in terms of making decisions in this country. The lowest bid, the best quality aerospace industry in Manitoba being enhanced, and we lost it, which was announced cynically after the Saskatchewan election in 1986. We lost it to an inferior bid at a higher cost because of the dynamics of Quebec wanting an aerospace industry.
Western Canada has to speak as one voice, and it has to put partisan politics aside to make sure that we get our fair share of procurement in Canada. We represent 28 percent of the population, and when the Mulroney government and the Campbell government left office, we were down to about 12 percent of the purchasing in Canada. Now we can bash the Liberals today and we can bash Kim Campbell yesterday and we can bash somebody else before--you cannot bash New Democrats; they have not been in office--but I think it is safe to say that western Canadians have to stand up across party lines. We do not want excessive procurement. We do not want patronage and pork and all these other things. We just want fair treatment and fair treatment for jobs in terms of the federal decision making in Canada. That is all we are asking for. I believe this is consistent with the resolution that has been placed forward by the member here today.
We have two reports we have to deal with. We have the Senate parliamentary committee. Now where are the senators on this issue? We do not have any senators. We do not have very many members of Parliament, but we do not have any senators, I can guarantee you that. Where are the parties speaking? Where are the senators from western Canada? Where are the senators from Atlantic Canada? What are they doing on this issue? Are they standing up for their regions or are they forgetting where they come from?
* (1550)
We believe that the parliamentary committee, the Senate committee, the federal-provincial committee should be dealing with this issue in a much fairer way. Why did they come up with this recommendation?
Then we have the paper itself from the federal government, the white paper which was released December 1, which caught us by surprise because we were told by the business community, Winnipeg 2000, with all its objective information about the previous government from the now-Minister of Finance, that this document would come forward on December 12 or 15. So we were a bit pre-empted by the announcement, but we felt it was necessary to raise this question in the House at the beginning.
The question is, what are we going to do about it? How are we going to deal with this issue? What strategy do we have on the Air Command base beyond blaming the federal government? How are we going to change the decision moving into the February budget and the budget in the years after that? How are we going to deal with the jobs at Bristol? How are we going to deal with the jobs at Boeing? How are we going to deal with the jobs at Standard Aero, because we are losing hundreds of jobs, actually for a number of years, but most particularly recently with the last couple of federal budgets we are losing lots of very good jobs in our communities.
What is our strategy to deal with that? Do we have a proposal on the military conversion proposal in the red book? I have asked this government, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), where is our strategy, where is the position paper? The minister of social services presented us a document yesterday. Why do we not have a document on the Air Command, Boeing, Bristol, Standard Aero, the aerospace industry in Manitoba, that includes the Air Command? Why do we not have that strategy before this House? Why do we not have a ministerial statement from the government dealing with this issue? Why do we not have a debate on this issue that is beyond really the reactive stage into a much more aggressive alternative stage?
I do not want to go through what we went through in Portage. I was a member of that delegation that went down to Ottawa. I recall the horror that the former member for Portage had to go through when the former member of Parliament from Winnipeg-South said wave a white flag and surrender and started negotiating a consolation prize before we even got into the meeting with the federal minister McKnight and federal minister Epp at that time. We did not want to surrender. We wanted to have a co-ordinated approach to making sure that air base or the training base, which was a very good program, cost-effective program, was not going to be shut down for political reasons, which ultimately happened. We need to do something more than that now. I do not want to wait until the federal budget. We have the warning signal out. We have lost hundreds of jobs already in the aerospace industry and we got to have a strategy more than: it is your fault, it is your fault. We have to have a better strategy.
Those 12 federal Liberal M.P.s, why do we not call them to a meeting in a parliamentary committee in the Chamber? Why do we not invite them all down here to say, what are you going to do about it and how can we work with you, along with the other two M.P.s in the Chamber? There is just one idea. What are we going to propose to them?
Should we not write a brief about Boeing, Bristol and Standard Aero and the Air Command? Should we not all look at that ahead of time and say, yes, we sign on to this? This is the air conversion policy or the military conversion policy that we have here in Manitoba and we are all agreed to that.
Let us do something beyond--I agree with passing this resolution, but let us do something before February. I do not want to sit in the hallway and say, oh, they cut those jobs, you get five seconds on television and you lose 700 jobs in Winnipeg. I do not want to do that. I am getting tired of doing that. You know, I think we are all getting tired of that.
