Debates of April 13th, 1999

Supply

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. friend's comments. I find I agree with most of what he says, which is somewhat frightening, but on this issue I can feel safe.

The member referred to the fact that a number of Liberal backbenchers toured western Canada to seek out why people from that region of Canada were feeling somewhat alienated. Could he share with the House what his constituents felt about this initiative in terms of having to send out a delegation of eastern backbenchers to find out what they were concerned about?

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question and I thank the member for it. He is from British Columbia and he is well known as what we call a constituency rep. He cares for his constituents and their opinions.

The Mark Trend poll I mentioned asked a question of whether or not people thought the Liberal task force would actually listen or make any difference. Almost 70% thought it would not make the slightest bit of difference. Therein we have an answer to part of his question. People do not believe it will make any difference. All it will do is meet with its own people, Liberal supporters, and not really listen.

Judging by the telephone calls to the radio talk show I mentioned, many of which were from western Canada, they simply did not believe the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia was listening at all to the concerns. Caller after caller said “You are not listening, are you? Will you please be quiet and listen to what I have to say?” They repeated one after the other the same theme that the member really had not clicked to the need to listen to the constituents.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how happy I am to learn, from the remarks by my hon. colleague from North Vancouver, that in his second term as a member of this House he has realized that the west is neglected by the Canadian government.

During the first referendum in Quebec in 1980, we consulted the people to inform them that the Canadian government saw the province of Quebec as a region and that Quebecers were recognized by Ottawa only as taxpayers but that no services were being provided to Quebec.

This is why in 1980 the then Premier of Quebec, René Lévesque, and, in 1995, Mr. Parizeau, told the people “We should be masters in our own house, we should manage our own affairs and stop being considered as a region by the government”.

I am delighted that today the Reform Party member in his speech is beginning to take a view similar to Quebec's position and that he realizes the Canadian government is doing nothing for the west. While it may be doing nothing for the west now, it has not been doing anything for Quebec for a very long time.

That is why one day Quebec will assuredly achieve sovereignty, or independence, and then it will govern itself with its own money, its own taxes and its own powers, and will no longer depend on the Canadian government.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I would like him to know that in the 10 years since the Reform Party was formed we have always had a policy that the federal government should remove itself from using its spending powers in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It has been an irritation to the west just as it has been to Quebec that this federal government interferes constantly in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

He may also be aware that there has been quite a strong separatist movement in western Canada that has ebbed and flowed from time to time. It even elected two members in Alberta at one stage. In B.C. the support for western separation was measured as high as 17% to 18% at one point in time.

The irritations he mentioned are certainly not limited to Quebec. They are widespread throughout the country. I hear comments from people in Ontario that they feel this place, Ottawa, interferes constantly in what should be left to the provincial government.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals are sending this committee to the west I am sure they will be to British Columbia, that place on the other side of the Rockies.

Could the member tell us what the itinerary is, if they are coming to my area, because we would like to give them our own tar and feathers as well. Is it possible that the member could let us know where they will be in British Columbia?

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we cannot provide the agenda as requested by the member.

The task force did not release its agenda for last week until this week. The meetings had already taken place by the time we knew where they were and there was absolutely no opportunity for public input whatsoever.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong here. We have a Liberal committee with a sort of agenda and itinerary coming west to find out what alienates them. It was there last week and released the itinerary this week. This is a good example of the way Liberals do things and maybe what alienates the west as well as all other provinces. Three or four senators are being sent on this little trip to the west. I am sure they might get the gist of things.

In my capacity as House leader for the official opposition I also have the role of regional critic for Nova Scotia, a job which I am very proud to undertake. I want to tell the government that there are other areas in the country that are truly alienated. I am sure that is why the Liberals do not have any seats in Nova Scotia. It may be just dawning on them what the problem is. I asked quite a few people in Nova Scotia what exactly was bothering them about being alienated from the Liberal government and I will give their responses.

However, I want to clarify something for the geniuses across the way that they are bragging about a byelection they won last night in Windsor—St. Clair. The Reform Party did not do well but the NDP just about took them out. I might add that they did lose a considerable number of votes from the last election. Not only that. I would invite members opposite to come to my riding during a byelection any time and then come into the House and brag after it. We will see where they go. The Liberals do not win seats across the country. We are trying to point out today that the Liberals have won seats in two regions of the country. That is where the Liberals primarily have votes.

Other regions of the country are sick and tired of the way the country is governed. Let me give some idea of the things I have heard in Nova Scotia. I am sure some of my colleagues who represent that area will either agree or add more to the list.

