Debates of April 13th, 1999

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. secretary of state is asking for unanimous consent to continue for another 10 minutes. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Madam Speaker, I am curious about the comment of the hon. member opposite that the motion being debated today is a waste of time. I am sure the people where I come from will be very interested in that comment.

It is not just where I come from in the west. I spoke on some serious issues that I was made aware of in Nova Scotia. They were the port of Halifax, the tar ponds, shipbuilding, Devco and Sable Gas. All these issues are facing the federal government and it could do more. I am sure the people down there do not take kindly to the words that it is a waste of time.

We had hoped to get from the government not that it was a waste of time on regional issues but that we could do more and this is what we should do. It is truly unfortunate that it has taken this stance. I hope it can do more.

Would the hon. member do one thing at least? Would he stand here and commit on behalf of the committee he says he is on that it would table in the House today the itinerary, the agenda it has for the rest of Canada?

People in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia would like to know where and when these folks will be showing up. He talked about having meetings with chambers of commerce and other organizations. The vast majority of people in those areas do not know those meetings are occurring. Behind closed door meetings, quiet meetings or unannounced meetings do not get adequate public input.

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

Madam Speaker, I will respond to my colleague's questions. First, I did not say it was a waste of time. I said that—

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

Yes, you did.

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

No, I did not. I said people said it was silly. People said it made no sense. My hon. colleague knows that it is nothing but petty politics he is trying to play. He is trying to embarrass the government.

If he had wanted he could have given me an extra 10 minutes to talk about our partners in the women's enterprise centres, to talk about the 90 community futures development corporations we have in western Canada, and to talk about the 81 Canada-Manitoba and other provincial business centres that help businesses.

He could have permitted us to talk about businesses with which we work, businesses to which we provide information and businesses which we assist by finding funding and information on internal markets and export markets.

He could have permitted me to talk about aboriginal peoples and the way in which we are trying to integrate them more fully into Canadian society.

He could have permitted me to talk about the youth programs we have because we recognize that they are important. He could have encouraged me—

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules of the House are well known, particularly to my hon. friend who is an experienced member. The first round is 10 minutes with 5 minutes for questions and comments. It seems to me that he is simply bootlegging in parts of his speech that he was hoping to make within 20 minutes.

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

What is your point?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

My point is—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. secretary of state still has two minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what his point is.

I wanted to point out that western economic diversification, with other government departments, has responded to the needs of western Canadians such as those in rural areas and francophones.

They do not want to hear about that. We have been involved with the fishing communities that were devastated in western Canada and with the people affected by the floods. We have had a number of initiatives in science and technology and invested major dollars in western Canada. Why? Because western Canadians are competitive.

Why is it that hon. members opposite cannot see what the government has done? Why is it that their only ability is to try to identify issues about which they know very little and to try to inflame the passions of western Canadians against other regions of the country? I cannot understand that logic. That is petty politics. That is unacceptable. Frankly I am ashamed of that behaviour.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member does not admit that there is any problem at all.

Would he at least be prepared to say that in the regions of Canada, in the fishing sector, the mining sector, agriculture and forestry, there are some issues that are yet to be addressed seriously? It is not a perfect world out there in the regions of Canada, particularly those in the resource sectors.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the appropriate question. Of course there are issues and I wish we would identify them.

Let us talk about the $400 million that was given to west coast fisheries. Is that appropriate? Is it working? How is it going?

Let us talk about the $224.5 million that was given to flood victims in Manitoba. Is that appropriate? Is it working?

Let us talk about the $56 million that was invested in Synchroton in Saskatoon. Is that an appropriate investment? Are we for it or against it? Those are the questions we ought to be talking about.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak on this opposition day motion by the Reform Party.

I would like to divide the motion into two parts. The first part of the motion condemns the government's failure to address the concerns of the regions of Canada. In Quebec, our region, this failure is only too clear. Our presence here is vivid proof that Quebeckers are deeply dissatisfied with this government and the federal system that governs them.

The second part of the motion, on what should be done to remedy the situation, is a proposal that the government rename the Liberal committee on western alienation the Liberal alienation committee. Even if this proposal might be considered justified, it seems to me that somewhat better wording could have been found to condemn the government's action and suggest to it possible courses of action.

