Debates of April 13th, 1999

Supply

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really would like to have a good one on one with the member. He spoke about alienation and that the Reform Party has alienated the country, which is absolutely silly. As a matter of fact if it had not been for his party and the degree to which it alienated Canadians, there would be no Reform Party. If the Progressive Conservatives had not created the vacuum, there would be no vacuum to fill. Really, they are experts in alienation.

Today we are trying to bring to parliament the concerns of people across the entire country. I would hope the member would use this occasion to enter the debate by showing us the concerns from his part of the country and from his constituency. In my riding around 60% of the people voted for me. The reason they did is because of the fact that we have promised, and this is true for candidates in our party right across the country, to represent the riding. What is it in the member's riding which causes people to feel alienated from Ottawa? That is the real question we should ask.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, needless to say, the people of my riding do not feel alienated because they have elected me to represent them in this House. They did not elect Reformers so I do speak in glowing remarks to the residents of my community who had a very reasonable decision to make and made a reasonable decision in not having Reform represent them.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as it has just come up, why are we here today? Why are we debating this motion? We are giving the government members an opportunity to hear the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what it is about, listening to their concerns.

Why do people want to be heard? What are their frustrations right now? No matter where we go, people consistently tell us over and over again that the Liberals are not doing their job. I listen to dozens of people in this country. In Ontario people are feeling alienated and frustrated and likewise in Nova Scotia. These people are coming up with the same concerns that I hear in British Columbia.

Last week I spoke with dozens and dozens of British Columbians. I asked them if they had something to say to the government what would it be. One response came up over and over again without prompting them. I told them they had an opportunity to say something to the Prime Minister, so what would they like to say? They said there was contempt for parliament and a lack of democracy. That came up in virtually every conversation.

One gentleman said to me that 38% of Canadians gave 100% of the power to one man. He said that every four years we democratically go to the polls to elect a dictator. There is no question that far too much power centres around the Prime Minister. They went on to say that there are numerous examples in parliament that the Liberal backbenchers are nothing more than sheep. They might as well send trained robots to Ottawa to do as they are told. We have heard that over and over again. It is a rubber stamp for these guys.

I spoke with Irv Koombes from Burnaby. He expressed alienation that stemmed from the government's fundamental lack of respect for members of parliament and the democratic process. He said that he feels parliament treats British Columbians more like a nuisance and at its worst its attitude borders on contempt. He went on to say how can one help but not feel alienated from a government that treats its own MPs like sheep. That came up over and over again.

There are lots of examples. Members have been kicked out of government for not voting with the government and now sit on their own as independents.

The most recent issue that comes to my mind, an issue respecting crime, concerns the member from Ontario who brought forward a private member's motion dealing with consecutive sentencing. To make a long story short, this private member's bill was sent to committee but the trained sheep were sent to committee to delete the entire bill. It was outrageous and a contempt of parliament. It was was absolutely inexcusable. These examples happen over and over again.

Last year the member for Vancouver Quadra suggested to the Prime Minister that the government should consider funding the legal expenses for some of the protesters at the APEC trial. All he was suggesting was a fair process.

Did the Prime Minister consider that suggestion? No. What did he do? He punished the member by removing him as committee chair. At the end of the day, the government came around so the process could be fair, but because the member disagreed with the government and the Prime Minister, out came the heavy club. These are people from the Liberal member's own riding who are telling me this information. This is the level of frustration we have.

The whole country was shocked earlier this year when Justice Shaw struck down the law with respect to possession of child pornography. Seventy Liberal members, MPs and senators from across the country, including those from British Columbia, sent the Prime Minister a letter asking him to immediately bring into parliament legislation that would reinstate the law and make it stronger or use the notwithstanding clause.

The Reform Party put its motion forward to deal with this as expeditiously as possible. When this motion was put forward we were not even aware of this letter. The letter came up after the fact. What did the government do? It again brought out the heavy club.

The Liberal members from British Columbia feel frustrated and alienated because they cannot stand up and represent their views. The government has no concern for them at all.

I personally witnessed it as a member of the fisheries committee. In my very first year in parliament our committee went out and did excellent work. When we were sometimes critical of the government, how did it respond? It fired the chairman, the member for Gander—Grand Falls, Newfoundland.

The member for Gander—Grand Falls, right now as we speak, is speaking to the fisheries committee on the seals issue. Does any member know whose time he is speaking on? He is speaking on Reform's allocated time because the government does not provide him with any. The Liberal member for Gander—Grand Falls, a member of parliament for 24 years, is at the fisheries committee speaking on the allocated time of the Reform Party of Canada. He does not have a lot to offer because the government will not provide him with anything. The government punishes him because he is not a trained sheep. This is absolutely disgraceful.

I could speak here all day on the things I have heard from British Columbians. A member from Victoria, a member who works in the minister of fisheries' riding, told me that the government considers British Columbians to be parasites; they literally suck the life out of us and give nothing back. That is what a parasite actually does. It literally sucks all the life out of something and offers nothing in return. That is how this member described the government.

According to the Liberal government, if British Columbians are making too much noise, it throws them a bone once in a while to keep them quiet and slow them down a bit. It thinks of British Columbians as nuisances.

These are the exact comments, word for word, coming from British Columbians that I have spoken to. It is an opportunity for the Liberals to listen.

