Debates of May 7th, 1998

Regional Development Agencies

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should dissolve the regional development agencies, including ACOA, Ford-Q, WED, and FedNor, and redirect funds targeted for the agencies toward tax relief, debt retirement, and the reduction of the size of the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to support this motion. It is one of those motions that create responsibility in the minds of all members of parliament. Regional development agencies are big business.

According to the auditor general, $4 billion was spent in the eight years leading up to 1995. Compare that to the public accounts revelation that in the year 1996-97, the bill for ACOA, WED and Ford-Q was $1.1 billion in terms of authorization, of which $999 million was spent. One billion dollars in one year is a major acceleration.

Regional development agencies were set up to do one thing and they are doing another. They were set up to fill gaps in the financial markets that were not being filled by the financial institutions in the private sector. They are now in direct competition with the services provided by the private sector financial institutions. I will show exactly how they are doing that.

In April 1996 the report of the Senate banking committee concluded that while the agencies are meant to fill gaps in the capital markets, there is no consensus on the method determining where those gaps exist and there is no way of analysing whether the gaps are being filled.

The regional development agencies are but one part of crown corporations in dealing with finances. Among those other institutions the following are included: the Business Development Bank of Canada, the Farm Credit Corporation, the Canadian Export Development Corporation, Canada Lands, Canada Post, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and many others totalling up to 50 such agencies that deal in the financial sector. They were all set up to support ventures that do not have access to financing in the private sector. Today those ventures have the same difficulty getting access to the crown corporations and regional development agencies as they have accessing agencies in the private sector.

Let us recap. Regional development agencies spend over a billion dollars a year of taxpayer money. Their purpose is to fill gaps in capital markets yet there is no way of determining where those gaps are and no way of analysing whether the agencies are filling those gaps. The agencies are part of the crown corporate structure, of which there are 50 bodies. Crown corporations were established to increase access to capital but business today has difficulty getting it.

Why has this happened? What has caused agencies to become ineffective? The Liberal wisdom of balanced budgets is to maintain institutions without determining their effectiveness, to insist they become self-sufficient even though to do so the agencies will be forced to compete with the private sector, and they move away from their original mandate to fill gaps in the capital market and financing needs of the people. This wisdom is costly. It promotes inefficiency and fails to contribute to the growth of the economy.

The Reform wisdom would be to eliminate these costly agencies which have outlived their purpose and which compete with the private sector. In doing so, a Reform government would eliminate a significant amount of unnecessary spending and would empower the private sector by getting out of its way. This would allow the private sector to function more effectively without competition from the public sector and it would stimulate growth.

These agencies have become ineffective because of their inability to do the things they were set up to do. Do we need further evidence? No, we do not. But there are additional issues. For instance, a newer selling point for the regional agencies is that they become one stop doors to government programs.

There are two issues here. First, if there are so many government programs and agencies to help small businesses that we need a guide to steer us through them, then there are too many programs.

A business wants access to capital. It does not distinguish whether it is TPC, SBLA, FCC, WED, CANARIE, NRC, MRC, ACOA, FORD-Q, FedNor, BDC or CMHC. That is just the beginning. Each of these is an acronyms for a government program. The labyrinth carries on. Each dispenses billions of dollars for one purpose, the help small and not so small business.

We are concerned here only with three agencies. The second issue here is that if the government is to be involved in western economic diversification, Atlantic Canada opportunities, the regional development of Quebec, and the economic initiatives in northern Ontario, there are other federal crown agencies that do exactly the same thing. Two of these are the Business Development Bank of Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation.

One could easily enter into debate about whether FCC and the BDC, the Farm Credit Corporation and the Business Development Bank, are doing what they were intended to do. That is a subject for another day.

The government is failing in its responsibility to business, to the marketplace and to the taxpayer. The government continues to build a labyrinth of sources for capital and still is no closer to understanding why the gaps exist in the first place.

