Debates of April 13th, 1999

Supply

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to today's supply motion. My point is to qualify clearly that the Liberals have lost complete track of the electoral populace and that constituents have lost faith in them.

Yesterday we heard the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia state that task force members met with over 60 individuals and organizations across Manitoba. I congratulate those individuals for even being able to find the elusive Liberal task force. Nobody even knows what its schedule is.

If the committee actually listens to western Canadians its ears will be burning. However I doubt that the Liberal caucus will learn much of substance from this task force for the Liberal disposition for not being able to face the truth will likely reign supreme.

I am certain many people from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia are very pleased to learn that the Liberal alienation committee plans to come to their province. I know numerous people in my home province of British Columbia who would love to meet with this task force and explain the facts of life in Canadian politics to them.

I challenge them to release its schedule and ensure that all members of the public are welcome to explain why they feel abandoned, taxed to death and sick over the current state of the health care system among many other things.

For the first 31 years of my life I lived in southern Ontario. I recently spent a good deal of time particularly in southwest Ontario. In this Liberal dominated province one would think that constituents would be pleased to be a part of the government majority. Family, friends, acquaintances and even perfect strangers have been telling me about their very strong concerns about how the government operates.

I would like to offer the top 10 concerns the people of Ontario have given to me about the Liberal government. These are not my words but what they would like conveyed in the House today.

Tenth, the Liberals have little or no grassroots involvement. The concept of actually having a bottom up form of government and ensuring that the people, the voters, the electorate, the ones who sent them here, actually have a say in what is going on is unheard of in the Liberal government. The concept is lost in the House.

Ninth, the Liberals are not accountable for their actions. As often as questions are raised on issues of the day, the Liberal government refuses to be accountable for its actions. A classic case in point is the hepatitis C debacle. Clearly the Liberal government erred in only including some of the hepatitis C victims in its compensation package. It was an obvious error and many of its backbenchers felt so. Yet the Liberals refused to account for and correct their past mistakes.

Eighth, the Liberal government is arrogant. The Liberal government knows no bounds. The decision making process in the House of Commons is an insult to democracy. The Liberal government has limited debate in one form or another 50 times since it was first elected in 1993. No other government in Canada's history has reached this number so quickly. I find that absolutely appalling.

Seventh, the Liberals run roughshod with aboriginal affairs. The people of Ontario are dismayed with the callous way the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development deals with people, native and non-native alike, in Ontario.

The people of Chatham—Kent were recently outraged when the Liberal government initiated a new reserve in their area. The outrage was not aimed at the need for settlement of aboriginal claims but was aimed at the Liberals for not working with the local residents. The residents wanted to be assured that the planned reserve would be compatible with current land uses and that an environmental impact assessment was completed.

In 1995 Dudley George was shot and killed at Ipperwash. The dispute around Ipperwash Provincial Park has been ongoing for some time now, yet the Liberal government insists that it knows what is best. The people of Ontario are still waiting for answers from the government for actions taken at Ipperwash four years ago.

Sixth, the Liberals have poor ethics. In the 1993 Liberal red book the Liberals stated that they would appoint an independent ethics counsellor who would report directly to parliament.

Here we are in 1999 and guess what? The ethics commissioner has been appointed by the Prime Minister but he reports only to the Prime Minister. This in itself creates a conflict since the current debate over ethics concerns the Prime Minister's shenanigans in Shawinigan. The office of the ethics commissioner only works when it is viewed as being unbiased by all. This is not the case today.

Fifth, the Liberals disregard the auditor general. Only in Canada could the office and authority of the auditor general be so blatantly ignored. At this time the auditor general has not signed off on the past two budgets of this government. The accounting method for balancing the federal budget has been called into question. New accounting methods have been invented. Other recommendations by the auditor general's office are blatantly ignored.

Although the auditor general recommended more intensive efforts of consulting with parliament be made with regards to federal-provincial equalization payments, no such efforts have ever been made.

Fourth, the Liberals are not trusted. For many people of Ontario the level of trust for the Liberal government is at an all time low. While the bank accounts of the average Canadian decreases, the finance department dips into the EI surplus in order to help balance the budget.

