RESPONSE TO THE
THRONE SPEECH
Mr. Wall:
— Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the outset of my intervention in the
Throne Speech debate, I’d like to thank the constituents of Swift
Current for again another . . . the honour of another year of
representing them in this legislature, and actually more
specifically, Mr. Speaker, Swift Current and area, as my
constituency includes the rural area to the south and to the
north. This’ll be . . . may be the last session I have the good
fortune to represent the area south of Swift Current. And that’s
bittersweet. I do gain an area to the north and to the west, but
the area that I lose to the south includes the community of
Rhineland, which is a small Mennonite hamlet, really just a
village now, that was where my father was born. So it’s a bit of a
hometown, I guess, for our Wall family and that area of the
constituency will now go to Wood River, where I know my colleague
and friend, the member for Wood River, will enjoy their support
and input as well. And I’d also, Mr. Speaker, like to welcome the
new members to the Assembly, from Saskatoon Fairview and our own
new member from Battleford Cut Knife. At the outset too, Mr.
Speaker, before I get specifically into the Throne Speech and into
hopefully outlining the Crown corporation policy of the
Saskatchewan Party, I would like to talk a little bit about the
international events that are ongoing. I’ve heard other members
talk about those events here in the Throne Speech debate and I too
would like to . . . I too would like to add a few comments.
The
Premier stood in this Assembly not long ago and indicated that it
was the position of the NDP government that they support the Prime
Minister. They support the Prime Minister of Canada in his
position that Canada should, in fact, not support the coalition
allies — the United States, Australia, and Great Britain, to name
three of the more active participants — rather that Canada would
not participate in the war at all and join with its allies. And I
want to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the concern that many of us
have on this side of the House is the policy . . . is that the
policy of the federal Government of Canada, and the policy of our
provincial government is based on the proviso that the UN (United
Nations) did not support . . . or rather a UN resolution was not
passed to support the war. And as my colleagues have already said
in the legislature here in the debate, and my friend from Cypress
Hills has said as we’ve talked about this privately, and quite
compellingly so, they’ve indicated that that perhaps is not the
best way to arrive at foreign policy in Canada, to worry about
whether the UN is providing cover for our position. A position is
either just or it is not just. It’s either ethical or it’s not
ethical. It’s either the right thing to do or not the right thing
to do. And to base our foreign policy and the Premier’s position
on what the UN may or may not have to say about any foreign
affairs matter is an abdication of our responsibility as Canadians
to make decisions on foreign policy based on what is right. And so
all of us have to come to our conclusions, then, in that regard.
If we think, for example, Mr. Speaker, that Saddam Hussein has
weapons of mass destruction, that he’s used them in the past and
would use them again, if we believe that they have terrorist
training camps in Iraq — as we now know they do, based on the
military events of just the last couple of days — if those are the
things we believe, then the war to depose this Saddam Hussein and
to get rid of that threat to world peace and to that terrorist
threat to innocent people all over the world, then the war against
that is compelling and is just. And more importantly, regardless
of that question, we also have to wrestle with the fact that our
closest ally, that our best friend in international relations, the
United States of America, and Great Britain and Australia, have
taken the measures they’ve taken. They’ve committed to the war.