The government is also aware of this. What did it do? It knows this is out there but is not dealing with it. It created a committee called the western alienation committee. That describes it in itself. When we have to create a committee called the western alienation committee what does that tell us? It tells us that there is no representation.

There are opportunities for the government to act for British Columbians. The federal government could push to renegotiate the software lumber accord with the U.S. Two out of every five jobs in British Columbia come directly or indirectly from the forestry industry. It is suffering terribly partly because of the federal government's policy with the softwood lumber accord. No, it is not taking it to task. It is sitting on its hands and doing nothing.

I heard throughout the province that the forestry communities throughout British Columbia are devastated. Where is the government? How come it is not standing up and fighting for us? Let us be absolutely clear that when it negotiated and agreed on the quotas with the U.S. in the softwood lumber agreement, it was a Liberal member on the committee who negotiated that. Ironically, the quotas for British Columbia went down while the quotas for Ontario went up.

If I had to sum up the issues which are frustrating British Columbia, the first issue would be the contempt of parliament and the lack of accountability and democracy. That issue resonates everywhere we go. They want people to come to Ottawa to represent their views. They do not want Ottawa to tell them what they think.

The second issue is taxes, taxes, taxes and tax fairness for the family. They are outraged that the government could not support a very simple motion. It only confirmed in their minds that the government has its own agenda. It refuses to listen to the people of Canada and, more importantly, the people of British Columbia.

I spoke with a family from Surrey. This women received an increase of $1.24 per hour 13 months ago and not one extra dime has shown up on her pay cheque. It was all going into taxes. I hope the government is listening.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parks)]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments, particularly with respect to the alienation in British Columbia and its concern about the abuse of parliament. I thought I would point out a couple of things and then ask him a question.

Canadians have had three opportunities since the general election to speak in a byelection. We seen how much they have supported the Reform Party in that respect. Not only has it lost all three, but as recently as last night the Reform Party went down in its vote in Windsor—St. Clair. In fact, I think it got a little more than 6% of the vote. That shows how its message is resonating to Canadians.

What I found more important was the comment about the abuse of parliament. I sit here every day and look across at the hon. member who used to be the Reform Party defence critic. He had the audacity to make his own decision about an issue that his leader and the Reform Party did not like. What happened? The Reform Party leader said that he had to be sentenced to sit out of caucus and go into purgatory. That is Reform's new way of discipline.

Several members on the other side are not particularly enamoured with the united alternative initiative of their leader. My goodness, they had the audacity to say it publicly and to have a discussion on how concerned they were about it. What happened? The whip of their party came out with the big hammer and sent out a letter stating they must cease and desist.

I wish the hon. member would explain to me how those examples are examples of the great new Reform way of not disciplining members, of not ensuring that it has to be the leader's way? Maybe the hon. member would like to explain that to me.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will gladly explain. Our party emphatically believes that we must represent the wishes of our constituents, which we do all the time.

The member has mentioned the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla who at one point in time was the defence critic and then the justice critic. This member resigned his position as a critic on his own. I am not going to go down there. He resigned on his own and I will leave it at that.

Let us talk about the member for York South—Weston who took a principled stance on the GST, on a promise made by this government. Again we are talking about accountability. He was the only individual who voted against the government. It does not matter whether it is hepatitis C or child pornography. Here we had one on taxation. He voted against the government and where does he sit? He sits on this side of the House. The Liberals kicked him out of the party. They would have nothing to do with him because he voted by his conscience and by the people who sent him here.

I have been in Ottawa for two years. People ask me how I like it and what is happening here. The only thing I can tell them is that it is a disgrace to see that there is an absolute dictatorship there. It is controlled by one individual. The people out there are equally frustrated and the Liberals are sent in here like trained sheep to heckle. They will not listen and it is very unfortunate.

We need to change this institution. It is dysfunctional. Both Chambers, the Senate and this one, do not represent the views of Canadians. We need to ensure that all members of parliament have more input. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about true representation and true accountability so that the views of Canadians are actually represented here.

There is no question that there are times when we want to collectively be a force, but that should not cause people to be fired and thrown out of their party into the opposition. It is absolutely outrageous and a contempt of parliament to treat people like that.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand before the House today as the regional critic for Alberta, to speak on behalf of Alberta and to explain how I arrived at the questions I will be posing to the House today.

I got those questions by canvassing 26 ridings in Alberta. I have enough to fill the rest of the afternoon with what they feel has alienated them from the federal government.

First, they are insulted that a task force has to be sent to a province where there are 24 MPs who would be glad to tell the government and the Prime Minister of exactly the sorts of things that alienate the people of the province I live in and represent.

I got involved in politics because I believed the message had to come from the constituents to Ottawa and that all MPs should have the opportunity to express themselves and to be listened to.

Just last night we were here talking about Kosovo. As the foreign affairs critic, I have many points of view that I believe Canadians would like to have expressed here. Of course no one was here to listen. It was a take note debate. The motion had no substance and of course there was no vote at the end of it. That is the sort of blatant abuse that just disgusts people from the province of Alberta.

I have the list that will save the Prime Minister and the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia from having to visit our province. Here are some of the things on the list that have alienated our province.

First, we feel the federal government has become too intrusive in provincial affairs. That is a claim that could come from most provinces, specifically Quebec where a whole party was formed that said it knew it could not make any changes so it was going to separate. What a terrible option. Many people in my province are saying that if the government keeps intruding the way it is, they will not put up with it forever.