I support the resolution. I think it should be clear that the Command headquarters be maintained in Manitoba because there are two things, CFB is different than the Air Command--and be maintained should not be ambiguous. I do not want a federal minister to stand up and say, oh, we met the resolution. Look at it. I think we should make our language clear and we should go forward with a comprehensive economic strategy that includes the conversion strategy and includes the Air Command as part of our quality of life in Manitoba.
As I say, whether it is the airport privatization program which is going to cut the airports in northern remote Manitoba or whether it is this, it is a totally different vision than we have here in Manitoba. We do not want to go from three terminals in Toronto to four terminals because they have a higher population. We do not want to go for all Command and head offices to go from western Canada and from Atlantic Canada to Ottawa-Hull. That is why we can support this resolution, but let us work further than that to get this thing done and stop the decision. Thank you.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak on this resolution, No. 70, moved by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) and brought forward by the government House leader, and I might say at the outset, in a proper fashion.
Our objection yesterday and that of the House leader was in no way aimed at the substance of this and I made that clear in the interview that the member read from earlier. What was objectionable was the very politicized fashion in which it was initially brought to the fore. Having been brought now to the floor of this Chamber in a proper fashion, and I want to commend the member for bringing it back in the proper fashion, he has, I think, brought it to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly do not object to the timeliness of this. It is an extremely important issue.
Let me say at the outset of my comments that I have some concerns about the ambiguity, and I am going to speak briefly on that, but I certainly support this resolution as it stands, which indicates very clearly that all parties, all members of this Assembly, seek to have Air Command Headquarters and CFB Winnipeg maintained.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe, and as the Leader of the opposition party (Mr. Doer) suggested in Winnipeg, I would go further and really, of course, in that paper that was initially drafted, all military installations, all defence spending was considered.
I am surprised that members on the opposite side, the government side, do not also recognize that we have a major military installation outside the city of Winnipeg in Shilo, which I think also should have been included in this and that what we should have been talking about was that the defence spending in this province should have been all-inclusive rather than taking a very narrow approach which is completely restricted by the Perimeter Highway.
The reality is, every Canadian who has taken the time to read the report put forward by Mr. Collenette will understand that all defence spending in this country has been reviewed. It is a paper that has come forward for members of Parliament, members of the Senate to consider. It is a paper which puts forward options, puts forward some recommendations.
But let no one misunderstand, as no one does in this country, that in attempting to reach spending targets where 3 percent of gross domestic product is the annual deficit, which was a commitment in the red book, and that is a commitment which is important I think to all Canadians and certainly should be important to this government, given its talk about deficit reduction, that that commitment must be met.
Every single expenditure of government at the federal level, and I dare say it should be happening at the provincial level, should be reviewed and assessed as to whether or not it meets the highest priority for every single taxation dollar that we have in this country.
Let me say, having indicated that about the resolution itself, that the pious self-righteousness of the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) is objectionable, Mr. Speaker. He takes what is a truly important issue for all Manitobans and by his actions yesterday and again I think by his words today, and I take objection to them, takes what is an unreasonable and, I think, unproductive, partisan approach.
Let me just point out that unfortunately, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) pointed out that there were two committees, it was a joint committee with two co-chairpersons, one from the Senate and one from the House of Commons. It was the report of a special joint committee.
On the Senate portion of that committee the majority were Conservative senators. Senator Michael Forrestall, Senator Michael Meighen, Senator John Sylvain are Conservative senators. They are the majority of the senate committee.
And, as if that was not enough, this report from the Senate was unanimous. There was not one dissenter and the majority of that committee was Conservative. Mr. Speaker--
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1600)
Point of Order
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I think we have another resolution we can pass in here to abolish the Senate. I think we are going to get support from the--
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is a matter of a lot of regret to the Leader of the Opposition that there are no NDP senators in this list. It is interesting to note that the NDP will stand up and consistently talk about the need to preserve a military establishment, have how many, maybe dozens of resolutions on their books calling for the abolishment of all militarization. So there is a bit of a hypocrisy in the opposition benches on this.
The reality is that it is important to depoliticize this issue and to not make a partisan issue out of it. Mr. Speaker, for that reason I want to suggest that as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has indicated, which is that we need a unified position as there was on the issue of Churchill in the past, as there has been on the issue of Portage la Prairie in the past, there should be again. I have no objection to that, and I am more than happy to participate on behalf of our party in that effort any time, today, tomorrow, two weeks ago. I am ready to participate in any way that the government and the opposition parties can get together to decide to make the message known.
Within the framework of reducing government expenditures the key factor for all Canadians including Manitobans must be fairness. The federal government is going to have to spend less. The Conservative Party in the last election and the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois and the federal Liberal Party all said we need to deal with the deficit. They all said that. That is what they said. The only thing we are talking about here is how that is done.