The conclusion drawn by Ontarians is that just prior to the next federal election being called, all sorts of election goodies are going to be carted out. The people of Ontario are not blind to this action. This sort of chicanery is obvious and will be remembered by the electorate when they have their say at the next general election.

Third, the Liberals gag their backbenchers. Pavlov would be proud with the lever of control that the Prime Minister has over the Liberal backbenchers. The Liberal backbenchers are not allowed to speak out on behalf of their own constituents. It was sad to watch as Liberal members in an obvious conflict with their conscience, were not given the opportunity to vote as their constituents would have mandated on motions such as hepatitis C, child pornography and assorted private member's bills.

The Liberal backbench is under such tight control that these Ontario members must dread returning to their ridings and answering to the concerns of their own electorate. I cannot imagine how I would feel if I could not look a constituent in the eye and tell him or her that I was able to vote on any given issue with a clear conscience.

Second, the Liberals have destroyed the health care system. The Liberals have done more to institute a two tier health care system than any other government in Canada. Since 1993 the Liberal government has reduced the Canada health and social transfer by over $21 billion. Then the government had the audacity to put token amounts back into the CHST and ask to be thanked. One of my hon. colleagues has described this as like thanking the mugger for bus fare after he stole your wallet.

While the federal Liberals were taking money out of the CHST, the Ontario provincial government was putting money in. Between 1995 and 1998, it actually increased provincial health care spending by $1.2 billion, more than any other province. Why did it do this? It had no other alternative in the face of the massive Liberal gutting of the health care system of this country.

These are indisputable facts and yet the Minister of Health criticizes the Harris government for reducing taxes instead of spending more on health care.

The number one reason Ontarians do not trust the Liberal government is simply because of overtaxation. No matter who I talk to or where I am in Ontario, people are concerned with the high level of taxation they have to endure.

Why is it that a family earning what should be a reasonable income can just make financial ends meet? If they live frugally they can just get by. Single income families face greater taxation than the dual income family earning the same amount. EI payroll taxes are higher than the actuary recommends. Bracket creep sucks millions of dollars out of the national economy and into the federal government's coffers. Yet the Liberals just do not get it.

As this motion states, I hope that if nothing else the Liberals will heed the call to listen, not just here but actually listen to what Ontarians and other Canadians are saying. Communication is a two way process and right now Liberals are not listening.

Ontarians and Canadians are not satisfied with the Liberal government for the Liberals have successfully alienated every part of this country.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member opposite why his own party has been ignoring the growing western alienation that the Reform Party is facing by its grassroots supporters.

As an example, I want to draw the attention of this House to a radio broadcast that was on CBC Radio as I drove from my riding of York North to Ottawa yesterday. There were two grassroots members of the Reform Party and one member representing GUARD, a group that is very concerned about the demise of the Reform Party.

I cannot begin to tell members how absolutely appalled and upset these individuals were that the leadership of the Reform Party was trying to foist a united alternative on their grassroots memberships without even the slightest bit of consultation or understanding of some of the issues that westerners face.

I ask the member opposite, why is his party ignoring alienation, lacking consultation and not listening to the people in his own party whom he professes to represent?

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled to be able to get up and answer that question. It is obviously apparent that the Liberals have no idea about what is going on in the Reform Party today. The reason they do not is because such an open process of democratic decision making is total foreign to them. They have no idea of this huge grassroots exercise that is going on in this country to determine the future of the Reform Party and ultimately the future of Canada.

There has never been a more transparent process of trying to bring together like-minded Canadians across the country than what is going on with the united alternative today. If the hon. member ever cared to, she could come out and be an observer at these meetings and see what is actually going on.

Rather than listening to the radio, why does the member not get out there and really see what is going on in the grassroots because that is what Reform is all about? We are proud to have that kind of dissent in our party. At the end of the day, we will go forward to make this country a better Canada.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I kind of got a kick out of listening to the question coming from the other side. I would like the hon. member to know that he answered it quite correctly.

I am not afraid to stand in the House and say I am in disagreement with the united alternative. This does not mean I am in disagreement or at odds with my leader. It just means I am not afraid to come out in public and state my concerns because I know I will not have to sit in some far off place like the members of the Liberal Party, or ex-members of the Liberal Party, after they have talked about the government. The members in that democratic party across the way either agree with what their leader says or they shut up.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, this hon. colleague of mine standing up and saying what he has said is just an absolute example of what I was saying previously.

