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?