Debates of March 15th, 1996

Supply

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague. This contract, which runs until the year 2041, was signed after a great deal of reflection. If we become sovereign, this contract and others will be maintained. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that this contract was valid. When we went back in 1988, the original ruling was upheld. In such a case, I think an agreement should be honoured. It would be really easy for us to establish the legitimacy of these contracts.

Agreements with other countries would be maintained. In the case of NAFTA or the GATT agreement, the international courts would recognize our new country's sovereignty and tell us that we are right and that the agreements are valid.

There is no problem with that and the people of Quebec understand that, if over 49 per cent of them voted in favour of sovereignty, it is because these laws are and always will be respected. We are going to make that demand.

There should be no attempt to frighten people by saying that this or that contract would be cancelled the day after sovereignty is achieved. This is not what happened in other countries that have become sovereign and this is not what will happen in our case.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I would like to expand on it a little bit.

It occurred to me as I listened very carefully to the minister's brief history lesson that when the contract was being agreed on and signed, there was a Liberal government in Newfoundland, a Liberal government in Quebec and a Liberal government in Ottawa. I wonder if the Newfoundland voters consider this as they think about who is representing their interests.

It also occurs to me while we listen to members of the Bloc Quebecois talk about honouring contracts, there is another contract that many of us hold quite dear, originally known as the British North America Act, the Canadian Constitution.

Bloc members seem to feel there is some injustice in their province. Some members of Parliament and Canadians would very much like to accommodate the legitimate concerns of Quebec so that every province, including Quebec, would have a legitimate and

meaningful place in the country. While this is being done, there are other members of a rump group, who are saying: "No, we will tear up that contract. We will go our own way. We will forget about that".

I would like to add that question to the previous question. It seems to me that if the province of Quebec no longer exists and becomes a country, whatever name they choose to call it, then it is necessary to re-establish contracts and certainly this contract with Newfoundland and Labrador.

How does the member consider breaking the contract of confederation and his insistence that the previous contract with Newfoundland and Labrador cannot be touched?

[Translation]

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is getting it all mixed up. I do not understand. When we become a country, we do it democratically. We have people vote. We all presented the referendum honestly. If there were another, we would present it to everyone too. And if people chose to do so at that point, we would become a country.

A contract is another matter altogether. A contract is signed between two companies. At that point the contract is signed. When I look back to 1867, when Canada became a country, the provinces were very powerful. Over the years, all their powers have essentially been picked off. We are left with basically nothing.

It is true that over the past 60 years, we have had Maurice Duplessis, who spoke of provincial autonomy and went and got income tax; Jean Lesage, who spoke of "maîtres chez nous" and wanted almost sovereignty; and Daniel Johnson senior, who wanted equality or independence.

It is just crazy to compare two contracts duly signed by two companies, Hydro-Churchill and Hydro-Quebec, with the desire of a people to become sovereign through a democratic vote of all citizens duly recognized in Quebec, regardless of their colour or language. We are very open to these people. We have told all ethnic groups that they are very welcome in Quebec, that they have the right to vote against or for sovereignty. This is no contract, this is the process of setting up a country, because, at the outset-I am providing a little historical background for my colleague, because his knowledge seems to be a bit lacking-at the outset in Canada, there were two peoples, two equal peoples.

At one point, we lost much of our powers, and not only the sovereignists now want them back.

A few minutes ago, I mentioned Jean Lesage. He sat in this House and had a high regard for Canada's Parliament; he spoke of "Maîtres chez nous", saying that to assume our powers, we had to get them back. While he did not manage it, he did make significant progress. I readily admit that. I congratulate the Liberals of that period. René Lévesque was a member of cabinet and it was he who was responsible for setting up Hydro-Quebec. The Liberals did a huge job.

I will conclude by saying that apples and oranges should not be mixed and that the Reformers, unfortunately, have been doing so for the past while. They have a talent for getting everything all mixed up.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the poet Robert Frost penned the very eloquent words: "Something there is; that doesn't love a wall; that wants it down".