The irony is that it is no easier with all these government programs for business to gain access. It is becoming increasingly difficult. The government has not improved the marketplace. Instead it competes with the private sector. More important, the government has failed to analyse why we have these gaps in the marketplace in the first place.

The government is taking the easy way out, more spending, more activity but less and less effectiveness. The people in business who need access to capital are not getting it. The marketplace is not improving and the promised long term jobs are not resulting.

The original regional development agencies are a failure by anyone's standard. It is time to eliminate them.

Much work has been done in the past two years by the standing Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce. That committee published a report in April 1996 which recommended “the phasing out of regional development agencies; they should not exist independent of crown financial institutions when institutions such as the Farm Credit Corporation and the Business Development Bank of Canada target the same market as the regional agencies”.

The committee goes on to say: “If there are regional economic development programs funded at the federal level that do not involve direct business related services, then provincial agencies are best able to deliver such programs”. These are sound recommendations given the committee's findings, but the Liberal government ignored them.

Perhaps this is an indication by the Liberal government as to how effective the Senate could be, but that is another debate which we will not get into now.

It is not just that regional agencies do exactly the same as some of these crown financial institutions. Other crown financial institutions can leverage their paid in capital and as such are in a much stronger position to help business because their financial strength is much greater than that of regional development agencies.

Not only do regional development agencies compete directly with the private sector, they duplicate the work done by other crown financial institutions.

In 1995 the auditor general had some concerns, lack of information on which programs have worked and which have not, the need to be cost effective, the lengthy approval times, the need for continued co-operation and the challenge of implementing changes.

In 1997 the auditor general reviewed those same things and asked what has happened. Here are three of the agencies he examined and gave a conclusion on.

In the auditor general's words it was still too early to determine whether FedNor is adequately monitoring its projects. Let us review the history of FedNor.

It was created in 1987 to address the economic disparities and adjustment problems of the region. In 1992, five years later, all the programs were all consolidated into one program the FedNor business incentives program. In 1996 its strategy was changed again, this time to improving access of small business to capital, to information on markets and promotion of community partnerships. Three changes in mandate in nine years. The obvious question is what evaluation was done that resulted in the changes in mandate. Is the focus right now? Will it again be changed before it can be evaluated? Was it wrong the first time? Was it wrong the second time? Is it wrong now? What assurances do we have that it is right now? If it keeps getting changed we will never know.

That is why these changes are such a useful vehicle for patronage, disposal of money. No one can ever pin the government down because before we can find out what it is really doing the government has changed so we never really know what its mandate was. And yet it is costing money, taxpayer money.

The government must be held accountable. How many businesses went bankrupt because of these grants and subsidies to these development agencies? Who will ever know? For that reason if no other they should be scrapped. How can the success of a program be seriously valued in such a short time if the mandate changes constantly? I will go on to the next thing.

FORD-Q is the biggest spender of them all. The only improvement observed by the auditor general was: “Our review of a small sample of files suggests that the documentation supporting project funding recommendations has improved”.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see a quorum. I see only three Reform members and no Conservatives.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kelowna.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general in 1997 also did a comparison of what happened in the two years in ACOA. The main purpose for setting up ACOA was, according to the auditor general's report of 1995, to create employment. That was its main purpose.

In 1997 the auditor general reviewed again to see what had happened. He made this observation about ACOA: “The agency continues to use the assumption that all of the jobs created by the program will last for a period of 10 years. As in 1995 we were not able to find support for this assumption”.

The very purpose for which it was set up was not being met.

The report goes beyond that and states that the objectives were so general they could not be measured. The assessment process used by the agency was not significantly different from that found in the 1995 audit. This is an abysmal failure in the way in which that particular agency is run.

We go beyond that. How effective is another group? The western economic diversification agency was set up recently to cover a whole lot of things. It is supposed to do new things. Canada business development centres were set up to provide access to various government departments through the communication network. They were working. Now they are subsumed under WED.

The notorious infrastructure was working, but now it is subsumed under WED.

The community futures program was working. It is now under WED. What has been the result of all of this? In Kelowna the infrastructure program has never been less successful. The community futures program has not brought more people into the marketplace and into the working field. The business development centres do not distribute any more information than they did before.