Canadians understand and I believe accept that we must have a financially, fiscally sustainable form of government. Part of that, a large part of that must be a reduction of the expenditure levels. So, Mr. Speaker, the key question that comes for any government, be it this provincial government or the federal government, is where do you cut, how much do you cut and that is the test of government today, fairness in cutting. You define your priorities by where you cut and you define your right to govern by the fairness and the priorities that you set.
So there is no question that in this country there is going to be a reduction in expenditure on defence initiatives. That is reality. Every Canadian knows that. What we are asking for and have a right to ask for as with every other province--and believe me, this same debate will be happening if it has not already in all 10 provinces and in both the territories and that is obvious because defence spending is done in every territory and in every province. So the issue becomes fairness, making sure that Manitoba is treated fairly and gets our position across. I am pleased to participate in any discussion which has that as a goal, but let not government members make this partisan approach to this issue. It is time that we buried that, Mr. Speaker, and moved forward in a progressive and in a co-operative fashion and in partnership. If the public is cynical about politicians it is because of actions that politicize very important issues for all Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, if the member had done his homework and had sought not to make this a partisan issue, he would not have stood up yesterday and proved what his true intentions were as he fired out a press release the moment that he stood up and improperly, in terms of the rules of this Chamber, interrupted another very important resolution. There are many dozens of resolutions, all of which have importance. He should have spoken to his House leader, as he has obviously learned that he needed to do, and have this raised in the proper fashion, because we are very happy to--[interjection] Well, private members' hour. A system of draws for resolutions was put in place by this government.
An Honourable Member: That is right, because they did not like being outdone by the Liberals.
Mr. Edwards: Well, the Speaker put it in place, and the truth is that it came as No. 70. The member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) has every tool that every member of this Legislative Assembly has--through a question in Question Period, through a Matter of Urgent Public Importance which any member can bring forward, through the very avenue that he used today. But no, yesterday he chose to politicize it, and that I object to. He did it obviously without doing his homework. He sought in his press release to politicize this. He threw in all of the insults of a federal Liberal government, not even recognizing that the majority of the Senate committee was from his own party.
That shows the level of piety and of self-righteousness of this member. I think he should have taken a lesson from the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) who used to be quite pious on these issues in the last session and since then has had a bit of a decline since his own newspaper put forward a headline that he was defending perks. That is the reality. The reality is that to take the self-righteous tone that members do from that government--what goes around comes around, Mr. Speaker. It is high time that this Legislative Assembly, all 57 members, did what was in the best interests of all Manitobans. That is our challenge and our duty, and the people of this province expect nothing less.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this amendment. I believe it could have been drafted better, but in the interests of making sure that this passes and in evidencing my desire to participate in a common effort, I want to leave it as it is with those comments on the record about my concerns which go beyond this city and around this province and my desire to participate in a unified effort, and I want speedy passage of this because I would like to see a unified action on this.
Thank you very much.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I simply have to respond to one of the most sanctimonious, self-righteous, puffed-up speeches that I have heard in this Assembly since I came through the door here over four years ago, and I am not speaking about the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), who made a very good speech, who made some excellent points. I found myself thinking, gee, you know, I tell you the Leader of the NDP is making some good points and I agree with him.
Then the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) got up and for the first time since she left I wished with all my heart that Sharon Carstairs was back. At least Sharon Carstairs had guts. At least she did try very hard in certain instances to be nonpartisan. This little fellow got up, Mr. Speaker, and he then said that--he counted out the number of Conservative senators, the number of Liberal senators, and then accused the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) of referring to the federal government as a Liberal government, which it is.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to--[interjection] Order, please. [interjection] No, we refer to all honourable members as honourable members.
Mrs. McIntosh: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear you because people were making noise.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. We simply ask the honourable minister that we refer to all honourable members as honourable members.
Mrs. McIntosh: Okay. This honourable member who represents St. James (Mr. Edwards), who was elected to represent St. James--perhaps that is a more accurate way of putting it--condemned the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for referring to the federal government as the federal Liberal government and said that was partisan, and then proceeded to count up the number of Conservative senators who sit in the Senate versus the number of Liberal senators who sit in the Senate and said that was very important that we note the number of Conservative senators.
The point we are trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not care if it is a federal Liberal government or a federal Conservative government or a federal Reform government or if it is the Bloc Quebecois. What we want is a government that will recognize that the Air Command base, in whatever form it is ultimately to exist, should be located here in Winnipeg, and we do not care if it was Conservative senators or Liberal senators. We made that clear as a government when we took on the federal government, which was then the federal Conservative government over the CF-18s. We made sure when we went over Portage la Prairie, when we talked about Kapyong.