I shall concentrate on the first part of the motion, condemning the government's failure—I would say historic failure—to address the concerns of many of its citizens, and in our case, Quebeckers.

I shall not go over all the constitutional negotiations that have been the subject of dispute and the failure by the federal government to respond to Quebec's demands. There have been many such negotiations, particularly in the past 30 years, and they have one thing in common: regardless of who was negotiating—the federal Liberal or Conservative Party, a Quebec Liberal or Parti Quebecois government—the result has always been the same: failure.

It might be tempting to lay this failure at individuals' doorsteps, but that would not hide the fact that there is a profound problem: an inability to live together or find rules that can govern all of us within a single system.

Efforts to this end have always been based on the concept of Quebec as a province. From the federal government's point of view, the provinces must have a certain character. Though the government is reluctant to say that it sees them as all equal, it does have a very strong tendency to say that it has to avoid special treatment for certain provinces. This has prevented agreements being reached that would have led to an asymmetrical model, more particularly for Quebec, giving it a different constitutional status from the other provinces. The Canadian government has always been too frightened of the reaction from other regions of Canada and too frightened as well that the whole thing would become unmanageable, although it is already extremely difficult to manage.

To come down to brass tacks, this is causing a considerable number of day to day problems for ordinary citizens. I am going to indicate some of these. I will not expand on my examples right now, I will return to them, but I am thinking of the millennium scholarships. There are also secretaries of state for various economic development agencies, for example Canada has a regional development agency for Quebec, while Quebec has its own regional development sttructure.

This gives rise to a sizeable number of concrete problems. It is hard to co-ordinate the work in the field, because the federal government wants to be visible more than it wants to be useful. This causes problems of slowness and inefficiency in the system, when it comes to meeting people's needs.

The primary underlying problem in all these negotiations, in Quebec's case, is that it is difficult to reach an agreement with someone who represents an entity whose existence one refuses to recognize.

When we are told there is no such thing as Quebec culture, as the Prime Minister said, when one refuses to recognize the fact that Quebeckers are a people, it is very difficult, when it comes to negotiating with someone who refuses to recognize our very existence, to find a basis for understanding. This in turn creates a number of problems. The basic problem in relations between Quebec and Canada has always been at this level.

Even though people believe we talk too much about it, we do not stress it often enough. When it comes to the Constitution that currently governs Canada and contains the fundamental rules according to which people are living together, it is now shameful to talk about it. Are there many other countries that are ashamed to talk about their constitution, which should be a fundamental principle and something accepted by the citizens as a whole? There is something wrong when a country is ashamed of its constitution. Why is it wrong? Let us not forget what happened during the patriation of the constitution which governs us currently. One player did not sign, and this player is Quebec.

I know a few people will say “Yes, but separatists will never sign anything”. They should remember that for nine years there was a federalist government in Quebec. Even the main federalist party, the Quebec Liberal Party, does not intend to sign the Constitution as it stands today.

This does not seem to worry too many people. On the contrary, the federal government is forging ahead with administrative framework agreements, such as the one on social union, to further centralize decision making in Canada. This is along the same line. It could not care less that one of its components, which it sees as a major, beneficial, essential part of Canada, did not sign the Constitution.

Let us go back to specific examples, such as culture. If there is one thing that sets Quebeckers apart, it is of course their cultural characteristics. The Government of Quebec is rightly claiming, and in practice now, the ability to represent itself internationally. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Prime Minister reacted hysterically to its doing so and to its promoting its unique qualities internationally.

How can these people not understand even such basic things as these? They are, however, the very people who, with meaningless resolutions, would have us believe they recognize the vaguely distinct character of Quebec.

They will not agree to our promoting even the most obvious elements of our distinctiveness. This is a cultural element.

There is also our ability to do things differently. The Government of Quebec has made decisions regarding the education system in order to give students better access to post-secondary education, saying “We must have more graduates, therefore we will lower fees as much as possible”. Our policy on tuition fees is very different from that of Canada. They are much lower.

Outside Quebec, tuition fees are very high, less than in the United States, but still a lot higher than in Quebec. Obviously, that creates a debt problem that is heightened when students have difficulty finding a job.

