Debates of April 13th, 1999

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period, on the debate on the alienation of all Canadians I was quoting what municipal leaders in Manitoba were saying about regional alienation and how their constituents perceived Ottawa. I will continue.

Reeve Maxine Plesiuk of the rural municipality of Ethelbert said:

We do feel alienated from Ottawa. Look at the distance. We are or appear to be out of reach of Ottawa. What made my blood boil was when I heard that the Liberal government task force on western alienation would meet with only Liberals by invitation. We sure were not contacted by them.

Mayor Gary Hopper from the town of The Pas:

You're never really part of the system if you're west of the Ontario border. The provinces do the same thing. They tend to alienate communities if they're located too far from Winnipeg. Distance doesn't help feeling you're a part of something. The solution is that the federal government needs to demonstrate a willingness to work with the provinces on all fronts. The feds can surely do something about levelling the playing field so that aboriginal businesses don't have the upper hand over non-aboriginal businesses. We need more free votes in the House of Commons so that local issues can be brought to the House for debate.

Mayor Bud Oliver from the city of Selkirk:

The perception, whether true or not, is that decisions are made in the best interest of the population base of the east, and not the west. People have not forgotten the CF-18 decision made by eastern politicians.

Mayor Bill Comaskey from the city of Thompson:

Alienation by Ottawa is evident by the frustration municipalities have in dealing with the federal bureaucracies. Case in point, Ottawa has broken off negotiations with Thompson in dealing with the transfer of the regional airport. The federal system has little credibility. Look at the GST promise, the Airbus scandal, the cancelling of the helicopter deal, the cancellation of the Pearson airport deal. The federal system needs fixing.

Mayor Reg Atkinson from the city of Brandon, which was one of the stops of the task force:

My solution for the federal government on the issue of alienation is that Ottawa needs to treat all parts of the country equally. We all know that discrimination causes only conflicts within our country.

Reeve Dwayne Lawless from the rural municipality of Rossburn:

Ottawa is far removed from here. They don't listen to our concerns. Case in point, with the reorganization and cutback of the local RCMP, why is it always that the locals are at the receiving end of the cutbacks? I'll bet that the RCMP in Ottawa isn't reduced. They should be cutting at the top, not the bottom where real policing needs to take place. We've lost control over government. They do as they want. Another case in point, the gun control Bill C-68. They keep pouring good money after bad. It would be better to put that money into the pockets of farmers who are about to go broke instead of into registering long guns, which will do nothing to reduce crime. People feel alienated from big government and are not happy.

I have received numerous calls on the farm aid package. These calls were very negative. These farmers, the likes of Richard Cleland and Ken Caldwell of Rossburn and John Puchailo of Gilbert Plains, are very disillusioned about the AIDA program. The method of calculation will ensure that very few, if any, farmers will receive assistance at all.

Farmers are smart businessmen. They write off most of their earnings into future business capital needs. Farmers are frustrated with the AIDA program. Farmers are being informed that it will cost them between $500 and $800 to get the applications filled out.

The task force of the Prime Minister started on the wrong foot. When the task force was first announced in Manitoba in January, the chairman, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, indicated to the Winnipeg press that the Liberal task force would not consider any recommendations for change to the Firearms Act. How ironic. On the one hand the task force was to listen to Manitobans and on the other hand the task force would not listen to any concerns about the gun control Bill C-68.

No one objects to consulting Canadians. It is the process we object to.

Governments at all levels are elected to serve all their constituents. We are all Canadians and want to be treated equally. Manitobans have said to me that Ottawa does not treat them in an equal manner. This of course creates the feeling of alienation. I believe the only solution is for Ottawa to start listening to all members of parliament in this House and to start treating all parts of this country equally irrespective of political parties. All Canadians deserve good government.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I heard something wrong from my hon. colleague but I will take the opportunity of asking him a question in a moment.

The gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister's task force on the four western provinces of which I am proud to be a member. Last week I visited Manitoba and I returned on the same airplane as this gentleman. I have been visiting the west for 45 years and I enjoy every part of it.

I understood the hon. member said that only Liberals were invited to appear before the task force. We had the chamber of commerce and municipal representatives. For example, in Brandon, Manitoba council members were present. I understand that the mayor was out of the city. I believe most of the members were there and I can assure everyone that they were not all Liberals. After we broke the session we had some conversations with these people and they were critical of our government. It was an opportunity to listen to people and to hear their concerns.

We met with the Women's Institute representing rural Canada. We met with economic development groups. We met with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We met with the Keystone Agriculture Producers organization of Manitoba. We met with these people and listened to them. They gave us ideas to bring back to share with our colleagues.

I ask the member, did he put on the record that the witnesses to our task force were only Liberals by invitation only?

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question.

I actually quoted the reeve from the rural municipality of Ethelbert. She said that she had heard about the Liberal task force.

I can certainly explain the real workings of what happened with the task force. My staff in my riding in Manitoba have followed the works of the task force since January. We called the office of the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia several times to get a schedule for the meetings and information on how one would access the meetings. We received requests from constituents in terms of how to access the hearings.