* (1610)
We are now talking about Air Command, the Air Command base which was put here many, many years ago for very good reasons--those good reasons still exist. My father was career military. I was an air force brat. I can remember all the background I had in being exposed to the air force, and I can tell you that my father was a flight instructor before and during the war and the pilots for that Second World War were trained here in Manitoba. Why? Because this is the best place, the very best place for weather conditions, for geographical conditions, for topography, for central time zone, and would-be pilots were sent here. I hope the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) is listening. He is turning his chair around again like he did during the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) speech the other day, so he does not have to be seen to be listening, but perhaps he will read Hansard. He is laughing at this because he thinks this is funny that since the time of the Second World War this province has been the place to train pilots, to have all sense of Air Command work done.
We have more hours of sunshine. We have less fog. We have flat land. We have good air quality conditions. All of those things make this a very key, strategic location, which is why Air Command was brought here in the first place, and the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), who is pretending not to listen, is talking to his colleagues because he does not really care about this topic enough to listen. The member for St. James uses his whole speech to talk about the need to be good with money in Ottawa as if we did not understand that. We had known for a long time the need to be wise with money in Ottawa. He now understands the need to be wise with money in Ottawa. He still does not understand the need to be wise with money here in Manitoba, but he now understands the need to be wise with money in Ottawa. Well, hallelujah, good for him.
Does he understand the need to maintain the facilities we have got here at Air Command, not necessarily with Air Command if the air force has some other need? But we have buildings here. We have facilities here that can be well utilized by the armed forces, and to have them be empty is a crime. The member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) outlined all of the economic impacts. He outlined all of the things that happen in Winnipeg and in Manitoba because that is located here.
I am much more familiar than that member is with the Department of National Defence, with the Report of the Joint Committee on Defence and the recently released white paper on Defence, and I understand the need to streamline command, and I understand the need to streamline control.
I understand what Air Command does. I understand what Search and Rescue does. I understand what happens with that air base, and I know there have to be economies made, but I also know that there could be a compelling case made for retention of the headquarters facility and personnel in Winnipeg, if not as Air Command Headquarters, then certainly as a consolidated headquarters for other components of the air force. That facility as well, Mr. Speaker, would be an ideal location for a joint navy, army, air force headquarters if the recommendation of the joint parliamentary committee advocating a western regional command were accepted.
I would be pleased to share those ideas with the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) now that his advisors last night told him he better come on stream if he does not want to lose support in the polls, because his position before this was to say, oh, well, you know, we all kind of have to understand how these things happen. We understand how these things happen. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Doer) understands. The Leader of the Tories (Mr. Filmon) understands. We all understand, and now the Leader of the Liberal Party has been told that he better understand as well. If he wants to impute motives to the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), which is an insult--the member for Sturgeon Creek is fighting to keep Air Command personnel in Winnipeg--his constituency. The member for St. James is saying that he is being partisan because he wants to help his constituents, his constituency, this city and this province. What are we here for if not to do that?
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)--and you know, Mr. Speaker, we do not always agree; in fact, we hardly ever agree--but the Leader of the Opposition has been clear on this since the very beginning, where he stands on this issue. At the last minute, after a month we have been waiting for a reply from the federal Minister of Defence, a full month, suddenly the Leader of the provincial party, the Liberal Party, has been advised he had better be appearing to come onside.
I tell you, I suspect motives just as he suspects motives. I am pleased he is going to work together. He does not want me to talk anymore. I can quite understand why he does not. I am telling you I have never heard such sanctimonious self-righteous--the guy needs a separate vehicle to drive his ego around.
Mr. Speaker, our government believes in working co-operatively with the federal government whenever we can, and we have worked co-operatively with the federal government on the infrastructure program, on the Winnipeg Development Agreement, on the North Portage-Forks merger. We have worked with the federal government co-operatively, and we will work with them where we can, and we will fight for Manitoba where we must, regardless of the political stripe of the government in Ottawa. This time it happens to be the Liberals.
This time I have a feeling--it is just a feeling, I may be wrong--but why do I have this feeling that if it were Brian Mulroney still as Prime Minister it would not have taken the Leader of the Liberal Party this long to figure out where he sort of, almost, nearly, kind of stands on this issue?