I understand there is a problem and a need that is greater in Canada than in Quebec. The government creates a scholarships program for students and says “We will help them, we will reward excellence. There has been this whole debate on elitism. Therefore, we will back off a bit. We will go back to the issue of financial need and help students in this way”.

So, the government came up with a coast to coast program. Yet, needs are not the same everywhere. If we could have control over that money, our priority might be to provide tools that could benefit all students, because in Quebec the primary issue is not students' indebtedness, as is the case in the other provinces. For example, we might use that money to modernize the technological equipment used in our CEGEPs and universities. In this communications era, this might be a greater priority than scholarships.

However, these choices cannot be made because, with its taxation power, with its huge power to collect revenues, the federal government dictates its decisions, or uses the tax system to do so, thus setting priorities that are not necessarily the same as our own.

Because it is incapable of getting along with the Government of Quebec, the federal government does not even want to come to the negotiation table. Instead, it gave that mandate to a private foundation run by BCE's president, and told him “We are sending you $2.5 billion. In addition, you will get two year's interest before starting to deal with issues. You will settle them by negotiating with the government”.

There is a very big accountability problem there, but they are washing their hands of the whole thing by hiding behind a foundation. That is a problem. In the meantime, our educational system cannot define priorities as quickly as it needs to be able to do.

Quebec held a summit conference on priorities in postsecondary education. But the federal government does not see this as important. One morning, the Prime Minister had a bright idea and told the House that that was the priority because he believes that Canada has a role to play in this.

In the few minutes I have left, I want to look briefly at regional development. It is the same thing. Our RCM in Témiscamingue has managed to develop a genuine single window approach. Higher levels of government having had difficulty reaching agreement, we created a single window with one board of directors for the federal, provincial and municipal programs.

Who barged in? The federal government. Having lost its visibility in such a structure, it made us dismantle it. Now, we are going back to two boards, two directors general and, in the long term, two different development visions. Locally, it was a success, but because the federal government had lost its visibility, it decided to make us go back to the earlier system. This is not conducive to economic development. This agency should be called Propaganda Canada, not Economic Development Canada.

The government takes the attitude that Quebeckers do not know how good they have it and should be shown. But our presence in the House, and the presence of others who are not satisfied with this system, shows that there are serious problems that the members opposite have historically been unable to resolve.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the words of my colleague. I believe he is absolutely right. There are particularities to the west as there are to Quebec, but I believe the Liberal government would be well advised to announce its intentions when it is travelling in the regions, particularly in Quebec.

I have an anecdote to relate in this connection. Over Easter, a minister decided to come to the Charlevoix region, one of the loveliest regions of Quebec. Did he come to the casino, or to visit his relatives? Of course, in order to justify his travel allowance, the minister had to meet the press, or a mayor, or visit an arts centre.

He ought to have given the MP for Charlevoix a call to say “I would like to consult your area of the riding, I would like to meet with local unemployed people in order to see whether the $27.3 million in cuts in Charlevoix are doing much harm. I would like to meet the people of Charlevoix in order to see whether they are frustrated by our unkept promises made in 1997. I would like to meet the people of Charlevoix to see what effects our transfer payments to the provinces have had on health and education”.

I would have liked to have got a group of women together so that they could tell him how the President of Treasury Board is refusing to give public servants pay equity. I would have liked to have got a group of young people together to tell him how the federal government is refusing to withdraw from collective agreements the orphan clause which penalizes very young workers.

But no. When ministers travel to the regions, they do so solely to raise their profile. We have seen that the problem is the same in the west, as the Reform Party pointed out this morning. Quebec is recognized as a region. I believe that Quebec has been calling for that right for some years now. The Bloc Quebecois has been doing so in the House of Commons since 1993.

There is a problem of duplication and overlap, and I would like the hon. member for Témiscamingue to give us some other examples. He has already mentioned the millennium scholarships, to demonstrate that the Government of Quebec is acknowledged by the Canadian government as a region, as a kind of board.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a lot of time left, but we could have talked, for example, about the environment of pulp and paper companies or others that have both the federal and the provincial standards. Sometimes the higher standards are federal and sometimes they are Quebec's. If a criminal offence is involved, the weight is in favour of the federal standard. Conversely, if it is a civil matter, the weight is in favour of the provincial standard. It is a total administrative mess.