The millennium scholarship is an example. The provincial education minister was not even consulted. There have been health care cuts of 40%. The federal government continually wants to blame the provinces for those cuts. On the environment, the endangered species act keeps floating around this place, again without consultation with the people who will make it happen. Farmers, grassroots people, will save endangered species. It will not be those on high in government. People are responsible and do want to have input into legislation.

We could go on. The flag money was mentioned many times in many ridings, the waste of money by Ottawa and of course the Kosovo situation and the vote which I have already alluded to.

The second item that was most often mentioned by the 26 ridings in Alberta was the whole tax situation. The federal government just does not get the message that taxes cost jobs. Taxes cost this country in lost productivity. The incentive to work is destroyed by high taxes. The government just does not get it.

Of course Alberta has led the way. We have the lowest taxes. We are going to an 11% flat tax in 2002. That is leadership. The federal government could learn a lot about that.

Taxes on petroleum and not on hydro has been brought forward by many petroleum producers. There are taxes on private utility companies like TransAlta while government run utility companies are tax free. That is a penalty against the free enterprise system which Alberta practises.

Then there is Kyoto and what that will mean for our province, as well as the GST promises on which the government reneged. We do not have a sales tax in our province and we do not want to have the GST either.

There is unfair taxation on families. The EI surplus is being taken as a tax. When only 38% of people can actually receive EI, the rest is just tax money. Small business after small business talked about the EI and the CPP. They said “Just be honest about what you are doing”, but the federal government is not doing that at this point. It is taxing us to death.

Third, there were many mentions of patronage. The CF-18 bill is not dead yet in Alberta. We still remember that. I often have said that in Alberta there are two things to be mentioned if one wants to get elected. One is to mention the name of Mr. Trudeau and the national energy program. Immediately individuals say “I won't vote Liberal”. Then one has to mention the name Mr. Mulroney and GST. That means “I can't vote PC”. We have eliminated two parties right away just by saying those words. It becomes pretty easy.

There is blatant patronage everywhere. Candidates who are defeated end up on parole boards and all kinds of other boards simply because they decided that they would be a Liberal candidate. We have example after example. It makes people furious that the Liberals are using taxpayers' money to reward their friends.

The fourth is the judicial system. Albertans are concerned about victims' rights. They are concerned about the soft Liberal approach to justice. They are concerned that when a judge in B.C. said it was okay to have child pornography the government did not slam into that judicial system and say “That's wrong”. That is wrong in anyone's books. They cannot understand how any government can agree with child pornography. They just do not understand how anyone who cares about anything could go along with that sort of thing. It infuriates them.

Albertans are fed up with the very fact that the Young Offenders Act is tampered with a bit, but that the real recommendations by the committee are not looked at. The judges are making the laws. The Prime Minister says that it is okay for judges to make laws, that parliament should not have any say in that area.

Albertans find fighting for criminals' rights, whether they be in Brazil or in Texas, distasteful.

The fifth is gun control. I received 13,000 letters in my riding from people who wanted to talk to me about Bill C-68. They are disgusted by it. I asked the justice minister to come to my riding. I said that I would book the Centrium, which holds approximately 10,000 people. I would pay the bill if she would come to explain to me the justification for Bill C-68. She has not said no. She has said she is very busy. But she should come. She is our Alberta justice minister. If she is so certain that the law is good, why will she not appear in front of 10,000 Albertans to justify it? Why will she not do that? What is she afraid of if the law is so good? Again I challenge her to accept the invitation, which she has now had for two months, to come to Red Deer. I will make sure the crowd is there for her.

I also noticed someone in an Edmonton paper reporting that they bought an $800 dinner. It was donated by the minister. She now has decided not to give the dinner because it was someone opposed to gun control who bought it.

As far as the wheat board is concerned, let farmers have their say.

There should be Senate elections. It is a slap in the face of Albertans because we elected two senators and we want them to be appointed, not some political hacks.

Then we had the Prime Minister's comments about the UN and not being Canadian.

The message is “Wake up”. Albertans are entrepreneurial. We are gaining population. We are gaining influence and we will roll over the government if it does not start listening to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think an error was made by previous speakers, which I am sure was unintentional. The official name of the task force which has been referred to is the Prime Minister's caucus task force on the four western provinces.

My question is very simple. I want to ask my colleague if he personally has ever made any positive comments about the Government of Canada's contributions to western Canadians or to Alberta in particular.

I will give him a couple of examples that I think might be useful.

He may not be aware that there are 14 centres of excellence in Canada and that the University of Alberta is involved in 14 out of 14. I think the University of Calgary is involved in 12 out of 14. That is a pretty good score.

He may not know that since 1993, 1,790 schools and 72 libraries have been connected in Alberta.

He may not know that the Small Business Loans Act backed 20,957 loans, valued at $1.4 billion, to Alberta SMEs.

He may not know that the National Research Council, through its IRAP program—and these are people in the field working with industry to try to bring ideas in order to commercialize manufacturing as quickly as possible—provided support to 838 clients for 1,319 projects worth $26.7 million.

He may not know that the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada has invested since 1993 $132.6 million.

He may not know that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council has invested since 1993 over $24 million.

He may not know as well about the $40 million partnership that Canada has with the province of Alberta that is going very, very well.

