Debates of April 13th, 1999

Supply

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the hon. member's question briefly. As he knows, I was discussing alienation in Quebec, not in Alberta or Ontario.

However, with regard to the cuts in transfers from the federal government, the hon. member has to realize that there were targets and plans which the provinces had put into place for the money that was to come from the federal government. The fact is that in Alberta, if we look at the way it managed health care, it made the sacrifices it had to make. However, alongside the cuts made by this government, it actually has more money to put into health care, plus, something which is totally foreign to this government, it actually paid down debt, giving more tax relief to Albertans, which overall is a much more positive move than this government will ever commit to.

In the province of Ontario the same thing happened. Harris actually put more money into health care over the time it was cut by the government but still balanced his priorities of debt reduction and tax relief; again something which is foreign to this government.

With regard to Quebec, the question of alienation was even more significant when it came to the cuts. Then, to come back, especially with the case of the millennium scholarship fund, and force Quebec to implement a program that it was not in favour of after the cuts were made by this government was outrageous.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the last speaker from the Reform Party and I heard some conciliatory words from him regarding the good province of Quebec. That is pleasing to my ears because all parliamentarians should always reach out to every part of the country.

I am sure the member remembers those embarrassing election ads in the election campaign of 1997 when the Reform Party actually said that it did not want any more prime ministers from the province of Quebec. That is what those ads said. Does the member remain embarrassed by those election ads almost three years hence?

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed for the hon. member's question and how he has twisted the whole direction of those ads.

I spend a lot of time travelling in the province of Quebec and talking with people. The actual message I hear from many Quebecers is that it would be nice to have representation in the highest office from somewhere else in the country, maybe from the west, to get a different balance of ideas.

When people in Quebec are agreeing with the message of those ads and wanting representation from across the country, I think the hon. member is completely out to lunch.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Health; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Markham, The Economy.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a meeting of the House leaders and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Industry be authorized to travel to St. Hubert, Quebec on Monday, April 26, 1999 for the purpose of visiting the Canadian Space Agency, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion presented by the deputy government House leader. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Supply

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition has tried to address an issue, the idea of alienation, which the government does not seem able to bring before the House of Commons. The government is willing to strike committees to recruit candidates across the rest of the country, but is it willing to discuss the issue and generate debate on it in the House of Commons? No. Unfortunately that job is up to the opposition just like it was on a number of other issues.

I feel lonely in the House as many Liberals have poured out the door. I wonder if it is to go and talk with constituents in Newfoundland. Why do Newfoundland and Labrador feel alienated from the government? Since 1949 Newfoundland has been part of Canada and since 1949 the Government of Canada has mismanaged the fishery of Newfoundland.

In Alberta we have had many scuffles with the federal government over the control of natural resources. Predominantly oil and gas are the ones that come to my mind. Nonetheless we have still been able to have those fights because Alberta has some jurisdiction over those issues.

In the case of Newfoundland, because we do not have an implementation of the Law of the Sea, foreign draggers and vessels pillage the ocean depths and destroy the fishery in Newfoundland. Newfoundlanders rely on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and it does not allow the numbers to be accessed by the public. It is a secret organization that deprives fishermen of the numbers they need to sustain the fisheries in Newfoundland.

While the federal government is continuing to do this, and it must therefore accept responsibility, foreign vessels are fishing off the coast of Newfoundland, the Grand Banks and the surrounding areas. These foreign nations have quotas and are taking tens of thousands of fish. They are depriving Newfoundlanders of their jobs. The government says that it does not understand alienation and that it represents Newfoundland. That is a crying shame. It is a joke.

What does the government do? It goes ahead and tries to buy votes. It tries to hold it over people's heads. Instead of allowing the government and the people of Newfoundland to decide what happens with their fishery, the federal government lords it over them. It says that if they do not vote for the Liberals they can expect to get even worse. It threatens people. It is a shame that this is even carried over to the provincial government.

To obtain a licence in a province, whether it be for a restaurant or a liquor establishment, people basically have to beg forgiveness from provincial Liberals so that their small mom and pop operation are not shut down because they do not agree with the government in power.

Shame on the government that it does not have control over the fisheries. A number of governments over a period time have talked about the idea of Newfoundland having control over the fisheries and the resources of that province. The fisheries are not the only resource.

