VOL. XLVI No. 20A - 10 a.m., THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1996
Thursday, April 18, 1996
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, April 18, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Madam Speaker: In accordance with Rule 21, we will proceed with Monday’s rotation for the first hour’s business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 1--Border Crossing
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to propose to you a resolution, and I would move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
WHEREAS Canada and the United States share the world’s longest undefended border; and
WHEREAS both countries make extensive use of border crossings to ensure the smooth flow of goods between our nations; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has prioritized the establishment of our province as the major link to the central North American trade corridor; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has recently marked the completion of the twinning of the Lord Selkirk Highway that will result in a substantial increase in its usage; and
WHEREAS the need to work in close concert with our American counterparts to ensure efficiency in border crossings has never been so necessary.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that all members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba strongly urge the federal government to streamline customs clearance procedures and develop policy and regulations that will be compatible on both sides of the border so that Manitoba may fulfil its customer service obligations that are integral in maintaining Manitoba’s position in the global market; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba strongly urge the federal government to expand customs facilities in the constituency of Emerson in light of the twinning of the Lord Selkirk Highway and the anticipated increased usage.
Motion presented.
Mr. Penner: I think it is important to note that Manitoba has spent a significant amount of time and energy to ensure that the compliances that have been agreed to between Canada and the United States and now Mexico under the NAFTA agreement will not only enhance very substantially the flow of goods between the two countries, Canada and the United States, or I should say the three countries, Canada, the United States and Mexico, in both air traffic and the deregulation process in rail traffic. The deregulated process in truck traffic will ensure the requirements that we have initiated some eight years ago. That is simply to conclude the construction of Highway 75 joining that with I-29, which will now become one of the major traffic routes in North America. That will accommodate the flow of traffic both from eastern Canada into the Winnipeg region and out of western Canada down No. 1 Highway into Winnipeg from the western region and therefore allow for a very significant increase in highway truck traffic into the United States and Mexico down I-29 and on into Mexico. That will be seen and designated in my view as the international trade route, trade corridor in North America.
I believe that the huge amount of money that Manitoba has spent in facilitating this now requires us to accept the fact that the 70 percent increase in exports that we have seen over the last number of years is an indication of the need to expand the Customs facilities at the border at Emerson on I-29.
We believe that the $3.3 billion or 88 percent of our imports and exports are going to come down this traffice route. We believe that the Pembina-Emerson border crossing is the second busiest commercial border traffic west of Sarnia, Ontario. We know that it is only the Vancouver-Washington port that is busier than this. We question the fact that Ottawa has now said that their first initiative will be a crossing in Alberta when this crossing here, anybody looking at the crossing coming from Winnipeg driving into the United States sees the mirage of trailers that have been set up to accommodate this proper staffing and flow of traffic through that port.
It really looks somewhat like a Third World country facility that is there at the time. We believe that because of the competitiveness and the nature of the traffic flow and the goods that cross the border here that we need to access and make sure that these goods actually reach destination on time, and that can only happen if the flow of traffic through good port facilities is initiated.
There are many other things that are going to impact to even further the increased traffic flows, and I think we have talked on a number of occasions about the establishment of the WINNPORT corporation, in other words, a group of trucking firms established to increase commercial traffic and have commercial traffic that now overflies us into the southern United States, land here, drop their commercial loads here and then continue on by truck and utilize Winnipeg as a distribution centre of exported and imported goods. That in itself will again demonstrate the need to increase the flow of traffic at the port of Emerson.
I think it is also important to recognize that there needs to be an initiative taken at that border point once the new customs are in place to further facilitate proper traffic flows that would accommodate the trucking industry, and that is to implement a joint weigh station at that site. That certainly can happen if the Province of Manitoba and the states of North Dakota and Minnesota would be willing to comply in those regions.
Manitoba is known in Canada as the area and the place where the cheapest manufactured goods emanating from our primary resources come from. The elimination of the Crow rate, of the $720 million subsidy for transportation that has been paid to the railways over the last couple of decades that enhanced the flow of grain to ports such as Vancouver and Thunder Bay, have now been eliminated. This will, I believe, enhance the traffic flow in a north-south manner to a much greater degree than we have seen in the past.
There are two initiatives that need to be recognized here, both of them requiring proper customs clearance: that we should focus on targets and lobby the major railway companies to ensure that we have proper rail traffic north and south; and that we at the same time have proper truck traffic north and south, because north and south is where much of our traffic is going to head.
Churchill, I believe, is going to become a very important export point for raw goods out of Manitoba. Emerson will become a very important, probably one of the most important, ports in Canada, for processed and manufactured goods. This whole north-south corridor is the natural flow of products that needs to be accommodated.
* (1010)
We know that under NAFTA the superhighway and the trade and the transportation down this corridor will be reflected because of the topographical nature of the traffic route. It is probably one of the flattest routes in all of North America, and therefore designating it as a corridor becomes ever more important.
At the Emerson facility we have seen the merging--or Canada Customs is talking about merging--the two facilities. The east facility will be closed, according to all information that we have. It is now open only on an eight-hourly basis, regardless. Those two facilities will be amalgamated I understand, at I-29. We believe that many of the firms that are now considering western Canada as their home and we believe that milling companies that had traditionally established in eastern Canada--and we have accommodated the flow of grain into those milling firms under the Crow benefit, under the At and East program [phonetic], under the feed freight assistance act, and a number of other acts that have been used to subsidize grain movement into the Toronto-Montreal area and to provide the milling firms over there with product--will now move to western Canada. Manitoba, being the place in western Canada that has raised traditionally the highest quality milling wheat in the world, could very easily become the home of the milling, or be seen as the milling capital, of Canada simply because we are going to, by freight differentiation alone, be the cheapest place in Canada to acquire the milling products that are going to be needed.
We think that many of the systems that have been traditional will change very dramatically over the next number of years. We believe that some of the systems that have been used will change dramatically, and I talk about some of our corporative structures that are going to have to change in order to allow producers to become owners of their own processing plant. I will give you some examples, Madam Speaker. The sugar beet industry in North Dakota and Minnesota was always owned by corporations, some of them that were not even at home in the United States. Over the last two decades, the Minnesota and North Dakota sugar beet growers have taken full ownership of the five processing plants that grow, process, sell onto the store shelves directly, as farmers, their finished product. They will raise the products. They will manufacture the products. They will refine the products. They will market the products and put them right on the store shelf, farmer to store-shelf ownership.
I believe that these kinds of co-operative structures are the wave of the future. The Carrington pasta plant, the pasta plant that was built at Carrington, North Dakota, is a farmer-owned corporate structure which puts a finished pasta product on the shelf directly off the farm. The buffalo processing plant in North Dakota is a farmer-owned processing plant that puts a finished product on the shelf, Madam Speaker, right out of the farm gate. Similarly, we will see the emergence of those kinds of corporate structures in Manitoba that will see a vast increase in processed and finished goods flowing out of Manitoba into the world market, whether it be through WINNPORT, whether it be through Emerson and other customs crossings, but they will head south. There is a vast opportunity to increase our exports, to increase the flow of finished goods out of Manitoba.
There is a vast opportunity for farmers to become directly involved in ownership of these processes, but it is important for our federal government to recognize their responsibility, Madam Speaker, and their responsibility is to ensure that we have proper border crossings; proper Customs and proper brokerage houses; proper weigh scales at these Customs facilities; that these trucks need not stop for days on end and wait for them to be able to cross.
So I urge all members of this Legislature to support this resolution, to urge the federal government to take their responsibilities seriously, to invest, as we have in this province, in infrastructure. Part of that infrastructure should include the establishment of a good, solid, massive new venture at Emerson, Manitoba, to increase and enhance the flow of traffic through Customs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I rise to put a few comments on the record with regard to the honourable member for Emerson’s resolution, and I thank the honourable member for that resolution.
It is true that Canada and the United States share the world’s largest undefended border. It is a fact we take for granted. I know that it always was not so. In fact, I was also born in a country where there were defended borders, because I happen to be born during the Second World War. Certainly that was not very pleasant. So we can all be thankful that we have the world’s largest undefended border. It is something we tend to take for granted. In many places of the world, borders are synonymous with barriers, and although all people of good will support the smooth flow of goods, as the member for Emerson suggests we should be supporting, from one country to the other, in this case from the United States to Canada and the other way around, we should remember that often more than merely goods flow across borders, also ideas and people and tourists and cultures.