Are these the kinds of things that the hon. member shares with his constituents, with other Albertans and with other western Canadians? Perhaps he could enlighten us.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the hon. member for his comments, but I think he just proved the very point, the very message that Albertans are sending. We want government out of our lives. We do not want government giving this and handing out that and taxing us more and more so that it can spend our money for us. Leave the money in our pockets. We are entrepreneurial. We are creative. We can take care of it.

The 1960 socialist philosophy of “government will take care of everything” did not work anywhere. If it had the eastern bloc countries would be leading the parade in the world today. But they are not. They are collapsed and in decay because they had too damned much government.

Get the message. Get out of our hair. Let us run our province. We are proud Canadians. We want to be Canadians. The government should not tax the very incentive out of us and then hand it back through all of the programs that have been so kindly mentioned.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, time has a way of arranging things.

When the Bloc Quebecois formed the official opposition, its members were making the same comments that Reformers are now making. We said the same things in 1997.

Reformers are talking about overlap, duplication and federal intrusion in provincial jurisdictions. That is what the Bloc Quebecois was condemning, and continues to condemn.

The problem is that the federal government is making increasingly deeper cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, while intruding in areas of provincial jurisdiction such as health and education with the millennium scholarships. When the federal government intrudes in our jurisdictions, this adversely affects regional development.

The Bloc Quebecois has been condemning such intrusions since 1993. Could it be that Rodrigue Biron influenced the Reform Party during the united alternative convention? Is the Reform Party motion the result of the convention to establish a new united alternative party?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly Quebecers and Albertans have a lot in common. The one difference is that we have decided to try to change the system from within. That is the big difference. Quebecers have decided that they cannot do that and have taken another option.

I am saying to the government that it has to start listening to regional concerns. That is the purpose of the supply motion today, to give every province an opportunity to have its grassroots views expressed and recorded, and hopefully the government will respond.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

It is indeed a pleasure to take part in the debate today and to say a few words about a topic affecting not only the regions of the country but Canadians as a whole.

The opposition motion speaks about a government alienated from the various regions of the land. My contribution to the debate will be to offer a concrete example of federal presence in every province, a positive presence that is a force for economic growth, environmental sustainability and prosperity in all parts of the country.

I am talking about the Government of Canada's nationwide system of scientific research and technology development which represents a significant contribution to the success of Canadian agriculture. This network has a proud history of over 100 years. It has given Canada new crops and scientific advances that have transformed this nation and continue to contribute to our economic growth.

This includes Marquis wheat, canola, the Shepody potato and the new frontier of plant biotechnology, just to name a few. Marquis wheat transformed the Canadian west by giving Canadian farmers a variety suited to the harsh winters and short growing seasons of the Canadian prairies.

The impact of canola on Canadian farmers, particularly in the west, cannot be underestimated. It has made a tremendous contribution to the prairie farm economy by providing an alternative to King wheat. Not only has it provided an alternative, but this year, for the first time ever, it has outperformed wheat, as far as grains are concerned, in western Canada. That is the first time in history that has happened.

The Shepody potato is one of 23 potato varieties developed by federal scientists. It alone accounts for 15% of Canadian potato production and is ranked number two among varieties for french fry production. This variety and this particular research is the underpinning of the economy of my province of Prince Edward Island and also contributes greatly to the economies of the provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Alberta, as well as to the economies of many nations around the world to whom we sell our seed potatoes.

Canada's pioneering federal researchers have put Canada in the lead to develop new products and processes that will make Canadian agriculture more productive and environmentally suitable and sustainable.

These are some of the tangible benefits of federal agricultural research. The Government of Canada spends $350 million a year to conduct this research in all regions of the country for the benefit of all Canadians from coast to coast.

Agriculture and agri-food's 18 research centres have formed the backbone of Canadian agri-food research. There is at least one research centre in every province. These centres represent a system that is both national in scope and regional in focus. These centres also collaborate with their counterparts in the industry, academia and provincial governments to form a powerful research community with links across the country. Each federal centre has a specialized research focus reflecting the industry strengths of the region in which it is located.

Federal researchers and scientists have well earned international reputations for their skill and expertise which they use to help all Canadians regardless of region.

The livestock research in Lethbridge and Lacombe is helping producers in more than just Alberta. Biotechnology research in Saskatoon is helping create jobs well beyond Saskatchewan. Food research in Quebec and Ontario is creating opportunities for growth in every region of this country.

Research efforts and resources are meeting regional needs through the matching investment initiative as well. This is a program that brings government and industry together in joint research projects.

In 1998-99 the Government of Canada and its partners in industry collaborated on over 860 projects with a combined investment of more that $58 million. Investment through this initiative is projected to reach the level of $70 million by the year 2000.

Federal research in agriculture also focuses efforts in the vital area of sustainability. Work done by both the research branch and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Agency aims to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in areas such as integrated pest management, conservation tillage and animal waste treatment.

Federal research is also focusing on ways to use water and fertilizers more effectively. This means improved soil structure, better conservation of water and a reduction of so-called greenhouse gases that are behind global warming.

Federal agricultural research is helping to shape the future of agriculture. In many ways it is helping to ensure that there will be a future for agriculture. That is what makes the research done in federal research centres so important to Canadians whether they are farmers or consumers.