It is an open and honest debate in our party. We brought this motion to the floor of the House today because we do not believe that Canadians across the country are well served at all by the undemocratic attitudes and actions of the Liberal Party which controls the Government of Canada today.

We would not have this kind of open debate in the country today if the Liberal Party was doing the same thing as we are.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the government and especially as Secretary of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Reform Party motion which, as my colleague, the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development mentioned earlier, can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Basically I understand that this Reform Party motion is a further illustration of the attitude adopted since 1993 by opposition parties as a whole, but more particularly by that one, a negative attitude, which runs contrary to the democratic meaning of constructive opposition.

I respectfully submit that we and Canadians as a whole should be entitled to constructive opposition. Unfortunately, the opposition parties as a whole tend too often to play petty politics. The interests of Canadians are too important for the government to put up with such rhetoric.

Since 1993, the government and the members of the Liberal Party have worked hard to manage public money in a responsible manner and to develop our regions' economy according to the realities in our country.

This morning I went to the archives to read a speech given in 1969 by Jean Marchand, a famous politician we are proud of as Quebeckers and Canadians, when what was then called the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established. It was obvious from this speech that the government wanted every region to have equal access to economic development opportunities. It tried to take all disparities into account and be sufficiently flexible to meet the very special needs of each region.

Mr. Marchand's vision was realized. We began with a national department and, at the time, this national department was required to consult with all other federal departments in the interest of improved co-ordination. Today, we have three economic development agencies. My colleague, the Secretary of State for Science and Technology, also mentioned another structure in Ontario.

These agencies have maximum flexibility. They are there to operate in terms of the economic realities of each part of this country and, as the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada, my mandate is to do what is in the best interest of Quebeckers. In order to take the particular features of each region into account, the Prime Minister made sure that agencies could derive the maximum benefit from economic development policies during the latest government reorganization.

We put the three agencies under one umbrella, Industry Canada, so that the agency and its economic development policies would be adapted to what the regions were facing and so that there would be a sense of family, the broader co-operation people had in mind when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created, which makes it possible to derive the maximum benefit from economic development policies designed with the entire country in mind while still taking into account the realities, needs and viewpoints of each of the agencies.

Today, I am proud to say that Canada has always been seen as an international leader in the area of regional economic development. Especially under the Liberal Party of Canada, this country has been able to create an approach which has made it the envy of many OECD member countries.

In our effort to adapt to changes and to a variety of requirements, we have also had a program review, which represented a major turning point for all of my colleagues. When we speak of re-examining the way the Canadian government is involved in various areas of jurisdiction, we are also referring to the economic development of the regions.

In this connection, those of us at Economic Development Canada had, if I remember correctly, some 42 or 43 programs. As a result of program review, we created one program for SMBs, initially called IDEE-PME.

We also rethought our mandate on involvement in the regions, stressing the core of economic development which, as you may have guessed, is small and medium size business.

At the same time, taking advantage of program review, we re-examined our role. That exercise brought us to the conclusion that Economic Development Canada's activities would involve multiple roles.

I am proud to say that Economic Development Canada is the main gateway for any SMB that wants to have dealings with the federal government, the Canadian government. When they want information on all of the programs available in the departments, Economic Development Canada is the main gateway.

One of the important roles of myself and my team is the responsibility to represent within the federal machinery all the various issues relating to economic development that concern Quebeckers.

Another facet of our mandate, and an important one, is promoting to the entire population of Quebec the various services of the Canadian government.

I would like to mention that we set up in 1997 what we called small and medium business fairs. This is a Government of Canada event that travels to all of Canada's regions. As regards my mandate, obviously, we are talking about Quebec. These fairs travel around to inform business people and those who will be in business of changes we have made since 1993 and of the various services available.

I am proud to tell you that, in 1997-98, there were eight small and medium business fairs in Quebec, and 11,000 business people or future business people had access to these services of the Government of Canada. They had access to major seminars on ways to set up a business, how to export and new economic realities. They also had access to our services.