Unfortunately right up to the week previous we could not get a schedule of the meetings and no one seemed to know how to access them. It certainly was one of the best kept secrets of the task force. I would have appeared before the task force just to listen to the concerns of Manitobans. That is the reality of how the task force worked in Manitoba.

It is not that we do not support public consultation; we all do it. We need to do it, but it is how this Liberal government is doing it.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention to my hon. member colleague that these were public consultations. Members of parliament did not appear before us. We did not have any members on this side of the House or on that side of the House appear before us. It was not a political exercise.

As far as my colleague saying that he did not have access to our program and schedule, I was not in charge of that. I certainly would not want my colleague to say to Canadians that we were there only to listen to elected members. Yes, we listened to municipal people who are elected but we did not have any of the provincial people there.

It reminds me that just before the break, Tony Clement, the minister of transport for Ontario, came to one of the standing committees. The Reform Party brought the minister into the room and wanted him to appear as a witness.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the whole idea of this task force I believe was to consult the public. We cannot consult the public if we do not tell the public where we are going to be and do not give them the access.

I am not talking about asking members of parliament to go before the task force. The grassroots people are the ones. I spoke to probably 15 different mayors and reeves. I called them on the telephone and asked each one of them what they knew about the task force. Other than a few of the big city mayors, they did not know a thing about the task force.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Just before we go on to the next speaker and just so people understand, as long as there is someone on their feet representing a contraperspective to the debate and not from the same party, the other party will be recognized. It is just the way debate is.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to participate in the debate today and to move from western Canada which my colleague just spoke about to New Brunswick.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was attempting to ask a question and the debate was going back and forth.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is not a point of order.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is still good to get move to the east coast now and talk about New Brunswick.

I would like to share with the House a few comments on some of the trips I have made to New Brunswick and how people in the east end of the country are feeling just as frustrated with the Liberal government as they are in the west. Maybe the Liberals can get a little task force together to look into the alienation of Atlantic Canadians as well, because I am sure they would get some news from that.

It is spring. You and I, Mr. Speaker, have just come back here from Edmonton. The snow has gone there and we have fresh clean air. It is wonderful that spring has hit Canada. It would be terrific if spring and some fresh air were to move through the House of Commons. It would be just super. It is certainly time for spring in Ottawa.

We have to look at a new country. The next spring that this country sees will be in the new millennium. It would be terrific to do some spring house cleaning as well and see a new government in Ottawa so that we could bring about some real changes, serious changes that would make Canadians from coast to coast feel proud to be Canadian again. I was speaking with someone last week who does not feel proud to be Canadian any more. That hurts all of our hearts, regardless of what side of the House we are on.

I wanted to ask the people of New Brunswick for some of their feedback. I am a westerner. Although I spend time in Atlantic Canada from time to time, I do not understand everything about it and never pretended to. I thought the best way would be to go to source and talk to New Brunswickers.

I sent out a form to several people asking them to distribute it around New Brunswick. I put two comments on the form asking for responses:

1. Here's how one Liberal policy in Ottawa has severely affected me and my fellow New Brunswickers.

2. Here's how I would fix that Liberal policy.

People had an opportunity to send in real comments and say this is how Liberal policy has affected them in New Brunswick as a New Brunswicker. I have had several responses from people. It is amazing the feedback that came from them. I suggest the Liberals should listen to this also because they will find some incredible parallels to the task force on western alienation.

Number one was no surprise, taxes. People were concerned about taxes. They say taxes are grossly unfair, discriminatory and too high. That is no surprise, no matter what corner of the country they live in.

The Liberals promise job and wealth creation and they keep New Brunswick back from its potential. What a sad story it is to see people from across the country faxing MPs to say that taxes keep New Brunswick back from its potential. That is the saddest thing to me.

What federal taxes do New Brunswickers want reformed? Their biggest concern was about extending the tax deduction to single income families. We know this has been prevalent in the news lately, but we have seen a lot of people come forward like Kimberly Oliver who said:

I feel single income families are unfairly taxed. A stay at home parent cannot get a part time job because they lose it all at tax time at year end.

Here we are in mid-April. Everybody is working away on their taxes and they know the price that they are paying in the high taxation of the government. She continued:

Stay at home parents are ignored and put down for their services and unfairly taxed.

Here's how I would fix that Liberal policy.

A tax break for single income families and allow a dependant to earn more before penalties.

What a smart, practical idea that is. Somebody else, Innis McCready, wrote:

Taxes were too high for the average home owner and wage earner. As a parent, and now a grandparent, I am saddened to see young New Brunswick mothers (some of my relatives, friends and neighbours) being forced to leave to others the care of their preschool aged children to work outside the home in order to make ends meet, all because of the careless indifference of this government and its discriminatory tax laws.

How would this person change it? He said he would cut taxes to low income families and cut business taxes. What a great idea it would be to cut taxes; not just the way the federal finance minister talks about cutting taxes because he picks and chooses little areas here and there, but complete tax breaks across the country.

Lower payroll taxes. We have gone around and around in the House about that as well. The government might just bubble forth here and tell us how it has dropped the EI rate, but it forgets to tell us the part about raising CPP taxes so much. That must have been just an oversight. I am sure it was an accident on its part.