The agri-food industry is responsible for 9% of our gross domestic product and provides jobs for 1.8 million Canadians. These people are found in B.C., on the prairies, in central Canada, in the maritimes and in the north.

Our nationwide network of federal research centres and expertise is the foundation on which this essential industry is built.

The Government of Canada is indeed responding to the needs of Canadians in all regions. One of the ways we are doing it is through our investment in research and technology development.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech that was just given and I am somewhat puzzled.

In a province like Alberta the Liberals had very little support in the last election. All of these programs which the Liberals like to crow about really do not deliver that much support.

I recommend to the Liberal members that they listen to Canadians. I guess we are all guilty of this to a degree. I think it is human nature. We tend to see things, read things and interpret them based on our own experience and our own predisposition to what we believe is true. That is one of the foibles of human nature.

If the Liberal members really listened, they would find that people in western Canada, and this is probably true across the country, want fewer programs and less government interference in their lives. We want the government to give us freedom.

The government does not know how offended people in western Canada and in the prairie provinces are when there is a distant government in Ottawa with an Ontario majority. Ontarians are not subject to the rules of the wheat board act but the government imposes a wheat board on western farmers. It takes away their total freedom and forces them to sell their grain through that one agency when what they want is freedom.

When the government puts a referendum out with two options, neither of which is their first option and then claims that they have listened to the people, that is the stuff of which alienation is made.

I would like to hear the response of the member to that kind of thing, the programs and just not listening to the people.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I think we will recognize that question is a very peculiar one.

The member seems to imply that we should not be spending any money in Alberta because they did not support us electorally as much as he thinks they should have. As a national government we do not do these things for the support we may garner here or there, but for what is good for the whole country as a nation from coast to coast.

If the member is suggesting we should not do anything in Alberta because we only have two or three members there, then that is a very peculiar way to think about how a national government should be running the country. We are as concerned about the problems in Alberta as we are concerned about the problems in the north or in Newfoundland or in my own province of P.E.I.

That is the way a true national government looks at things. This is why the previous speaker from the Conservative Party was saying this party represents alienation itself. They grow fat on alienation. This is why we have this topic here. They should be looking at ways where we can share and co-operate and be partners as the Fathers of Confederation envisioned it many years ago.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just as a follow up, it is not that the Reformers feed on alienation. Wrong. Just stop to think. Had the Liberals and the Conservatives before them and the Liberals before them done a decent job for Quebec, had they done a decent job for western Canada, there would be no Bloc party, there would be no Reform Party.

How could we possibly have told the people to vote for us because we are going to do for them something they were already happy with? Why would they switch their allegiance? On the other hand, if we came up with something that they are not happy with, they would most certainly stay with the party that they had been supporting and would not support a new one.

The new party is not a cause of the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. As far as I am concerned, those members are missing the point.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the Liberal Party of Canada has been in existence since the beginning of this country and will still be here for many more decades, long after that party is but a figment of somebody's imagination.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate today on this very important topic. I want to emphasize a federal presence in one of our regions, that being the west.

Frankly, I am a little astounded at any insinuation that the federal government is alienating itself from the regions. It is really all quite silly on the part of the Reform Party but I suppose in that sense it is not surprising.

I wonder if my hon. colleague from the Reform Party who is proposing the motion has had an opportunity recently to look in the phone book. The presence of federal departments and agencies is quite astounding and remarkable. We are in all the places people would expect us to be, for example in the metropolitan centres like Winnipeg and Vancouver, but we are also as a federal government in communities like Bruno, Saskatchewan and Bonnyville, Alberta. All key federal departments have offices throughout western Canada.

It is much more than just that. Using our own department, Western Economic Diversification Canada as a primary example let me highlight how wide reaching this government's efforts are in this area.

First of all, with respect to western Canada business service network, I note that western diversification and its partners have over 100 points of service across western Canada serving urban and rural communities from Lac du Bonnet to the Queen Charlotte Islands. In that sense we are still growing and that is important to note. The headquarters are in Edmonton and there are offices, four of them actually, in Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, and satellite offices in Calgary and Regina.

Western diversification plays a unique role in helping the western economy to grow. That is its purpose. It works closely with the people of western Canada. This includes aboriginal peoples, youth, communities and industry leaders throughout that part of Canada.

We advance the interests of the west. We advocate on behalf of businesses in the west. Our government provides integrated services to small business in that area, for example, advice on financing options, help with business planning, exporting, and selling to government. All of these are important things and aspects to western Canadians.

We work with financial institutions to provide loans to new economy sectors. Western diversification contributes to loan loss reserves to lever small business loan capital. We also provide up to $57 million toward a lever for a total of $439 million in small business loan capital. This represents a leverage ratio of nearly 8:1 which is important to note.

The international trade personnel program and first jobs program match small businesses with recent graduates, all in the effort to help our young people. We provide small businesses with the cash flow to hire young people and provide young people with a first job opportunity. It is also important to note that since 1995 our government has provided over 900 jobs to young people in western Canada.

It is also important to highlight at this point the existence of four women's enterprise centres, one in each of the western provinces. There are five satellite offices. This meets the needs of women in business. It offers financing, counselling and advice. Over the course of time, 17,000 women have trained and 1,600 loans worth over $10 million in the last four years have been made evident. This supports and shows the difference we make to the lives of western Canadians.