And so for those reasons, for those reasons many, many people in
Swift Current who are talking about this war are very discouraged
by the position that has been taken by not only the federal
Liberals, but by the NDP here in the province of Saskatchewan on
this international incident. And I would also say this. I think
it’s certainly fair and reasonable that members of the House have
brought to the Legislative Assembly’s attention the plight of
innocents in Iraq who have been harmed by collateral damage or by
any other indirect or direct activity of the war. That’s
reasonable and that’s fair and that’s compelling. But so too, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, is the plight of 3 to 5,000 Kurds and their family
who were gassed by their own leader, by Mr. Hussein. And I don’t
hear anybody, I haven’t heard anybody in this Legislative Assembly
speak to their cause and speak to the fact that they were
butchered by this Saddam Hussein. I haven’t heard a word about
them. Where is the outrage about the rape and the torture by this
leader of Iraq? Where is the outrage about the fact that yesterday
the British reported that Iraqi troops were firing on their own
people to put down an uprising in Basra? Where is the outrage
about the Iraqi paramilitary feigning surrender, only to attack
coalition troops, Mr. Deputy Speaker? And where is the outrage by
the Canadian Left and by the Saskatchewan NDP that American
soldiers were apparently killed, execution style, in attack just a
few days ago? You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a couple of days ago
I, like many other people were . . . I’m sure were watching CNN’s
(Cable News Network) coverage of the war and there was one
embedded reporter with the United States Marine Corps Marine
Expeditionary Unit and the 15th Artillery and his name was Jason
Bellini I believe and he was at Umm Qasr and detailing some of the
activities that had happened there. And he detailed an event that
happened there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that’s very disturbing, where
Marines and the 15th Artillery unit were taking fire from a
building. And they returned that fire, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And
soon after they had returned the fire, an ambulance pulled up and
several men got into the ambulance. And it seemed to me from the
coverage that the Marine Corps was concerned that the men that
were getting into the ambulance were the ones that had been
firing. But the ambulance left and the Marine Corps did not fire
on the ambulance; it left. And out from the building under a white
flag came women and children, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the reporter
reported that the Marine Corps troops were . . . knew, knew for a
fact it had not been the women and children that had been firing
on them but rather the men who had escaped the building, perhaps
in the ambulance, perhaps otherwise. Where is the outrage of that,
Mr. Deputy Speaker? If we are going to have solid foreign policy
in our country, we must do so based on the merits of each
particular issue. And we haven’t done that in this case in this
country. We’ve abdicated our authority in this regard to the
United Nations of all organizations, whose record, frankly,
recently is not that good. And you only need to look at Rwanda to
find proof of that.
Mr.
Deputy Speaker, as I listened to the Throne Speech presented here
a few days ago, I tried to listen to it from the perspective of
one of my constituents, someone from Swift Current and area. And I
wondered what they would think as they heard the Throne Speech.
Because Swift Current, like many other communities on the west
side of the province, have suffered greatly under the policies of
this government and they’ve suffered especially from
out-migration. We’re about an hour and 50 minutes, if you drive
the speed limit marginally, from Medicine Hat. And members will
know that I’ve said on several occasions that Medicine Hat
provides a great deal of pressure on our economy and contributes
to the out-migration of our young people in our area. And
certainly that’s got to be their number one priority in Swift
Current. Certainly the input I get from constituents is that is
the number one priority — out-migration and the economy. So I
listened carefully to the Throne Speech to find out what this
government was prepared to do about it. And what I heard was a sad
recitation of past policies of the government. Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the people in Swift Current will be very, very disappointed by the
fact that the Throne Speech, which should map out a broad and
general vision for the future, rather focused on the past. The
past policies, by the way, which have in fact caused the problem —
the out-migration and the economic damage to southwest
Saskatchewan — that’s what they heard. Far from a new vision for
the province that would give them some hope, they simply heard a
tired, old recitation of policies past. You know, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, I think specifically what they were . . . what Swift
Current people would be looking for was a solid plan, a detailed
plan that would map out the road to growth, that would send a
signal to Swift Current and the entire province that our
government understands that out-migration — that quarter after
quarter after quarter of record out-migration — is unacceptable
and that the government was prepared to do something about it. But
they heard nothing of the sort in the Throne Speech, Mr. Deputy
Speaker; they heard nothing of the sort.
They
did hear a little bit about health care perhaps, some general
statements about health care. And I wonder how that would resonate
with the constituents of Swift Current based on the fact that for
these last four years they have been begging — and longer,
arguably — they have been begging this government to ensure that
Swift Current has a truly regional health care facility. That they
would have a regional health care facility in which the sewer
system doesn’t back up as regularly as it does. That they could
have a regional hospital in Swift Current whose ceiling parts
don’t fall on patients, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you can believe it.