This is a sentiment with which Quebec's new premier is starting to agree. He wants to mend and remove broken fences, to heal old wounds, to show that Quebec is a good neighbour and that it would be a good trading partner, as a sovereign country of course. However, one fence which Quebec and Labrador have between them which needs major repair is the Churchill Falls contract.

Twenty-seven years ago a 65-year contract was signed between the Churchill Falls Corporation of Labrador and Hydro Quebec. The contract requires that Newfoundland sell cheap power to Quebec from the gigantic hydroelectric project on the Churchill River until the year 2041 at pre-1973 oil prices.

It is an extremely unfair contract. Newfoundland earns $20 million each year from Churchill Falls' electricity sales. Hydro Quebec, on the other hand, makes a staggering profit of $800 million from the resale of Newfoundland power to New England. That is a difference of $780 million.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are extremely upset and even embittered over the contract. This is a matter which dates back long before the days when the Reform Party was in politics. It was a matter of great concern and sadness before I ever thought about politics.

It is an unjust contract. It is an unfair contract. It is an oppressive contract. Newfoundlanders know they erred in signing it. They realize that Quebec has wilfully and knowingly taken advantage of them. Quebec knows that too.

When Newfoundlanders suffer, Canada suffers. The $780 million that Newfoundland and Labrador lose to Quebec every year is nearly equal to the amount that Newfoundland gets in equalization payments from Ottawa. The Churchill Falls contract is extremely unfair to the Canadian taxpayer as well.

If Quebec wants to be a good neighbour, if it wants to build good fences rather than poor ones, if it wants to show the world that it can be trusted, it will come back to the table and renegotiate the

contract with Newfoundland and Labrador. We challenge the premier of Quebec to make this commitment.

Newfoundland is a have not province. It suffers from the highest unemployment rate in the country. Over 20 per cent of the population is unemployed. The cod fishing industry is practically non-existent and its economy is in a complete shambles.

If a fair contract had been signed, or if the federal Liberal government had intervened to ensure that Newfoundland received an equitable share of the profits from this megaproject, the economic situation in Newfoundland would be quite different today. There would be jobs. There would be growth. There would be prosperity in Newfoundland today.

Newfoundland has been unable to finance a power line to siphon off some of Churchill's power to the island. It has also been unable to finance the construction of a second Labrador power plant on the lower Churchill River, estimated to cost $11 billion. This project would create 24,000 construction jobs. Newfoundland also cannot afford to develop a smelter in the Voisey Bay, a project that would create hundreds, if not thousands of jobs.

The federal government promised to create jobs, jobs, jobs. There is no place in Canada that needs jobs more than Newfoundland. However, for the last 27 years the federal government has failed to act on behalf of Newfoundlanders concerning this matter. It has failed to intervene and to guarantee one of the poorest provinces in the country its fair share of profits from the direct sale of power to the New England states.

If Quebec does not want to be a good neighbour, if it does not want to build good fences and voluntarily agree to renegotiate the Churchill Falls contract, then we challenge the federal government to stand up for the people of Newfoundland. We challenge the federal government to lower internal trade barriers in Canada and to push Quebec to the negotiating table.

Quebec has refused to allow Newfoundland to build its own power lines on Quebec soil. Consequently, Labrador cannot develop the lower Churchill Falls hydroelectric plant. Quebec also has refused to allow Newfoundland to use its transmission lines to transmit electricity to markets in other parts of Canada or the United States, to join in the North American power grid.

Clearly Quebec has backed Newfoundland and Labrador into a very tight catch-22 position. It cannot develop the untapped resources of the lower Churchill Falls unless it gets an energy contract. It cannot get a contract without a way to transmit the electricity to the buyer.

Quebec has established a barrier to the free movement of electricity from Newfoundland to places outside Quebec. If Quebec does not want to be a good neighbour, if it does not want to mend walls with Newfoundland and Labrador and voluntarily agree to break down this trade barrier, then the federal government must move to have the trade impediment removed. This would lead to prosperity, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador, but increased prosperity for Quebec as well.