I note with some alarm that the number of tourists coming to Manitoba is down. In fact, if I can just quote this, in the last seven years, from 1988 to 1995, only Manitoba and New Brunswick had declines in nonresidents one or more nights trips to province. Only Manitoba and New Brunswick had declines in 1995 over the previous year. Meanwhile, Canada had a 5.6 percent increase in tourism, and most provinces had an even higher increase last year. So we certainly need to increase tourism, specifically in the North.
Also, Madam Speaker, I think we are well aware that there are some negative sides to the flow of trade, certainly to free trade and NAFTA, not to mention cultural erosion that takes place and the Americanization of the Canadian identity as our two nations become more and more intertwined. It is not that Canadians or Manitobans for that matter cannot be as rugged and competitive as the Americans are. We could be. The question is, do we necessarily want to be? Because I think we have to remember that we are vastly outnumbered. It is not just a smooth flow of goods between one country to another, we are also talking about a relationship between a nation that is 10 times our size. That relationship by most people is seen as symbiotic but by a few is seen as parasitic.
* (1020)
So we have to take a look at the fact that we are dealing with an elephant-mouse kind of relationship. It is not two equal countries in terms of size and power. But we do live at the edge of the 21st Century, and I am not advocating isolationism. We would be foolish not to support that which would bring more trade and tourism to Manitoba. We need all the jobs we can get, and we certainly need a lot of them in northern Manitoba. We need all the tourists we can get. When you do get them to Winnipeg, please ship them north, because we could certainly use more tourism in Lynn Lake and Leaf Rapids and Snow Lake and Flin Flon and so on.
I am pleased to note that the provincial government has prioritized, as the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) said, the establishment of our province as the major link to the central North American trade corridor. Now, saying that is one thing and actually being it is another, but at least we are saying it. We are the Keystone Province, after all, that is true, and it makes sense that that should be high priority, but we must remember that Ontario and Saskatchewan and other provinces will make similar claims.
I had the pleasure of attending several meetings of the central North American trade corridor. In fact, we set up a chapter in the North, and the meetings were held in Cranberry Portage. Although I listened with interest to the glowing reports of the potential benefits of trade with the United States and with Mexico, as the honourable member for Emerson has also pointed out, it always seemed to me that only the positives were put on the table and the negatives were ignored.
I listened with special interest not only to the American delegates at that particular meeting, but to a Mexican delegate, a trade delegate from the Mexican embassy in Ottawa, and she quoted only positives. Never once did I hear the word “maquiladora” or the free trade zones between the United States and Mexico on the Mexican side. I never heard about the low wage economy there, the pittance wages. We never heard about the fact that there are very poor pensions or very few benefits, that most of the workers are women. None of the negatives were touched upon. I think sometimes we have to put both sides of the equation on the table. Certainly, there are benefits, but there also are negatives.
Improved trade relations, I think, are important, yes. Streamlining customs clearance, of course, yes, but we need to be vigilant also to protect our workers and our environment and our culture and heritage. It is somewhat ironic, I suppose, that while the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) talks about urging the federal government to expand customs facilities, the federal government is planning to close the Emerson east border crossing. In fact, apparently, they are going to do so this coming May, and that is after building a $9-million bridge across the Red River.
The Winnipeg Sun called it the bridge to nowhere and maybe that is somewhat uncharitable, but I do know that even in the area the local president of the Chamber of Commerce has said: I do not want to call it a bridge to nowhere because it still comes into town, but it is basically a dead-end after this because you loop back into Manitoba. We will not wear that bridge out in a generation.
Madam Speaker, that concerns me somewhat because, boy, we could sure use $9 million for bridges in northern Manitoba. I am thinking of Norway House and I am thinking Cross Lake. I am thinking even of South Indian Lake, where the road has not even been built according to the Flood Agreement, leave alone the bridge. That is a lot, $9 million, and we could have done a lot with it in northern Manitoba.
That concerned me because northern roads are neglected and the $92 million that was to be infused into northern roads because of the Repap deal in 1989 has been put on hold--no, it has not been put on hold; it has been cancelled. That concerns us. So, yes, we could do a lot with $9 million in the North.
Something else bothers me. It is obvious that the province and the federal government do not always collaborate very well because you would not build $9-million roads to nowhere if you were aware of each other’s planning. It seems to me that one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. It is also ironic that, when we are talking about facilitating north-south links to trade--and we should include Churchill, by the way, and I am glad the honourable member mentioned it--we sometimes seem to be a little weak on the intelligence links between Ottawa and Winnipeg.
I would not be happy with the bridge to nowhere, and we certainly could have used it in the North where we could have built bridges to somewhere, but I guess it is a fait accompli now. I would say to the member for Emerson, with our eyes wide open and fully aware of the other side of the coin regarding trade relations with the United States, a somewhat darker side that members opposite are prone to ignore, we do support the resolution because I think it is an important resolution.
In fact, to expedite this matter somewhat, I am willing to limit my time and the members in this House are willing to support the resolution from the member for Emerson. Thank you.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I rise to give support to this resolution and make a few brief comments. I would fully endorse my colleague from Emerson’s comments, Madam Speaker, and all the reasons why this resolution should be passed. I would as well like to make a further comment, as it relates to the first THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, I fully support it. The last one has more of a direct implication for one constituency.
I would like the application of the first THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED to apply to all border crossings in southern Manitoba, whether it is at No. 10, No. 83 Highway, and/or any of the other crossings across southern Manitoba, that I consider all of Manitoba to be essential and important to the accessing of people moving across the border. In fact, I read recently that I think there has been some listening done as it relates to the need for streamlining. I know there are some pilot projects taking place throughout some of the different ports across the southern part of Canada, and I would just continue to urge the federal government to further streamline that.
As well I think it is important to point out, because this has caused some considerable concern, that when some of the American tourists have arrived at the Canadian border, their lack of understanding as to what they can and cannot bring into Canada. Pepper spray has caused a considerable amount of difficulty, where American visitors have come in and have, in fact, been penalized and, in fact, sent home without being able to successfully fulfill their vacation. I believe it is a matter of information that has to be provided by the Canadian government and by all of us involved in tourism to make sure that the American tourists are fully informed as to what they can and cannot bring into Canada, and I think that is an obligation that they should carry out.
As well, I wanted to make sure, and I wrote to the federal minister responsible for the ports systems, that we be treated no differently than the way in which they treat pepper spray or anything else in the other parts of Canada. We do not need to be singled out as a jurisdiction that is more harshly or less harshly treating people coming to Canada.
I will conclude by saying, Madam Speaker, that I believe that with the trade that has developed between Canada and the United States, the whole activity as it is related to NAFTA, that there have been trade increases by over 100 percent between Canada, and particularly Manitoba, and the United States since 1990, a tremendous movement of product into the U.S., which is extremely important to job creation and our economic long-term well-being.
We do have to, as the member said, streamline the process of getting that product through into the United States, but also be able to deal with the Mexican border crossings. There is a program in place; it is the organization known as the I-35 coalition which are working to further enhance those activities. We are being asked to be a part of it. North Dakota, South Dakota are asked to be a part of it. There is a cost which goes with being part of that initiative. It is now being assessed as to what the benefits would be.
I will conclude, I think we have to make sure the infrastructure is in place to now catch up to the actual activities that have taken place with trade between Canada, United States and Mexico. Free trade has truly demonstrated, that it is working, and I can assure you that the border activities have to be brought into line to make sure that it accommodates that activity. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Actually, I am somewhat pleased in the sense that for the first time in the last number of years, the past eight that I have been involved, that there seems to be a general will to see more resolutions actually debated and passed. Hopefully, we will be able to even carry further rule changes in the future with respect to private members’ business.
* (1030)
Specifically on Resolution No. 1 that has been introduced by the member, I would like to add a few comments. It is interesting, Madam Speaker, that what we have is we have a provincial government that, on the one hand, is saying the federal government is cutting back on things such as transfer payments, the federal government has to give more attention to deficit control, and then we have in this resolution a request in essence for the federal government to spend more money.