I will talk about some of the other resources over which the people Newfoundland and Labrador do not have control. As a result they continually have that held over their heads by this government which demands votes from them in order not to be taken advantage of any more than they are now.

Offshore oil could be a great boon for the province of Newfoundland. Once again the federal government went ahead and said that it was not within the jurisdiction of the province. I will talk later about what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did to that province in some of his early discussions with regard to jurisdictional issues.

There is also the issues of natural gas and hydro electricity which should fall under the purview of the province. Instead, because of federal intermingling on these issues, the government stripped the ability of Newfoundland to provide, to look after and to control its resources. As a result the fishery collapsed in 1992.

It is sad that when there is no control there is little or no hope. People lose hope if they cannot be expected to have an actual say and a direct impact on resources that are close to them, and if the federal government goes ahead and lords it over them, takes control of those things and does not let them run things as they should be run in order to make sure the resources are sustainable. That is exactly what has happened.

What does the federal government do? Rather than solve the problem so that 5, 10 or 20 years from now young people will not be leaving Newfoundland and seeking work elsewhere, it comes up with programs like NCARP and TAGS and keeps people beholden to those programs. It doles out its pennies and nickels. It keeps the people dependent and does not allow them local control over their resources. Shame on the government for depriving the people of Newfoundland of hope, control and opportunity.

We are talking about the whole issue of natural resources. What about the Churchill Falls travesty? The federal government could have had and should have had a responsibility to get involved in that situation. Once again it did not take Newfoundland's side. It did not step in when it was supposed to do so. As a result, Newfoundland loses $600 million in annual revenues. If that were divided by every person in Newfoundland it would be some sort of an economic benefit, but the federal government did not take any responsibility for that.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau refused to cede any jurisdiction to the province in offshore oil, claiming that it fell under the federal government's power to regulate the territorial waters of the country. As a result Newfoundland has been suffering and the fishery stocks collapsed in 1992.

Let us look at some other islands that have been able to succeed with regard to their fisheries. Iceland, for example, had a crisis with its fishery and foreign fishing. It was able to come back because it had control of its resource. It was able to make the decisions. The government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not even had the support of the federal government to go ahead and turf out any of the foreign fishers.

It is a crying shame that there are ships fishing offshore when the people of the Newfoundland cannot earn a living from something that had sustained them for hundreds of years. It is a crying shame that the people of Newfoundland have to put up with a federal government that alienates them in that way. It is ridiculous.

The feds have mismanaged the largest resource in the province. They had better take responsibility for the fallout when it comes, unless it is willing to give that responsibility back to the province. That is what the people of Newfoundland have been asking for and that is what they deserve.

Newfoundland recently had its 50th anniversary of joining Confederation. Some would say it was treated with some ambiguity. That is a shame. It is because of the alienation that province feels with regard to its control of natural resources and how the federal government has run roughshod over it.

Newfoundland and Labrador have a seal population to the tune of six million to eight million. According to DFO statistics each seal gobbles up 1.4 tonnes of fish per year. That alone accounts for two years of fishing on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. They should be allowed to go ahead and look after the seals. They are not even allowed to make their own decisions in that regard.

I have talked about Churchill Falls. I could talk about Inco and the Voisey's Bay dispute. I could talk about the Innu land claims or virtually any other dispute where the federal government does not directly benefit. It shoved Newfoundland and Labrador out of the picture and did not allow them to make local decisions on these issues. They are hurting.

If the government wants to see a solving of the problem and fewer young people leaving the province, it has to look at the long term and not just at the next election. That is where the federal government has failed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I leave it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to decide. If they want more of the same, they can continue to vote for the Liberals who have alienated them and have not allowed them local control. They should vote for change.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am really worried about the massive withdrawal of federal presence in the north. I do not see it so much as an alienation but as sort of an abdication.

The head of the military in the area made a statement about how vulnerable we were in terms of our sovereignty in that space of land. We do not have the kind of protection in the north that we used to have. I thought of it earlier more in terms of people backing up a big tanker and hauling water away. We would never know it. In fact the military officer said that we could not even detect that by radar.

With the developments in Kosovo I am really concerned about how safe we are, considering Canada's proximity to where the danger lies and how short a distance it is over the pole. I would appreciate the member's comments on that.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this issue touches on the idea of the abdication of responsibility and sovereignty. The hon. member is referring to the north. My speech was directly related to Newfoundland and Labrador. As far as I can talk about abdication of responsibility and sovereignty, I will try to address that question.