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
This is a very important issue to me because this affects people who live in my constituency. This is the background from which I came, this is the milieu in which I live, this is the type of thing that my M.P. during a couple of elections ago when he was fighting against George Minaker--and I happen to know and I liked my M.P. We get along very well, we have been friends for many years, and we worked co-operatively on many things. But it has been a great disappointment, because on the CF-18, my M.P. at the time, Mr. Harvard, said that if his government ever tried to take away from Manitoba something as critical to our air space, to our aerospace industry, our military interventions, and all of the things we do in Manitoba, that he would stand up to his caucus and resign if necessary--and he has not. He has not resigned; he has not stood up to his caucus. He is my friend; he is my Liberal M.P. I am sorry I have to refer to his partisan nature, which will get the Leader of the Liberal Party here talking about how many angels dance on the head of a pin again and how many Conservatives sit in the Senate, but my Liberal MP has not resigned. He has not resigned. I have not heard him stand up to his caucus on it, but it is okay, Mr. Acting Speaker. My M.P. does not have to stand up to his caucus because the Leader of the Liberal Party here will do it for him along with the Leader of the NDP and our own Leader and our whole caucus.
We want the streamlining and the control and the efficiencies to be put in place with the Canadian Armed Forces and we want a strong military presence, a strong Air Command, a strong search and rescue. We want our facilities used here in Winnipeg, chosen for good reasons many years ago.
Those reasons are still good; they are still relevant today, and I applaud the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for his sincere motivation, for his high integrity, for his willingness to come forward for his constituents and work hard on their behalf, for following all the proper rules in this House, for bringing forward requests to this House in a proper fashion, to be rejected also in a proper fashion by those who did not wish him to exercise the request that he properly put forward. I think he has been insulted by the member for St. James in a most unfair way that if it does not impute motives it comes as close to imputing motives as is possible to come in this House.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I hope that all members will join us in fighting for this cause. I am delighted that the Leader of the Liberal Party has changed his mind because of something that was said to him last night, and I look forward to him putting his money where his mouth is, literally, and fighting hard to help us with this extremely important measure.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Acting Speaker, I just want to put a few words on the record and congratulate the member for Sturgeon Creek for bringing this resolution forward to enable all members of this Legislature to debate this very important and very urgent matter. We all know that jobs are very precious in our province, and we all understand that the air force, the Air Command, has played a very significant role in Manitoba for many years. I think the resolution makes a point of us sending a strong and united message to the federal Minister of Defence that we stand together.
* (1620)
I wanted to remind all members that this problem arose a few years ago with the proposed or threatened closure of CFB Shilo, and we stood together--Reg Alcock from the Liberals, the Minister of Health, myself, city officials, union representatives. Together we went to Ottawa, not once but twice, and this was going to be my suggestion. In fact, the main reason I wanted to come up and enter the debate just for a few minutes was to make that suggestion, that there be an all-party committee of the Legislature go to Ottawa and speak to the appropriate officials, not only the minister, but I would suggest other caucuses, other political parties in the House, because that is exactly what the committee did. You could ask the Minister of Health. He was not very popular, I must say, with the government caucus when we arrived. Words were flying pretty fast and furious at that particular meeting of the government caucus with Mr. Epp and Mr. Mayer and a few others, and Mr. Lee Clark who was then the member for Brandon-Souris.
We did meet with the Liberal caucus, the Defence critic, a Mr. Pagtakhan who is a Liberal member from this area. We met with the NDP caucus, Audrey McLaughlin and so on. I suggest that this would be a very productive way to proceed, to advise everyone in Ottawa, all the political groups, that we want to maintain this base, this facility, this program, this military program in Manitoba. I think we were successful. We were successful because the base remains open.
I have some concerns about Shilo, though, because in July the Conference of Defence Associations recommended that Shilo be closed along with 12 other facilities. Although the conference has no official status and has no direct connection with the government, nevertheless it is a rather ominous type of report, and I think we have to stand on guard with regard to Shilo as well. Of course, we all appreciate and know that the German army has signed a long-term agreement with the federal government so that we believe that--
An Honourable Member: With the Conservative government.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Yes, the previous government. Right. No problem. They signed the agreement when the Mulroney government was in power, and the fact is that there is some basis there for the Shilo operation to continue, although there are the two elements there. There is the German training component and there is the Canadian component. Nevertheless, I would argue that for practical military reasons Shilo should be maintained. Of course, there are good economic reasons. If they want to close bases we can think of many other parts of the country, and we have often referred to Downsview in Toronto, other areas in the country where they do not have the problem of jobs, they do not have the problem of economic growth.