In western Canada natural gas, electricity and oil freely cross provincial boundaries. This neighbourly approach to trade creates a harmonious relationship among western provinces and produces greater wealth for all the provinces involved as these provinces have free access to each other's markets.

If Quebec would be this kind of good neighbour, Labrador and Quebec would both prosper, shoulder to shoulder into the 21st century.

By this August there is supposed to be a second draft of the internal trade agreement to be signed. Unfortunately it is not in Quebec's economic interest to sign the internal trade agreement. Quebec would have to give up some of the benefits it receives from Churchill Falls contracts. It is unwilling to do this so it will not come to the table.

It is important for Ottawa to finally take a stand for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It needs to take a strong stand and say that enough is enough. Quebec must come back to the negotiating table. It must help build good fences between good neighbours. It must work to allow Newfoundlanders to benefit from their own resources.

The federal government can urge Quebec to be more neighbourly by first of all following a recommendation by a federal government mandated group that tabled a report in 1988 called: "Energy and Canadians: Into the 21st Century". That report recommends:

The federal government should articulate the conditions under which one province has a right to access, on a business basis, another province's electricity corridor or electrical grid for the purposes of transmitting electricity to a market not adjacent to the first province.

This is the first step for the federal government: state the right of the provinces to interprovincial trade, then articulate the conditions under which that trade might exist. Taking this stand would not require legislation. It is a direct statement of policy.

The government must assert its authority under section 121 of the Constitution to bring down internal trade barriers. Section 121 reads: "All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall from and after the union be admitted free into each of the other provinces". If the federal government is willing to use this section of the Constitution, it might be enough to encourage Quebec to come back to the negotiating table on this subject.

If Quebec still refuses to be a good neighbour, the federal government could act further. It could give the National Energy Board the power to open up Quebec's transmission lines to allow export of electricity from another province. This would allow Newfoundland to channel electricity through Quebec lines to markets in the United States.

Quebec would still have the original Churchill Falls contract. Its earning power would remain in place but Quebec would also be helping out a neighbour. It would be helping all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to get back on their feet financially so they could get off government assistance and back to work. This would help build a prosperous future for their families right into the 21st century. It would be a neighbourly act indeed.

If Quebec refuses to be a good neighbour and remains unwilling to mend fences between itself and Labrador, the federal government might consider a second position suggested by the National Energy Board. That option is to use section 58(4) of the National Energy Board Act to designate a corridor through Quebec on which hydro lines could be built by Newfoundland for the transmission of its own power. This could be done through an order in council.

What I have just discussed are only options. They are options available to the parties and to the federal government. They are options that would encourage Quebec to become more neighbourly in its attitude and more giving in its actions.

The fences between Quebec and Labrador are in need of much repair. Newfoundland and Labrador have suffered financially for years due to the Churchill Falls contract and Quebec's trade barriers. They are extremely embittered. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador want a change and they have wanted it for years.

The new premier of Quebec wants to mend broken fences, to heal old wounds, to show that Quebec is a good neighbour and that it would be a good trading partner as a sovereign country. This is a prime opportunity for Quebec to come back to the table voluntarily to renegotiate this contract with Labrador to break down internal trade barriers. If Quebec does this, then and only then will Quebec together with Newfoundland and Labrador be able to say that well mended fences make good neighbours. However, if this is not possible, the Government of Canada representing the interests of all provinces must intervene.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could understand what Reformers have in mind with such a proposal. I have been trying all morning to figure out their real motives. Are they defending the interests of a private firm or their own interests on the eve of a byelection? This is what we must ask ourselves. After all, the basis of their argument is that the federal government should get involved in a dispute between two private firms that signed a contract a few years ago and concerning which one of them is not happy.

This is like asking the federal government to step in between two hockey clubs because, two years after trading Lindros, one of them is not happy and feels it got shortchanged. This is almost the same thing.

Are we going to ask the federal government to get involved every time a private contract is signed by two major companies but one of them suddenly decides that it suffered a prejudice because it feels it could have made greater profits by acting differently or by agreeing to different conditions?