Where the territory does not have a responsibility how can it possibly have any control or say over what is being done? If the federal government takes responsibility and sovereignty away from a province or territory, or does not grant it in the first place, it has no local control. We have seen that in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In terms of the abdication of responsibility in Newfoundland and Labrador, I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would like to see more local control. They are willing to take with that control sovereignty and responsibility for those resources. They certainly have not been managed well over the last 50 years by the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, alienation is certainly the word of the day and the password of the Reform Party.

We are in this Chamber talking about this foolishness of the motion that was put forward today. The Prime Minister even urged the Reform Party to put forward a motion on Kosovo today if that is what it wanted, but instead we are debating alienation. It is what members of the Reform Party know. So often they seem to look at the dark and dismal side of life, rather than what most Canadians enjoy.

Alienation is the only thing that the Reform Party knows. How else could one explain the blatantly anti-Quebec ads that party ran in the last federal election.

I think back to the time of the referendum in Quebec. People phoned my office and I talked to people on the streets, people who voted for the PC party, people who voted for the NDP, people who voted however they voted and they were all concerned about keeping this country together, but this party understands alienation.

The Reform leader has admitted that the Reform Party in its present form cannot form government because it alienates too many Canadians. Perhaps the best name for the new party would be the Reform alienation party. Now it appears that the Reform leader has managed to alienate at least 12 of his own members. Having run out of normal Canadians to anger and alienate he has turned to his own caucus.

I have a serious question to ask the member from cow town, which is a great town. I love Calgary. It is one of the finest parts of Canada, located in the foothills. I love all parts of this country. I have travelled it for the last 50 years. I drove it for 40 years before I came to this Chamber and I respect all of its parts.

My question for the member is: Do they not share the desire to represent the issues of all Canadians? This is a party that wants to alienate and be a regional party. I am proud to be a member of a party which represents all Canadians.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I felt some love in the Chamber when the member rose to say that he wanted to be tolerant and inclusive, but then he went ahead and accused me of being from cow town.

Let me tell him a bit about alienation, as the hon. member raised the issue. I will change subjects for a second and talk about tax and spend Liberal policies.

Let us talk about Transport Canada controlling the St. John's Port Corporation. Oceanex, a company that does 84% of its business in that particular vicinity, said “Don't go ahead and put money into a new building, put it into a port facility; put it into the actual structure so that we can do a better job with what we have”. But, no, indeed, a Liberal appointed hack, Sean Hanrahan, went ahead, tore down the old building and put up a new one.

There are only 18 employees. The building has 10,000 square feet, leaving each employee with an office bigger than that of the premier of Newfoundland. The premier has to be jealous. Deep down in his bones I know that the premier of Newfoundland is jealous.

Why did they build a new building? One could say that maybe St. John's has almost no vacant building space. As a matter of fact, the vacancy rate is higher than 20%. Yet we have a Liberal appointee who went ahead and took all that money to build a new structure to give everybody in that particular corporation an office bigger than the premier's.

That is alienation. That is Liberal tax and spend policies.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate. As the chairman of the Prime Minister's task force on the four western provinces I must admit that I rise to speak today with mixed emotions. On the one hand I welcome the extra publicity that this debate will give our efforts to consult with Canadians across the prairies and in British Columbia. I did not expect this kind of a gift from the Reform Party of Canada.

On the other hand, I cannot imagine a more frivolous use of parliament's time. At a time when our nation is engaged in the most assertive military operation since the end of the Korean war the members of the Reform Party come forward with a motion that can only be described as silly. I strongly believe that Canadians do not appreciate silly stunts and that perhaps explains the Reform Party's dismal performance in yesterday's byelection in Windsor—St. Clair.

Simply put, the Reform motion claims that this government has not addressed regional concerns and calls upon the government to rename the task force which I am honoured to chair.

This motion, however, speaks to much more than renaming a task force; it speaks to a fundamental difference between the Liberal vision of this country and the Reform Party's vision.

The Liberal vision is of one Canada, stretching from sea to sea to sea, with all Canadians confidently working together to build the greatest country on earth.

The Reform vision is one of petty regionalism, a vision in which one region competes with another for attention, a vision in which the politics of division are more important than the politics of unity.