That they could have a regional hospital facility in Swift
Current, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that isn’t filled with mould; so much
mould that they had to close down an entire floor of the hospital
this summer; so much mould that I think there’s over 11 workers’
compensation cases of front line health care workers who have
mould-related health care problems that they got — where? — from
the hospital that they work in. From the regional hospital that
the NDP expect front line workers, nurses and doctors, to provide
health care to patients. They’re getting sick from the facility,
Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The
budget is going to be announced this week and I know that the
people of Swift Current and area will be holding this government
to account because they have been forced to beg, to line up their
share of the funding and then, cap in hand, beg for the government
for what should be a slam dunk — the most compelling case that
could possibly be made for a new regional health care facility.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you’ve heard from several of my colleagues who
have taken the opportunity to highlight the fact that the Throne
Speech was really devoid of any new ideas, but then to go on and
in detail explain the Saskatchewan Party’s plan to grow the
province by 100,000 people in 10 years. And I’d like to do that as
well in my own critic area if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the
critic area of Crown corporations. You know, unfortunately over
the last couple of years since I was afforded this . . . these
critic opportunities, I’ve been just too busy. And the reason I’ve
been too busy is because of the ubiquitous nature of the Crown
sector in our economy. And that is obviously . . . that’s one of
the problems. That’s one of the problems with our economy. You
can’t swing a dead cat in the economy without hitting either a
Crown corporation or a Crown investment, one that’s either
competing with existing business men and women in the province of
Saskatchewan, or perhaps losing millions of dollars in places like
Atlanta, Georgia or Newcastle, Australia or Nashville, Tennessee
or Chile or Mexico — or right here in the province through things
like SPUDCO. And so it’s been far too busy. I mean there just . .
. there simply shouldn’t be this much work for . . . in the year
2003, for anybody in politics charged with Crown corporation
critic duties. And the reason is that this is . . . there
shouldn’t be as many Crown corporations as there are, Mr. Deputy
Speaker — 80-plus — 80-plus Crown corporation and Crown
investments. That’s how many there are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And so
a year ago in a meeting with the Regina Chamber of Commerce we
were able to detail our Crown corporation policy and I’d like to
highlight some of that if I can in the minutes remaining. Mr.
Deputy Speaker, what we’ve said is that we need to focus our major
Crown corporations on the task at hand. Let’s focus them on their
core competencies and on their market here at home. And we have
said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the record, that when the Crowns do
this they’re quite successful. And SaskTel may be the best
example. I remember last year prior to the annual report from
SaskTel being tabled, the president, the hand-picked NDP president
of SaskTel, clearly indicated that the only reason they were able
to hand over such a substantial dividend to the Minister of
Finance was because of their core function. In fact, had they not
been involved in all these other international schemes, they would
have been able to hand over a lot more. And that forms the basis
for our position that we want to focus our Crowns on Saskatchewan.
We’ve said we’d place a moratorium on all international
investments by the major Crowns in Saskatchewan, pending a review
of those investments. And we have said unequivocally that we will
put an end — an absolute end — to the practice of Crown
corporations competing with Saskatchewan business men and women
with their own tax dollars.
Some Hon. Members:
Hear, hear!
Mr. Wall:
— Mr. Speaker, we’ve also said quite clearly that we think the
process for appointing the board members of Crown corporations
should change, that those candidates should come to the Crown
Corporations Committee, or whatever might follow that committee,
for approval so that the legislature has some say. And that too is
a pragmatic change in the board and in the governance of Crown
corporations. Mr. Speaker, we’ve also been pretty clear about what
we are terming non-core Crown investments. And what we mean by
those are the investments under the portfolio called CIC III
(Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan Industrial
Interests Inc.), and this is everything from meat plants to swine
genetics companies to you name it. Not the major Crowns, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, but all these other investments that the
government has made that have in fact chased away private venture
capital in the province, and for the most part, lost money. And
we’ve been quite clear about that. We have said we’re going to get
the taxpayers out of those deals for the best possible value we
can. We’re going to get the taxpayers out of those deals, take the
proceeds and apply them to the debt that has grown under the NDP,
Mr. Speaker. The debt of the province has grown under this
government and we have said that the proceeds from those sales
should be applied to the debt. There’s one exception in that
group. STC (Saskatchewan Transportation Company) is in that group,
Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we have said quite clearly that we also
would like to get the taxpayers out of that money-losing
proposition, but only when we can be assured that the private
sector or community-based initiatives can replace the service.