My colleague for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and I were having somewhat of a discussion on the role of advocacy groups and what in essence we are doing is we are turning this Chamber, if you like, into an advocacy group saying that we want to have additional funds and resources spent on the border crossing. Madam Speaker, ultimately I would argue that there is nothing wrong with that, that in fact standing up for Manitobans is what we are here for inside this Chamber, making sure that Manitoba gets its fair share and that they are represented through this Chamber, and I respect that. When we look at the criticisms that this government levels at other organizations that advocate, such as home care and others, the government is very suspicious and imputes motives and so forth.
We are pleased to see this particular resolution come to the fore, and I guess ultimately what we would like to see the federal government do is to bring into the province of Manitoba a system that is going to address the needs of the province of Manitoba well into the future. There have been a great number of individuals that come from the United States to Manitoba and vice versa, from Manitoba into the States, and if there are ways in which we can expedite and ensure that communities along the border can in fact be better facilitated, if you like, through enhancements in some areas, then we would be in support of that. We, in essence, look at our main border crossing, which is the Highway 75, which goes into I believe it is Interstate 29--I have never been there myself personally and, hopefully, I will get the opportunity at some point in time at least to visit the site--but I understand that there is a considerable backlog at times where people are waiting and what we do need to see is some sort of overall plan going into the next century in terms of how we can best accommodate whatever traffic flow there is going to be, both commercial and personal, and anything we can do to facilitate that sort of positive discussion or planning is something which we would be in favour of. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): I would just like to take a few moments to put a few comments on the record in support of the resolution that has been put forward by my honourable colleague from Emerson. As a member representing the constituency just north of my honourable colleague from Emerson, many of the things that he spoke about in the resolution directly have impact on the Morris constituency as well since Highway 75 transects right across the constituency on its way towards the border.
Madam Speaker, one of the things I would just like to put on record is the fact that Manitoba is fast becoming an export outlet into the United States whereby goods and services will flow through Manitoba into a population into the United States in excess of 80 million people, and we have had this demonstrated to us through the people involved with the organization of WINNPORT, where 747 jet aircraft will be flying into Winnipeg with goods and services placed on container trucks and then transported into the U.S., into this large 80-million population market, and it will also come back that way, as well. So the important link there, of course, is the border crossing and to be able to facilitate a very fast, rapid transit right through the border crossing, so that those goods and services can flow that way.
Another thing to keep in mind, too, is the fact that in terms of a twinned highway accessing the United States, this is the only twinned highway going into the United States, particularly the midwestern states and towards the eastern states, between Toronto and Vancouver. So it becomes a very integral transportation link to the United States, and it is a linkage that we should try to enhance and encourage more use of.
So with those few comments, Madam Speaker, I would hope that all members in the Assembly would see fit to support this resolution. That is all I am going to say.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I would also just like to take a couple of minutes to make a few comments on this resolution. As my colleague from Flin Flon indicated, we are prepared to support this resolution. We all recognize the importance of trade between the United States and Canada, but, Madam Speaker, there has been a large controversy over this last winter about product moving across the border, that being namely in the farming community, farmers illegally moving grain across the border and bypassing the Canadian Wheat Board.
I hope, Madam Speaker, along with looking at moving product across the border, we will also recognize that there are laws in place with respect to the movement of grain and that this government in putting forward this resolution is not looking for a way to bypass and make it easier for people to move grain which comes under the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board into the United States.
I think that this trade is very important, but we also have to recognize that we cannot move too much of that grain into the United States because we will run into confrontation with the American farmers, and that may lead to tariffs being put on products and unpleasant discussions between Canada and the United States. So, Madam Speaker, the one point that I want to mention here is that although we support opening up the borders for the smoother flowing of goods between nations, we have to recognize that there are commodities that are under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, and the people who are trying to move those products have to follow the laws. I would hope that this is not an attempt to try to bypass that.
I would hope also that the government would recognize as they are improving roads in southern Manitoba and increasing that traffic and making it better for tourists to come into this country and our tourists to go that way, that we also recognize that in rural and northern Manitoba there are many roads that must be upgraded. Hopefully, very soon, the government will recognize that responsibility, and we will start to see them fulfil commitments that we have heard for many years. Look at my constituency and many parts of the North where the government has made commitments but not upheld them.
Basically, my concern is with the agenda to try to open up customs and not an attempt to bypass the Canadian Wheat Board which has the real role in seeing the proper distribution of wheat in this country. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is the resolution moved by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson).
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
* (1040)
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would propose, by leave, that we move to Resolution No. 2 and that we debate Resolution No. 2 for an hour, as would normally occur, and then, at that point, we can consider perhaps second reading of Bill 200--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l’assurance-maladie. [interjection] Well, no, then we will not be able to read his bill.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave to debate Resolution No. 2 for now? We do not need leave to move to Resolution No. 2 because we have completed dealing with Resolution 1. Is there leave to debate Resolution No. 2 for one hour? [agreed]
Is there leave then to proceed to deal with Tuesday’s rotation as proposed on today’s--okay, we do not need leave for that, because we will just proceed. That will be the regular business dealt with under that hour of Private Members’ Business.
Res. 2--Port of Churchill
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton),
WHEREAS the bayline and the northern seaport of Churchill are valuable assets of this province; and
WHEREAS the Port of Churchill last made money in 1987 when 17 ships shipped grain; and
WHEREAS shipments have been less than half of what was needed to make a profit every year since; and
WHEREAS in the 1993 federal election the Liberal Party of Canada promised to ship one million tonnes through the port; and
WHEREAS in 1994 the shipping season started a month late and ended on October 19 with just nine grain ships having visited the port for a total of 291,000 tonnes; and
WHEREAS in 1995 just seven ships were sent to the port; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Northern Gateway Transportation Company has proposed a workable business plan which can revive the port and the bayline; and
WHEREAS it is vital to the interests of this province that the port continue to operate.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record as stating its strong support for the Canadian Northern Gateway Transportation Company proposal; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the federal government to support the Canadian Northern Gateway Transportation Company proposal on an urgent basis; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Assembly be directed to send a copy of this resolution to the federal Minister of Transport and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Motion presented.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief in my remarks. I believe that we have discussed the Port of Churchill at great length in this House on several occasions in the past. I recall, on June 9, 1994, we had a very extensive discussion, debate, in this House on a matter of urgent public importance regarding the Port of Churchill, and again we put on record some of the concerns that we had about the ongoing life of the Port of Churchill. So I do not question the support by members in this House of the possibilities that do exist for the Port of Churchill and, of course, most recently the northern transportation company and gateway north. I believe that the port repeatedly has shown its viability. In November of 1995, members in this House will recall that the port made history, and also made history for all of Manitoba by the arrival of the MV Federal Franklin on November 25. So this proves that the shipping season through the Port of Churchill is much longer than is commonly recognized, and we are very proud and we indicated our pride to the Gateway North people and also to the residents of Churchill by immediately sending a letter of congratulations to His Worship Mayor Michael Spence, who has over the years been a very strong supporter of the Port of Churchill. As well, we have had many supporters over the years. I appreciated the comments in past questions I have asked to the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) for this province who has always indicated a strong support for the Port of Churchill, including other members on the government’s side.
We also have the people at the Hudson Bay Route Association. Unfortunately, because of a death in my family a couple of weekends ago, I was unable to be at the meeting that was held in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, but certainly people like Willis Arthur Richwood and others have been active supporters, and have continued to give good advice on the bayline and also the Port of Churchill itself.
The resolution we have tabled, Madam Speaker, is calling for support, not only for the Port of Churchill and also the Gateway North project, but it is also asking this province and the federal government and the Saskatchewan government to allow them the opportunity that this House is fully supportive of the ongoing life of Churchill. Many in this House will also know that last week Gateway North sent representatives to Russia and the project appears to be proceeding with some momentum. We have made many commitments on this side of the House to the modernization of the port, for one thing, the extension of the shipping season, and we have also been with the Gateway North people in their meetings in Yorkton with the Saskatchewan government. The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) and I went to a couple of meetings in the province of Saskatchewan last summer, both in Yorkton and also Regina. So our support is without question.