In 1998-99, five fairs were held and 5,345 present or upcoming business people attended and had access to this source of information. The fairs are a mine of important information. We business people know we are living in a new era. Often ready access to information means a capital gain that makes us more competitive.

In all, our concerted intervention has enabled 16,345 people in business to understand or better understand the federal machine and, in many cases as well, I hope, find programs that suit their needs. Or perhaps they met people, experts, who could help them with certain problems.

Another equally important aspect of our role is to resolve special mandates, hence the flexibility. The flexibility we sought in 1969 continues to be reflected in the Canadian machine today.

Here are some examples of special mandates: the management of the Canada-Quebec infrastructure program, which was given to Canada Economic Development for the province of Quebec, and the strategy for the Greater Montreal, on which I will report in the near future. During the July 1996 torrential rains, initiatives were also taken to help affected regions, and a liaison office was set up.

I should also mention the implementation of an economic recovery program following the ice storm. There is also a special and specific initiative for communities affected by the groundfish crisis called the Quebec coastal fund.

This is an important initiative because we know that there is currently a groundfish crisis affecting certain regions of Quebec and, of course, of Atlantic Canada. As a government, we reacted quickly and very matter-of-factly to these new situations. Our goal is to help all the individuals affected, but also the communities affected, in terms of their economic development.

The specific initiative regarding the groundfish crisis includes an economic development component. The responsibility for that component was given to Canada Economic Development. We are currently talking about a fund of close to $20 million—and I recently had an opportunity to see the situation first hand in the affected regions—that was put at the disposal of Canada Economic Development. This organization manages that fund along with its other responsibilities. From March 1996 to December 1998, investments of $9.1 million were made in Quebec. The total investments generated in Quebec regions to help people rethink their economic safety net are of the order of $30 million.

A total of 203 projects and 560 jobs were either created or maintained in the regions that experienced particular problems. This regional development policy is one that reflects the Canadian way of doing things and which, to some extent, is despised by opposition parties. Thanks to this policy, these regions finally got a chance to take another look at how they did things and to rebuild an economic net so that their communities could again hold their heads up, create jobs and generally get back on track.

There are a great variety of projects, including the one in support of the Pied du Vent cheese factory in Havre-aux-Maisons in the Magdalen Islands, which received $80,000 from the Quebec coastal fund; of fisheries such as Marinar Limitée in Rivière-aux-Renards; of Ghislain Tanguay Complexe and Chez Maxime Enr. on the Lower North Shore, and at Baie-Johan-Beetz, where we have also invested in some very special projects.

These are some of the things we are doing that show the Canadian government's flexibility.

I could also mention some of the results. Earlier, I mentioned the Canada-Quebec infrastructure program run by Economic Development Canada. This program has had amazing success across the country and which has also shown that when we work as partners, when the parties and the various levels of government set aside their purely political interests and look at what is best for the public, together we can accomplish quite extraordinary things.

We funded 3,250 projects under the Canada-Quebec infrastructure program. The Canadian government contributed $633 million, and $2.7 billion in investments were generated. An estimated 35,646 jobs were created or maintained through this partnership. That is our role.

There is also the programming of Economic Development Canada, which we have tailored to the new economic realities. The IDEA-SME program enables us to intervene within the limitations of our jurisdiction and our expertise and to provide to all regions of Quebec an attractive partnership with the federal government.

IDEA-SME is an intervention in the areas of innovation, design, research and development. It encourages entrepreneurship in all regions of Quebec and of course helps them develop export markets.

The second program we created a little over a year ago is the Regional Strategic Initiatives Program. Its purpose is, if I may put it that way, to push to the limits—although there will perhaps never be any limit—the government's desire to work in partnership with all regions and to ensure the structuring of programs which truly correspond to the realities and needs of the local people.

Thus the Regional Strategic Initiatives Program enables us in each region of Quebec to structure an intervention which did not originate in my office but rather is prepared in a partnership with the stakeholders of economic development in each region. Its results truly speak for themselves.

Where the east of Quebec is concerned, we have announced a Regional Strategic Initiative called Technopol Maritimes. And in the greater Quebec City region, there is another RSI aimed at developing a techno-region with an international outreach. In Chaudière-Appalaches there is RSI-Amiante.