However, as regards what my colleague from Charlevoix was saying recently, a well-intentioned individual working for the federal government at home with the Department of Human Resources Development said to the stakeholders “The regional office analyzes that”. I knew that by “regional office” she meant Montreal. But the people in my region, when they heard “regional office” understood it was managed in Rouyn-Noranda, because that is where the regional office is.

So at one point I spoke up and said “We will clarify one thing. In Ottawa, when you say 'region', you mean Quebec entirely. If you say Abitibi—Témiscamingue, you are referring to—” I would not even use an adjective for fear of having it used against me. For us, Abitibi-Témiscamingue is our region. We would like the government to think this way.

What sets us apart is the number of mines we have. There were tax incentives, which still exist, but have been cut considerably by the federal government, which led to a lot of exploration. Northern Quebec still has extraordinary potential for mining exploration, but the reduction in the worth of natural resources, particularly metals, and the Bre-X crisis and other incidents, have discouraged exploration.

The fact that the federal government did not restore that program in its original form was very prejudicial to our region. When that flow-through shares program was at its peak, unemployment in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region was at 7%. However, from the federal government's perspective, a tax measure that applies to just one region of Quebec clearly does not have enough of an impact to justify an extended program.

This is unfortunate because that initiative was specifically targeted to the needs of our region. I could list many more that do not specifically meet regional needs. It is not the economic development agencies, which often do promotional work, that identify these needs. These agencies exist primarily to sell Ottawa to people in the regions, not to take regional issues and get the federal government to do something about them. There may exceptions, but this is how it works in my region.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I must say I always welcome the opportunity to talk about topics such as why those of us who represent the regions sometimes feel alienated from the central part of the country and why there are concerns in the regions of Canada. I say this today with a certain discomfort in light of the events that have surrounded us. We are in a state of war. We are in an offensive operation against a sovereign nation.

The news reports this morning are of Serb infantry troops crossing into Albania and seizing Kamenica, a village in northern Albania. There seems to be an expansion of the war. There are topics we could talk about in terms of welcoming refugees in particular those with family connections here in Canada and the use of spent plutonium on the bullets of weapons from certain countries. We could talk about a whole number of items, but today we are talking about alienation particularly from a western perspective. Therefore my comments will focus obviously on that.

There is a school of history which is called the heartland hinterland school. It is where we try to describe what goes on in our country in terms of recognizing that the heartland of Canada is mainly parts of Ontario and Quebec and the rest is a hinterland and the relationship between the heartland and the hinterland.

It is important when talking about the alienation of regions to recognize that we are talking about western Canada, British Columbia, Yukon, the north, Atlantic Canada. But there is also northern Ontario, the Gaspé and other regions which feel very alienated from the centre, meaning the central triangle in Ontario and Quebec.

There is no question there are serious problems in the regions of Canada. One of the reasons I suspect these concerns and problems go unaddressed in any serious way is the result of simple demographics. There are more MPs in the city of Toronto than in all of British Columbia. That tells a bit of the tale. When we look at representation by population the vast majority of Canadians are focused in central Canada, their representatives are from central Canada. The regions are a long way away in geographic terms. I suspect they are a longer way away psychologically also.

As a representative from western Canada, in particular British Columbia I want to toss out a challenge to my Liberal colleagues across the way. Over the years there have been shared programs between the federal and provincial governments. Recognizing that British Columbia has a little over 12% of the population of Canada, I have yet to determine a single shared program where British Columbia gets 12% of the benefits. There is not a single one.

I would like to be contradicted. Therefore I am challenging my Liberal friends opposite to identify for me a single program over the last 20 years where British Columbians have simply received their fair share.

We do not want more than our fair share. We do not want an excess. If we have 12% of the population and highway funds, for example, are being divvied up, we should get 12% of the funds. What do we get? Nothing, absolutely zip.

When we look at the money the federal government collects from gasoline taxes and where it invests that money in highways, is a single cent invested in western Canada? No, not a single cent. Is it any wonder western Canadians feel somewhat alienated?