Allan MacMillan and Bernie Conway from New Brunswick have said we need to establish a flat tax. Bernie Conway wrote that he was:

—a second year law student at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton. I will be entering the workforce in the year 2000. The amount of money that I will be paying in taxes is very disconcerting. I have invested both time and money into my education in hopes to make a better life for myself, my family and Canada. Yet the governing party in Ottawa (and its predecessors) have seen fit to saddle me (and all Canadians) with a tax system that will make this very difficult.

These letters from frustrated people go on and on. They want to work. They want to pay taxes but not high discriminatory taxes so they are burdened to death.

Lower taxes on retired people and pensioners. I go back to the CPP issue again. Our plan is to rescue the Canadian pension plan from bankruptcy through guaranteeing full benefits to Canadian seniors and creating super individually vested RRSPs that will allow Canadians to secure their own retirement without being taxed to death, perhaps before their natural time.

Revenue Canada must treat custodial and non-custodial parents fairly. I have comments from people who say there is no justice in the tax system when it comes to child maintenance and access.

The HST should be dropped from second hand sales. We do not have to live with the HST in western Canada. Maybe the Liberal task force has not come up with that yet. On second hand sales Susan Baxter from St. George, New Brunswick, wrote:

We are overtaxed! We just bought a second hand camper trailer. We had to pay sales tax on this item even though it was used (15% tax). There's no limit to the taxing.

The potential is that after several sales and resales of this old camper trailer the government gets HST. Somebody sells it again and the government gets HST. That is scandalous.

The second issue that people were concerned about was health care and education funding. Eric Banks from Second Falls, New Brunswick, wrote:

The health care and education are in real trouble because of federal government cuts. Nurses are leaving our country for jobs that are not here...The education department has been cut year after year. They call it amalgamation.

What a nice word. I also heard the words partnerships and networking. They sound so glossy, but basically it is a knife in the back. The Liberals are cutting them but if they dress it up with a fancy name and it will be oh so painless. That is scandalous and the government should be ashamed of itself, especially when it announced in its budget all the wonderful billions of dollars going back into health care. It cut $20 billion and put $11.5 billion in. Then it tries to tell me, an English major, that this is good math. Even I can figure out that it does not make much sense.

The third major issue that New Brunswickers talked about was gun registration. The present plan will not work. We have raised the issue that the wonderful firearm centre that is doing such tremendous work is sending out firearm acquisition certificates with somebody else's picture on it. As good looking as you may be, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not want your picture on someone else's FAC. It would not be a good thing. Nor would your twin. I know he would be equally scandalized.

The fourth issue is about protecting the east coast fishery. What a devastation. We talked about the seal hunt today and how many cod seals are eating. Again, Eric Banks from Second Falls wrote:

The fisheries of the east coast is in a terrible mess and most of that problem is due to policies that destroy small fishing villages.

What he would do to fix that policy? He wrote:

The traditional fisherman should have a real say in laws and standards that affect their lives.

Would it not be a novel idea to have people in those industries being able to advise government?

The fifth issue is EI reform for seasonal workers. Many people in New Brunswick are seasonal workers. I have information from people there who said there was a problem with EI, and specifically the intensity rule, for people to be able to say that they work seasonally. Some of these industries are seasonal. There is no other way to cut it. They have seasonal employment.

In conclusion let me wrap up by saying that people in New Brunswick, the same as people in Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and all across the country, are saying “All right already, we are being taxed to death. Lay off. We do not mind paying taxes but just back off and quit asking us for more and more and more”.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's task force was very well received across Manitoba, always a warm reception by the wonderful people of western Canada.

We held public sessions in several ridings, in several centres across Manitoba. We started in Winnipeg and we went north. We were in several ridings. Actually we were in ridings that were represented by at least three parties in the House. We were not there to lobby one group or another. We were there to listen to Canadians.

I tell my colleague who just spoke that we are a party that represents all parts of Canada. We did not just target ridings held by one group of people. Is this not evident in the results in the Windsor—St. Clair byelection yesterday? We got more votes. I feel for some parties because they will not even get back their deposit.

Does this byelection result not reflect the fact the Reform Party is a very regional party that is just unable to break out of the confines of representing a few people?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the meetings were so well attended in Manitoba. In fact I have been talking about New Brunswick.

It seems to me those meetings were by invitation only. It seems as though we have to be members of a secret society to get in on some of these meetings that the Liberals are holding.

It would be really smart to put a general advertisement in the newspapers. If the Liberals are so concerned about finding out what westerners think, because he is back to the west now, surely to goodness they could make sure those meetings are well publicized and get everybody out to listen to their concerns.

When the hon. member talks about Liberals being the national party across the country, I might remind him of the seats that they lost in New Brunswick, to which I was just referring, and Nova Scotia. I must remember one of his friends, Doug Young, had some EI policies in New Brunswick. He knows exactly what happened to him, a very senior minister in cabinet who was gone after that.