Why in the name of heaven are we sending this group of backbenchers and senators to one region of the country when there are all kinds of regions that are hurting and all kinds of regions that are sick and darned tired of what is opposite? I ask them to listen up, all five of them.

Sable Gas is a project the people of Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia in particular, have been watching for so long as one of the great hopes of the region. One can understand that with the potential it has. It continues to remain on the horizon. The country was promised a November 1999 start-up of the project, and now they are talking about November 2000. Who knows where it will go from there? There are still no clear indications of the benefits when the contract is signed.

We can recall in the House some time ago debating the issue of why the Liberals went to another province and said let us divert that natural gas pipeline north around Nova Scotia. Nova Scotians and people all over Canada asked what they were doing. In fact I stood in the House and asked why they would not allow these people the production and the growth as Alberta did with its natural gas until they introduced the national energy program.

Nova Scotia is an area of great potential. Yet the federal government did nothing but play games in that exercise. It is not even visible in getting this project active today. It kind of walked away from it when it did not serve its own benefit. Do the people of Nova Scotia feel alienated by that? Maybe the government better send some members down there to ask a few questions.

Some of my colleagues and I met with families affected by the Devco situation. There has been no direction from the government. There has been no meaningful assistance and no acceptance of responsibility by the government. Some shake their heads, but that is what is happening. The government says that it is only the west that is alienated. Give it a break. Get a life. There is more to the country than one small region.

There is no policy on what to do with Devco or what to do for the men and women, particularly the families in Cape Breton that are highly stressed. Where are the Liberals today? How are they dealing with this situation? The frustration is showing more and more with protesters, depression and suicides.

The government goes to Sydney, makes an announcement and walks away. No responsible government does that under any circumstances. Why do the people in Nova Scotia feel alienated? One problem is that the government does not ask why. It just thinks it is a problem in the west because the Reform Party is sitting here.

Let us talk about shipbuilding in Nova Scotia. The Marine Workers Federation had an excellent suggestion. Where was the government when that suggestion was made? Nowhere. It was not even supportive of the issue.

What is the issue? I know a number of people who have worked in the marine industry for 20 or more years. Why not build some ships? There is the capacity in the shipyards in Halifax. The dedication is there. Canada has low costs in terms of the international value of the Canadian dollar. Holland is producing at a higher cost. Why can we not do it here?

The question from the government would be why do we have to build ships anyway. It does not understand that one potential market is the coastal tanker fleet which is 25 to 30-plus years old. It must be renewed by 2004 to meet environmental standards. Many of the necessary tax acts and other incentives are already in place. With a little policy direction there could be half a billion dollars worth of work at approximately $30 million per vessel. Where is the government promoting that kind of thing?

There is a saying that a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. Is it the government's intention to rob Peter to pay Paul and to make sure that the Pauls are always in place rather than look at some initiatives that might help a region? Talk about regional alienation.

I could talk all day about the tar ponds in Sydney. I will be there on Thursday looking at them again. It is one of the biggest open sewers in the world. After $50 million plus were spent on it nothing has been done. There has been study after study.

The Liberals walked in, threw some bucks at it, walked out and said the problem was solved. It has not been solved. It has been going on for decades and decades. For the last 12 years the government has been throwing money at it in a big way. People are still living in front of a major sewer which is unacceptable anywhere in North America. Except this government accepts it in Sydney. It is incredible.

We could talk about the gun law. Nova Scotia among other places is appalled at what is going on with the famous gun law the government brought in to prevent murder by gun. What did we recently see in Ottawa? Murders by guns. Has it stopped it? No. Steve Gullon in Nova Scotia can tell us. He cannot live off his business any more. It is dying because of the cost and the exorbitant administration rates.

I only have a minute, unfortunately. I would like to talk about the toll highway in Nova Scotia. I would like to talk about the Port of Halifax, the crime, the issue of offshore ownership of waterfront property and real estate, the inefficiencies of ACOA, high taxes and overburdened health care. I could go on and on.

I would suggest that the government get off the idea that it is only western Canada which is alienated. The whole damned country is alienated.

Therefore, I would like to introduce an amendment to the motion. It is necessary to introduce it because we do not know what the plans of the government are. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding “and immediately make its intentions and full agenda public”.

Maybe then we in the west, the people in the east and people throughout this country will understand that there is more to this than just some PR exercise by backbenchers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, considering how few members are on the other side to debate the motion, I am not surprised they could not find a seconder.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Secretary of State for Parks knows that it is improper to refer to the presence or absence of members and I would advise him to refrain from such comments. He knows it is contrary to the rules.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only is it improper, but there are only three members on the other side of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford knows that is not a point of order. He is only compounding the difficulties of the Chair. The Chair is trying to ensure orderly debate in the House and I know that the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, as House leader for the official opposition, would want to assist in every respect.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, so as not to make your job more difficult, I will refrain from making such comments.