I appreciated the comments made by the member for Emerson on the possibilities that do exist, not only for the southern part of this province, but also the possibilities that exist in northern Manitoba, most particularly in Churchill. As you know, Madam Speaker, the most recent announcement made by the Gateway North and the Government of Canada has been the announcement of Terry Duguid, and certainly we in Churchill welcome the news of Mr. Duguid heading up the Gateway North initiative. We believe that he brings a lot of good attributes to the
job and we feel that he will do a good job in promoting the viability of the Port of Churchill. Of course, in January of this past year, we were happy to hear the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy,
Minister of Western Economic Diversification at that time, name the board of directors for the Gateway North marketing agency, and we believe that all these people are competent and they bring a wealth of experience to assure the people in Churchill that there are some possibilities for the port, and of course they include Donald Gibb, Doug Webber, who is the former mayor of Churchill, Siobhan Mullen, Costas Nicolaou, and Lillian Tankard, who is the president of the Tourism Industry of Manitoba.
As well, recently, I am talking less than two weeks ago, we welcomed the news of the appointments to add to those announcements made back in January by the honourable Dr. Jon Gerrard, now the Minister responsible for the WED. Of course, now Chief Norman Kirkness of the Fox Lake First Nation will join the board, and we wholeheartedly support that appointment. Of course, Mr. Ed Schreyer, who is the former premier of this province, Darrel Cunningham, the former Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture, Ed Hubert of the Manitoba Mining Association, and Hugh Campbell of Saskatchewan have been appointed to the Gateway North Agency.
Now, we believe, Madam Speaker, these individuals have shown by their commitment to this very important project that Gateway North is moving forward on its agenda of restoring the role of the Port of Churchill, and I am very excited about the potential of Gateway North in turning around eight years of declining shipments through that port. The potential of Churchill to ship grain and other commodities is well known, and, regrettably, opponents of the port have been able to stop Churchill from getting its fair share of grain over the past eight years by forcing the port into a deficit position. However, supporters of the port have been working tirelessly to overcome these obstacles, and with Gateway North I believe that their efforts will see success in the next little while.
But I do take this opportunity; I look forward to the support of all members, and I am sure that the people of Churchill will be anxious to see the support being extended by all members of this House with respect to the ongoing life of the Port of Churchill, the Gateway North Agency, and all the initiatives that are relating to the Port of Churchill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
* (1050)
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, as the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) concluded his remarks, he was making reference to there being opponents, and I think that we have to acknowledge that in fact there are other vested interest groups that are out there no doubt, that are not within the province of Manitoba per se or the province of Saskatchewan, because a vast majority of Manitobans and individuals from Saskatchewan, or Saskatchewanites, see the benefits of an expanded, reliable, viable port out in Churchill, and in the last federal election what we had seen were Members of Parliaments today and all 14 candidates during the last federal election who saw just how valuable and important the Port of Churchill was to all Manitobans. That is one of the reasons why that provincial body of federal candidates made a commitment to try to get the number of tonnes increased through that Port of Churchill. I applaud them for making that commitment, and, hopefully, we will see that commitment realized.
One of the things we have to acknowledge is the efforts, if you like, from all of those that were involved in the establishment of the Canadian Northern Gateway Transportation Company and the individuals that are participating with this group of individuals to try to present not only to Manitobans, but to individuals, in particular within the federal cabinet, in other groups, whether it is in North Bay or wherever they might be across the country, the importance of the Port of Churchill because, ultimately, we believe as a provincial party that the Port of Churchill can be viable, and it is in fact in our best interest to do what we can to see that the federal government is at least being presented in the best fashion possible the positive opportunities that will be derived if we are successful in keeping the Port of Churchill alive.
By passing a resolution of this nature, I believe ultimately that it shows that there is that support for our members of Parliament that are fighting very hard for the Port of Churchill. The resolution, in a couple of the WHEREASes, some might detect it as being somewhat negative reflecting on some of our people that are actually fighting hard for this port, but I am sure that that was not the intent from the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), to reflect negatively on those individuals that are trying to fight for this port, survival if you like, but in essence the resolution is something which we as a provincial party do indeed support. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I apologize for being a little slow on my feet here. I thought the member was going to give a long, long speech on the subject.
Let me at the outset, Madam Speaker, rise to speak on behalf of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism and as well make some comments for my colleague the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), who has been very much involved in the overall activities as it relates to Churchill and the transportation as it relates to Churchill and the activities which we would like to encourage, a lot more utilization of the rail system. It is, of course, a very important piece of infrastructure for Manitoba and for all of Canada.
I have been involved in many debates as they relate to the Port of Churchill over the many years that I have been in office. I have to say that my personal position has not changed, that it is a very important piece of Manitoba and a very important piece of Canada. I think to some degree it has been the politics of eastern and western Canada that have been a lot of the deterring factors that have kept Churchill from maximizing its potential. I do not think I would have any disagreement from the member who introduced the resolution and/or other members of this House in saying that.
I want to as well indicate some of the work that this government has done as it relates to broadening the activities as they relate to the Port of Churchill, and I may be a little broader than what I should be as relates to the specific resolution, but I think it is important to put it in this context.
For far too long, we, the people of this country, have depended upon Churchill and the use of it has been certainly identified probably more for grain than anything else. Although grain is and will be and should continue to be a very important commodity, there are a lot of other activities that we believe can be put in place to enhance the Port of Churchill. This government I think wants to go on the record, certainly I want to put it on the record, what has taken place, whether it is the work through Arctic Bridge and the support of the Arctic Bridge project, the work that has taken place at the rocket range and the work that is being done to develop a satellite launching system by Akjuit. The fact that we have had several different ministers spend time, whether it was in Russia or dealing with potential transportation activities that would bring product in through the Port of Churchill, whether it be minerals or other activities. To this point, none of those other things has taken place.
I should also put on the record, Madam Speaker, that we have seen extensive work as it relates to the development of a national park at Churchill, and of course we believe that will be a reality within a short period of time and will add to the overall diversity of that particular port. Dealing more specifically as it relates to the Canadian Northern Transportation Company, I just was talking to the member, and I think maybe there could be a little bit of a change to the wording. I think it either should be referred to as the northern transportation agency or the Canadian northern gateway--gateway north transportation limited. However, we are not going to argue over that.
It is a matter of us all wanting to get to the same objective that the Port of Churchill be maximized, that the rail line be maximized and how will that take place. I think it is clear that there have been some proposals put forward, both to CN and dealings taking place as it relates to the operation of the port. I think it will, in fact, take a different agency, a different organization to make something happen. There has to be, at the end of the day, a profitable operation in place, both for the operation of the rail line and the port. There are those that would argue that the rail line will become very useful and very efficient and very rewarding to those owners if in fact--and now that the transportation costs of moving grain have become greater to the farm community, the Crow Rate is no longer with us, what will happen is the most efficient transportation system, the most efficient way of getting grain out of Canada will, in fact, be sought. There are many studies and reports in place that, in fact, clearly point out that Churchill will become one of those ports that will enhance that.
To stand here today and to say we give support to this resolution has, I think, brought all parties in this House--I do not think there has been any difference of general agreement--the Port of Churchill should be more used, it should be enhanced. It is a matter of how that will take place. We have seen some changes in the ownership of CN. We have seen a proposal made to CN as it relates to the overall activities and who will operate that portion of the line. We also know that to be part of that the export port system has to be as well controlled to the interests of that overall agency or company that is being established.
I am probably more positive today than I have ever been as it relates to the future of the activities at the Port of Churchill. Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I think that there are some positive signs of at least some change, rather than just saying we are going to sit here and rail away at the federal government, say they have to put more grain through it, the Wheat Board has to put more grain through it. The resolution as it speaks, saying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record as stating its strong support for the Canadian Northern Transportation Company proposal. It could be agency or company limited.
* (1100)
Be it further resolved that this Legislature urge the federal government to support the Canadian northern gateway transportation for the proposal on an urgent basis. It is urgent. It has gone on far too long that this system has not been fully utilized. There are jobs. There is economic development. I think it is also important to show that we are doing something to further support what we want to do as it relates to the Northwest Territories and Rankin Inlet for the commerce that we can carry on between our two jurisdictions. It is important that this be sent on to the Minister of Transport and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
In supporting the resolution, Madam Speaker, I think that it is extremely important that this be moved on to the federal government, that there is a support for this resolution, that the future of Churchill, we believe, has an opportunity if the support is given from those ministers who are responsible.