There are also 90-plus community future development corporations across the west. Seven are aboriginal exclusive. This program provides focal points for the delivery of western diversification services outside the major cities covering all non-metropolitan areas in western Canada. I also want to point out that between 1995 and 1998, 8,100 loans worth $171 million and over 28,000 jobs were created as a result of this. That too underscores our commitment.

There also are four Canada business service centres, one in each of the western provinces, which provide one-stop shopping for business services. Thousands of entrepreneurs have made this their focal point of contact for business services each year. Expansion of services to rural areas are part of this with 97 regional access sites being established.

Over 1,000 volunteers are part of the western Canada business service network. This month in Jasper, Alberta western diversification is participating in the first ever pan-western conference which will bring together international and other partners in this area and volunteers. That too is important to note.

Let me turn now to the role of regional agencies in western Canada. Western diversification and its counterparts represent the interests of all regions in the west. Through regional partners they develop an in-depth understanding of the needs and requirements of their region. They deliver national and regional programs on behalf of the federal government. For example, it administers infrastructure works programs in western Canada and it partners with provinces and municipalities to upgrade transportation and local services.

We have noted over the past while $747 million in funding with over 5,300 projects and over 35,000 jobs. They are agents of economic development and job creation. All of this says that we are flexible, responsible and accessible in this very important region of Canada.

In the process, there is a focus on client needs and local people responding to local concerns. Our government has also shown the importance of responding to communities in need, for example the Manitoba flood. Total federal funding of $224 million in assistance was provided for flood relief and flood protection.

The response of western diversification was immediate and creative. Our government put teams of personnel on the road to search out affected small businesses and provide them with start-up money to resume their operations.

I would now like to talk a bit about aboriginal initiatives. As the federal government in this important region we provide integrated services to our aboriginal people. I should note that 63% of Canada's aboriginal population resides in the west. Last week our colleague, the Minister of Industry, announced a $21 million package to improve business development opportunities for aboriginal peoples with western diversification contributing one-third of that funding.

The aboriginal business development initiative is expected to result in 900 new businesses and 2,000 new jobs, and many of them will in fact be in western Canada.

I should also point out that an aboriginal business services network was built on existing infrastructure and will provide enhanced business services to aboriginal entrepreneurs. This initiative will also see increased access to capital for aboriginal businesses.

We have over the course of time made a $950,000 contribution to the Aboriginal Business Development Centre in Winnipeg to encourage entrepreneurship among urban aboriginal people. For example, $5 million recently was set aside to establish the Saskatchewan Indian Federation College, the only native controlled college in Canada.

I also want to point to technology and innovation in this very important region in Canada. First of all let me say that knowledge and innovation is a revolutionizing industry. Even traditional resource industries of the west have become high tech. We are marking a new era of scientific research and technological innovation in Canada as we move into the 21st century, and much of this is in fact taking place in the west.

I want to turn for a minute to the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Through the Canada Foundation for Innovation the federal government is modernizing research infrastructure at universities and research hospitals. Two weeks ago, for example, the foundation approved a $56 million contribution to the Canadian light source project at the University of Saskatchewan. It will become one of the largest scientific projects ever built in Canada. It will enable Canadian scientists to conduct world class research at home. It will enhance the reputation of Saskatoon and the country as a whole, I should point out. It will create an expected 500 jobs and millions of dollars in economic activity.

With respect to connecting Canadians, I want to point out that the government has made connecting Canadians one of its primary goals. The aim is to make Canada the most connected country in the year 2000. We are establishing public Internet sites in rural and remote communities across the west. We have connected 183 community access sites in Saskatchewan alone.

Finally I would point out the National Research Council and the industrial research assistance program, IRAP, need some discussion. Under the National Research Council we have $31 million in additional investment earmarked for the next three years. An extensive network of IRAP contributors and research institutes across the west is also in place.

All these things provide an overview of what we are doing in western Canada. They are important initiatives.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, during his speech the member mentioned that the government was responding to the needs of aboriginal peoples in the west. The fact is that the government completely ignored an enormous amount of input that came from aboriginal peoples with regard to the Native Land Management Act, to the point now that the bill has gone to the other place, the Senate, and the Senate has to amend it.

With credit at least to the member for Vancouver Quadra, he admitted there was a problem with the bill. In fact he publicly stated that it was badly flawed, but he failed to follow through at vote time.

How does the member think his constituents feel when their MP speaks out against something and then votes the opposite way in the House? No wonder there is alienation. It is not the least bit surprising.

The member also said it was silly to say that the Liberals did not understand what was happening in the west. I have to ask him why then set up a task force. Why did the Prime Minister do that?

In addition, it seems that basically all the government can do is talk about its western economic diversification program as if it somehow answers all of the frustrations in the west. What a pathetic and pitiful example that is. I doubt that western diversification appears in the top 500 concerns of people out west.

Where is the discussion about criminal refugee problems? Where is the discussion about the Young Offenders Act? Where is the discussion about the lumber quota problems out there?

Let us have some real substance instead of this nonsense about a diversification fund that might help some business somewhere. The businesses in my riding and out west would rather have tax relief and get rid of the western diversification fund.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to reply to the question in terms of what we as a government are doing in western Canada.

We talk about the variety of issues that hon. member raised. We do so on a continuing basis. It is important to engage the Canadian people wherever they may live in this great country of ours in the kind of debate that is necessary to provide good government.