Let us talk about the west because the hon. member seems obsessed with that. Let us talk about the seats that were lost in Manitoba by the Liberals. Let us look at Saskatchewan for just a minute. There is one lonely Liberal soul left from Saskatchewan. He has a wonderful tan today and he sits on the front bench, but irrelevant is irrelevant.

Let us move on to Alberta. Let us have a little look at Alberta for Liberals. They did not have a seat for a generation. They managed to squeak out four seats, probably purely by accident, in the 1993 election. Then we cut that in half to two seats, one of which I snapped away from a Liberal on June 2, 1997. It was a wonderful night in my life.

Let us look at B.C. if we are talking about a national party. There are precious few Liberals left. I dare the member and his Liberal friend from B.C. to put a public advertisement in the paper and invite people far and wide; not like the Minister of Justice, one of the two Liberals left in Alberta, who had a fundraising event recently and someone paid $800 to have supper with her.

What a steal, $800 to have supper with the justice minister. Guess who is not coming to dinner. It is the justice minister because she found out that one of the people who paid $800, one of the guests, was going to be the president of the National Firearms Association, a perfectly civil, polite fellow. Then Link Byfield was coming to supper too, the editor of the Alberta Report . What do we think happened? Guess who is not coming for supper. One of those Liberals. They paid $800 to have supper with her, but because she only wanted to have supper with Liberals, she would not have supper with them. If it is a truly national party and if it is proud of its stuff, it ought to have supper with anyone and brag about it.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the travelogue of the member from Edmonton North who, I guess, was obviously on some kind of a vacation in New Brunswick. I did not know Reformers actually travelled east of the Manitoba border except to come to this place. Obviously, they are out campaigning on their own, talking to New Brunswickers, doing what I am sure they are accusing us of doing, looking for candidates.

Maybe the member should have spent some time in the byelection in Windsor where this party did not even get its deposit back, where this party came fourth, where this party got a message from the voters in Ontario that some day it is going to wake up and understand that those voters have no time for the Reform Party.

I have been advised that I am splitting my time with my good friend from Vancouver Quadra.

What I find astounding is the fact that we are debating what could only be called one of the silliest motions that I have ever seen in this House.

Last night through until 8 o'clock this morning, members of all parties stood in the House and talked about the war. Like it or not, this country is involved in a serious conflict and all we get from the member opposite is her travelogue from New Brunswick. Members should instead be standing up in the House and talking about important issues such as the war. What do we get on an opposition day?

Last night in a question period, the members opposite berated the government for not having a vote. While the lives of our fighting men and women are at risk, they wanted to play politics. They wanted to have a vote. That is terrific. This is the vote. We are going to vote on whether or not we should join our partners in NATO. Once we have had that vote, then we will send the message over to Mr. Milosevic, who I am sure will be busy listening to C-SPAN to hear exactly what we are saying.

If they wanted a vote on any of those issues, why would they not take that opportunity today? It is their day. The Canadian people should know that this is opposition day. The Reform Party, as the official opposition, has the option of putting forward almost any motion it wants, save and except a spending bill, for debate in this place, and then at the end of the day we would vote on it.

Why would the Reform Party not stand up in this place and introduce a motion to have a vote, in whatever way it wanted to frame it, surrounding the issue of the war in Kosovo? Why would it not do that?

Today of all days, when we awake this morning to the news that the Yugoslav army has invaded Albania with ground troops, we are talking to a motion that says we should rename a government caucus task force, the liberation alienation committee, something about alienating the west.

Why would we not be debating the issues that Canadians have on their minds today? Canadians are worried about the men and women who are in Europe defending freedom and democracy, defending the refugees in that part of the world. Canadians are worried about the potential influx of thousands of refugees and how we are going to take care of them. They are calling all of our offices as MPs and opening up their hearts, wallets and homes to try to help these people, and the best the Reform Party can do is come up with some cockamamie motion about renaming a government task force.

I guess its nose is out of joint because the task force has found it necessary to go into the ridings represented by Reformers in western Canada and meet with people. We get phone calls from those people telling us their member of parliament has not told them about the details of the millennium fund, or their member of parliament has not told them about the details of the tax cuts in the recent budget. Why would the Reform Party not do that? I believe it is not doing its jobs.

I really do not care whether the members opposite agree with the millennium fund program. I really do not care whether or not they agree with the western diversification programs that are going on in western Canada. Whether they care or agree is not the point.

Once members of parliament are elected, they are obligated to represent everyone in their constituency whether or not they voted for them or carry the party card. They are not allowed to be partisan when it comes to representing the constituents in their communities. They are not allowed to display partisan material in their offices. There is a good reason for that.

When I was elected the member for Mississauga West, it was my duty and sworn responsibility to represent everyone whether they voted New Democrat or Tory. I know they certainly did not vote Bloc. A few in my riding voted Reform, although I do not believe they got their deposit back. This is a message that some of them should think about.

The battle cry of the Reform Party when it was formed some years ago was that the west wants in. Let me give some examples because the Reform members do not think that the west is in.

We have representatives doing terrific work and actually handling constituency complaints from ridings represented by Reformers because they are not doing their jobs. We have a dedicated, honest and hard-working woman in Vancouver Kingsway. Members will hear shortly from the member for Vancouver—Quadra. We have a former mayor of Coquitlam who is a terrific, hard-working member for his constituents. We have the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. We have the members for Winnipeg South, Winnipeg North—St. Paul and Provencher. The west wants in. How much more in would it like?