When one signs a contract, one must behave like an adult. Those who represented Churchill Falls when the contract was signed behaved like adults, as did those who represented Hydro-Quebec. There is a duly signed contract between two private firms. I do not see why we would want to set a precedent and ask the federal government to get involved, except to make voters believe that the Reform Party is the one that understands them best, the one with the solution to their economic woes of the last few years.

The best thing that voters can do is to wonder if they should put their trust in the Reform Party, given that, in the eyes of that party, an agreement is no assurance for the future.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member would have us believe that the Reform Party has come to Ottawa to begin thinking about what the country needs. I did not come to Ottawa because I was interested in the self-serving drivel I have heard from the opposite side and the government benches. I entered politics because of serious concerns of longstanding issues that need redress from my part of the country.

We did not go into Labrador simply to win a byelection. We were there long before this byelection was called. This is not a new issue that the Reform Party has dreamed up. This is an old, old issue that has been hurting and crying for redress for years and years and years. Simply because the Reform Party has the guts to stand up and say that enough is enough, something has to be done does not mean it was invented by the Reform Party.

We are simply speaking on behalf of the people who have been calling for redress for decades. This is nonsense that I am hearing from the member. This is an unjust contract. He knows it and what he says is to serve his own political purposes.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Reform Party is dreaming if he thinks the contract will be reopened under any current circumstances primarily because it is far too profitable for Quebec.

The Reform Party has taken the position that Canada should set the terms for sovereignty before the next referendum. Has it occurred to the hon. member and his party that the Churchill Falls contract would certainly be something that would be open for negotiation in the event of any kind of debate or negotiation with respect to sovereignty?

I do not think we will ever see the day when there will be a referendum in which Quebecers choose to separate from Canada. However, we should still put on the table the fact that were there negotiations for a separate Quebec, the Churchill Falls contract would have to be on the table and Quebec would have to concede a fair arrangement with Newfoundland and Labrador which would probably cost the new sovereign state of Quebec many hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Perhaps my colleague from the Reform Party would care to comment on those remarks.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been calling for fairness and justice about the injustice it has been suffering. Newfoundland and Labrador has been hurting very badly for a long time. If we are to have a country in which all of the provinces can hold together, then the interests and the needs of every region of the country must be given attention.

Are we to say to Quebec that its needs have not been met so it can go? Are we to say to Newfoundland that it has been hurting for a long time and maybe if it leaves Confederation it will be able to renegotiate a contract or say to go stuff it?

The interests of Newfoundland and Labrador must be attended to. The Government of Canada must attend to the interests of all regions of the country, including the eastern region of Newfoundland and Labrador. It must also attend to the needs of Quebec, I agree.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that, on occasion, I have wished in this House that the Reform Party became the official government of Canada. But over the past few weeks, and especially today, I have changed my mind.

The motion before us today deals with a contract signed on behalf of two corporations by very smart individuals who took months to negotiate and reach an agreement. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the contract declared valid. A contract is a contract.

Reform members are taking advantage of the forthcoming elections in Newfoundland to engage in some Quebec bashing, telling Newfoundlanders that we are bad neighbours.

If you recall, Mr. Parizeau himself, at the last premiers' meeting, when Mr. Wells was still premier of Newfoundland, surprised Mr. Wells with a private offer to renegotiate the issue of a corridor through Quebec should the province become a country in the short term, which at the time was a strong possibility. We are very open to this kind of negotiations.

I would like to remind my colleague that if it were not for Quebec weighing heavily in favour of NAFTA, there would be no NAFTA agreement between Quebec and the U.S., and probably no GATT agreement, since it had a profound impact on the decisions in this respect.

I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague who raised the issue of contracts; we have a proper contract, by which we will abide. In Canada, there is a basic contract called the Canadian Constitution. In 1982, the Constitution was patriated and Quebec was deliberately excluded from this contract. The terms of the contract were changed without Quebec's assent, against the will of Quebec's national assembly, even though Quebec used to be party to the contract. In Quebec, no premier, no political party-forget about sovereignists and let us look at federalists in Quebec-no federalist, the allies of our friends opposite, agreed to sign. We were excluded from this contract. Does my colleague find this normal?