We are very proud of economic diversification and what it does for people in the west. It is a very good foundation upon which to build. Businesses, aboriginal people, young people and all kinds of western Canadians benefit as a result.

I am very proud of what our government has accomplished in this area. I will repeat what I said at the outset. I find it quite silly that members of the Reform Party, in their usual extremist views and their usual attempt to alienate people and pit people against each other, would go to this extent. It is a kind of sad reflection on them in terms of how they think, but I guess it is the reality of where they are coming from.

I am more for our government being an inclusive government, as opposed to the Reformers who exclude people, who want to break people apart and who do those kinds of things to the detriment of Canada. I do not want any part of that and most Canadians do not either.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, there has been a massive withdrawal of federal presence in the north. The privatization of Navigation Canada has meant that where food has to be flown in it is now incredibly expensive. There is a withdrawal of flood watch warnings and the weather station. The air traffic control tower will completely leave Yukon.

On top of that we now have three territories in the north with roughly equivalent populations, but Yukon gets $200 million a year less in transfer payments than either of the other two territories.

It is a sense of almost not belonging because the federal presence has been so withdrawn from the north. I can understand the difference in the geography and wanting to compensate the other two territories so that they have the extra money, but I cannot justify a difference of $200 million. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I emphasize that the Government of Canada continues to want to provide and will continue to provide the kinds of services that are required for any of our regions no matter where they exist in Canada including, and especially in the north, Yukon and the other two territories.

It is fundamental that we as a federal government ensure that there is a federal presence to make sure that the quality of life for people, not only in the north but across this great country of ours, is sustained in a fashion that we have taken for granted over the years and is consistent with the values that we share and cherish as Canadians.

I know that the federal government will continue to do that in a manner that is meaningful for people wherever they may live.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, the motion before the House today reads:

That this House condemns the government for alienating itself from the regions of Canada by failing to identify and address the concerns and issues of those regions, and as a symbolic first step towards taking responsibility for all of the regions of Canada, the government should rename the Liberal committee on western alienation the “Liberal Alienation Committee”.

The depths to which western alienation goes are so deep that I do not really know where to begin or where to end. Let me start with the Liberal alienation committee.

I represent the constituency of Saskatoon—Humboldt in the province of Saskatchewan. The Liberal government did not even bother to appoint a single person from Saskatchewan to the Liberal alienation committee.

Worse than that, three of the ten members of the task force are senators. Ironically one of the biggest sources of western alienation is the unelected, unaccountable and unequal Senate. With these senators there, it makes me wonder exactly how the logistics will work. Will they fly a plane in from Mexico, pick them up with a bus and stop by the penitentiary on the way to the consultations? Exactly how will it work?

Sending senators to Saskatchewan to find out why we feel alienated is like sending Bill Clinton to consult with sexually harassed women. It does not make a lot of sense. They are the source of our alienation. They are the reason we feel resentment and we feel alienated.

The fact of the matter is that southern Ontario and southern Quebec have more members of parliament than all the rest of Canada combined. The modus operandi of those MPs is to pacify the rest of Canada with lip service. We do not have any meaningful representation either here or in the Senate. Policy after policy is passed contrary to the wishes and the interests of western Canadians.

If the Liberal government were interested in addressing the alienation, why did the Prime Minister appoint a senator from Alberta despite the fact that Alberta had already elected the senator it wanted to be appointed? That is a slap in the face.

Then he has the audacity to strike a committee to come out there to find out why we feel alienated. What kind of leadership is that? We know there will be another Senate vacancy because a current Saskatchewan senator has been convicted of an infamous crime and his removal from the Senate is imminent.

Since there is an upcoming election in Saskatchewan why does the Prime Minister not offer Saskatchewan the opportunity to elect its senator and appoint the democratically elected person? He will not though, will he? He is the prime minister in control of the direction of the country. Why does he not reform the Senate? We have been asking for that for years.

I could use many examples, but I will just pick a couple to illustrate the point. There is the language policy of the federal government. I accessed numbers from the public accounts of Canada which showed that last year the federal government spent a quarter of a billion dollars, $250 million, to fund the official languages program.

I find it absolutely incredible that it tries to justify this kind of expenditure while in Saskatchewan hospital waiting lists are growing, our nurses are not paid well and are on strike right now as I speak, ordinary Canadians are having trouble making ends meet, and our taxation levels are absolutely burdensome. The government does not have a problem throwing a quarter of a million dollars into a program that quite frankly alienates and irritates us.

I will give another example. There is currently an income crisis among farmers in Saskatchewan. In January, while the House was not sitting, the eight Reform members of parliament from Saskatchewan conducted an extensive series of town hall meetings throughout the entire province to hear from farmers, to hear their views. It was publicly announced and open to everybody including the agriculture minister, but where was he? He was on vacation in the sunny south.

I do not begrudge the minister taking a vacation once in a while, but did he have to do it at the exact time we were facing a crisis which falls within the purview of his responsibilities as minister of agriculture? Why was he not out there listening to the concerns of farmers? Nonetheless, I do not mind doing it. That is my job and I was pleased to be part of that process.

The eight Reform MPs from Saskatchewan put together a two page letter which outlined the concerns of farmers and suggested ways the agriculture minister could change the program to meet the needs of the farmers it was supposedly designed to help. That letter was written on February 4 and there was no response from the agriculture minister.