We have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who has stood up and made sure, for the first time, that somebody is doing something about the fish. Is that not a revolution? Is that not a reform? This motion is about the west, but the truth is that our fisheries in eastern Canada were destroyed by former Tory ministers. This minister is fighting for them as he is for the salmon in western Canada.

The Minister of Revenue has changed the collection agency to make it a responsive agency. The Minister of Multiculturalism and the Status of Women stood in this place and defended single parents and single stay at home moms. The Minister for Asia-Pacific is representing and fighting on behalf of human rights issues all around the world. The Minister of Justice recently introduced amendments to the Young Offenders Act that are being lauded across the country. The Minister of Natural Resources is a fighter on behalf of the changes in the Kyoto agreement. The Minister of External Affairs, who nobody can say anything negative about, is one of the greatest parliamentarians in this place. He is a man known around the world for leading the fight to ban land mines. The west is clearly in.

The Reform Party should be looking at the Minister of Western Economic Diversification who is trying to find a way to funnel energy and economic growth into western Canada. All of these ministers are at the table on behalf of the people in western Canada. The additional members are in caucus fighting every day on behalf of their constituents and are doing the job that members in the Reform Party fail to do for their constituents.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. The business of this House is to discuss the important issues of the day. Therefore, I ask my hon. Liberal colleague why it was the Reform Party that initiated the discussion on hepatitis C compensation? Why was it the Reform Party that initiated the discussion on child pornography and the Young Offenders Act? Why was it the Reform Party that initiated the discussion on tax relief when it did not come, despite election promises? Why was it the Reform Party that initiated the discussion on APEC and whether or not students were going to be able to have access to funding and what was going to happen with the suppression of freedom of speech?

I wonder why it is the Reform Party that is talking about those issues. I wonder why it is the Reform Party that is asking for a debate and a vote on whether or not we send troops into Kosovo.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was neglectful in not mentioning the member for Saint Boniface who is also the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification.

It is interesting that the member would talk about all these issues. I will agree with him on something. The Reform Party has stood up and mentioned many of those issues in the House, but generally it was the afternoon after it came out in the Globe and Mail or the National Post , which is where it does its research. It was not because it was on any kind of cutting edge or that it was being proactive.

The Reform Party members are reading the newspaper over morning coffee and saying, “Look at this, APEC. We had better talk about this. Holy smokes, there is a scandal. We had better talk about this”. That is where they get their research.

If they would spend more time taking care of their constituents and giving them the information that comes out of this government in western Canada, just maybe there would not be a need for a task force to travel across the west.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member first stood he said that this was a silly motion. I guess if it is such a silly motion it makes the member pretty silly for joining in.

If the member would not mind standing and feeling silly once again, I would ask him to explain how anything he said in his speech, anything at all, had the slightest bit of relevance to the alienation of the Liberals in the west or anywhere else in the country because of their ignoring of the concerns across the country.

For the member's interest, I would like him to know that a Mark Trend poll taken in B.C. and Alberta in mid-March found that the tax relief he puffed up as being something important that the Liberals were all calling him about, did not even receive favour with a fraction of a percentage of the people. The persons responding to the poll said that the average amount of tax relief they would like to see would be $2,600 a year not the measly few hundred the government granted.

He talked about the Young Offenders Act being lauded across the country. It is being criticized across the country as tinkering around the edges as usual, nothing worthwhile and certainly nothing worth having.

He thinks, as many of the hon. members on that side have said all day, that throwing money at the west or anywhere else through diversification funds somehow responds to the concerns. What a lot of bunkum. The importance of the western diversification fund does not even appear as a blip on the radar screen in western Canada.

I would like the hon. member to get up, be silly again and tell us what relevance his speech had to the whole debate.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not expect the hon. member to understand anything that I have said. I would not expect him to agree with it by any means, but I would tell the hon. member that as the Prime Minister's chair of the task force on youth entrepreneurship, which I have not seen him criticizing, I have travelled western and eastern Canada. I have met with representatives of western diversification. I have met with the service delivery people. I have met with the young entrepreneurs in western Canada.

To hear this member stand hear and say that the western diversification fund is not important to western Canada simply reinforces my view that the members of his party have neither their feet on the ground nor their ears to it. They are not representing their constituents in ensuring that they have access to government plans and government information. The reason why the Prime Minister has seen the need to strike a task force of parliamentarians who will travel through western Canada listening to the needs and concerns of western Canadians is because the Reform Party is not doing that.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also was puzzled by the choice of the topic of today's debate, but I am puzzled with all political parties at a certain time.

Two weeks ago we might have debated all night the Kosovo intervention but another party chose to debate something else on domestic politics. I do not criticize that. Then all parties decided to adjourn a day early and we had the debate two weeks later. The committees which are all-party committees, defence and foreign affairs themselves did not have any initiatives from government or opposition members to come back earlier than a week ago. The House sometimes chooses its business in ways that may seem strange to outside people but we do get our work done.