We could talk about the north, about Yukon. Yukon has been dealt devastating blows by the federal government. It lost its weather station. This is a part of the world where the weather is crucial but the weather station is gone. It is the one part of Canada where the stay in school program has been most successful, but it has been yanked out of the territory.

There have been major cuts in crucial health programs particularly for aboriginal peoples. Then there is the privatization of the airport which has a particular impact in the north. Those of us who travel and use airlines have to pay a certain fee in some airports. In Whitehorse a fee for cargo has to be paid as well. As a result of the fee that is added on in terms of this airport user fee there is a huge extra cost for bread and milk in remote communities.

I could go on and talk about the Devco fiasco in Nova Scotia, the Sable Gas disaster or the shipyards on the east and west coasts that are crying for work. The unions come forward with very complicated, complex and thoughtful programs in terms of how to develop our east and west coast shipbuilding industries and are virtually ignored by the federal government.

To someone from British Columbia one thing symbolizes the frustration we feel. It is fair to say that as we have attempted to diversify away from the resource based industries that are known to have built British Columbia, we have been developing the film industry. We now have the largest film industry in Canada. Yet when we look at the number of dollars the federal government invests in the film industry in British Columbia compared with Ontario and Quebec, it is infinitesimal.

When there is a significant effort to diversify away from the resource based economy, is there any serious help from the federal government? The answer is no. I am not here to say that there is no help, that there is absolutely nothing, but it is pretty close to that.

The economy of that region of Canada to a large extent is based on the resource sector, on agriculture, mining, forestry and the fishery. Members should come to British Columbia and have a look at the fishery industry. A disaster is unfolding. Granted, the federal government has come up with a few dollars to help out but not very much. Whole sections of the British Columbia coast are absolutely devastated economically because of lack of support for the west coast fishery. I do not even have to talk about the east coast fishery because we know what has happened there.

We could look at agriculture, the struggling sector in all regions of Canada, and see where the federal government is taking us in terms of support. It is relatively abysmal.

Mining has been essentially abandoned. We could consider the importance of mining for the north, for British Columbia, for the northern parts of the prairies, for northern Ontario, and for the regions of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. It is a critical sector that has by and large been bypassed by the federal government.

I know it is not terribly romantic. The romance now is in the high tech sector, the information technology sector and so on. That is where the investments are being made. Not surprisingly those operations are by and large located in central Canada, again to the abandonment of those of us from the regions of Canada.

I want to point out that the issue of water diversion concerns us. Water diversion and the sale of freshwater are probably not huge issues in downtown Toronto or downtown Montreal, although they are probably issues with some people. For those of us who represent the regions of Canada they are major issues.

A little while ago a motion was passed in the House which called for an immediate moratorium that the government should announce on freshwater exports to the United States and northern Mexico eventually. It also called for the government to bring in policy as quickly as possible to safeguard that very crucial resource for the future.

We passed that motion unanimously. That should send a pretty clear signal to the government that the House of Commons, representing every part of Canada, wanted action immediately on the preservation of Canada's freshwater resources.

What did the government do the next day? It went to the United States and asked the Americans what they thought about it and what they suggested it do in terms of our freshwater. From where did that initiative arise? Who suggested that we go to the Americans and ask what they thought about exporting water, diverting rivers into the United States, and that sort of thing? That is where we are today.

I challenge my Liberal friends across the way to identify for those of us in the opposition parties a single program where British Columbia gets its fair share, one program where British Columbia which represents 12% of the population of Canada gets 12% of the action. I see the minister from British Columbia is here. I know he will be standing in a moment or two to list those particular programs. I look forward to those comments.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would gladly yield to a Liberal colleague answering my friend's question. None rose to their feet, so I will do my best to fill in.

I know for a fact that there are no programs that give British Columbians their fair share, even though they contribute more than their fair share in terms of revenue to the federal government. The same applies to my home province of Alberta. I think that is why people in the west in particular, but in all regions of the country, find good reasons to feel alienated from the federal government and from central Canada.

My friend touched on the important issue of the government's lack of respect for democracy. We saw that in the water debate and again more recently. On many occasions in this place we have seen the Liberal government whip its majority into place to vote against a particular bill. We must remember that the Liberal Party has 101 seats of the 103 seats in Ontario, or at least most of them. There are only two provinces in the whole country in which is has majorities.