That brings us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the major Crowns. And in
addition to focusing them on their core function here in the
province, in addition to a moratorium on these wild international
investments, and in addition to stopping them from competing with
Saskatchewan businesses, we said they ought to be reviewed. That
there ought to be a terms of reference for this review, and the
terms of reference for this review would include the service that
those Crowns provide in the province of Saskatchewan, the return
on investment that taxpayers should be expecting from those huge
investments, as well as the economic impact of any changes, Mr.
Speaker . . . Mr. Deputy Speaker. And what we have also clearly
said is that this side of the Assembly is not ideologically bound
either way. We’re not opposed to continued government ownership
and neither, neither are we opposed to changes. Neither are we
opposed, for example, to partnerships. Now we know, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, that this government had an opportunity for a joint
venture with one of its Crowns, a joint venture that would have
resulted in a brand new company, head officed here in Regina and
some attendant west side development. We know this. We sent a
message last April to the government that if the deal was as we
thought it was, as was explained to us, we would support it. But
you know what, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the deal involved a joint
venture and a partnership, and that’s a form of privatization,
Even though the joint venture would result in a new head office
here in Regina, it’s a form of privatization. And we knew that
this proposal was going forward on the government’s side and we
encouraged them. We said, if it makes sense, if it helps grow the
province, then put the
Regina Manifesto
down
for just a second and approve the deal. Do the right thing. It
looks like that deal is dead, Mr. Speaker. It looks like ideology
took primacy and priority over what could help grow our economy.
We know that, Mr. Speaker, now because it hasn’t come forward.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are interested first and
foremost in growing the province of Saskatchewan. That’s our goal.
That’s our plan. And if we can pursue arrangements with the Crown
corporations — partnerships, continued government ownership,
whatever it may be — to help facilitate that growth, that is
exactly what we intend to do when we take the seats on that side
of the House after the next election. Mr. Speaker, in the next
election campaign the NDP are going to be no doubt making up the
position of the Saskatchewan Party as it relates to Crowns.
They’ve already done it now — spreading misinformation. You know,
Mr. Speaker, it used to be, it used to be that the big scare was
mediscare. Remember that, Mr. Speaker? That’s what they used to
scare people with — senior citizens — that any other party other
than the NDP would gut health care in the province of
Saskatchewan. Well they won’t be using that tactic any more, Mr.
Speaker, because the people of the province understand completely
that it is this NDP socialist government that has gutted health
care in the province of Saskatchewan.
Some Hon. Members:
Hear, hear!
Mr. Wall:
— So the new scare, the new scare will be about Crown
corporations. And we welcome the debate. We welcome the debate
because they will come into the campaign with a tired, old
ideology that’s been rejected worldwide. They’ll come to the
campaign armed only with that. And we’re going to come to the
campaign with ideas for growing the province of Saskatchewan. We
already have. We’re going to come to the campaign with an open
mind and the priority of increasing our population, so places like
Swift Current can start to win the battle against Medicine Hat.
You know there’s only an imaginary line that separate the two.
Both have a powerful oil and gas sector waiting to grow — Medicine
Hat’s developed more. Both have a strong agricultural base —
Medicine Hat a little more cattle and Swift Current a little more
grain perhaps but still only an imaginary line separates them. And
only a few decades ago the cities were the same size and now
Medicine Hat is three or fourfold times the size of Swift
Current. So we’ll go to the campaign armed with the plan that
says to the people of Swift Current we know that you can compete
with Medicine Hat if a government in Regina finally understands
what it is we need to do in the province of Saskatchewan to grow
it. And we look forward to that campaign, not only in Swift
Current but in Regina and Saskatoon and across the province. And
so for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the
amendment, Mr. Speaker, and voting against the Throne Speech. |