What are the results? We have an organization. We have staff. We have bureaucrats. And the only jobs that were created on a permanent basis were for the bureaucrats.

The regional development agencies are not doing what they were set up to do. They are costing taxpayers billions of dollars. They are duplicating the work of crown corporations. They are competing directly with the private sector. They are doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

The wisdom is that we should eliminate them. If we have to fill the gaps that are not being met in the private sector and in the financial sector, let the agencies that exist outside of the regional development agencies, like the BDC, do the work.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, there is obviously a fundamental difference here in terms of the approach to the development of the nation. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of development agencies.

I will start by thanking the hon. member for Kelowna for all of the good work that he has been doing with the Central Okanagan Community Futures Development Corporation.

Community futures development corporations are funded in large part by regional agencies. They play a very important part in the economic development of rural and non-rural western Canada. The Central Okanagan Community Futures Development Corporation is part of western diversification's western Canada business services network.

Since his election, the hon. member for Kelowna has continued his good work by meeting with management of this community futures development corporation to discuss the corporation's business plan. He has continued by attending that community futures development corporation's networking evenings for small business. In September 1996 he was one of the opening speakers at the Central Okanagan CFDC's annual meeting, where I am told that my hon. colleague spoke glowingly of the achievements of the community futures development corporation.

I say to the hon. member: Good work. Keep it up. He knows that these community development futures corporations have a niche, that they are filling a need, that they work and that they do help in the creation of thousands of jobs.

At the same time I must confess that I find it strange why this member, who knows the benefits that the regional economic development agencies provide to small and medium size businesses, would put forward a motion to disband these agencies.

Regional economic development is, without a doubt, one of the cornerstones of our nation. The federal government has promised to pursue economic development and to promote equal opportunity for all Canadians. Whatever our party or background, we must agree that strong regions contribute to a strong Canada.

The federal government, the industry portfolio in particular, plays a critical role in pooling and marshalling the resources that businesses in Canada need. Canada's regional development agencies are largely responsible for the development and delivery of these resources across the country. They exist to help businesses in the regions develop and grow to meet the challenges of the globally competitive world.

I am very proud to be responsible for our regional agencies. Let me give members a few reasons for that.

In my province of Manitoba, western economic diversification, as lead federal agency for federal assistance, hit the ground running during the Manitoba flood with its economic recovery efforts. The mobile restart program, le program mobile de redémarrage, took applications on the spot, returned in a week with a cheque, provided $8.8 million to almost 2,000 small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Over 1,000 businesses have been helped with WED providing more than $13.4 million, cost shared with the province of Manitoba.

Helping displaced fishers, for example, affected by changes in the west coast salmon fishery, WED brought together federal departments and 12 community future development corporations, made over $5 million available for small business planning and financing. Fishers can begin their own businesses.

The western Canada business services network plays a key role in creating jobs and fulfilling needs in that part of the country. There are also community futures development corporations, commonly known as CFDCs. Service centres for women entrepreneurs, business service centres and WD's own offices are other examples.

We have more than 100 points of service in western Canada, more than 1,000 volunteers in the network and another 325 people working at WD. They serve most urban centres and small towns like Morris, Manitoba, Bruno, Saskatchewan, and Bonnyville, Alberta. This goes to show that these centres are not serving only or mostly larger cities. Their primary focus is small towns and rural areas.

I want to tell this House very briefly about some success stories. Barbara Dale from Edmonton came to Alberta Women's Enterprise Initiative Association with an idea for a business in 1996. She received business planning help and qualified for a $100,000 start-up loan. Last year her company, Labour Now Industrial Staffing, had sales of over $1 million and is forecasting $4 million for this year.

Each of WED's products and services must meet the needs of a specific client group, follow the agenda of the federal government in terms of economic development, provide key needs of small business, information and capital.

Canada Business Service Centres, les Centres de services aux entreprises du Canada, are an important element in this economic development.