I assume that spring has arrived early in the west and that explains perhaps the tone, perhaps the thrust of the present debate. I hope you will allow me in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, simply to send a message to that well-known western raconteur and wit, Malcolm Parry, based on information he derived from the political chattering class.

Every party has its political chattering class. They hang around party headquarters. They do not get out in the trenches like the hon. members opposite or those around me.

Let me put the record straight. I do not intend to quit parliament. I am not about to be named roving ambassador for the Balkans. I am not about to be elected to the college of cardinals. I am not even the next general manager of the Vancouver Canucks. I might wish such a fate upon some of the hon. members opposite, that is to say the Vancouver Canucks. But we are all optimistic in the west. We may find another Pavel Bure and we may somehow win the golden chalice again.

Some comments have been made and I am always complimented when I find members opposite listen to my speeches or in some cases read my householders, my letters to constituents. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is a very promising younger member of this House. In fact, Professor Sandra Anderson, who is an environmental specialist and I believe the wife of someone close to the present members of the House, has regarded him as one of her most promising, if unpredictable, students. He has made some comments on the issue of APEC funding. I would think that this would perhaps direct attention to the special role of western members. I include my colleagues opposite in this.

We are interested in getting results. We do not have to take the essay in imagination that a New Brunswick scholar has made in today's Globe and Mail on the transformation of the parliamentary system, nevertheless getting results in parliament is a matter of hard work. We have to research a file; we have to meet the parties concerned. If we make propositions, we have to quantify their social cost, their financial cost and we have to lobby people, ministers, our own caucus and others.

I feel very happy that after 15 months I was able to produce a result in the APEC funding issue that I felt to be the correct one and which I had recommended in the first place. I am glad to have hon. members opposite join me in that. I take the comment of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in that light.

I would also say to the hon. member for North Vancouver who has given me the benefit of his advice, and it has been valuable in many ways on certain matters involving native leaseholds and other things, that I have given about 150 hours of time since early December to the issue he discussed today, Bill C-49. I do not have the exact transcripts of his remarks, but I believe there is progress being made there.

There were issues in which I felt the legislation could be tidied up. I have been proceeding by quiet diplomacy, meeting with lawyers, meeting with the parties, the stakeholders and meeting with ministry officials. I am hopeful that a resolution which I would think would be satisfactory in terms of the constitution, the charter and the interests of the conflicting stakeholders will be reached.

In other words, I think it is an opportunity for correcting this simplistic view of parliament that our main work is making speeches and that it is sometimes good to make charges to the opposite side of the House and back, Don Quixote style.

Most of our work, and this applies to people in government and opposition, is hard slugging work. It is research. Sometimes I think I am doing a half million dollar private lawyer's work for an MP's salary. I think that is true of all members of the House.

Some remarks have been made on the west. I would have to cavil with my colleagues on that. I understand the west is a large concept but I have argued since I was first elected in 1993 that B.C. is separate and distinct in itself. We are a fifth region, which is not to say we cannot coexist peacefully with the three prairie provinces and that we cannot co-operate as we are doing, as is obvious in the task force that has been referred to. But we are a distinct society and the Prime Minister recognized this in the joint resolution of both houses of parliament.

It has implications of course, concretely. For example, if we ever get around to reform of federal institutions and an elected Senate, I want a fifth of the seats in the elected Senate for British Columbia. I think the hon. member for North Vancouver would not disagree with me on that. I want to see proportional representation in federal institutions.

Since we contribute 13% of the national revenue from B.C. and five or six years ago got only 7% of federal funding for sciences and research and development, I am delighted to say that it has gone up. When it gets beyond 13% I think we will ask for 20% as a region.

In these areas the west has its own distinctness, but within it, I would argue B.C. has a distinctness more so even than Quebec has in relation to Canada as a whole. The miracle in our case is that we made the transition to a multicultural society without too much pain, with a great deal of optimism and goodwill, to the point where the ethnic communities are no longer a monolithic block, if they ever were one such block of people.

They are plural also. They have differences of opinions, differences of attitudes and anybody would have to be wary to take the vote for granted. For example on the issue of the intervention in Kosovo, different ethnic communities within my community of Vancouver take different positions and ask me to explain why I might take one position or the other. That is good and healthy.

In a way our charm in B.C. sometimes is an embarrassment to the rest of the country, but not to us. We produce interesting political leaders. I have sometimes had to rescue my province from its activities in giving counsel in various places, promoting peaceful transitions from impossible situations, from impossible political leaders, but I value the interesting variety and heterogeneity of our political personalities.

Our role is a little like that of the 19th century MP in Great Britain or perhaps the continental European politician today. One of my constituents said to me “We vote for you. You are part of your party but we do not like you to be 100% for your party. We like you to dissent sufficiently when we feel our interests our involved”. There is an art in doing that. You recognize the gain you have from an affiliation with the party. You also have made the pledge when you accept membership that you in general will abide by its principles and its program but the dissent within the party, the argumentation, the presentation of a reasoned case, the diversity of treatment, is there and opportunities are available.