Through these specific initiatives, we have so far allocated $72.4 million to the regions of Quebec.

Today, when we talk about economic development, we refer to initiatives that involve public moneys, but it is important to realize that, in the context of globalization and the new means of communication, the role that governments must play has changed completely.

When we talk about regional economic development, we must think in terms of partnerships, of the networks that we can provide to a region, and also at the international level. We must include the expertise, experience and economic development tools such as, for example, Industry Canada's Strategis web site, which is the largest commercial site in Canada, if not in North America.

With regard to partnerships, we have also created special links with the community futures development corporations in Quebec. These 54 corporations do a remarkable job and I believe they will play an increasingly important role within the great Canadian family, in terms of delivering services. Community futures development corporations have existed for 20 years in that format or in another and they currently provide good expertise that complements the input provided by the Canada Economic Development.

When governments want to work together, when we recognize that the concept of economic development has evolved over the last decade to encompass expertise, partnership and networking, when we recognize this together, I think there is an opportunity for all those who want to help do something about economic development.

This government's strategy is working and respects the legitimate aspirations of the regions, and under no circumstances will members on this side of the House sit back while the opposition parties trivialize the very important things we have done for all regions of Quebec and of Canada.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for economic development for the regions of Quebec criticized at the start of his speech the so called petty politics of the opposition parties. I would ask him to talk about the grand policies he intends to follow in partnership with the regions, by responding to three questions.

Can he assure us that he does not manage his portfolio according to partisan criteria? Is the money provided in Quebec ridings, apart from for the ice storm and catastrophes provided fairly as was the case with the infrastructure program, because the Government of Quebec at the time had a say in it, as did the municipalities, naturally?

I would also ask him why, since he wants to work in partnership with the regions—he has said nothing of the Government of Quebec—he does not consider the strategic plans of the regional development councils in Quebec, in providing the money?

Why does he not allow to sit on the CFDCs the regional organizations funded by his department, someone from the regional development council, an existing structure, whose representatives he has up to now refused to consider?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am most happy that the member for Lévis asked this question. The only thing that saddens me is that I have little time to answer it. I could speak on the issue quite easily.

As regards petty politics and since my colleague has raised the issue, I must admit the idea crossed my mind, more specifically in reference to members of the Bloc. Why? Because some two or three weeks ago, I had the opportunity to deliver the main speech during a small and medium-size business fair. Presentations were followed by a period of questions from participants. Common sense commands us to give the floor, not for a political debate but to give participating entrepreneurs a chance to put questions to their elected representatives and to those up front who have expertise and some knowledge to offer.

At the fair I mentioned I was amazed to see that a representative of the Bloc held the floor during the whole question period—which was short—in order to denigrate the Canadian government whose goal was to inform the population about services it can offer.

This is rather a peculiar way of doing things. I want to assure Canadians that this is not the way Liberal members do things. We defend the interests of Canadians.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite talked about the role and flexibility of his government.

Being the former critic for CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, I discovered that 90% of CIDA money goes to two provinces, leaving only 10% for eight provinces and three territories.

With respect to immigration settlement dollars, British Columbia receives approximately $980 per immigrant, whereas Quebec receives approximately $3,333 per immigrant.

There is an unequal distribution of senators in the Senate, which is not very efficient as we know.

With respect to trade issues, the government is sitting on its hands, doing nothing about the Pacific salmon issue, the softwood lumber issue or agriculture. These issues affect my province of British Columbia.

The government has closed CFB Chilliwack, leaving British Columbia without emergency preparedness.

All of these issues indicate that this government is playing cheap politics with my province and other provinces, and the people are suffering.

Why does it not sink into Liberal heads that all provinces are equal? Why is there discrimination?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a subject on which I could talk for hours.

When this motion was tabled this morning I realized that members of the Reform Party have a bad understanding of what economic development is all about. That is why I have been explaining it for the past 20 minutes. Following the question of the Reform member, I realized that they do not only have a huge misunderstanding of economic development, they also have a huge misunderstanding about what a federation is.

We are working together to help Canadians across the country. Of course when we talk about a federation, some parts of Canada they will get more for specific portfolios. Certain parts of Canada they will get more for immigration, for instance. Central Canada may get more in terms of economic development.