So I think that we have to work together, Mr. Acting Speaker, in a nonpartisan fashion to lobby the federal government and the other federal parties in Ottawa. I would seriously leave that suggestion with you. The government, I would suggest, would have to take the initiative and make the arrangements, but I think that this could be arranged very quickly and easily and could be very effective in addition to this resolution.
So with those few words, Mr. Acting Speaker, again, I congratulate the member for his initiative in bringing forward this important issue. Thank you.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I stand to support the motion of the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). This is an issue, as was touched on earlier, of fairness and of balance, and my concern with the white paper presented by the federal government is that it does not reflect either one of those very important elements. I think it is, certainly what I have seen of this issue, affecting Manitoba in a very disproportionate fashion, and what is most concerning is the suggestion to consider a relocation of Air Command and some 700 positions from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Ottawa or elsewhere in Canada.
I think everybody who knows our province knows that this is a cost-effective location. It has quality personnel, quality labour force and an outstanding location. It has the appropriate geographic location and has all of the good, sound business reasons for those kinds of operations. That kind of an entity should be housed right here in Winnipeg, and one cannot begin to understand what the rationale or the reasoning would be or why the Liberal government would be considering transferring that important function from here in Winnipeg to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker.
The issue is one of fairness, and when you look at what has happened in Manitoba in terms of defence spending and the aerospace industry over the last several years, we certainly have had our fair share of bad news as it relates to that industry. We have had some base closures over the year and the adjustments that have occurred as a result of that. We had the newly elected Liberal government cancelling the EH-101 helicopter contract that was going to result in hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of jobs, all kinds of research and development occurring right here in Manitoba.
So if you look at the track record of contributing to reductions of federal government expenditures in the area of defence and aerospace, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Manitoba has contributed more than their fair share. That is what is most offensive about this recommendation and this suggestion that is coming from this Defence white paper, and that is why I am pleased that everybody in this House seems to recognize that and that there is the support of the NDP and there is the support of the provincial Liberals in terms of the motion brought forward by our member for Sturgeon Creek.
I also feel for the employees themselves, to be put through this kind of a process and this kind of uncertainty with the dropping of a white paper at the beginning of December and saying well, wait for the budget, wait for the three months for the budget until Mr. Martin brings that down, and all of the uncertainty that is creating for those employees, for their families, for their children, the members of their families. I think it has been in an unfair fashion that the federal government has dealt with this entire issue in terms of dealing with those people who are long-term committed employees of the Department of Defence and of the federal government here in Canada.
I also am surprised and disappointed by the silence, by and large, from the federal members of Parliament, particularly the federal Liberal members of Parliament, and particularly my own member of Parliament who on previous issues when it came to defence spending reductions and contracts like the CF-18 contract was extremely outspoken and talked about the hypocrisy of the local member of the day not standing up and defending the employees that lived in that constituency. Today that member of Parliament is silent. We do not hear from him, we do not hear his views on this issue, and that is of extreme disappointment, Mr. Speaker, as it is from all federal members of Parliament who are sitting silent on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance, I recognize that provincial governments right across Canada, the federal government, are dealing with their expenditures, and they are finding ways to reduce their expenditures, but I think the fundamental principle is one of fairness, is one of balance, and of what I have seen of this white paper that is sorely lacking in terms of the significant reductions that are being looked for here in Manitoba. When you look at the economic impact that the member for Sturgeon Creek talked about, some 3,000 military personnel, some 1,000 civilian positions, an estimated payroll of $35 million, operations and maintenance costs of $5 million, incredible contribution to the economy of Manitoba and something that is extremely important to the economy of Manitoba.
Just in closing, I do want to say, I cannot resist making a comment about the comments from the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) because here for the first time now we have him standing before us defending the need to reduce expenses, defending the federal government and the cuts they are proposing and on and on. I have sat here now for over four years, Mr. Speaker, and when we have had to deal with very difficult issues around expenditure reductions, as every provincial government in Canada is, and as this federal Liberal government finally is recognizing what needs to be done, we do not get any suggestions from the Liberal Party or the Leader of the Liberal Party. All we ever get from the Leader of the Liberal Party is spend more, spend more, spend more. That has been his solution. To have him here today stand before us and defend federal Liberal cuts when he has been silent for all these years in terms of the tough decisions that we are making here in Manitoba borders on hypocrisy.
With those comments, I support this motion. It is gratifying to see that all members of this Chamber will support this motion.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, if I could, to put a word or two on the record with respect to this issue. Not having had the chance during the throne speech debate to participate, it was this opportunity to say how important I think Air Command is to Winnipeg, particularly the economic benefit that we get from that facility and the people who work there.