On February 22 I sent him another letter asking for a response, and there was no response. On March 29 I urgently appealed to him. I pointed out that spring was right around the corner, that farmers were in a crunch, and that more deficiencies in the program had revealed themselves since he has made it official and the forms were now available. The program is fraught with problems and difficulties. He responded yesterday, the day before we had the debate on western alienation. Is that not ironic?

The Liberal government wants to know why we feel alienated. We are consulting the people. As an elected representative I write letters to the minister. I come before the House of Commons to explain and debate the issues, and it falls on deaf ears. He would not even respond to my letter.

I will use another example, that of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. All the times last year we were before the House of Commons to debate reforms to the Canadian Wheat Board which we advocate must happen, we spoke on behalf of the farmers who elected us and sent us here. The minister for the Canadian Wheat Board was not here once to hear us. He was here when he spoke at the outset of consideration of the bill and then he was gone.

We were here talking to the walls and they wonder why we feel alienated. Every day we come before the House to explain the feelings of westerners. I am a westerner; I represent westerners. They ignore us and then strike a Liberal alienation committee to find out why westerners feel alienated.

The government will not table its schedule of where the Liberal alienation committee will be. It does not want the people to know where it will be because it will get flak.

I definitely speak for the vast majority of the residents of Saskatchewan. Perhaps it is not unanimous but it is close. Firearm registration, as everybody knows, will do nothing but target law-abiding owners of firearms. They look to me for leadership and ask me to do something.

I had a motion before the House in September to repeal the legislation and replace it with legislation that targets the illegal use of firearms. The Liberals voted against it. Last month I tabled a private member's bill that targets the criminal use of firearms, the 10-20 life law which will be debated Thursday evening in the House. What did the Liberal committee do? It was deemed non-votable.

I see my time is running short. That is unfortunate because I have many examples; I am barely getting started. In closing, I did not have an opportunity to speak to the last Liberal speaker. He mentioned the Canada Foundation for Innovation fund and the Synchrotron light source of Saskatoon. I would like him to know that when the former Liberal MP from that riding was defeated the next day she said that Saskatchewan would pay for not re-electing a Liberal MP.

Damage control went in and some Liberal strategists negated that. At a press conference last month when the decision was announced, her name and the name of another former Liberal MP from Saskatoon were mentioned. Talk about a political ploy. The Minister of Industry and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the only Liberal MP from Saskatchewan, were there.

If this is an arm's length fund that administers funds for basic research, which is good and which it should, what are the Liberal MPs and ministers doing there? They are making political hay out of it and westerners resent that. We do not need our votes bought. We want accountable government.

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

Madam Speaker, first I want to know whether my colleague believes that the decision taken by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, an independent organization which makes decisions based upon the evaluation of peers, the very best in the field, determining whether or not something should be supported, was a good decision for Saskatoon and a good decision for Canada.

My second point concerns the Official Languages Act. I have two questions in this regard. Does my colleague realize that when he quotes figures it provides translation services for our colleagues from Quebec who want to express themselves very often in their first language.

They want to speak their first language, French.

Does he realize as well that it involves services that we require in order to speak to people who do business with Canada from other countries? It is not simply money that is tossed away. Why is it that he and the Reform Party are so irritated by the French language? What is with them?

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, his first question was whether the decision of the CFI was a good decision. I assume that it must have been because I believe an independent arm's length body made the decision. Since this has been done and it is an independent arm's length decision, why do Liberal MPs have to be there to try to take the credit for it?

People in Saskatoon are not stupid. They saw right through that. It is insulting for them to have even been there. Why did they not send the officials from the CFI to make the announcement, as it should be?

On that topic I point out that basic scientific research funding is a reasonable role of government. It is something that private industry cannot do or is unwilling to do.

When government spends $500 million to fund special interest groups, the grants and giveaways to all its millennium projects and regional development funds that it hands out all the time, that is not a legitimate role of government. That is another source of western alienation: the size of government and the waste of money. More money could be spent on good projects like the Synchroton light source if the government did not mismanage its finances such as it does.

His second question with respect to the Official Languages Act asked whether I realized that some of the money was spent for translation purposes and doing business with other countries, et cetera. Of course I do and I think that is wonderful. We should go to whatever extent we can to accommodate members in the House whose first language is not English. That is not a problem, but does it have to cost $250 million a year? The hon. member knows full well that only a small fraction of that money is spent on legitimate government language services.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am not exactly the youngest member in the House. I have lived in my home province for a long time. I have never seen more of an irritant in my province, and I am sure in the other provinces, as the AIDA package that just came out.

I am keeping track of this and I will make a pronouncement right now that the agitation in the west is so great there will be more of these forms thrown in the wastepaper basket than will be returned to the government. It costs up to $500 for those who are not computer based to get the forms filled out.

In the experience of my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt, are his farmers as irritated as mine? I have only had two farmers admit that they filled out the forms. I wonder what will be the result in the province of Saskatchewan.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken to several accountants and accounting firms to find out how many farmers are actually filling out their forms. As near as I can tell it will be about 15%, and about 20% of them will actually qualify for assistance. Only a small fraction of farmers harmed by the failure of the Liberal government to address the trade deficiencies internationally by which all farmers are harmed will actually receive any compensation.

The end result of what my hon. colleague refers to is that western alienation will increase, and calls for Senate reform and for the heads of Liberal MPs will continue to increase.