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member would say we are calling to have this contract judged. That has already been done. That is not what we are asking for. We are asking to have the contract renegotiated.

It is not only Churchill Falls that is the problem here. The problem is the blocking of a development which is waiting to spring up and benefit the people in that part of the country. The lower Churchill, the Voisey; there is so much happening there and this contract is a plug that will not allow events to flow through.

The Government of Canada should be prepared to take some leadership in opening up the possibilities for this to be resolved. We have suggested some of those possibilities but we are not the government in power. We are urging, pushing and suggesting that the government must take the initiative. If it cares for Newfoundland and the development of Labrador it must take the initiative. It must adjudicate fairly to the interests of both Quebec and Labrador. It must take action to relieve this impossible situation.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we have been in the Chamber for some time; you much longer than I. When I read today's orders of the day I was surprised, but not completely, the Reform Party of Canada put down as one of its opposition motions a subject matter dealing with a particular constituency which happens to be in the midst of a federal byelection.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

We will have an opportunity to exchange views during the questions period. Whether the hon. member is disabled or not, we will have that opportunity. I ask him to be patient in terms of his interventions.

To the hon. member from Fraser Valley East, is if there was one shred of concern for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why did he not have the absolute decency to come to the Chamber and put before us a votable motion? It is not a votable motion. That shows the strength of the conviction of the hon. member opposite. Some people in Newfoundland-not I-would say this is hypocrisy at its worst.

This is absolutely despicable on the part of Reform Party members, who are trying to position themselves as individuals concerned about the plight of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; so much so that they have gone one step beyond by attempting to bloody the good name of the former member of Parliament who served there with great distinction for over 24 years. I think of my colleague, Mr. Rompkey, who we all know was able, concerned, dedicated and sincere in all of his activities on behalf of his constituents.

I find it passing strange the Reform Party would use this occasion, when a byelection is under way, to raise these issues, when it has never in the two years we have been in the House raised issues which affect the people of Labrador.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not buy this. They will not buy your new found faith, your new found concern, your new found care, your new found compassion-

[The Deputy Speaker]

A minister who has been in the House will know he is not to address his colleagues by "you" but to address his remarks through the Chair.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues opposite know this will not wash with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I assure them of that.

If they really wanted to debate something that could be resolved quite easily they would have put some other subject matters on. They chose a particular contract, duly consummated between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Newfoundland. This has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Canada as being a binding, legal contract on the parties. What does the Reform Party do? It says it should be broken up. To hell with the Supreme Court of Canada.

What hypocrisy. What stupidity. What unbelievable arrogance on the part of the Reform Party to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the way to go is to break legally binding contracts.

The hon. member shakes his head. He says: "We are just looking for a new way to resolve this dispute", but he has not given one shred of evidence, one piece of constructive advice.

He disputes the government's position in dealing with this through the provision of internal trade agreements, which negotiations are being led by my very able colleague, the Minister of Industry, as well as the Minister of Natural Resources.

What is taking place here is nothing more than a sham by the Reform Party of Canada.

I thought its members might have talked about certain projects in the province of Newfoundland such as Hibernia, in which the Government of Canada has been involved. No, we have not heard from them on that initiative. They are probably against Hibernia, if the truth were known. If they are in favour of Hibernia, I would think the hon. member opposite would want to stand up to say he fully supports it.

Where are they on CFB Goose Bay? Where is the Reform Party on that issue? Silent. Not a word. Not a reference. No interventions relate to that. The base in Goose Bay, Labrador contributes about $128 million to the province's GDP. That was in 1992. It has probably increased substantially in recent years. It is a significant boost to the economy.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is working with community groups intending to foster economic development in that region. Has the hon. member stood in his place and said we need more of that kind of assistance and intervention by the state? No. His colleague stands in the House to criticize minister after minister who is trying to make money available for the purposes of economic development.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Especially Liberals.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, he just said it all. It proves the point that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is trying to play politics with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Vancouver Province of March 14, 1996 described hon. members opposite as: ``Wacko Reform''. In Newfoundland people do not have to be reminded by Vancouver newspapers; they know the Reform Party is wacko reform when it comes to protecting and enhancing their economic interests.