Again, I just will conclude by saying that I have been extremely pleased and proud of our Premier’s (Mr. Filmon’s) involvement in the activities as it relates to the support of Churchill. All of my colleagues, the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), we have all worked with the same objective, and this resolution hopefully will get the desired results as it relates to the future prosperity of a major part of Manitoba and western Canada. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): I would also like to offer a few comments to this resolution.
Firstly, I want to thank my colleague the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) for sponsoring the resolution. I would also go on to thank and acknowledge the hard work and dedication of a lot of people, a lot of them whose names I do not know, and I am not going to be able to mention them here in this short address. But I would like to acknowledge the work, for example, of the Port of Churchill committee headed up by Sue Lambert and others from The Pas. Also, the same acknowledgement should go to the Hudson Bay Route Association whose membership is comprised of people from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Madam Speaker.
I would then also would like to acknowledge the dedication and the tenacity and the determination of people from Churchill, past mayors and councils, Mr. Webber, and now the current mayor of Churchill, His Worship Mr. Spence and his councillors. The same acknowledgement, of course, goes to the citizens of Churchill, Madam Speaker.
I also would like to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay). I remember one time in The Pas he and I were both at a hearing that was being held by the federal Liberal Party. The Minister of Highways and I were both in The Pas at the time to make presentations on behalf of the railway and the Port of Churchill, so I, of course, acknowledge the work of the Minister of Highways and Transportation for that.
I am also going to say, Madam Speaker, that it is nice to hear and listen to all the nice words that are being offered here today; very supportive. It makes me feel good to hear people being supportive at least in terms of words. I only hope that those words will also have the ability to translate into meaningful action, action that will mean the continued existence of the railway going to Churchill and, of course, the continued existence of the Port of Churchill.
I believe that the support from this Legislature should be more focused, should be more aggressive. Nice words are fine, but in the end, when there is no action, those nice words can also be very hollow and not produce anything.
One of the reasons I support this resolution is that I believe the Port of Churchill and the railway, in the words of the member sponsoring the previous resolution, is more than just moving goods and services on a system, Madam Speaker. It has to do with people, too. You see, there are a lot of people living along the railway going up to Churchill, and the majority of those people living along the railway are, of course, aboriginal people. They are indigenous to that area; they were born there and they are going to stay there.
When I was listening to the other speakers I started thinking of how ironic it is that we are debating on a resolution trying to make some positive influence on the part of the provincial and federal and private industry to ensure that the Port of Churchill continues to exist. A long time ago, when our people were living in that area, there were no roads, there were no highways or railways and certainly there were no ports, nor were there airports. As time went on, of course, that area, northern Manitoba, not unlike other areas of Canada, land was developed to the point where we have now become dependent on having a sound transportation system, in order that our people may continue to exist as well, Madam Speaker. That is why I found it a little bit ironic, because we are no longer able to live off the land completely as we used to before, because of the impact that settlement, that area and throughout the North, over the years, has had on the North.
I would like to end by saying, once again, that it is nice to hear the good words, but I would urge all members that we have to make sure that those good words, nice words, translate into something more meaningful for the people of not just Manitoba, but particularly the people living along the way, and also for the people living in the community of Churchill. Thanks very much.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and put a few words on record regarding the resolution put by the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) before the House today. Having had a significant amount to do and discussions with some of the proponents and some of the better supporters of the Port of Churchill gives me some significant comfort, in standing in this House today. I refer to one Doug Webber, who is the mayor of the Port of Churchill, whom I have come to know quite well and have a great deal of admiration for because he is what I call a true northerner. He is a true proponent of his community, and he is a builder of his community and a builder of the North. So I recognize the efforts that Doug Webber, the mayor of Churchill, has made to enhance the visibility of the importance of the Port of Churchill.
* (1110)
There is one other person that I want to recognize, and his name is Eddie Johanson. He is probably one of the most dynamic speakers that the North has bred and raised. He is a very strong proponent of the Port of Churchill. He has travelled this country and, I think, lobbied and spoke to every politician that has ever had an involvement with the Port of Churchill and some that have not. But these are the kind of people that are able to influence the people that make decisions, whether in this House or in the federal Parliament or in the Legislature of Saskatchewan, and these two people have done a tremendous job in raising the visibility and demonstrating the viability of the Churchill line.
The Port of Churchill is not and should not be seen as one of the greatest ports to export grain out of. It is not. It is, however, an export point in the middle of a continent, and the province of Manitoba happens to be in the middle of the continent. I think it would be a travesty if the federal government walked away from its responsibility to maintain that export point out of mid-continent. It does two things. It gives access to other countries that are within very close proximity of our province and Canada. It allows the export of products, whether they be grain products, fertilizer, lumber, or anything else that you want to export, to be exported to those countries such as Estonia, Russia and others.
The then-Minister of Highways and Transportation, Mr. Albert Driedger, met the first ship to come into the Port of Churchill three or four years ago, and that captain of that ship said he could haul four shiploads of grain out of the Port of Churchill during the short shipping season, as much grain as he could haul out of the Port of St. Lawrence all year. Now the time factor is the element here to move grain or other products into those countries, and time costs money, especially when you are moving big ocean-going freighters. They are hugely expensive to operate. So I think there is a real consideration to be made, and the province of Manitoba, this government, has always been a supporter of the maintenance of that export position as a Canadian export position.
I have always believed that if our selling agencies would pay more attention to the value of the goods shipped out of that port, we would have a better export point at that position. Therefore I say to you, Madam Speaker, that it gives me pleasure to support this resolution, because it identifies clearly the need for Manitoba to lobby hard the federal initiative to maintain that position and to keep the federal investment current and expand it. We have a great opportunity to see the expansion of new technologies in Churchill because of one thing, and it is the one issue that Manitoba is probably best known for worldwide, and that is its clean environment and its clean air and its clean water. Churchill has clearly been demonstrated as a selected site to launch rockets and to launch satellites. For what reason? Because it has one of the best clean environments anywhere in the world. We should not lose sight of that. Similarly, the agriculture products that we raise in this province are seen worldwide as coming near to or being the kind of products that people want to buy today, clean of chemicals, grown in a clean environment, grown on clean land, grown in clean air, and clean water used for the irrigation and the propagation of these products.
The manufacturing sector has a similar reputation as having the ability to produce foods that are pure and therefore acceptable in the world market. The Port of Churchill, whether it is simply used as a transportation route or the expansion for the use of other things such as the launching of rockets--and I believe there are many other potentials there--that can certainly enhance the viability and the credibility of northern Manitoba and many of the Northerners.
Our mining industry in northern Manitoba has a great opportunity to use the Port of Churchill to ship its products into the world marketplace. The mining community has been expanded very dramatically under our governments and our government’s policy, and therefore I believe that we will not only see the support of the province of Saskatchewan but I believe that the Americans, both in North Dakota, Minnesota and South Dakota will see the use and the viability of the Port of Churchill as an essential part of a North American transportation regime that needs to be supported on a much broader basis than we have currently seen. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on this because I know there are other members who wish to speak on this resolution, and I believe there may be a willingness to pass this as a statement of support, not only the specific proposal that is outlined in the resolution but also for the Port of Churchill. I want to indicate that I have been fortunate to have a long association in working on behalf of the Port of Churchill. I am a former member of the Port of Churchill Development Board, and I think pretty well from Day One as a northern MLA I have taken every opportunity to speak out in support of our northern port. I want to indicate that I am very pleased to see the support today in the Legislature because in previous debates regrettably some time ago there often tended to be less than unanimous agreement.
There were members of this House who were not supportive of the Port of Churchill, and I consider it an historic evolution that I would sense today that there are 57 members of this Legislature that all support the Port of Churchill and the importance of the port.
That is very important, Madam Speaker, because we are paradoxically at a crossroads now where there are two roads ahead. We see on the one hand a dramatic decline in the last number of years in the amount of grain shipped through the Port of Churchill. We have seen that the targets that we were set have not been met. We have seen some pretty dark clouds for the port in terms of that particular site. We have seen significant cuts to the bayline in terms of the maintenance of the bayline and lack of reinvestment in the bayline.