We, as Liberals, seek out the common threads that strengthen our nation, not the device of shards that would tear us apart. We recognize that as the national governing party we have a responsibility to all Canadians, regardless of where they live.

I suspect that the timing of this motion has something to do with the fact that the Prime Minister's task force on the four western provinces recently spent a very rewarding Easter break consulting and meeting with many Manitobans.

As I mentioned yesterday, the response to the task force was indeed overwhelming. In just three days task force members met with over 60 individuals and organizations from across my home province. Manitobans shared with us not only their concerns, but also their dreams for tomorrow. So popular were the meetings that we found it necessary to break into two teams to cover as much ground as possible.

The response we had throughout Manitoba and the number of requests we had for meetings in other western provinces proves one thing: western Canadians reject Reform's parochial regionalism.

Canadians in the four western provinces, in fact Canadians right across this great land, want a national government, not a bunch of regional ones. They want a national government that reaches out to all Canadians, regardless of where they live.

It is interesting to note that whenever the regional parties, be it the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, realize that they are becoming increasingly irrelevant to most Canadians, they try to play the regional card. That is what we are witnessing today.

The Reform Party is sitting still in the polls. In fact, in yesterday's byelection, as I pointed out earlier, Reform placed fourth overall, behind the third place Tories. Combined, those two parties received a paltry 4,000 votes, compared to nearly 14,000 for the winning Liberal candidate. So much for the so-called united alternative. Rather than uniting it is splitting apart.

The Prime Minister's task force is being well received across western Canada. I can only conclude that the Reform Party feels so threatened that once again it is trying to divide Canadians into “them and us”.

The Prime Minister's task force on the four western provinces was established to meet with and listen to western Canadians. It is a mandate to build on the work of the government's western MPs and senators by simply providing western Canadians with another opportunity, one of many, to shape the national decision making process.

Despite what the Reform Party wants us to believe, there is actually really nothing new in the government's approach. It is simply the time honoured practice of consulting, talking to people, listening to people and hearing their concerns. There is no hidden agenda. There is no radical departure from what this government has done in the past.

While we were meeting with Manitobans a similar caucus task force was meeting with and listening to Quebecers. Another caucus task force was meeting with and listening to young entrepreneurs from across the country. In fact we heard from the chairman of that task force about an hour or two ago in the Chamber.

Since 1993, the year that we came to power, the government has established no less than nine such caucus task forces to meet with Canadians on issues as diverse as the impact of information technology on Canada and the future of our aging population.

The Liberal government has made a regular habit of consulting with Canadians from every region of the country and it will continue to do so.

Why have we made it a habit to consult with Canadians? Simply put, it is because the Prime Minister understands that we cannot run a country as large as this and as diverse as this from behind a desk here on Parliament Hill. We have to get out and meet with the people. We have to understand their concerns. We have to understand their dreams.

The Reform Party simply does not understand that government has to consult with the governed. That is why we are government and they are the opposition. That is why they are wasting parliament's time today with this silly motion.

The government's record shows the influence that Liberal parliamentarians from across the west have in setting government priorities. Every week western voices speak for the west in our national caucus meetings. Western Canadians told us that we had to restore faith and credibility in the nation's finances. The government listened and acted. We introduced the first balanced budget in 30 years, reduced taxes by $16.5 billion in our last two budgets and began paying down the national debt.

Western Canadians told us that we had to do something to ensure better access to education and improve the health care system. Again we listened and we acted. The government introduced the millennium scholarship program and increased health care spending by $11.5 billion. My province of Manitoba will receive $425 million in increased health care funding. When the farm income crisis erupted on the prairies we listened to western farmers and we acted. We introduced a $900 million farm aid package.

Are these the actions of a government that is indifferent to regional concerns? I do not think so. As someone who was born and raised in western Canada, as someone who has lived and worked most of his life in western Canada and as someone who represents over 77,000 western Canadians in this place, I can assure members of the Reform Party that western Canadians are not interested in playing regional games. They want a responsible national government that will help them create opportunities for the future.

Western Canada is a vibrant and exciting place. The region has experienced strong economic and population growth. The people have confidence in themselves and in their future. They are comfortable with their regional identities, but consider themselves Canadians first. The sooner the Reform Party recognizes this, the sooner the Reform Party will stop wasting parliament's time with silly motions.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of arrogant things said in the House, but I think that speech really takes the cake.