Through ACOA the province of Newfoundland, in co-operation with the Government of Canada, has some of the best economic educational programs in North America. It build not only physical infrastructure but, just as important if not more so, human infrastructure. ACOA has added to that to assist in developing and in diversifying its economy.

The hon. member opposite has not stood in his place during question period over the last two and a half years supporting those efforts. He has criticized them; again my thesis that the hon. member opposite is playing cheap, nasty, dirty politics, which is typical of the leader of the Reform Party.

Perhaps the hon. member should state on the floor of the House of Commons whether he supports the leader of the Reform Party. We know the hon. member for Macleod, the bellhop for the party, does not support his leader. Perhaps I should correct that. The leader of the Reform Party does not support the hon. member for Macleod.

I raise this issue because this is the same member who stood up Thursday after the budget and said we were not putting enough into transfer payments. He had the byelections in Quebec and in Newfoundland in mind when he was saying those things.

What did his leader say this week? His leader cut him off, as he should have cut him off, and said: "I am sorry, there have to be more cuts to transfer payments".

At some point in time some will think it is a flip-flop on the part of Reform members in terms of their interests. They consistently say one thing in one part of Canada and another thing in another part of Canada.

When they go to Quebec they ease up and they are goozy, teary eyed, and they want to be friends to the people of Quebec. When they go to Newfoundland the handkerchiefs come out and they want to ooze up to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; also when they go to Nova Scotia.

Canadians are not fooled by that. They have rejected Reform overwhelmingly and that is why members of its caucus are desperately seeking headlines in the byelection in Newfoundland in terms of misinformation, erroneous information, false information. Newfoundlanders have told me time and time again that the Reform Party is pretty careless with the truth.

The hon. member has not made one sentence in terms of the comprehensive Labrador co-operation agreement of $67.2 million., He has said nothing about the $100 million economic renewal program which will also benefit Labrador. He has said nothing with regard to the Atlantic ground fishery program which will benefit the people of Labrador.

He made reference to one contract consummated by the Supreme Court of Canada which cannot be changed. The only reason he does that, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, is he knows it cannot be changed. He is doing it for political purposes. I would have thought the hon. member opposite would have a different view from that of his leader and some of his caucus members and that he would have come here today with constructive suggestions in terms of how the economy in one of the poorest regions of the country could be improved. No, he sets up a straw man, knowing full well what the Supreme Court of Canada has decided.

There is language to describe such conduct. I think the language will be best demonstrated to the hon. member, to the hon. member for McLeod and of course to the famous leader of the Reform Party clearly and unequivocally on election day when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador make their decision and reject overwhelmingly the hypocrisy of this member opposite and of the Reform Party in general.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Nervous?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Nervous? Mr. Speaker, I will pay the hon. member $15,000 or $20,000 if he would only run against me. I will hold fundraisers for him if he would only come down and run against me. Run anywhere in Atlantic Canada. I will pay the member $25,000. We will have a fundraiser just for the Reform Party so it can find a candidate.

If the hon. member wishes to take me up on the offer he has to put something on the table also such as a little bit of integrity, a little bit of honesty, a little bit of compassion, as opposed to being this anti-institution, anti-government, anti-individual, anti-Quebec, anti-democracy, anti-everything.

Their ranks are starting to grow, Mr. Speaker. They are like earwigs, they multiply when a little issue comes to the forefront.

One of their caucus members said about their own leader and their own party: "I have had enough of labouring under the image of a party that is downright scary". That does not come from us. That comes from the members opposite which adds to the thesis. This group of Canadians in the Reform Party are not concerned about Newfoundland. They are not concerned about the economic interests in that part of the country. They are not concerned about the economic interests of the people of Quebec or indeed elsewhere. They are playing an old game of cheap, sleazy politics.