The beauty of a federation is that at the end of the day, when one looks at the federation as a whole, one makes sure there is a good balance of priorities and needs for the whole country, in all of its regions.

I am proud to stand in the House to say that our federation is a beautiful federation. It is probably the best in the world. We have the equalization system, which is there to help the population, the provinces and the municipalities.

I thank the hon. member for the question, but it is a pity to see such a lack of understanding.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know what the minister's answer is to economic development. He mentioned it in his speech. He said it was intervention based on taxpayer dollars.

The Liberal government's idea is to take taxpayer dollars and redistribute them in an unequal way, as my hon. colleague from Surrey just mentioned.

I want to ask the minister a specific question. He talked about having an open attitude in his speech. The Liberal task force will be going to the west, and perhaps to Atlantic Canada and Quebec later on because they are lacking seats there too. This question was asked earlier of his colleague, the minister responsible for western economic diversification. If this government has an open attitude, why does it have closed meetings? If it is going to find out what people want to hear about and why they are feeling alienated in these regions, why does this government, with an open attitude, have closed meetings instead of open public meetings to have real input from people and not just selected groups of people for manufactured consent? Why does it not have open public meetings?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, the media were at the meeting to which they referred.

We are obviously interested in proceeding with western economic diversification on an equal basis, and we all know that.

There is something that is annoying. The hon. member of the Reform Party spoke in terms of public money being invested in the economic development of a region, but it is a whole vision.

I mentioned in my 20 minute speech that we are proceeding in terms of repayable contributions, but today economic development is more than that. It is expertise. It is net worth. It is making sure that our industries in the regions across Canada have access to export markets.

There is a whole vision and that is why I am glad the Liberal Party is sitting on this side of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on the alienation of most of this country or, better put, how Canadians perceive Ottawa.

The Prime Minister's task force was to seek out information from Manitobans on the future of Manitoba. Manitobans know about their future and they also have a vision for their future. What we want from this government and all federal governments is more transparency and accountability.

Manitobans speak daily to their members of parliament. Hopefully their members of parliament echo their concerns in the House. Does the government listen to the concerns that are raised in the House?

Let me do a quick review of some of the concerns that are raised by Manitobans: Bill C-68, the wheat board monopoly, unfair justice appointments, the use of federal spending powers to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the giveaway of our rail assets to CNR, the rail abandonment issue, little return of $5 billion in fuel tax paid by consumers, waste and mismanagement of Indian affairs, and repayment of the flood compensation given to Manitobans. Most of these issues have been debated in the House over the course of the last two years. If only the government would listen.

Here is what the municipal leaders of Manitoba are saying about regional alienation and how their constituents perceive Ottawa.

Mayor Bill Schneider of the village of Benito said:

They don't worry one way or another. We are too far away. The people of Benito don't have too much say. The power is eastern based. The reality is that the population is in the east. They have the votes, which means that they have the seats.

Mayor Lorne Boguski of the town of Roblin said:

I think the further away you are from Ottawa, the less input one has. The decisions are made without the interests of the people from that region. The solution to reducing alienation would be to have more members of parliament interacting with the municipal leaders on a regular basis, from all parties. This would develop rapport. One would feel that they were becoming part of the total team, rather than feeling isolated as we are today from Ottawa.

I am also dissatisfied that the Minister of Natural Resources, a westerner, is not echoing the needs of farmers.

Mayor Michael Spence of the town of Churchill said:

I applaud the Minister of Foreign Affairs' intervention and assistance in privatizing the rail line in the port of Churchill. This gives Churchill the opportunity to look after its own future. Ottawa is too far away. Currently Churchill has embarked on a tripartite partnership with the Winnipeg Airport Authority and Omnitrax to develop future business for the rail line, the airport and the port of Churchill.

The federal government, when it comes to airports, lacks vision for the future. It can only think of saving money for the present. It bewilders me that the port is not utilized to its potential. The Canadian Wheat Board must ship more grain through the port of Churchill instead of east-west. We are up against the big business of east and west coast terminals.

Reeve George Richardson of the rural municipality of Dauphin said:

They don't know that we exist. It has always been, being in the hinterland, that we are the resource base for the east. That is the real attitude of the rural municipality of Dauphin. The east has had all the power and still does today. The only way to resolve this is to get rid of the Senate as it operates today or make it equal.

