Mr. Speaker, we are getting close to the end of this debate today because unfortunately we are experiencing time allocation by this government. This is the 46th time the government has time allocated a bill in this place since I have been here, 46 times it has said debate is a bad thing in this place, it must be shut down.
It can be seen why. It is such a small bill involving only $43 billion in transfers to the provinces over the next five years. The government has had five years to prepare for this bill. What has it ended up with? It has no draft legislation to show to us ahead of time, no academic input into potential changes or improvement, no committee investigations or public input as to whether people want to keep the old system or the new system or some changed version. There has been no debate in the House.
There will be $43 billion in transfers over the next five years and we are allowed one day of debate. That is a shame and it is a shame we will come to the end of this debate. People watching should know that at the end of today we will have a vote on this and it will be rammed through. My prediction is that the Liberals will win the vote, as they usually do, and they will say no debate because that is the way it should be.
It reminds me of a debate in British Columbia a few years ago when Bill Bennett went on the road. Colleagues from British Columbia will remember. When he went on the road the rallying cry was not a dime without debate because the government had arrived at this stage where the arrogance set in to the point where it said it is only $43 billion, let us have one day of debate and shut it down. That is what we are experiencing here today.
Equalization is an important issue. It is, as has been mentioned on both sides of the House, a cornerstone issue for many Canadians and many provinces that want to see some semblance of ensuring the people who live in a province that is going through some tough times or that does not have the revenue its needs deserve some chance of equalization so they can enjoy something close to the same services other Canadians enjoy. I have no problem with that. That is not a bad theory if that is the initial theory you are going to head off on.
I only have this 10 minute slot to talk, but not about the equalization payments per se because that is not really the big problem, that is not what gets under people's skin so much. The problem is that it is all the other inequities, the inequalization payments that occur day after day in the departmental spending and in the program spending of this government.
Why is it that when the fishermen are denied the opportunity to fish on the east coast the government puts together the TAGS program, a social benefit program amounting to $3 billion for east coast fishermen, but on the west coast the federal government does not even allocate 10% of what is allocated on the east coast? That is called an inequalization program. It is not equal for both fishermen. Both fishermen are unemployed, both are in their coastal communities, both need some assistance to adjust to whatever the new reality of the fishery minister might be. Instead what happens? Ten per cent for B.C. compared to Atlantic Canada.
What happens when the government allocates the CIDA contracts in this country? CIDA contracts are not part of the equalization program but why is it that when the CIDA contracts come through, British Columbia gets 3% of those contracts although it has 10% or 11% of the population of the land? The CIDA contracts are worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year and the majority of them go in this case to the province of Quebec. What is going on? Why does 3% go to B.C. while the lion's share goes to Quebec? That is not part of equalization. That is an inequality payment.
That is why from the beginning the Reform Party has maintained in its policies that programs should go through a regional fairness test. That is not so the west gets more, heaven forbid, but so that each region knows it will be dealt with fairly in terms of social programs and other government spending. It will not be allocated based on who you voted for last but on regional fairness. That is the way it should be done. That is true equality.
I went to a hockey game a while ago. There was a big brouhaha from the government. It was trying to decide how it could help out the hockey teams in this land. It is interesting. In one way the government did help. It gave some direct assistance to the Ottawa Senators and its establishment and to the Montreal Canadiens. They got Canadian logos and Canadian government advertising in their arena. It cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. But where did they not get any help? Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. Not a single sou went to help out with any advertising. Again, is it fair that one group gets it and another does not? It is not fair. It should go through a regional fairness test. If you are going to promote the Government of Canada in hockey arenas and if you can believe anybody thinks that is a good idea, then certainly it is as good an idea in Vancouver as it is in Ottawa or Montreal.
The federal government spent to $2 million to promote Canadian athletes going to Nagano. I do not think that was a bad idea. We should be proud of our athletes. I do not mind. I would rather give the money to the athletes but even so we promote the Olympics. Why were over half the ads placed only on French language television stations in Quebec? Why do half the ads go there when only a quarter of the population is there? How much did my region of the country get? Where is the regional fairness test? It is not there. It is part of the inequality of the federation that is not addressed.
I do not even want to get started on what happened to CFB Chilliwack plans in my own riding.
Why is it that land is frozen in a state of suspended animation while fairly new buildings start to crumple? It has been four years now since they have turned the heat off and walked away. No development can take place. No industrial work, no sale to local developers, no land to the natives, nothing. It is just frozen.
Why? It is in British Columbia. After all, we do not even have an land forces base in the entire province of British Columbia. Regional fairness would dictate that British Columbia should somehow be just shunted aside.
The problem with the equalization payments is not the equalization payments but all the other boondoggles that the federal government is involved with. Why is it that when we dealt with the child pornography case a week ago in this place, the government said the child pornography case only applies in British Columbia. The law is still really good in the other nine provinces. So if the pedophiles go free it will only be in British Columbia. So don't worry, it is only in British Columbia. That is part of the attitude on that side of the House.
They came two weeks ago to my riding on a western fact finding mission headed up by somebody from Winnipeg, I think, which to them is as far west as one can go. They do not realize that the Rocky Mountains are not the end of the country, that there is actually another province there. They came out to my riding and said the following what about the future of the CFB Chilliwack lands?. The response was does your member of parliament know that it has been closed? This was said by the secretary of state for women's issues. They said to her in a very kind way yes, he does know. Yes, he has been fighting for fairness for our region the same as any other.
When the Liberals come to town and say by the way, sorry about this, we didn't even know it was closed, people in British Columbia are saying that the issue is not just about equalization, it is about the unequal treatment of some portions of country often based strictly on who one votes for. That is not the way to run a country and not the way to bring regional fairness. It is the way to create inequality. If that was the object, the Liberals have succeeded masterfully.