We are seeing more Liberal arrogance, from the top down, suggesting that a motion brought forward by 60 MPs who represent western Canada is somehow wrong because it does not show their silly alienation committee in a good light. We are very sorry, but the fact is that if that member wanted to know how western Canadians feel he would listen to the debates in the House. Sixty Reform MPs were elected to tell the Liberal government exactly how the people in the west feel.

I think the hon. member from Winnipeg should give his head a shake and simply look across the way. We have told the government over and over again that we oppose its tax and spend policies. We have told the government that we oppose its mandatory gun registration, which will do absolutely nothing to stop crime. The hon. member knows that we are very upset about the wheat board issue in the west.

Over and over again we bring these issues to the attention of this government and its solution is to take a committee across the west to ask if there is anything wrong. He should know that they lost eight seats in the last election because they would not listen.

After all that has gone on before, why on earth does he think that sending a travelling road show around the west will somehow fix the problem?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just love the rhetoric. Let me tell the member for Medicine Hat something.

Last Friday we in the task force went to Brandon, Manitoba. I will tell him about a couple of witnesses we heard from.

There was one gentleman by the name of Bob Friesen from the town of Wawanesa, Manitoba. I grew up 19 miles from Wawanesa. Who is Mr. Friesen? He happens to be the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the largest farm organization in the country. I can say that Mr. Friesen appreciated the opportunity to spend more than an hour with us talking about farm issues, very relevant agricultural issues. And he did not raise one word of concern about the Canadian Wheat Board.

Who else did we meet at lunch in Brandon? A gentleman by the name of Don Dewar. He is from the community of Dauphin, Manitoba and he is hardly a Liberal. As far as I know I have never seen him walk in Liberal corridors. Who is Mr. Dewar? He is the president of KAP, Keystone Agricultural Producers, the largest farm organization in the province of Manitoba. Does the hon. member think that he did not appreciate meeting with the Prime Minister's task force? You bet your britches he did. He appreciated every minute.

That is what these meetings are about. That is what consultations are about. This is what we mean by going out and meeting people directly.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member has indicated that his own task force is not important enough for us to discuss in the House, I will ask him two quick questions.

First, will he give a commitment that tomorrow his government will introduce the motion he wants to debate along with a full vote on the Kosovo situation?

Second, will he table in the House right now the schedule for the upcoming meetings of his task force if he is truly serious about consultation instead of releasing it a week after the meetings have happened?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely flattered that this gentleman from North Vancouver really thinks I can table a motion which would have to be properly tabled by the Prime Minister of Canada. I am quite sure that when the appropriate motion has to be tabled, the Prime Minister will do that job very adequately.

Let me tell the hon. member for North Vancouver that all of the task force will be going to the beautiful province of British Columbia, a province where I lived for three wonderful years. We will be there during the break week in the month of May.

We are still taking requests. We are still taking submissions from people who want to appear before the task force. When we get the schedule all together, I will be more than happy to share the schedule and itinerary with the hon. member for North Vancouver. Let me say that if the hon. member for North Vancouver does not have an opportunity to make an oral presentation to the task force, I would be delighted to receive a letter from him. I am sure that he can write.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite offers a hope that there will be some reason in my remarks today. I am afraid I may be a little less crisp than I like to be in the House as I have just gotten off a plane from Geneva. It is a bit of a shock. I am feeling a little bit of culture shock right now as I have been away from Canada for the last three weeks, and to drop back into the middle of this debate is a bit jarring.

Before I address the substance of the motion put forward, I would like to say one thing. I had the opportunity over the past three weeks to travel to China. I am in China frequently these days. I followed that up with some time in Delhi and in Geneva. In Geneva I had the opportunity to spend some time with the people who are working on the human rights commission.

One does not have to get very far out of this country to realize what an absolutely incredible country this is and what a privilege it is to be a Canadian and how we are admired all around the world by almost every other country. People in every other country want to be here.

We show leadership. I was absolutely astounded in Geneva to note that a little country like Canada provides almost 10% of the resolutions that are debated in Geneva in a community of 123 to 190 countries.

We hear about disunity and division in our country but Canadians outside the country are doing an incredible job on behalf of all of us. We all benefit from it enormously.