Mr. Speaker, we all have to recognize in this business that from time to time we have to take positions at odds with other members of our party, be it in another province or be it at a federal level. I certainly was roundly criticized by my own party in 1987, when I stood up to Brian Mulroney and that government when they took away the CF-18 contract from Manitoba. I and four or five of my other colleagues were roundly criticized by the federal Conservatives in Ottawa, by Conservatives here that support both the federal and provincial parties but took the situation--[interjection]
Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) when he was speaking. I would ask for the same courtesy. This is an important issue.
* (1630)
We all have to collectively look at ourselves and say, there are issues from time to time that are nonpartisan. There are issues that need to be dealt with, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) said this afternoon, as western Canadians, as Manitobans. Those issues are important to us. The jobs are important to us. The economic benefit is important to all of us, and it matters not what government is in power or what party sits in the opposition benches because, Mr. Speaker, it is important to our economy as a whole and the people who live here, the benefits that they get out of that kind of economic impact on our province.
There was an eminent philosopher, now a member of the Court of Queen's Bench, once said: You can choose your friends, but you cannot choose your relatives. From time to time we have to recognize that collectively, if a political party of the same stripe happens to be in another level of government or a different government where the interests of Manitobans are not being served, we have to stand up to them. We have to say, you are wrong. We have to say, you have to be fair.
We have fought issues on the basis of the closure of Shilo, the closure of CFB Portage la Prairie, and we went collectively as members of this Legislature on those issues. We went as one, not as three separate parties--not as Liberals, not as New Democrats, and not as Conservatives--but as one group of Manitobans, legislators in this province trying to preserve what we felt was a reasonable fair share of the military spending in this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, I fully support the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) in his efforts to try and bring this matter to the public eye, to raise the matter before the House of Commons, before the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Defence, who have to deal with very tough issues. I understand that, but at the same time we have to look at what is happening with the entire Canadian military. What is the plan with respect to the Canadian military as a whole? Do we lessen, do we weaken, do we reduce our military to next to nothing and have a toy army, as it were? I do not think so. I think this country was founded on the basis of--Canada has never started a war. We have finished a few on behalf of our allies, but we have never started one. Yet we have tried to maintain a reasonably competent, efficient military in this country, and that I think is at risk.
It is at risk because people think, oh, the cold war is over. Yet what you have is a different government in place, a lot less stable, quite frankly, than the ones that were there before. You have the same missiles, the same tanks, the same airplanes, and the same armies in place in all of those countries where we were once quite worried that we may have to wage a war.
Mr. Speaker, with less stable governments and all the hardware and the military in place, we have just as much, maybe more, to worry about than we had before. Until those situations stabilize, until those economies and democratic governments stabilize, we still have much to worry about, and we still should maintain a reasonable, efficient armed forces in this country in order to be able to preserve, at least in part, our own sovereignty.
We talked a lot about sovereignty during the Free Trade debate, the fact that we were going to lose our sovereignty somehow during that debate. But the fact of the matter is, if we give up, if we do away with our armed forces or virtually all of our armed forces, we may as well give up, because we will lose our sovereignty at some point or other. I think that is important and there needs to be a strong signal given that we are not prepared to do that. This country has defended itself, defended its allies for many, many years since its existence. I do not think we ought to give it up simply for the sake of a budget trend in Ottawa, regardless of the political party that is there.
I do not particularly want to lay blame or politics on someone, but the fact of the matter is we know we have overspent in this country, we know we have huge deficits to deal with. As a matter of fact, we must choose our priorities, and those priorities I think should include a reasonably strong military. Thank you.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity as well to add my comments in support of the resolution by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). I applaud his sincerity in working for the best interests of his constituents.
I want to just also add though that in terms of the provincial effect of the white paper, mention has been made of Shilo. Portage la Prairie will also be affected by this paper, and I invite members who are interested in learning more about the impact that my constituency has felt as a result of defence cutbacks and may well feel as a result of further cutbacks, I am happy to make information available to you.
I invite you to learn more about the situation that may impact on Portage la Prairie because it is a major one.
Portage, as you know, has been profoundly affected by recent changes at CFB Southport. We are the home of the first privatized flight training that our Department of National Defence has undertaken, and a very successful undertaking by most accounts. So I certainly hope that the success of that shrub that has been planted is not jeopardized by seeing it pulled out so that one could inspect the roots. I am afraid that is what we may see forthcoming in the months ahead. I certainly hope not, and I have offered my encouragement and support to our member, Jon Gerrard, and to others in our community certainly to develop a co-operative approach to becoming informed in dealing with this issue in a proactive way.