Take a look at the present farm aid program and you will see why we feel alienated.

Mayor Wally Yanchycki of the village of Erickson said:

We don't get our fair share. When I fill out my income tax, I know where our money is going; right into the big pockets of Ottawa. I don't think we get our fair share on transfer payments. Being far away doesn't help the feeling that we are alienated from Ottawa. We feel that Ontario and Quebec get preferential treatment over everyone else in this country.

[The Speaker]

It is almost 2 p.m. and I want to leave the member with enough time to get into the body of his debate. We will proceed with Statements by Members and the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River will have the floor after question period.

Windsor—St. Clair

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently Statistics Canada announced that the unemployment rate across Canada has fallen from 8% to 7.8%, its lowest rate in eight years. Canadians are happy about this trend.

The results of yesterday's Windsor—St. Clair byelection revealed that support for both the Conservative and the Reform Party has fallen to just over 6%. That is a drop for both parties. Canadians are also happy about this trend.

Apparently the fine voters of Windsor are less than impressed with newly recycled Conservative Party. They are even less impressed with the united alternative, since they demoted Reform to fourth in yesterday's byelection.

I predict that we will continue to see steady decreases in both unemployment and the political fortunes of both the Reform and Conservative parties.

Canadian Sikh Community

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Surrey Central has the largest concentration of Sikhs in the world outside India.

On this day 300 years ago the 10th Guru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji created Khalsa. He gave Sikhs a name, a visible identity, a code of conduct and discipline based on equality, love, justice, peace, courage, hard work, honesty, community service and universality. These values are important to all human kind and as a community Sikhs have easily fit into Canadian society. In the last 100 years the Canadian Sikh community has made a significant contribution to the social, cultural and economic prosperity of our great country.

Sikhs around the world are celebrating the tri-centenary of the creation of Khalsa and Vaisakhi. I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating Sikhs and wishing them great success.

Royal Canadian Air Force

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Air Force was officially established 75 years ago on April 1, 1924.

In the second world war, Canadian pilots flew with dedication and heroism beside our allies to establish peace. Canadian aviators flew in the Korean War and served in Europe throughout the cold war. In 1991 our pilots tasted battle again, flying a variety of missions during the gulf war.

At home the air force conducts a number of missions, including search and rescue, med-evac operations and fire evacuations.

Abroad, air crews have provided support to peacekeeping missions in the Congo and Kashmir. Canadian pilots have brought critical supplies to the displaced and dispossessed after natural disasters. In Rwanda, for a time, we alone provided airlift. We were one of the nations providing the humanitarian air bridge to besieged Sarajevo.

At this very moment, Canadian aviators are flying in the Balkans with 12 CF-18s, two Hercules and personnel aboard NATO AWACS.

The air force motto is as relevant today as it was 75 years ago, “Through adversity to the stars”.

Erinoak

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 1971 a group of parents and community-minded individuals in Mississauga established the Credit Valley Association for Handicapped Children.

Their goal was to recognize the special needs of individuals with physical disabilities, to help them be the best that they can be.

In May 1979 they opened the new Credit Valley Treatment Centre for Children, which they had raised funds to build. Today that centre is called Erinoak. With a staff of over 100, services have been extended to schools and homes. They have made a profound difference in many people's lives.

On March 25, Erinoak honoured its volunteers and supporters at a donor recognition evening.

I have seen first-hand the wonderful work this centre does. I salute the more than 200 dedicated volunteers of Erinoak and I thank them for their enormous contribution to our community in Mississauga.

Yom Hashoah

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. Just over 50 years ago atrocities were committed against men, women and children because of their race and culture.

A few short minutes ago I stood before you to honour Holocaust survivors. I also did that when they were here in the House several months ago.

The Holocaust was an act that Canadians and people around the world must never forget. I feel privileged to serve in a government where my leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, was our first prime minister to visit a Nazi death camp, accompanied by Mordechai Ronen, a survivor.

Particularly at this time of the bombings in Kosovo and given the current state of world events, I would like to remind all Canadians of the following words of wisdom “Never forgotten, never again”.