I think about the sense of the regional divisions. In Geneva there are young francophones from Quebec working very hard and energetically. They are very proud of their country and are very proud to be representing Canada in the very important work they do.

There are western entrepreneurs in and out of China all the time working hard to build relationships and expand trade. I was pleased to note that there are New Brunswickers and Nova Scotians in China trying to forge some new pathways. I even heard talk of some port building. I believe there is some accommodation for the post-Panamax ships which will carry large quantities of containers into the Pacific Rim.

They are Canadians from all over the country who are working hard. They are building upon the goodwill all of us have built for all of us to enjoy.

I was a little surprised to note the kind of querulous tone in the House today. If the concern is that the government is not sensitive to the regions, one would think that with a task force going into western Canada and one going into Quebec people would be celebrating and saying that it is wonderful we are doing that.

Perhaps some of the concern about it comes from something my friend from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia is a little too modest to talk about, which is the tremendous success of the task force. He mentioned that the task force he chairs will be going to B.C. in May. The B.C. caucus has been touring the province. We all do that. The Manitoba caucus holds meetings right around the province every three to four months. It hears submissions from people, as members do in their ridings every day.

That information comes back and forms part of the information that builds the kind of consensus which allows the government to do the work it does. The government has done some pretty remarkable things over the last five or six years.

[An hon. member]

I wouldn't brag about it.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

The member says he would not brag about it but I do. I brag about it quite often and without any hesitation whatsoever.

There is a desire in the kind of heated atmosphere which is created in this chamber to solve every problem immediately. I used to enjoy debating some of my colleagues in the Reform Party by quoting a poster a friend of mine has in his office. It reads “For every complex problem there is a simple answer and it's wrong”. That is my feeling when the Reform Party raises the kind of debate it does in this House, quick, glib, easy criticisms to complex problems.

I admire our Prime Minister. If you think about it, politics is one of the few businesses where we tend to devalue experience. What we are reminded of every day is that we have a leader who understands the country better than any other person in this House and who has served the country longer than almost everybody else in this House.

When confronted with an issue he knows when to act and when to watch. He knows how to listen very carefully, not in a flashy way, not with a lot of bells and whistles, but very carefully step by step, issue by issue. He has gone about the work with the full support of this caucus in continuing to build upon the foundation that makes this the best country in the world.

When I was first elected in 1993 I recall that we had a very serious economic problem. We now have a surplus. That did not come about easily. It did not come about quickly. It did not come about magically. A lot of hard decisions were taken one by one, sticking to our guns and carefully keeping our eye on the target budget after budget. Even when we got into a surplus, we continued to exercise restraint and continued to be careful.

Look at the question of lack of co-operation with the provinces. Again, there was no national referendum. There was no big task force running around. We sat down and went issue by issue. When we needed to look at a national child benefit we sat down and negotiated a way that we could do that in co-operation with the provinces and the provinces signed on. We needed to look at the issue of training. We sat down an negotiated a series of agreements. Co-operation improves services to everybody.

I believe this was the crowning achievement. I worked in social services for a great many years. The social union framework represents to me the first time in as long as I have been working that we put aside all of the bickering and wrangling about jurisdiction and created an environment within which we could sit down, discuss, negotiate and come to an agreement on how we together can provide better services for the people in this country.

That basically is what Canada is. Canada is a partnership. It is a partnership of regions. It is a partnership of people. Partnership works extremely well.

Our government is able to do that because of the kind of work that is done by the member from Charleswood. Members in Quebec are doing this as well. The member from Mississauga is doing the one on youth entrepreneurship. We have had them on small business and on gas pricing. Members are constantly talking to Canadians, listening to what they have to say and trying to incorporate those ideas in all of the other opinions which they receive from all over the country. They bring that to caucus every week.

The Prime Minister sits in caucus every week to listen to us. He insists that people be there. He insists that it be an important forum for us to debate and discuss. Every single week we hear in that forum members saying what they are hearing in their regions over and over again.

I am a little saddened. I have to make some comments to my friends to the Bloc as well as my friends in the Reform. When I meet with my friends in the Bloc and with people in Quebec, I meet with people who are very interested in providing services and enhancing the quality of life for people living in their province. They are energetic, smart, interested and not afraid of the challenges in this world.