This was the politics that the leader of the Reform Party said he was not going to be involved in. He is doing it. That is exactly what he is doing. I find, and I am sure Canadians will find, this kind of conduct very disgusting and will vote accordingly.

I do not need notes to debate the hon. member. I would debate the hon. member anywhere on any subject that he chooses to debate. The problem is that it is very difficult to debate with anyone who uses false and erroneous information and who tries to use poor people and poor regions of the country to his own political advantage.

I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the Reform Party has absolutely nothing to offer them in this election, absolutely nothing. The hon. member opposite asks me: "What do you have to offer?". We have lots to offer the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The work that the hon. member who was the member for Labrador for 24 years will continue when we elect a Liberal member of Parliament from that constituency.

In closing, let me challenge the Reform Party. Instead of being anti-poor regions of this country, instead of being anti-Quebec, instead of being anti-those who are less fortunate than you are, stand in your place and put constructive ideas before the House of Commons. Support measures which will help people who are less fortunate than you are as opposed to playing cheap political games.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments and ask a couple of question of the minister. I thank him for that diatribe but I do not know why I really should.

There were a couple things I noticed. One is that he would like to run against me in a future campaign. This is interesting. If he could ever figure out where the west coast is, he could come and take a tour. I could show him around. He would be welcome to run against me there.

Even if he were to run, of course, I know the minister is good at raising dollars. He raises and spends lots of bucks. If he wants to give me $25,000 to run against him, he should be aware that in the debate, in a battle of wits he is unarmed. I hate to take advantage of an unarmed man.

He brought forward the following points. First, he did not deal with the motion at all. The sad part about the speeches of the Liberal side today is that they do not want to talk about this. They are saying: "Let's not talk about this. We are happy with the status quo. What is going on is perfect".

Mr. Rompkey was there for 25 years and for 25 years Labrador has been shipping hundreds of millions of dollars a year to Quebec under this deal and the Liberals are satisfied. They say: "It's a good deal. Don't talk about it. Don't ruffle the feathers. Don't cause any problems. We are happy over here on the Liberal side. It's a good deal. We're happy. Don't worry, be happy".

The people of Labrador are not happy. They have not been happy since this deal was signed and the minister's complacency, saying "just live with it because that's the way she is" is not good enough.

Development in Labrador is not good enough. The ability of Labrador to develop its natural resources is not good enough. It has not been able to take advantage of its natural wealth. It is not good enough to say just live with it.

The minister asks them to be satisfied with the TAGS program. First, the fishery is destroyed and then they are asked to be satisfied with some government handout. The people in Labrador do not need handouts. They need the federal government to quit taking them for granted.

If the hon. member would speak to the motion we could believe that he would be dissatisfied with the deal for not only Labrador, but for most of Atlantic Canada. Instead the minister defends his record as if he thinks he is doing a good job. Frankly I do not think the people of Atlantic Canada, and specifically Labrador, believe he is.

I think of the work done by the hon. member for Kootenay West when the Liberal government was willing to shut down the ferry service in Labrador Straits. The hon. member received many letters from that region thanking the Reform Party for standing up for their rights. I am getting phone calls and faxes throughout the day, even comments from people on the Hill that finally somebody is talking about Labrador. However, nothing has been said on the government side. They seem to be satisfied with the status quo.

I think of the wealth that is in Labrador. I have been to Voisey Bay. I have been on the ground and talked to the people. I have been throughout that whole region. I will go again and hope to go often.

When I see the wealth that is there and the fact they are not encouraged to develop it for the benefit of themselves and for the people in Newfoundland, I think it is disgusting that the Liberal Party opposite says: "Everything is okay, we do not want to talk about it. Mr. Strahl, why did you bring this motion up? We are happy to ignore Labrador, just suck out the resources, tax their pants off and leave them standing naked in a cold wind storm". It is not good enough.

Finally, I know the minister will support me on this. His initial thesis, if you can call it that, was that we did not care because this motion is not votable. I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, is there unanimous consent to make the motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Very well. Do I see-