WED is a managing partner in the west. Last year these organizations took an average of 33,000 requests for information and 50,000 website hits every month.

With respect to the loans and investment fund, WD makes contributions to loan-loss reserves to raise capital for small business from financial institutions.

For every dollar invested by WD, financial institutions invest eight. As a result, $420 million was made available to small and medium size businesses. WD helps businesses fill in loan applications. Loans are administered by financial institutions at arm's length from WD.

While still a new program, more than 240 loans totalling $55 million have already been approved. Also, CFDCs have granted more than 1,500 smaller loans, which helped create 2,500 jobs in rural areas in western Canada.

Look at WED's efforts with aboriginal peoples: contribution of $950,000 given to the Aboriginal Business Development Centre in Winnipeg to encourage entrepreneurship among urban aboriginals; a contribution of $5 million toward Saskatchewan Indian Federated College.

To promote linguistic duality, $1.6 million was granted to the Manitoba bilingual communities' economic development board to help 11 bilingual municipalities further their economic development. Other investments were made in other western provinces to meet the needs of francophones.

For the youth employment strategy, four programs: the international trade personnel program, first job in science and technology, the western youth entrepreneurship program, and the community economic development internship program. Let me give a concrete example of what this has done.

Glas Aire Industries in Vancouver, an automotive accessories manufacturer, hired a graduate under the ITPP to try to crack the Japanese market. It resulted in contracts with Nissan and Toyota. Omar Essen, general manager of the company said “Our Japanese success is largely due to WD”.

On partnership agreements, we are currently negotiating five year agreements with four western provinces to collaborate, work together and co-operate on economic priorities. Alberta's is in place. We are nearing completion with three other infrastructure works programs.

WD is the federal delivery agent in the west with over 5,200 projects approved, more than 33,000 jobs created by that program. It is clear that WD is helping to build a strong economy in the west. It is equally clear that a vibrant economy in one part of the country benefits all other parts of the country.

I could speak much longer but I will finish by saying that WD works. I have given many examples. There are literally hundreds of others.

Mr. Speaker, you and I and perhaps a few others know that what is good for western Canada is good for Canada. What is good for western Canadians is good for all Canadians. My colleagues could make similar comments with other regional development agencies that exist and which are tailor made to respond to the unique needs of other regions of the country.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in my capacity as the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development on Motion M-224, presented by my colleague on the industry committee, the hon. member for Kelowna. I can attest to how hard he works on that committee, and he often asks pertinent questions. entirely

I believe it would be useful to reread his motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should dissolve the regional development agencies, including ACOA, Ford-Q, WED, and FedNor, and redirect funds targeted for the agencies toward tax relief, debt retirement, and the reduction of the size of the federal government.

All of the components of this motion make sense, but there is a problem, I believe, when they are put together. Then some clarification becomes necessary.

The Bloc Quebecois would be in favour of dissolution of the regional development agencies, but is not opposed to investment in regional development. Our Reform colleague is suggesting less intervention in the economy. On this point, my thoughts are along the same lines as the Liberal minister who has just spoken. It is certain that the rural and isolated areas need help. They must be given special assistance or they and their local businesses will not have an equal opportunity for development.

In our opinion, however, the federal government is not the one best placed to develop the regions. The government in Ottawa creates agencies right and left, but there are services in place at the provincial government level for this. Such is the case in Quebec, with its regionalized structure made up of 16 regional development councils. There are local development councils, one in each of the MRCs, and these structures are characterized by representativity. The public can run for membership on the board of these bodies.

The minister may well say “Oh yes, we do the same, we have CFDCs in our region”. But this duplication of energies and of staff constitutes a problem. I am speaking for Quebec, because it is what I know best. In our opinion, the federal government is not the one in the best position to look after this matter.

The federal government will be present because of its need of visibility. Whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, it has to have its visibility. It must at all cost show it is doing something even if regional development services exist in the provinces.

According to the logic of our statement, money for regional development should go to the provinces, which are in a better position, in our opinion, to look after such matters, or federal-provincial agreements should be established.