I wonder if one of the big reasons people feel alienated is that they do not see Liberal backbenchers standing up and representing points of view that are held strongly across the rest of the country. Would my friend care to comment on that and on the whole idea of the democratic institution of parliament being fundamentally broken and not working well to reflect the interests of the rest of the country?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps I can use an example to respond to my hon. friend. A little while back there was a byelection in Port Moody, British Columbia. The individual elected used to be mayor of the community of Coquitlam. During the election campaign he said he would come down to that town and raise hell. He would speak up for British Columbia. He would be on the floor of the House of Commons and even speak out against the government if he had to. He said that time and time again during the campaign. People listened to him, believed him and elected him. I ask members if they have ever heard this hon. member speak in the House?

[An hon. member]

Lou who?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

I hear somebody saying “Lou who?” To be fair, he may have spoken but the reality is he has sat in the back row and has not said a single thing on a single issue publicly about British Columbia. That is why British Columbians feel short-changed.

The fact that the Liberals have put together this little travelling road show to go about western Canada unannounced seeking the reasons for grievances is another abuse of this institution. We have representatives from western Canada here that well know the concerns. They could easily be sought out in terms of advice. Instead of using parliament as a tool, they twist the partisan part of this place and send out a group of Liberal backbenchers and Liberal senators. If there is one thing that will alienate western Canadians it is that.

I know from my own riding that the Liberals sent out a certain individual. I will not name the person, but when she arrived in Kamloops I can tell the House the response she received. I can tell the House how people feel about it. They had an elected representative from British Columbia, an elected representative from Kamloops. They wondered why somebody from Ontario was being sent out there to find out their views when their representative could have been asked about them.

She goes out there regularly. I do not know who she talks to but she talks to a few folks. I know what people are saying on the street about these visits. I suspect it is the same as they are saying about the delegation that visits certain parts of western Canada in secret.

That is the reason there is a feeling of alienation. We elect people and then the government ignores the individuals concerned. We elect individuals and they are completely ignored by the government.

I say with reluctance that its arrogance will grow and grow so that in another two years from now it will be almost intolerable. The level of arrogance will be almost intolerable as we move toward the next election. It seems to be a pattern that develops in this place. That arrogance is reflected in the fact that when the government wants to know what is going on in British Columbia it sends out a group of senators and Liberal backbenchers.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, normally when I rise to debate an issue in the House I start my debate by saying that I am very proud and very pleased to stand to debate a particular issue. Unfortunately I cannot say that at this time because quite frankly I find that the motion put before us by the Reform Party is basically taking up very valuable time of the House. The motion is totally partisan and quite frankly an opportunity, I suspect, to put forward a face that is kinder and gentler for the Reform Party. Perhaps the Reform Party has too many supply days if it has to go this level to put forward important issues to the House.

I have spoken in the House on numerous issues from the hepatitis C situation that we found the Liberals ignoring to health care. I have spoken to the budget, which I was very pleased to do. I have spoken with respect to defence issues, very important issues that resonate out there in our country today and are very important to Canadians in general. I cannot put this motion in with the other issues we have debated.

As I say, I am always proud to be a representative of the constituency of Brandon—Souris in the House. I must say that speaking to this motion does not instil a lot of pride in myself. Certainly it should not instil a lot of pride in the people who put forward the motion.

Yesterday in the House a very important debate took place, a debate of great significance to Canadians, the Canadian military and our responsibility with respect to NATO. The Reform Party and the leader of the Reform Party justifiably took offence to the fact that we as members of parliament did not have the opportunity to vote and make our mark or have the ability to come forward and suggest that what the government was doing was right or wrong.

Perhaps the Reform Party would have been much better served if it had put forward that motion today and if the Reform Party leader had some conviction as to whether he wished to have that vote on the floor of the House. Then we would have been much better served than with the motion before us.

I find it a rather perverse irony that the Reform Party would come forward with a motion that actually speaks to alienation. Alienation is synonymous with the Reform Party. To bring it forward now obviously is the Jekyll and Hyde of the Reform Party. It is trying to snow Canadians at this point in time.