So, on the one hand, there are some very disturbing signs for the port, but, on the other hand, as has been pointed out by speakers from all sides of this House, there is a great deal of potential. We are seeing discussions taking place about the possibility of not only shipping grain but shipping minerals into the Port of Churchill for refining, whether it be from Voisey Bay or whether it be indeed even from Russia, to use the smelting capabilities of Hudson’s Bay Mining and Smelting in Flin Flon or Inco in Thompson.
I believe there is a great deal of further potential for the port given the establishment of the territory of Nunavut. I was somewhat disappointed, Madam Speaker, that the selection of the capital will mean that the capital of the new territory of Nunavut will be served out of Ottawa and Montreal, but I think there is a great deal of opportunity to get into Nunavut and use the fact that we have a seaport, we have a community of Churchill, which already does a significant amount of servicing of the health care needs and other needs, trade needs, of what is now the territory of Nunavut.
* (1120)
I believe there is a great deal of opportunity to develop joint ventures with Nunavut and would encourage government members and all members in this House to be working actively to achieve that. If we can link in with Nunavut, I believe we have a tremendous amount of potential to developing northern part of Manitoba and also Nunavut itself, whether it be in terms of transportation, whether it be in terms of other activities, including trade. I believe, particularly in the area of education, there is a lot of potential in northern Manitoba.
I want to conclude by saying that I have always believed that the symbol of our Legislature, the Golden Boy, always significantly points in one direction, north. I know it was referenced by Ed Johanson, whose most favourite saying at any banquet is, Vive le nord. And I want to conclude by echoing that sentiment and saying that the future of Manitoba in many ways, I believe, still lies in the North, a great undeveloped potential, and the Port of Churchill is an absolutely key part of developing northern Manitoba and the province as a whole. Thank you.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam Speaker, as Minister of Northern Affairs, it gives me great pleasure to join in this debate on this very important resolution put forward by the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), who represents the community of Churchill as well as many of the communities served by the bayline.
If I may for a moment, although there is a great spirit of co-operation, I think, in this House in moving towards passing this resolution today, I would like to take one issue with the member for Thompson’s remarks. I, too, am an individual who has come to know Mr. Johanson very, very well. I thought, and perhaps it is my error, that his favourite saying was not Vive le nord; I thought it was his second favourite. I thought his first favourite saying was, Keep the log to the saw. That is one he has used on many occasions. Keep the log to the saw. To some degree, that particular saying of Mr. Johanson’s is equally applicable to this resolution because it does just that. It keeps the pressure on those who have the decisions to make, to some degree.
Mr. Ashton: What are we, the log or the saw?
Mr. Praznik: The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says, are we the log to the saw? I am not quite sure, but I say that my comments are meant to be in jest, both of us knowing Mr. Johanson very well and his dedication to the North and its future.
If I may pick up for a moment on the comments again for the member for Thompson, when he did talk about the North and the future of the North and the Golden Boy facing the North and the symbolism of that, many of the changes that we are seeing now in the North American economy, many of which we have very limited ability to control, and some we do as Canadian people, the change in the Western Grain Transportation Act, the elimination of that particular subsidy. Many of those factors are totally revolutionizing the way in which we do business. What we are discovering, particularly when you look at the trade figures for this province, when you look at some of the things that are happening, is that our economy now is very much starting to line up being a north-south economy, as opposed to an east-west economy. Whether good, bad or otherwise, that reality is happening.
I would just share with members an experience I had in some dealings with the North West Company, and we are very fortunate as a province to have that company choose Winnipeg, our capital, and the province of Manitoba to locate one of the most modern warehousing operations in North America today. The North West Company, as members know, I think, very well, is the major retailer throughout much of northern Manitoba, throughout much of the Canadian north, throughout the Arctic. They have recently acquired a chain of retail stores in Alaska and either have acquired or were negotiating to acquire the sole retailing company in Greenland.
What is so exciting about that, of course, is most of the product sold throughout the Arctic regions of North America and Greenland potentially will be sourced or supplied out of our province. One of the factors in making that happen is having an efficient, competitive transportation system. As was explained to me by one of their vice-presidents, the farther north that they can move product before having to put it on an aircraft, the better it is. In an ideal world, I think their preference would be to have an all-weather road directly to Churchill on which they could move reefers of produce, in particular, from Winnipeg to Churchill in a 24-hour period, to load on aircraft to distribute to their stores throughout the Arctic. That is not quite possible today, but certainly the railroad is a link.
I asked them why this has not happened in the past, and one of the problems has been, I think, the lack of competitiveness on the part of the current owners of the railroad, CN, in accommodating that customer base. The former member for Flin Flon, Mr. Jerry Storrie, I remember a debate we had in this house, and we talked about moving people along that bayline. He told a story from his days being in cabinet when there was talk of a rail bus. What started as a small, efficient cost-effective little project to take a bus and structure it so it could move up and down and move people on regular service along that bayline, with the help of the bureaucracy and the federal government, turned into a--I look to the member for Thompson--how many millions or hundreds of thousands at least. There were not proper steps; it was just a disaster. What could have probably taken $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 in public support to get started, and probably if it had developed as a business run by a few families or something, it would have worked and maybe required minimal public support, all of a sudden became a huge expensive trial project which at the end of the day had to be cancelled because it was too expensive.
The history of Churchill and the bayline and the North and the government, benevolent government support from Ottawa, to make those things work under whatever political party, quite frankly has led to a situation now where nothing really is adequate or supportive. This particular project, this particular initiative to set up this kind of a company, to take this on and make it work and accommodate the North West Company’s ultimately additional customers--I look to my colleagues who represent northern Manitoba constituencies.
We all know that INCO’s purchase of a majority interest in Voisey Bay presents some opportunities for us with the INCO smelter. As I get more into this as Minister of Mines, one recognizes even the Newfoundland requirement of that company to do a certain amount of processing in Newfoundland. The next step in the process of producing marketable nickel could be done in Thompson.
An Honourable Member: We would do the refining?
Mr. Praznik: The refining, and it does not have to be done all the time. It does not have to be done; it is another option.
If, from time to time, a certain amount of that product came through the arctic seas to be processed in Manitoba and we sold them the electricity and the jobs that go with it, it is a plus. We want that ability to compete, and that is dependent upon having a competitive, responsive transportation system. What CN has demonstrated to all who have studied that line is, for whatever reason, they are not capable of delivering that, whether it be their rules, their regulations or their corporate policy. So here we are now with, I believe--and I have been an advocate of this since I became Minister of Northern Affairs and had a chance to look at the issue--if the current operators cannot do it, let us see the thing moved over in a way that it can survive and will take on those transportation challenges and fulfill those needs.
So I am very pleased that the local MLA for Churchill has brought this forward, and I compliment him. Many of the pieces of legislation and resolutions he brings to this House, I often find myself very supportive of, and I say that to him as a sincere compliment. I will be pleased to support this resolution when it comes to a vote earlier this morning. Thank you.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I too would like to speak to the resolution proposed by my honourable colleague from Rupertsland. I am not used to public speaking that much, and I spent till two o’clock in the morning writing 15 pages of diatribe against both the Liberal government in Ottawa and the provincial Tory government here, but in the newfound spirit of comradeship--I am feeling good--I think I will just have to wing it on a more positive note.
I do, however, have a few reservations. I do see a little bit of irony in Mr. Axworthy fully supporting the line, and I think at one point even promising $27 million for the port and for the line, while at the same time the federal Liberal government seems to be hell-bent for leather, if you will pardon the language, to privatize, to get rid of the public transportation system that our forebears created. So I cannot resist putting a little bit of a jab in, but that is the only one. The rest is definitely positive, and I certainly have high regard for the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) as well as for Mr. Axworthy.
* (1130)
Gateway North now has a group of people leading it. I think these are good people, Mr. Duguid, Hugh Campbell, Darrel Cunningham and others--people we know--Doug Webber, especially, from Churchill. I think it is a positive step in the right direction.
We all are aware that this country needs tourism. This province needs tourism badly, and I cannot think of a better place for tourism than going on the bayline going to Churchill. You know, Churchill and the bayline do not have to be a white elephant or a white beluga for that matter. We can make this thing pay. It can be a good business proposition. I personally would have preferred it, if it was run and owned by the provincial governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, in conjunction with wheat pools, farm groups and native organizations, but be as it may, we are now at this point where we have to support the Gateway North project.