When we do our job well, this is when we really do establish the western personality and in particular, if I may say again, the B.C. personality. There is nothing like it even in New Zealand, Australia, or anywhere else. We are distinct and we are very proud of it.

The pluralism within a party is something we have to ask for more and more in a period when presidential prime ministerships are the rule of the day. A French friend said we have a monarchical president. I said that sometimes it is an imperial president. Nevertheless the countervailing power in our society with an unreformed Senate and various other things is coming within the parties. That is where the give and take is. That is where the legislation is made and it is a healthy development. I think it has lessons for this side of the House and for the other side of the House.

I take it that it is in this spirit, the spirit of spring which came early to Vancouver as it always does, that this motion was put forward by the opposition. I accept it in that spirit.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a very civil speech, although I am not sure how much relevance it actually had to the motion. A couple of interesting points came up in the speech. I do appreciate the member mentioning how he supports proportional representation.

I wonder if he has done the numbers, as I have. He certainly would have discovered that Reform would come out with 60 seats, but the Liberals would drop dramatically and would no longer be the majority government that they are today. I thank the hon. member for that endorsement of a process which would certainly be more representative of how people vote in the country. The situation that gives 100% of the power with 38% of the vote to that side of the House is really not healthy for the country.

I gave him credit earlier today and I do again for actually speaking out publicly from time to time, contrary to the will of his party, and representing his constituents. He is to be congratulated for that.

I wonder if he would mind speaking to the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, who did promise to speak out regularly and correct all the ills of the world, who never has said a word in this place and thinks that everything is fine with the land management bill. I wonder if the member would mind having a little chat with him and setting him straight.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we can enroll the member for North Vancouver in the process of parliamentary reform. It will be more complex I think than many members envisaged in 1993 when first elected.

The presidentialization of the prime minister's power in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada is a phenomenon of our times. It cannot be reversed, but we can develop countervailing checks and balances, constitutional checks and balances, much as they were developed in Westminster in the 18th century, but they are more likely to be within the political parties themselves. I wish the hon. member would direct his very fertile mind and imagination to that task because he may have a good deal to offer us.

On reform of the electoral system, each electoral system begets its own practices and we could live with PR. I could myself. I have a feeling in some ways that it would be a more interesting House. Again, it would change the constitutional system and we would have to make corresponding changes in other institutions. I could suggest them, but it is a large test and we would be into a decade of work.

As for the business, the give and take between colleagues, the give and take across the House, it is one of the things I value. This is a continent widely divided. This country is the distance from Moscow to Vladivostok. One of the experiences on that long, five and a half hour flight twice a week from Vancouver to Ottawa and Ottawa to Vancouver, is that I meet with constituents and I meet with the opposition parties. There are more than two parties in B.C. federally. I have conversations. I believe there is a process of give and take and it is beneficial.

I think it was in that spirit, if I may say so, that it was suggested I was not speaking to the motion. But if the motion was whimsical, not perhaps serious, I put it down to the spring and the arrival of the daffodils. It was in that spirit that I attempted to offer a prairie rose to the hon. member for North Vancouver.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member mention during his speech that if and when his government gets around to it, he would like to see some democratic reform, especially with regard to the Senate having better representation of what is existent in B.C. population in the Senate. His government has been in power now for over six years and we have not seen any movement on democratic reform. There have been provinces, for instance Alberta, which have made an effort to try to change the Senate.

I would like to ask the hon. member a simple question. Will the government get around to democratic reform maybe before the end of the next millennium or some time sooner? When may that happen?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to establish our priorities by considering the ways and means that are available. Unfortunately, Senate reform is virtually impossible, except marginally because of Part V of the 1982 Constitution Act, which I advised against incidentally. The only way we are going to change the Senate, other than marginally, is with a constituent assembly.

I have the feeling that the generation of Canadians coming into political power very shortly will want to have a constituent assembly and will want an act of constitutionalization. But I would advise the hon. member that I think he could use his talents and energy in other areas of constitutional reform where we do not have that constitutional straightjacket that Part V of the Constitution imposes. It is a pity.

My friend Rafe Mair and I agree that we would like to be United States senators. There is no more beautiful job than that. But it is just unforeseeable for another 10 years here. Give us a constituent assembly and all will spill. But the country has to be ready for it and it is not quite ready yet.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues today in a discussion of the important issue of national alienation, in particulary that of Quebec.

I am not a Quebecer myself, but I wish to point out that I respect and admire Quebecers. I have learned French, and continue to do so, because I wish to acquire a better understanding of Quebecers and of the francophone culture.

I asked for the national unity portfolio in our caucus in order to be able to help ensure that Quebec remains within Canada, by giving Quebec and the other provinces true equal powers and not mere symbols.

I want Quebec to stay within Canada, and I am prepared to fight the Liberal style federalism of the status quo, which continues to alienate Quebec and the other Canadian provinces.

Consequently, although not, of course, a Quebecer, I hope I am in a position to understand the feelings of alienation felt by the citizens of Canada living in that province.

The Liberal government understands that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction protected by the Constitution. It also understands that when it encroaches on areas of provincial jurisdiction protected by the Constitution, Quebeckers become increasingly frustrated, and the feelings of alienation intensify.