Code Of Ethics

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has continually defended questionable actions of various members of his cabinet by saying that the ethics counsellor, Harold Wilson, judged that they were okay since they fall within the code of ethics.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister steadfastly refuses to disclose what the rules of this much vaunted code of ethics really are.

One of the many Liberal red book promises not kept by this government was to appoint an ethics counsellor who would report directly to Parliament; that is a counsellor to oversee the actions of the ministers.

I urge the Prime Minister to at least make good on this one promise and, at a minimum, to reveal to the House and the Canadian people his highly secretive ministers' code of ethics.

Taipei Economic And Culture Office

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week representatives of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office visited Oxford county.

Along with county Warden Mark Harrison, Woodstock Mayor John Geoghagen and Zorra township Mayor James Muterer, we toured the county with our Taiwanese visitors. We visited a hydroponic tobacco greenhouse in Norwich township and a working dairy farm in Zorra township.

The day included a visit to Embro where we were able to visit the sites associated with Reverend George Lesley Mackay. Reverend Mackay was born in Embro and went to Taipei as a missionary in 1871. He set up Oxford College in Tamsui in 1882 with money donated by Oxford county citizens. The college and a large hospital founded by Reverend Mackay continue to serve the people of Tamsui.

It is my hope that this visit will lead to future beneficial exchanges between Oxford and the Tamsui region of Taiwan.

Jacques Parizeau

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the new Bloc Quebecois researcher, Jacques Parizeau, is travelling around Quebec saying loud and clear to all those who will listen that he could not care less about the brain drain in Quebec. “Leave”, he told them frankly last weekend.

To those who fear Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada, he said, I repeat, “Leave”. A brilliant remark, when Quebec is doing everything in its power to keep the young people it educates at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Brilliant too, when the young people would like to stay and do the job they were trained for. They are looking for an appropriate environment to show Quebeckers that there is still a way to contribute to improving the quality of life in Quebec and Canada.

The new Bloc Quebecois researcher is clearly totally irresponsible. The Bloc should terminate his contract immediately.

Nunavut

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 1999 the long-awaited ceremonies took place for the new Nunavut territory and in Iqaluit the Nunavut flag, the coat of arms and the legislature mace were revealed to a worldwide audience.

I would like to congratulate and thank all those who participated in the design and creation process of these items. Elders were consulted by the artists with the result that Inuit culture was incorporated into the design.

The Inuit culture was also very evident in the first sitting of the legislative assembly. The Inuktitut language was used in all aspects of the celebrations and was a welcome change.

The evening gala revealed the tremendous musical and acting talent of the north. Overall, the show was fabulous.

Thank you, Canada, for celebrating with us.

The Francophonie

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, in Saint-Hyacinthe, the world francophone community experienced an unparalleled and unique moment. Over 2,000 young francophones from some 40 countries and every continent around the world met to celebrate the Grande Fête de la jeunesse, de la culture et du français.

“Vivre le monde de la francophonie” was an incredible success. Just imagine bringing over 2,000 young people together in a huge event.

The exploit is primarily the handiwork of Gaston Vachon of the Saint-Hyacinthe school board, who not only set up a flawless organization to look out for the young people, but gave them the gift of an experience they will never forget.

The wrapping of this superb gift took the form of the national grand prize for the best Internet site awarded to Marie-Josée Tôth, who was in charge of the Internet site created for this event. The prize was awarded by the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française.

I offer my heartiest congratulations to Ms. Tôth and Mr. Vachon and to the hundreds of volunteers who contributed directly or indirectly to the extraordinary success of this event.

Specialty Wood Products

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of letters have been sent to B.C. MPs to urge the government to strongly oppose the U.S. attempt to restrict the import of specialty wood products by reclassifying them as softwood lumber.

When lumber was freely traded, we paid duties on these very same specialty products. Now these duties are phased out because of NAFTA but lumber is no longer freely traded because of restrictions brought in by the 1996 softwood lumber quota system.

Specialty wood products are a $3 billion industry for Canada. We need the strongest political action from our government to oppose new restrictions.

So far, the Liberals are just going through the motions and responding to U.S. measures on technical grounds alone.

We need strong political representation. When can we expect to see the government giving this issue the political priority it deserves?