In western Canada we see the same thing. The picture brought into this House by the Reform Party is not the western Canada I know. Two of the wealthiest governments in the country exist in western Canada. The front page of the Globe and Mail showed my province of Manitoba as having the lowest unemployment rate in the country.

We are doing very well. We are doing very well in western Canada right now. We are doing it because people have found a way to put aside the bickering and the battling. They are focusing on making this an even better country.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech given by my colleague, with whom I worked on the human resources development and transport committees.

Although his vision of Canada is a bit heavy on sweetness and light, I would still like to ask him a question to do with the fact that the disparities between the various regions of Canada have not in any way been eliminated, not since I have been an MP in any event.

One thing that could be said is that the disparities have grown more pronounced under the present Liberal government, one reason being EI reform.

If the Liberal government's attitude towards Canada's regions and the various provinces were truly open-minded—and I am not talking about the second part of the Reform Party's motion referring to a committee, as this part of the motion concerns me less than the first part, which says that the federal government has trouble identifying and addressing the regions' problems—would it not, when introducing the EI reform, have ensured rapid adjustment mechanisms? I am thinking of such notorious problems as the intensity rule, which penalizes seasonal workers.

Could it not have come up with a regional economic diversification policy so that the gas pipeline project would have had to go through the maritimes and eastern Quebec and play an important economic development role, rather than leaving things up to the market? The gas is now going directly through Nova Scotia to the United States and we are left with the short end of the stick again and prevented from enjoying the benefits of this development tool.

If the Liberal government were truly interested in the regions, it would not have replied, as the Minister of Natural Resources did to me, that it was up to the market, that other factors could not be taken into account.

Does this sound like a central government sensitive to needs and concerns, that would allow the regions to develop equitably, which would avoid the present disparities?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member pointed out that we worked together. He, the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and I served on the committee that looked at reforms in employment insurance.

Travelling with them, meeting and knowing these members, gave me some very important and valuable insights into Quebec. I have talked about some of the strengths and energy that I see in Quebec. These things encourage me and excite me. They make me feel positive about what is happening in Quebec. It is through knowing members who contributed forcefully and effectively to that committee that I feel that way.

Two things went on at that time. I remind the member that took place in 1994-95 when we were at the height of battling the deficit. We were in the midst of trying to get government spending under control. There were some very definite changes in the benefit levels. Also a philosophical change took place which talked about active rather than passive measures and doing things to help people gain employment rather than simply sit in unemployment. I think we have seen some of that.

Contrary to advice that was offered by members of other parties about what the unemployment rate would be doing by the turn of the century, we have seen the unemployment rate come down rather substantially over the last few years.

It is not nearly enough. I share the concern of the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. My friend from New Brunswick has been on his feet many times raising the concern about seasonal workers and the unemployed in rural areas of eastern Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

These issues should be brought to the floor of the House. Frankly I would sooner be standing here debating that issue today than spending time digging around in the entrails of this supposed alienation.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by indicating that I am going to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I am pleased to take part in this debate on the motion of the hon. member for North Vancouver, whom I met this summer, and who spoke to me of his region. Speaking as the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development, on first examination the first part of the motion by the hon. member for North Vancouver strikes me as worthwhile, in that the Bloc Quebecois can share his point of view about the feelings, the perception we have concerning the Liberal government's neglect of the regions.

Of course, with regard to the Liberal committee on alienation, I shall leave that part for his comments. Mine I shall reserve for regional development.

There are three Liberal secretaries of state responsible for regional development agencies, as they used to be called. Now they are Economic Development Canada. In the case of Quebec, the changed occurred last year, not for the sake of regional development but to give the Liberal Party better visibility, as it insisted on adding the word Canada all over the place. Now the trend is not to refer to regional development but to Economic Development Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

If the government were serious in its efforts on behalf of the regions, it would be putting more money in if for no other reason than to offset inflation and so on. When we look at the figures, we can see this is not the case for these three agencies. I will not provide details for each of the programs, but in the case of the agency for Quebec, the current budget is reduced by some $27,636,000.

In the case of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, this year there is a $40 million cut, since last year it was $320 million and this year it is $290 million. For the west—and here I must express my agreement with the Reform member—the budget for western Canada economic diversification, which was $313,626,000 has been reduced this year to $195,055,000, a difference of $118,571,000. That means a significant reduction in this year's budget. That is the budget for the three agencies.