That was long the case. It could have been the case, for example, in the infrastructures program in which municipal, provincial and federal governments acted on a one time basis. Such agreements are possible, therefore.

One such one was renewed in the east. Since 1994, with the Liberals in government, renewal of the regional development agreement with Quebec has been impossible. There has been no agreement since 1994, and on top of that, the federal government continues to spend money on regional development without a thought to regional development council strategies or to the priorities and approaches of local development councils. It is therefore acting unilaterally, driven by its concern for visibility.

This is so much so that they changed names. They are no longer calling it the federal office for regional development—Quebec. Since early March, it has been called the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency. They have to show their maple leaf. This is for visibility. When ministers cannot make announcements, they send government members to do it, to cut ribbons, so as to always ensure the visibility of our good federal government, and particularly that of the Liberal government. Money is spent. But we need to allocate that money to development initiatives that reflect the priorities.

An example of duplication is the $33 million spent in Quebec for administration purposes. There are 264 federal public servants who duplicate the work of provincial public servants, or of development officers paid by municipalities, regions or communities. And they seldom sit down to put their heads together. We must put an end to this situation.

However, I will admit one thing. We must recognize the work of the CFDC's in Quebec that are funded by the federal government. Over time, they developed an expertise in regional development. In recent days, I talked to Quebec government people involved in regional development, and they were saying that their government is willing to recognize the expertise of the CFDC people who have been involved, and that it would be pleased to continue to work with them. These people include permanent employees, but also many volunteers who became involved over the years.

In conclusion, the federal government's participation in Quebec's regional development activities has considerably evolved toward unilateralism. Indeed, while the federal government used to provide financial support to activities determined by the Quebec government, it is now implementing its own programs and activities, and it funds them in a unilateral fashion.

What is more, no reference is made to either strategic planning or framework agreements between the Quebec government and the regions for the choice of priorities, but rather to the study results on which the former federal office of regional development based its own view of the regions of Quebec. This situation does not augur well in any way, because in future the two governments will be taking action on parallel paths in regional development, so there will be still more duplication and overlap, thus creating an atmosphere of confusion for the clientele in the regions.

If, with the abolition of these agencies, the federal government were to convert the amounts it was already spending into transfer payments to the provinces, we would be in favour.

Quebec does not get its fair share in regional development funding. Looking at the per capita amounts, and comparing with the Atlantic provinces for instance, I would like my colleague from the Atlantic region to know that there is a five-to-one ratio, with his region getting five times as much.

Comparing the number of unemployed, the ratio is four-to-one. I have not done an analysis for other regions, but I believe that if the government wants to continue paying out money and if it were to accept a federal-provincial agreement for doing so, it should at least respect the principle of fairness. There is already the principle of equalization, which applies to transfers to the provinces. The Minister of Finance has jurisdiction over this, according to certain calculation formulas too complicated to go into here. This is a system already in place.

When it comes to regional development, where the focus should be on giving isolated regions of a province, or sub-regions, the same opportunities as the rest of that province, it should be up to the province to decide on priorities and on the mechanisms to be used.

Conditional on such a balance, there should be transfers to the provinces for regional development, because we feel that the provinces are best placed to be responsible for this.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my Bloc colleague for the good news about his comparison of the Atlantic and Quebec.

I have to say I am not surprised to see this private members' motion today. We are finally starting to see the true colours of the Reform Party. Bit by bit through this whole parliament we are going to see Reform Party members coming up with motions and private members' bills and they will slowly try to dismantle all programs in this country. They will start, as they have shown today, by attacking the most unfortunate.

That is why we have regional development agencies. Being the critic for ACOA I have to say there is a need for these agencies but unfortunately the Reformers do not see a need. They do not see a need to help the unfortunate of this country. There has been proof today.

I have to say I am not surprised. I am alarmed because my fear of that party is coming to realization. I hope Canadians will finally see through that party. It is scary when you hear some of the things its members say.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency creates jobs. I am not saying that ACOA is set up perfectly because it is not. There are changes I would like to see in ACOA. I would like to see it closer to the community but it does help to create jobs.