I think we have to remember also, it is not just a matter of shipping grain to Churchill. There are bayline communities, which are good, which not only depend upon the bayline, but are great places for tourism. We have the Akjuit space centre, spaceport. How many places have their own spaceport, their own place to launch rockets? We have it in Manitoba.
An Honourable Member: It is in Orlando.
Mr. Jennissen: The next one is in Orlando, right.
I think Voisey Bay could be a real big winner for us if Inco decides to backhaul from Voisey Bay, you know, via ship to Churchill, and then transport that nickel ore to the smelter in Thompson.
I have heard people talk about the possibility of Russian fertilizers. Now, I do not know anything about fertilizers. We on this side of the House do not indulge in those matters. But fertilizers like phosphates and potash that sometimes, in order to be upgraded, need sulphur, and one of the big outputs of sulphuric acid, for example, could be HBM&S, because SO2 used to be spouted in the air. I think they pretty well have controlled it now. They have an acid abatement program, but I could see the possibility of hauling Russian fertilizers and then using HBM&S sulphuric acid to upgrade those fertilizers--all kinds of possibilities.
The Minister for Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) pointed out the Arctic Bridge Agreement. I hope it was just more than a junket to the Soviet Union or Russia. I think there is real potential there, and I hope the government proceeds with that direction.
We have a unique seaport in northern Manitoba. We have a great rail line. Our forebears have worked hard to make it work. The link was made north-south then--we talk about north-south links now--there is a north-south link to Hudson Bay. I think we want to keep it intact. We want to utilize the natural catchment area in the prairies. We can make it a very profitable line. I think it behooves all of us to give it full and total support. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a couple of minutes in support of this resolution from the member from Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson). I have to admit that I am not very much of an expert on the Port of Churchill, however when I was actively farming, every time discussion activities came up in terms of exporting grain, somehow the Port of Churchill always got pushed on to the backburner and never got the discussion that it warranted, but I rise today saying that we are at an exciting time. I think that we are probably the closest we ever are to getting something happening at the Port of Churchill, because it is an economically viable project, and it is also fast becoming a very important tourist attraction, not for Manitobans necessarily, not for Canadians, but for international travellers who would like to come to Churchill to observe the northern lights or observe the polar bears.
One of the things I would like to put on the record, Madam Speaker, is the fact that what makes it very exciting for me now is to find out that, not only can we ship product from Canada on a cost effective basis, especially with the Crow gone, but we can also ship product out of the northern U.S. cheaper, up through Churchill, than they can ship it either through Duluth or through the Mississippi River system. So we not only have a lot of Canadians taking a look at Churchill as a viable opportunity for exporting product out of Canada, we are also having Americans taking a look at it too, and I think that that lends and will support the viability of the project.
I would just like to finish off by saying that in terms of this whole project with the Gateway North project and the people that are working with it, having met some of them when we were out on the task force, we have a reason to be excited. I think we have the right attitude, we have the leadership, the vision is there, and I see that over the next little while, not only this resolution going forward for support, but all of us having a vision and getting out and really marketing this project to everybody else. So with those few remarks, I would like to sum up by saying we should support this resolution, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I wonder if there might be leave not to see the clock for a few minutes while the last few people--there are a few short comments, two more people to make comments.
Madam Speaker: The hour actually expires at 11:42, so I am not certain how many more speakers there are. Are there two? Okay. Is there leave then to extend it beyond the agreed-to hour. Agreed? Leave? Leave has been granted.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This resolution is a very important resolution. I am pleased that all members of the House are giving their support to such an important issue, and I want to thank my colleague, the Member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), for putting it forward.
Madam Speaker, the Port of Churchill has long been supported by the New Democratic Party. We have brought forward many resolutions asking for this kind of support, and we are very pleased and hope that both the provincial and federal government will now recognize this.
I want to say that from the rural perspective, Madam Speaker, with the elimination of the Crow benefit and the increased costs that farmers are now going to have to pay to ship their grain, it is very important that we look at this opportunity and particularly in the region that I represent, the Parkland Region, going into Saskatchewan where farmers will be paying some of the highest shipping costs. We have to look at those opportunities as to how we can ship the grain.
The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) said that it is not the most economical port to ship grain from. I tend to disagree with him. I think that it can be a very reasonable cost to ship the grain through that port, but I think a lot more work has to be done by the Canadian Wheat Board and by the grain companies to look for sales and offer this port to the buying countries, because it is the buying country that determines where their grain can be shipped from, but they have to be offered it by the people who are selling the grain.
Madam Speaker, I think that there is a real opportunity. We saw in the last year that shipping can go until November 22. We know that the season can be started off earlier than it has been, and we hear that ships may be coming in earlier. We know that if the federal government is very committed, that icebreakers can be brought into the port, so there are many opportunities. I believe our future is in the North. We have to have the bayline, we have to have the Port of Churchill developed, and we have to look toward tourism in the area. There are many opportunities for growth.
Other members mentioned the development of the territories, the development of the spaceport, the opportunity that may come through Voisey Bay to bring other products there, but we also have to think of the many people who live along that line and need the line to have access to their community. I heard one of the members say the ideal thing would be a road right to the Port of Churchill. We know that that is never going to happen, so I would have hoped that we would have seen the bayline, when it was being let go, taken over by the provinces and the grain companies and farmers having some control on that line. It is not going to happen, so I commend the people who have worked very hard on Gateway North.
I attended some of their meetings, one in Yorkton, where I talked to many of those people and they do have a good plan. I think that by working together with the people we can have an opportunity for development and an alternate port for farmers which is very important to the people, and I am very pleased that members across the way are giving their support.
I only hope that along with their support we will have more than lip service, that we will have more support for this resolution than we did out of the Arctic Bridge Project or that we got out of promises made by the federal government during the election when they said that they were going to put money into the port and into the rail line and that never happened. There has to be a serious commitment here and development of this port. No other country that would have an inland port such as we have would let it deteriorate to the state that we have let the Port of Churchill.
* (1140)
There has not been commitment on the part of the federal government, and there has not been enough commitment from this provincial government. When you look back to what the NDP did for supporting the Port of Churchill versus what is happening now, it is not a very good record, and I would encourage the federal government and this provincial government to not only support this resolution, as they said they will, but put their money where their mouth is. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I just want to take a couple of minutes to add my support to this particular resolution. I must say that I am very pleased to hear of the support on both sides of the House, including the Minister of Industry (Mr. Downey), who relayed some of the activities in his department in supporting the port.
I just want to put a bit of historic perspective, because developing the Port of Churchill has been a long-time challenge for the people of Manitoba and for the provincial government, and I think back in the 1970s, when I was Minister of Industry and Commerce in the Schreyer government, we had a transportation advisory group in my ministry, in my department. We worked very hard to develop the support and get the support of the other western provinces. We were very successful, Madam Speaker, in getting the province of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan on side in helping us to lobby with the federal government to develop Churchill, and, of course, in turn, we helped B.C. in promoting the Port of Prince Rupert. More latterly, we got Alberta and Saskatchewan Premiers Lougheed and Blakeney who, with Premier Schreyer, agreed to set up the Port Churchill Development Board, and indeed that operated for many years and was very successful in promoting the use of the port.
I think of some of the commodities, everything ranging from Scotch whisky that we brought, courtesy of the Manitoba Liquor Commission, a load of Scotch whisky from Scotland, and also, going out, we had shipments of sulphur. There were great big yellow mountains in Churchill in the ‘70s, and we had sulphur going out on an experimental basis.
There were these efforts that were made, and, as I said, we got co-operation. We also got co-operation with the federal government at that time, and I only wish we had another honourable Jean Marchand who was then Minister of Transportation, who has long since passed away, but he was very sympathetic to helping us develop Churchill. Among other things, and this is the ‘70s, we got the Churchill Port deepened, we got improvements to the port facilities. In addition, we were able to get the Churchill resupply moved from Montreal to Churchill. There used to be a boat going from Montreal supplying the outports of Churchill every summer. We were able to persuade the federal government to channel that through Winnipeg up to Churchill and, using a barge and tug operation, to supply the outports of Hudson’s Bay; that was a great move and certainly stimulated the use of the Port of Churchill. Other things happened. We developed a lot of social housing for the population, and, of course, we developed this very significant major town centre, which still is very, very important in the life of the Churchill community.