In the case of the west, a look at the changes in per capita income since 1961 according to Statistics Canada data, reveals that the Liberal government is not entirely mistaken, if we use the per capita income criterion. I am looking at the figures between 1961 and 1986. If we compare the west to Ontario, it went from 84% per capita to 98%. By the west we mean the three central provinces and British Columbia. In 1996, per capita income was within 2%, and now most observers say that all the western provinces have caught up with Ontario in economic terms.

What about the Atlantic provinces? In 1961, their per capita income was 49% of Ontario's and since then it has risen slightly to 69%. Per capita income in Quebec, which was 76% of Ontario's in 1961 had increased to 82% of it by 1996.

Now, if we look at the figures for the agencies I mentioned earlier, we see that, between 1994 and 2001—since we are already dealing with the 2000-2001 budget—per capita federal spending on regional development in the maritimes is $1,074.40. In western Canada, per capital spending is $285.30. Quebec, like Ontario—which was at 82% in 1996—still has a lot of catching up to do, since our province is only getting $325.20 per capita, or three times less than the maritime provinces.

I can understand the concerns and representations of western Canada. However, based on these two figures provided by Statistics Canada and on the official budget figures, we can see that Quebec and the maritimes are even worse off than western Canada. In our opinion, Quebec still has a shortfall of $749 per capita, compared to the maritimes. The federal government is treating us even worse than the maritimes.

Let us now look at the situation inside the province. Is the money properly distributed in Quebec by the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency? We have figures from last year, since this data is released three months after the money is spent. We can see that, in Liberal ridings, investments totalled $41,546,973, or an average of $1.5 million per riding. In the case of ridings represented by Bloc Quebecois members, the average amount is $1.38 million.

I could go on and on, but time is quickly running out. Earlier, I heard the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec say that he did not want to indulge in petty politics, something he charged the opposition parties with doing. He wanted to take the high road. I therefore asked him whether he could assure us that he was not using the regional development budget to make political hay.

When I look at the numbers for some ridings, it makes me wonder. The riding in Quebec that receives the most money is Westmount—Ville-Marie, the riding represented by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Westmount is in downtown Montreal. Questions are in order. The riding that gets the most federal regional development dollars is smack in the middle of Montreal, in Westmount, the richest area in Quebec.

There is more. In the two minutes I have left, I would like to mention that I asked the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec why, if he was going to talk about partnership, he was not trying to reach agreement with the provincial governments, Quebec in particular, which has a federal-provincial agreement. It has been ages since that was renegotiated.

I asked him why he was not undertaking to respect the strategic plans of regional development councils in Quebec. Why does he not do so? More locally, why does the Secretary of State for Quebec regional development obstinately refuse access to the boards of the CFDCs, these corporations that loan money to small businesses, to members of local development centres, which are structures on which all Quebec stakeholders, including the municipalities, are represented, and all other sectors. He refuses to do so.

Instead he is looking for a parallel policy in order to ensure visibility, for example by making arrangements to provide local chambers of commerce with computers so they can provide the federal programs with information, instead of seeking to join forces with structures that really represent the population.

A government that wants to reach agreement so as to forge partnerships ought to respect provincial policies first of all, second regional council policies, and third the agreements of citizens at the local level, who have joined forces with the local development centres in order to carry out projects.

Instead, the federal government is after visibility and wants to develop technology projects with no concern for strategic plans.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member opposite's references to the CFDCs.

There is one thing he neglected to mention. These were created with the key companies in Abitibi—Témiscamingue in 1983 and put in place by the government in 1984. Quebec turns up 15 years later with the CLDs. Are there volunteers?

Quebec Minister of Agriculture Rémi Trudel described the CFDCs a number of years ago as “he finest forum in the regions for concerted efforts; it comes from the federal government”.

Today, I have a question and this is what I want to ask the hon. member: After 15 years of efforts by the CFDCs using federal funding and the money of Quebeckers, this is the finest forum for concerted efforts and yet the member speaks of duplication. They are the ones who want to duplicate. Quebec wants to duplicate what the federal government is doing.

The member referred to the CLDs, which have just been created. They have virtually no funds, while the CFDCs are well established throughout the province of Quebec, Abitibi in particular.

I ask the member whether all this has to be done away with?