We could try to forget that there are provinces and regions not only in the Atlantic but all across the country that are less fortunate than others. We could do like the Reform Party does and say we are going to forget about them, let us take away the financing they have, let us take away whatever prosperity this may give them. Not everybody in Atlantic Canada has big bucks to start small businesses. They need help. That is what ACOA is there for.

Again I am not saying that it is a perfect agency but I would rather see it there the way it is now than not see it at all. There is a need for it. I get calls on a daily basis from people asking how to start up a business, what is out there to help them. If we did not have agencies like this one, we would not have small businesses. The self-employed create jobs in the Atlantic provinces. There is a need for them. There is the fixed link fund. It might not have helped as much as we would have liked but it certainly helped.

One criticism about ACOA is that there is not enough follow up. There is money to help start businesses but it lets it go too fast. There is a need for follow up. There is a need to make sure that the businesses are stable and can survive. That is not there right now.

We have to look at the motion as one coming from a member of a party that wants to dismantle this program. It is a start at dismantling regional development agencies. If it could succeed—and I am pretty sure it could not—it would try it on health care, CPP and on and on. That party believes that if one is not rich then tough. It is unfortunate how it addresses the poor in Canada and tells them that it will relieve them of taxes.

I was in that bracket. I was paying taxes and I was not making a whole lot of money, but when my son was sick he could go to the hospital and it did not cost me anything. My daughter spent a week in the hospital last year and it did not cost me anything.

That is the part Reformers forget to say. They are going to reduces the taxes but they forget to say that taxpayers will have to pay for their children in hospital or have to buy insurance if they can. It is all in there.

The Reform Party has it very well laid out. Its members know what to say and they know what to try to make believe to Canadians. I am telling Canadians what the Reform Party would really do. It is trying to do it today by trying to dismantle these agencies. It is just the start of it.

That is how Reformers work. They tell Canadians that is not true, that they care about the unfortunate, the poor and the small and medium size businesses. However they would destroy them. This would destroy the possibility of creating small and medium size businesses in the Atlantic provinces. I am just showing their true colours. I believe that very much.

I probably paid more in taxes this year than I made working the year before. At least I have services. My mom and dad have pensions. They can have a half decent life. It is all there. The day we start slashing and slashing, the services will be gone. It is very important for Canadians to remember that. The motion is showing me exactly what the Reform Party wants to do.

When Reformers talk about tax breaks, do they often say a tax break only for the very poor? No, they do not say what kind of tax break they would give to the very wealthy. We do not hear them say that. I wonder why. They will never say that large corporations do not pay enough tax. Those are their buddies.

Members in the Liberal Party probably have quite a few buddies. I am sure when the Minister of Finance has supper he does not go to the soup kitchen. I am sure he goes with his bank buddies and they tell him to keep up the great work, that he is doing just great. He goes along and keeps doing what he is doing because of what all his buddies are saying. That is what happens.

Members of Parliament who have never experienced too much hardship should go to a soup kitchen for supper once in a while or should see the line-up at social services. Maybe that would give them a reality check.

When it comes to ACOA and when it comes to this motion it is disgusting.

I would also like to say a few words in French. ACOA is needed in the Atlantic regions. I have no doubt of that. We need help starting up and developing small and medium size business. This agency is there. It is not perfect, and I would certainly like to see some changes, but I would rather have it as it is than not at all. It is my duty to work toward progressive and positive changes in this agency that will help develop our regions.

As I said earlier in English, suggestions such as these calling for the abolition of agencies helping Canada's poorer regions are alarming. This is only the beginning and it reveals the real Reform Party. Its purpose is to destroy our national programs and to continue to help its friends, who are luckier than others in this country.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot blame my colleague from New Brunswick for being concerned, but have no fear the Tories are here.

It is a pleasure for me to rise before the House in response to Motion No. 224, calling upon the government to dissolve all regional development agencies.