I guess the most important point I want to make, Madam Speaker, is that then there was all-party support for these initiatives, as there is obviously today, and the point is, I guess it is almost a matter of economic philosophy. Do we want to develop Churchill as a matter of national economic development, provincial economic development, or do you want to take the short-term approach which says, well, it is either going to pay its way or we shut it down. Either the line up to Churchill pays its way or the railway ceases to operate. I think the federal government, especially, has a major responsibility to ensure the continued operation of the line and the continued development of the Port of Churchill, just as the federal government had back when this country was formed with the national economic policies. Through John A. Macdonald, the national government stimulated the development of railway expansion across Canada, not because the CPR was going to begin to make millions of dollars of profit a year after it was built. No, indeed, it was supported on a long-term basis. We supported the development of railways in Canada, the CPR and others, because we felt they were major instruments of national economic development. Similarly, we have to persuade the federal government today to see Churchill and the bayline as continuing in this role, and we have to continue to pressure the federal government.
The provincial government has to continue this responsibility of providing leadership and doing everything possible to persuade the federal government, in co-operation with the province and private enterprise, farm groups and others, to ensure that Churchill has a future, to ensure that Churchill continues to develop. As I said, there is a long history of the provincial government in this province supporting the enhancement of Churchill. I am glad to hear the remarks of the Minister of Industry today about his efforts and others, the Minister of Northern Affairs, that we should, in an all-party way, continue to promote the development of Churchill. With those few words, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to sit down and hopefully see this resolution passed unanimously, as I think it will. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Question before the House is Resolution 2, moved by the honourable member for Rupertsland, seconded by the honourable member for Thompson.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Just a point on House business. I understand the resolution does call for a copy to be forwarded to the national Minister of Transport. I take it that will be undertaken by Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Assembly, with the notation that this was unanimously passed by this Assembly? Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: In accordance with Rule 21, we now move to Tuesday’s rotation. Private bills? Public bills by private members?
SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that Bill 200, The Health Service Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l’assurance-maladie), be now read a second time and be referred to the committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to represent the provincial Liberal party and introduce this piece of legislation, in hopes that all members of this House will see fit to allow this bill to vote, in order to go to a committee, and ultimately even see royal assent. It is a bill that we have been most persistent on, as a political party, and genuinely feel that members from all political stripes inside this Chamber can, in fact, endorse.
To that end, Madam Speaker, I thought that one of the best ways for me to give a good idea in terms of what this bill is about is to read a resolution, if I may, which is completely relevant to this bill.
Madam Speaker, it goes as:
WHEREAS the Canada Health Act mandates the five fundamental principles by which the Canadian health care system is governed; and
WHEREAS the preservation and maintenance of the fundamental principles of the health care system is vital to its survival; and
WHEREAS Manitobans believe that the fundamental principles of the health care system must be protected; and
WHEREAS the First Ministers also directed Health ministers to initiate work to apply the broad principles of Canadian health care system to the objectives of sustainability, affordability, responsiveness and effectiveness of the system funded without destabilizing provincial and federal finances.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the government of Manitoba uphold the five fundamental principles of health care system, namely, the public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility and that the government of Manitoba manage Manitoba’s health care system accordingly.
* (1150)
Well, Madam Speaker, this particular resolution was No. 77 and received the unanimous support of this Chamber back on June 23, 1992, and the House, as I indicated, voted in support of this resolution. I guess, what I am hoping to be able to see is debate inside this Chamber on this particular piece of legislation and, ultimately, at the very least, allow for a vote. It is with some frustration over the last number of months that I have had regarding this bill’s lack of progress through the Chamber. The member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), for example, had adjourned debate, and every day as this bill was called chose not to speak on it. No member in fact that I can recall--and I do believe that I spend a considerable amount of time, just as much time as anyone else inside here--cannot recall other members actually speaking to what I believe is a very important bill. Manitobans, I believe, ultimately would like to see this bill passed and being given Royal Assent. This Chamber in essence has supported the bill through the passing of a resolution, and if they are sincere in the passing of that resolution, I would then ask and challenge them then to take this particular bill to heart and allow this bill the opportunity to be given Royal Assent and become law in the province of Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, no doubt if government members pick up the challenge and allow for this debate to occur, they will refer to different parts of that particular resolution, quite possibly, make reference to the commitment from the federal government, make reference to the financial situation that the province is in, make reference to the amount of dollars that this province currently allocates out to health care, and, ultimately, one could argue endlessly in terms of the monetary needs of the five fundamental principle health care system and what it is going to require. But ultimately I would argue that if the political will was within this Chamber to commit to those principles that we should be able to have effective health care reform that will take into consideration any sorts of restraints that the provincial government might have not only in the near future but, I would ultimately argue, well into the future.
Madam Speaker, so the finances of what it is that I am proposing, which the Liberal Party provincially is proposing, should not be a roadblock to the passage of this particular bill. What I would like to see is members talk about the principle of this bill and the merits of those principles, and I would ultimately argue that a part of that Canadian identity that many Manitobans feel very strongly toward is our health care system. They look at the health care system, and they compare our system to the Americans and possibly other countries.
Madam Speaker, they feel very good about being Canadian and what it is that we have in our country as a health care system to offer our citizenry. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) often makes reference to the phrase, there by the grace of God I walk, and he does not try to take claim for that particular statement, but in essence each and every one of us could have to rely on medical attention, not only in the short term but also in the long term. Each and every one of us, I am sure, have individuals that rely or know firsthand, whether it is family or friends, of individuals that need to have the support services of our medicare system.
That is one of the reasons why each and every one of us should be taking this bill quite seriously and at the very least participate in the debate on it. Again, if the government in particular does not feel that this is a bill that should pass ultimately, well, then, at the very least allow it to be voted upon.
I would highly recommend, and I am sure the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), the dean of the Chamber, who often talked about the importance of Private Members’ Business, allow for the free vote, if you like, inside the Chamber on this particular bill to see if in fact the will of the Chamber is to see this bill passed.
I appeal to the government and any other potential member that is thinking in terms of adjourning debate only to prevent this bill from ultimately seeing a vote occur. I am optimistic in the sense that we just finished seeing two resolutions go through this Chamber, and both those resolutions went through this Chamber because the political will was out there to allow that to occur.
I am hoping that that same sort of positive gesture that we have seen with the first two resolutions will be carried on to private members’ bills and public bills, that in fact at the very least we will see a vote that will occur so that I as an individual will know that it is just not a bill that is going to receive the amount of support in the future under this particular regime or under this grouping of MLAs, that we are not going to have that support, and then I am going to have to do a lot more work on those individuals that voted against it before I decide ultimately to reintroduce it.
Madam Speaker, there should be no doubt in the minds of members that we feel very passionate about this bill, and that is the reason why we have reintroduced it. I can assure members that I will continue to reintroduce this bill if it does not have some sort of a vote that will determine whether or not it will go to committee, and that is all I ask as a private member, to allow that to occur. If that vote does occur I can assure members that as long as there is no change in the makeup of the membership of this Chamber that I will definitely think twice about reintroducing it but, ultimately, I believe that if there was a vote that the vote would be in favour of seeing it pass into committee.
Why do I say that, Madam Speaker? I say that primarily because I recall I was here when we talked and discussed. In fact, I was a part of the negotiations that led to that resolution being bumped. I was a part of those negotiations and the positive feeling about that resolution being brought forward in order to be debated because it required that leave was given. I was genuinely pleased to see the general feeling of the Chamber back then. I know there was a lot of dialogue with the then member Mr. Don Orchard and Mr. Gulzar Cheema regarding this particular resolution and we have seen the resolution pass. I would like to see that sort of participation again on this particular bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
Madam Speaker: The hour being--are you finished debating?
Mr. Lamoureux: I would like to take the adjournment.
Madam Speaker: I was not certain if the honourable member for Inkster had completed debate, because he technically has four minutes remaining.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Northern Affairs): I thank the honourable member for Inkster. I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker: The hour being 12 noon, this House will recess until 1:30 p.m this afternoon.