It is interesting that this particular debate would take place the day after at least some Canadians spoke directly to the role of how the various parties are doing here in parliament.

It was interesting to note in the byelection results in Windsor—St. Clair that a Liberal was returned to the House. It was interesting to note that the Reform Party got a little over 6% of the vote, certainly under 10% of the vote, and actually saw its percentage decline, which is interesting to put in the context of the debate that is taking place today.

My question has to do with the comments of the two initial speakers and their criticism of members of parliament seeking the views of Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members opposite are chuckling because they think they are the only ones who know how to do it.

Let us make it clear that what the Reform Party is criticizing is an effort by parliamentarians to understand what Canadians are thinking.

My question to the opposition House leader is, why does the Reform Party not support efforts to talk to Canadians to ask them what their perspective is?

I realize that since it is not the Reform Party doing it Reformers are somewhat embarrassed that they are left flat-footed because they have not gone out and asked their folks what they think, but the Liberals have indeed done that. I want to know why they have not gone out to consult with their constituents. Why they have left it to the Liberals?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not understand that in the last election 62% of Canadians voted against them. How does the member figure that? It would be an awful lot more important if the few Liberals here would understand that what we want to talk about today is not what they are doing but what they are not doing in all regions of the country.

His question was why we would be concerned about the Liberals going to the west asking about what is alienating westerners. If it were truly a practical good exercise with the intention of finding out what alienates westerners, we would be all for it. But the fact is that this is a clandestine exercise by a committee that announces its itinerary a week after it shows up, gets absolutely no press in Winnipeg and talks behind closed doors with people. It is a fact that it is on a search for candidates for the next election. As well it bellyaches about parties opposite meeting behind closed doors. I hardly think this committee is really looking to find out why westerners are alienated. I think it is really there for other exercises, and it is not doing a very good job at that. I would encourage those committee members to try to be more realistic. If they think westerners cannot see through this they are kidding themselves.

I am sure the other opposition parties are hoping that if the committee is coming to their area it would at least notify them.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that all members of parliament, on a consistent basis, be judicious in their comments relative to other regions. During a previous debate on issues facing Atlantic Canada I was offended as an Atlantic Canadian when I heard a member say that the smallest violin in the world plays for Atlantic Canada. That member was mocking the efforts of Atlantic Canadians to bootstrap themselves into prosperity.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that, given that it was a member of his party, the member for Calgary West.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a bit about this today. There is some shyness and concern from the PCs who are a little concerned about us bringing up regional interests, in particular in their area. We should watch for the kinds of suggestions and improvements they have for their own area. It is unfortunate that they act this way, but that is just the way it is going to be.

What we are talking about is not a matter of party politics. Maybe some day when the PCs grow up they will get to be the official opposition, but it is going to be a long time. I would encourage them to listen to the issues and to respond in kind to the real problems in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the official opposition's motion.

Last night, as I was putting down some thoughts with respect to today's address, I was in a restaurant and a number of people came over and asked what I was doing. I showed them the motion. I asked them what they thought of it. The first person said “I really don't understand it”. Another two people said that it seemed rather silly. Another person said “It makes no sense”.

Having already heard from these people, I recognized some others, so I went to them. The truth of the matter is that another two said it was a silly motion and another two said that it made no sense that the government should rename the Liberal committee on western alienation to the Liberal alienation committee. Even the most literate could not understand what that meant. Reformers did not even have the courtesy of having the formal title. They probably could not find it, or perhaps they could not understand it.

There are a lot of issues that could have been raised in debate. We could have talked about building a stronger, more united Canada. We could have talked about increasing Canada's economic performance. We could have talked about Kosovo, the genocide that is occurring there and what it is that we might do to lessen the atrocities. What did they do? They picked a silly motion that does not make any sense to anyone. They are playing politics.

Why would they be doing that? They are a little nervous because they have pockets of support. They say that this could be useful. This might work. Therefore let us get in there, let us be dysfunctional, let us be negative, let us do whatever we can to torpedo it.

Are they waiting to see the report so they can look at it and then perhaps address substantive issues and solutions that will be identified in it? Of course not. That would be logical. That would be a professional approach. Of course they are not going to do that.

I participated for two days on the task force. I met with the mayor and councillors of the city of Winnipeg. It was an excellent meeting. We met with the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce. We met with la Chambre de commerce francophone du Manitoba and it was an excellent meeting. There was a meeting with the Brandon mayor and his council, which was an excellent meeting. I also attended a meeting of reeves and councillors from southeastern Manitoba. Guess what? It was an excellent meeting.