For years, successive federal governments grappled with the problem of regional economic disparity. In 1969 the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created in an attempt to address the situation.

Later in 1982 the department evolved into the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Both these endeavours failed to adequately address the specific problems facing the many diverse regions of the country.

One of the major criticisms of these two departments derives from its often poor focus on a centrally devised, one size fits all answer to regional problems.

Canadians wanted a greater say in developing their own programs to respond to their own economic problems. They were no longer willing to accept Ottawa's often ill advised solutions being thrust upon them.

As a result, in 1987 the Progressive Conservative government disbanded DRIE and announced a new direction for regional economic development policy in Canada. New agencies were created for the western and Atlantic provinces, moving much of the government's regional development decision making out of Ottawa and closer to the people served. Western economic diversification was created to help expand and develop the business face of the economy in the western provinces.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was given a legislative mandate to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada and to enhance the growth of earned income and employment opportunities in that region.

ACOA has enabled many small and medium size businesses in Atlantic Canada to create jobs that otherwise would not exist. Its involvement in the economy of the region has resulted in an important net positive contribution.

Since its inception ACOA has had a total employment impact of 82,000 jobs. ACOA's investment has created $233 million annually in new export sales. Each dollar invested in the business by ACOA, its provincial government and private sector partners results in $5 of benefit to the Atlantic region.

Similarly the return to the government in taxes, savings and employment insurance payments equals $3 for every dollar invested by the government. ACOA has a proven performance record in achieving real results in our Atlantic economy.

Dissolving ACOA would have a devastating effect on most Atlantic Canadians. Unlike the western region whose economy presently leads the nation, Atlantic Canada continues to struggle particularly with the serious downturn in the fishery.

There are presently over 25,000 fishers and fish plant workers in Atlantic Canada who were forced from the fishery by the downturn in the fishery and who are subsequently awaiting word from the government on a new TAGS program.

The Progressive Conservative Party was the first to champion the cause of tax relief for ordinary Canadians. However, the cancellation of this regional development agency would provide little or no tax relief for these 25,000 individuals.

Unemployment figures are still too high in Atlantic Canada. The best way to confront the serious unemployment situation is to encourage Canadians young and old to start their own business.

Figures show that 94% of all new jobs in the country are created by small and medium size enterprises. We need ACOA to help people start and to expand their own businesses. It has the ability to provide individuals with much needed capital along with expertise on how to begin new ventures.

Most chartered banks in Atlantic Canada are quite reluctant to support small business ventures unless they are willing to provide about 30% to 50% of their own equity to the project. Unfortunately most aspiring entrepreneurs are incapable of meeting this demand. Therefore, without ACOA having taken a chance on individual projects, many would not have got off the ground.

Atlantic Canada need ACOA to reduce the regional economic disparity that exists among provinces. Therefore we cannot support the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Kelowna, has five minutes to conclude.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I express appreciation to some of the speakers who have entered into the debate. I am somewhat disappointed in some of the views that have been expressed because some of them left a lot of imagination between what was said and what the actual truth of the situation really was.

One thing ought to be made very clear. The reason behind the motion is to eliminate inefficiencies, to eliminate duplication, to eliminate grants and subsidies to businesses which really divert funds from successful businesses and gives them to other businesses. Is that to say that none of these programs have worked? Of course they have worked but at a cost and inefficiently.

There have been some suggestions that we should have grants and subsidies. Let me just look at a couple of things that have happened. Some $11 billion of assistance was authorized over the last 16 years. Some 32,000 separate grants have been given, and 18% of them were given to 75 of the largest corporations in Canada.

If we are talking about helping the poor, that is not where this money is going. It is not going to the poor people. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going to Pratt & Whitney, De Havilland, Bombardier, Canadair, to Le Group Montreal Inc. and Air Ontario. In fact it was almost $1 billion. What has the repayment schedule been? It has been abysmal. Very little money has been repaid.