Yet, the Liberals' instinct to meddle in everything is so strong and their condescending, paternalistic, interventionist, big brother attitude is so pronounced that they continue to get involved in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, in spite of the resulting damage to Canadian unity. The millennium fund is a prime example.

This fund is nothing but another inefficient and costly Liberal policy. For our friends from Quebec, it is a constant reminder that the current government refuses to recognize the division of powers provided under the Constitution.

Bloc Quebecois members, like Reformers, are just as interested in education as the Prime Minister is. They simply want the federal government to respect provincial jurisdiction, and they also know that provincial governments are in a better position to administer the programs than the federal government, which is far away.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not care about national unity or constitutional issues. He is only interested in leaving his mark.

Instead, he will join the long list of federalist politicians who are advocates of the status quo and who turn a deaf ear when Quebeckers are urging the current government not to get involved in provincial jurisdictions.

Before concluding, I want to ask the House to remember the debates on Bill C-36, dealing with the millennium fund.

All Quebecers should remember that the Reform Party put forward a recommendation that the provinces and territories be allowed to opt out and to conclude agreements with the millennium foundation, to use their share of the funds based on their own priorities for post-secondary education.

Our party has always recognized Quebec's right to determine how its education needs should be met.

I would like to shift to the topic of health care and the social union. The social union is about health, education and support for people in need.

When federal transfers to the provinces were cut by $7 billion, when hospitals were closing and when 1,400 doctors left Canada in the last two years, we needed to address health care in the social union. But this government's solution was to play a money game and pit provincial premiers all across the country against Quebec. It was a shame because that in itself created even more alienation in the province of Quebec.

There was a real effort, for once, from the point when the Calgary declaration began, all the way through the talks on the social union, when we saw that provincial premiers were making progress in trying to come together and work together to put pressure on the federal government to address problems in the balance of powers in the country.

However, the government and the Prime Minister did not take that seriously. Instead they played the money game. They cut money out of transfers, especially to health care and education, and they left the provinces with really no choice. When it came to the crunch, they had to put that money back into health care and education. In the end they had to buy into a deal that was just not fair to the provinces, creating even more alienation in the province of Quebec when all of the other premiers had to take the cash. They had no choice because they had people to take care of in their provinces.

Unfortunately Quebec once again felt that it was left out of the process because there just was not a solution to take care of the balance, which we in the Reform Party have been trying to meet right across the country.

That is the success of this government. That is why it has been relegated to a majority in central Canada. It continues to succeed by pitting one part of this country against another. Then it asks the question: Why is there alienation in this country? It really is no surprise.

Another issue I would like to touch on very quickly is that of taxation. My hon. colleague from Edmonton North talked about the issue of taxation in the east.

In Quebec people are concerned about the high level of taxes they pay. I discussed with people from the Economic Institute of Montreal, a new think tank, the issues of high taxes and what they do to the economy of Quebec. They are a lone voice trying to talk to the federal government.

When we take into consideration the tax factor of the federal government and the provincial government, Quebecers unfortunately pay some of the highest taxes in the country, if not in North America.

That is another factor which the government has failed to address. At the end of the day, regardless of where we live, we want to make sure we can put food on the table. We want to make sure we can provide for our families. The tax rates are so high that even Quebecers feel alienated that no one is listening to them at all when it comes to that particular problem.

Canada has a national unity problem because Quebecers and other Canadians feel profoundly alienated, and this problem will not go away until honest discussion and real reforms replace the present empty rhetoric and divisive symbolism.

The Reform Party and most Canadians seem to understand that. In our opinion, the debate on national unity must be open to scrutiny and to public support, and the dialogue must be real.

This is why, as Reform critic for intergovernmental affairs, I am proud to defend the Reform Party's new law on Canada, a positive and creative measure to rebuild a Canada based on equality among people and provinces.

The distribution of powers must be reviewed to put an end to Canadians' feeling of alienation.

In our opinion Quebec and the other provinces must have the same real powers. This will bring out regional diversity. What is needed is a new distribution of powers giving all provinces greater autonomy in areas constitutionally under their jurisdiction.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the CHST cuts continues to come back. I remind the member that the cuts which the federal government made to its own fiscal expenditures were more than the cuts it made to the provinces. There was a sharing of the burden. There was a lesser percentage of revenue.

The member probably knows, and would probably like to confirm, that at a time when he admits the provinces were cutting health care and education because of the transfer cuts, was not the province of Alberta running surpluses and still cutting health care? Was not the province of Ontario actually giving 15% income tax cuts while cutting health care?

The cost to the province of Ontario of the tax reduction was in the order of $1.2 billion. The reduction in transfers from the federal government was in the neighbourhood of $400 million. There was a significant difference.

If the actions of the provincial governments were taken into account at the same time they were cutting health care and education, it would be very clear that the priorities of the provinces were not the same as the priorities of the federal government and the people of Canada. The priorities of the provinces were to either accumulate surpluses or grant tax cuts.

The member also should acknowledge that in any analysis like this he cannot ignore the reality of equalization payments in Canada, of which Quebec is the single largest recipient.