Were they friends of the government? No. They were responsible citizens, identifying issues and making concrete proposals for solutions.

In view of the way in which this has started and in view of this particular motion, perhaps the Reform Party ought to consider renaming itself the silly party of Canada, or perhaps the “we never made sense and will never make sense party of Canada”.

I will give an example of the lack of respect they have for their colleagues. This morning “flunkies” was used with respect to government members. They referred to MPs from eastern Canada as lackeys and trained seals, as if they had no role to play on such a task force. They also referred to senators without the least bit of respect, as if they were men and women who had no knowledge of the country, who could not make a contribution. I find that shocking.

[An hon. member]

Reprehensible.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

It is reprehensible.

The good news is that they are not all like that. I will share what one Reform member said. He no doubt recognizes the fallacy of the Reform Party's motion this morning. Here is a quote found in two publications which was made by the member for Athabasca.

The federal government has made the provision of information one of the cornerstones of its effort to assist Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises....no matter where you live in western Canada, Western Economic Diversification, in partnership with other business service organizations, is your local link to a world of business resources.

That is what the member for Athabasca had to say.

Another MP from the Reform Party, one of the more enlightened ones, who sees more than what they see thank goodness, who responds to materials made available to him so that he can share them with his constituents, said “It will be my pleasure to share this information with my constituency”.

The Reform Party has a platform. It would like to remove the economic development agencies, but it has not said what it would replace them with. It has not given an indication of how it would undertake economic development. Absolutely none. This is the party that would reduce equalization payments without having any clue whatsoever of the impact it would have on the provinces that are in fact receiving that kind of assistance.

What would they replace this by? They have no idea. They would be prepared to slash and to cut, without understanding what is going on, without analysing the impact this would have on Canadians. I find this absolutely unacceptable.

I want to talk this morning about western economic diversification.

I am responsible for this portfolio. I want to further emphasize this agency's presence in western Canada. Before doing this, I want to talk about, or at least briefly mention, the other agencies.

In the Atlantic provinces we have ACOA. While there are similarities to western economic diversification, there are differences and there need to be differences. If we are to listen to the people from those regions, we need programs that respond to their unique needs.

In Quebec, there is also the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Here again, there are some similarities with other economic development agencies. Of course, there are some programs that have been tailored to meet the specific needs of Quebecers.

FedNor, an agency that operates in Northern Ontario, is similar in many respects to the other economic development agencies. Programs are in place to meet the special needs of this region.

Let us talk about the mandate of western economic diversification. It is to diversify the economies of the western provinces. What does that mean? We all know that traditionally we have made a good living. We have done very well based upon the natural resources that we have had, an abundance of natural resources in a number of sectors.

We also recognize that we are in a different world today. We are in a knowledge based society which requires a knowledge based economy. What does that mean? That means getting more from what we have by applying the knowledge we have in the mining sectors, the forestry sectors, the agricultural sectors and the fishing sectors. That is what it really means.

If people have businesses that are doing well, can they do more with those businesses? Can they create more jobs? If they have an idea for a new business, can they in fact launch that business successfully and create more jobs for western Canadians?

We on this side of the House believe that a strong western Canada, like strong Atlantic provinces, like a strong Quebec, like a strong Ontario, like strong northern territories, is good for Canada. It makes for a stronger nation. That is what we are all about.

Where is western economic diversification in the Government of Canada? It is headquartered in Edmonton, headed by a deputy minister from Edmonton, an outstanding public servant with an outstanding staff for each of the provinces, committed to western Canadians, committed to being advocates for western Canadian issues.

There is a satellite office, by the way, in Calgary, Alberta, because we want to bring the services to the people. We recognize that southern Alberta differs from Edmonton and northern Alberta.

Madam Speaker, I was under the impression that I had 20 minutes. Is that not the case?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Yes, I am sorry, but 10 minutes is the amount of time allotted.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

That is unfortunate, because I was told that I had 20 minutes. Therefore, I had prepared myself accordingly. I thought that as the main speaker for the government, I would have 20 minutes.

We are in Vancouver. We are in Saskatoon. We have a satellite in Regina. We have an office in Winnipeg. More important, we are in the small places.

Saturday morning, for instance, I was in Saint-Pierre-Joli to announce the opening of a business centre. We are present in small towns and villages like Prud'homme and Bonnyville, not just in large urban centres.

We have a number of partners. We have four women's enterprise centres.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Unfortunately I must interrupt the secretary of state. The rules of debate state that the first speaker has 20 minutes and the four subsequent speakers, 10 minutes each. We now move on to questions and comments.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

I rise On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like the unanimous consent to continue with my presentation.