We need to recognize that some serious questions have to be asked. How can parliament continue to accept that subsidies are cost effective when we know that the evidence clearly shows that they are not? We have no way of evaluating them. How can parliament continue to support regional development agencies when study after study shows that they are not accomplishing what they were set out to do? How can parliament continue to support regional development agencies when they contribute significantly to taxpayers' burdens with so little return on the investment? These are serious questions that have to be asked.

Turning to inefficiency and overlap in particular with the BDC, SCC and Community Futures, now a big bureaucrat is sitting over top of them and saying “Look at how much more responsibility I have now. I have to have a bigger budget. I have to have more staff. I have to have bigger offices”. It is bureaucratic entrepreneurship, and it does not build the economy.

We must make all efforts to eliminate the regional development agencies and redirect the funds so that they will do what they are supposed to be doing toward tax relief, debt retirement, building the economy and reducing the size of government. That is what this was about. In this way we will support the private sector.

There is a rule for government agencies but the issue is duplication. The issue is building the private sector. Taxpayers spend money better. Left in their pockets they will manage their money better. Business will manage money far better than any government agency or any government department ever dreamt of doing. That is the principle here. Government should get out of business and let them help those people who really need the help, not the big corporate welfare bums.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on February 23, I asked the Minister of the Environment which departments will be stopping hazardous waste dumping in Ontario sewers.

At that time I raised my concerns shared by many Canadians on the minister's assurances regarding the harmonization accord and the continuing decline of environmental protection across the country.

The minister's response as recorded in Hansard included: “We will assure all members of this House that we are following through with our supervision, inspections and maintenance of standards”.

Program review one and two led to losses in financial and human resources which have devastated a once respected department.

The growing concerns over global warming, pollution prevention and community health issues are of prime concern to Canadians. The majority of Canadians believe more should be done to protect our environment.

Environment Canada's own internal report identified a need for over 300 staff to provide adequate environmental inspections, enforcement and protection. Yet the minister is comfortable with 60. The minister defends this policy and the lack of enforcement and protection as sufficient.

I would like to draw attention to another issue, ASD, alternate service delivery. Canadians have witnessed examples of this failure policy through NavCan, food inspection branch and Ports Canada; bad ideas, poor service and Canadians at risk.

Now the Liberals wish to continue this policy with components of the atmospheric sciences branch. This is at a time when our major trading partners are increasing funding to atmospheric sciences. Canadians across this country have stated time and time again do not close more weather stations, where are the up to date storm alerts, and why do they have to pay for weather information as taxpayers.

With this conscious abandonment of fiscal excuses coupled with the continued devolution of environment duties and responsibilities through ill advised harmonization accords with the provinces, this Liberal government approach will lead only to further degradation.

How can Canadians be reassured on the protection from hazardous waste dumping when there is little proof that Liberals care about our environment?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of hazardous wastes, including their generation, transportation and disposal, is one which touches all Canadians. It is one which the federal government takes seriously.

Canada has shown its intentions relating to the responsible management of hazardous wastes through the Canada-U.S. agreement on the transboundary movement of those wastes between our two countries. As a signatory to the international Basel convention, Canada again indicated its commitment to environmentally sound transport and handling of hazardous wastes.

In terms of municipalities and the environmental protection measures they may take, municipal governments have the authority and bylaw making powers granted to them under provincial laws which create or incorporate them. It is consistent with the overall Canadian experience that municipalities have demonstrated over the years their environmental conscience.

In many cases they can and do act to prevent noxious and harmful substances from being disposed into municipal sewers or through other municipal facilities.

The hon. member also addressed a number of other concerns in his address and one of them has to do with issues around enforcement. The hon. member is well aware, because he is a participant on the environment committee, that the committee is doing a report that will be given to parliament on this issue. I believe all members have taken good use of committee time around the table. Everyone has made a very sound contribution to this very important issue.

On the issue of global warming, the government has established a national secretariat that will be dealing with the global warming challenge. In terms of alternate service delivery for the weather and climatic systems across the country, the government is undertaking a national review.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)