Once again, I want to offer all members the opportunity to learn more about the impact that issues around this resolution and around the larger issue of defence expenditure, how they will impact on Manitoba as a whole.
While I am given the opportunity, I do want to respond to comments by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards). The member for St. James held up a photocopy of an article from the local Portage paper, the Daily Graphic, in which the headline I believe reads something along the lines of, MLA defends perks. The perks which are discussed in that article principally are one, and that so-called perk is the rural residence allowance, approximately $16,000 paid to members from outside the Perimeter Highway who are forced to relocate to the city of Winnipeg because that is where this building is.
I have to question why the member would raise that in the House as he has done once before. I understand that the Liberal Party does not have rural members, I do understand that. I do understand though that the member has alluded to my speaking out on the pension, on the MLAs' pension, and I did and I believe that was the right thing to do. I did that on the basis of my principles and my beliefs that it was the right thing to do, just as I will defend the rural residence allowance as being the right thing for representatives and good representation from outside the Perimeter Highway in this province. I defended it, and I will continue to defend it as being a key aspect of providing good representation to rural Manitobans at the provincial level.
I do not think it is fair, and I can only assume, I do not know the member for St. James' opinion or his position on the issue of second residence allowance, but I do endorse and support the recommendation of the independent panel on pensions and so-called perks which made the recommendation that that benefit continue, albeit in a different form.
I can only assume that the member raising this issue in the House repeatedly reveals his opposition to that recommendation by that panel. Otherwise, why would he attack me for defending the recommendation? I can only assume that he is opposed to that recommendation.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Edwards: Recognizing that the member is significantly off topic of the resolution but nevertheless has raised a concern and, I think, imputed motives to me, Mr. Speaker. In terms of why I would have raised this, I simply want to indicate that my only point in the speech, if the member reflects on the record, was that when someone seeks headlines, sometimes those headlines have a way of coming back on that person and that the self-righteousness of the member's approach to generally payment of MLAs does come around to haunt you. I do not suggest that he should not have received that money.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. That is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Also, on the point the honourable member did make, the honourable member for Portage la Prairie, sir, what is before the House at this time is Resolution 70, CFB Winnipeg.
* * *
* (1640)
Mr. Pallister: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, and I am getting to my roundabout point on this issue as it relates to this motion.
The fact of the matter is that there is a centralist attitude that inhabits the Liberal Party. It has been there for a long time. It continues to be there. It was revealed in the comments of the former Leader in terms of Grow Bonds and the lack of skill and the lack of acumen that she believed that rural Manitobans have in dealing with this issue. It is there now in the form of the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), who does not understand that the members who live outside the Perimeter Highway do not get to go home and cuddle their children at night or read them a book. They do not get to just go home for their dinner. They get to live apart from their families. They get to live apart from the friends and people whom they associate with in their home communities and they do that with a desire to serve their constituents in this Chamber.
They do it on the basis of principle. They do not do it on the basis of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the member is really imputing further motives in terms of saying that I do not understand the sacrifices of rural Manitobans. That is just silliness.
I stood up today in the House and said in the hallway about another member who is retiring, specifically mentioned the cost to his family of serving here for 18 years. I understand that. What I do not understand and accept is the self-righteousness of the member.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Pallister: Mr. Speaker, once again the thickness of the skin of the member is revealed in his attempts constantly to interrupt my comments.
As I have said, I think it is important to understand, and I have tried to clarify my position to the members of this House on why I took that position on the issue of pension and why I proposed the changes and believe the changes were the right thing to do.
I have tried to explain to the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) why I defend the second residence allowance, which he obviously opposes. I think it is important for us to understand in this House that we must stand up for principles we believe in, that that is vitally important. Certainly, of all the members who might criticize my position on that issue, Mr. Speaker, the member for St. James might well be the least qualified to do that. The member for St. James might well have the least foundation upon which to stand while attacking so-called self-righteous behaviour, a privilege on the part of other members--
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Portage la Prairie, sir, I will ask you now to be relevant to the resolution which is before the House, CFB Winnipeg.
Mr. Pallister: In closing, I just want to say that I invite members once again to learn more about the impact to my community of these changes. I think it is a very important and significant issue. I am pleased to hear of the willingness to co-operate. I thank the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) for his comments, which I believe to be sincere, and I look forward to seeing the unanimous support of the House in terms of support for this resolution. Thanks once again.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the resolution?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: That is agreed and so ordered.
Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock? Agreed.