Let us make no mistake that Reformers have alienated the rest of Canada. We can see that on their benches. They have alienated Ontario. They have alienated Quebec. It does not take much for me to speak to that with the advertising campaign that they had in the last election, as well as comments that were made by their members just recently with respect to anti-French, Frenchified and anti-francophone.

The members of the Reform Party have alienated eastern Canada, Atlantic Canada. They have done it many times in suggesting that Atlantica should be an amalgam of all the Atlantic provinces. They have alienated Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.

At any point in time if the Reform members would like to come to me, I can introduce them to my colleagues from Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. The Reform members cannot do the same. I would love for them to introduce me to their colleagues in those other regions of Canada that they now so passionately speak of as being alienated, not only by the Liberal government, but by other members of this parliament. They do not speak of their own alienation. Let me speak to that briefly and then I will get into the alienation the Liberal government has also allowed in this great country.

What about Atlantic Canada? A member of the Reform Party stood up recently and spoke very eloquently to the fact that there are issues in Atlantic Canada that have to be put on the floor of this House, which the Liberals and the government should be able to deal with immediately. Let me deal with some of those issues.

I quote: “The Leader of the Reform Party of Canada does not like special income assistance programs for fishermen and plant workers. He would wipe out regional development initiatives like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and he is opposed in principle to the special bailout of Cape Breton coal mines”. Not only is that an irony, it is a complete flip-flop from a comment that was made recently by a member of the Reform Party. He talked about Devco and about the Sydney mines. That quote, by the way, was made on July 25, 1996. Those are the chameleon policies of the Reform Party.

I have another quote: “The kind of fiscal shock treatment the leader of the Reform Party favours may eliminate the deficit, but would also abandon thousands of Atlantic Canadians to a cruel fate”.

I find it rather ironic that they speak so eloquently on issues of Atlantic Canada on the one hand, but do not tell the truth on the other. They are saying something totally different. I would like to add another quote: “Canada should slash its universal social program and return to a bygone era when families and charities looked after the elderly, the unemployed and the poor, the Reform Party says”. That was in the Chronicle-Herald on February 22, 1995.

It is absolutely incomprehensible that the Reform members would talk about the alienation of a region when in fact they are the ones who have alienated the majority of the regions in this country. It is the wrong thing to do.

We should be debating something of consequence here in this House, but we are not.

I would like to speak to the motion because perhaps there are some items the government would like to hear about from the Progressive Conservative Party to try to improve upon its record in western Canada. The government has alienated in its own right and its own way, as have we. I take some consequence of 1993 when the Progressive Conservative Party had alienated Canadians. Perhaps we all do it at some point in our political careers. That is why they are not necessarily long careers, but they are valuable and viable careers.

On January 7, 1999 the Prime Minister announced the creation of what he called the Prime Minister's task force on the four western provinces. I have to admit my first reaction was that it was definitely a political manoeuvre to try to get additional support in the western Canadian provinces.

I have no doubt in my little mind that is what this particular task force is all about. It is to go out and gain some public relations and some media attention. It is to say that the government is listening, that it cares not only about western Canadians but also about eastern Canadians, Atlantic Canadians and the Quebecois who are still very strong Canadians.

The task force is a bit of a make work project for little Liberal backbenchers. However, it is doing it for whatever it feels are the necessary reasons.

In fact, the chairman of the task force is a colleague of mine. He is also the chairman of the agriculture committee on which I sit. I find it rather amusing. The member who is from the Manitoba riding of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, and heads the task force is the very same member on the agriculture committee when we were trying to put forward some very well thought out changes to legislation, Bill C-4, which had to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board, who said that Canadian farmers want what we are putting forward and we are not prepared to make any changes.

That is not the way governments are to listen to the people who represent Canadians in those areas. I wish that particular individual had made some of the changes. We would not be in the position we are in now with the alienation of Canadian farmers.

Did the government consult with not only the stakeholders but also the premiers of the provinces of western Canada when it put together the AIDA program? No. It developed a program of its own design and then it went out and forced premiers to come into the program. It is the absolute wrong way to do it. Of course in doing that people are alienated and the government is learning from that.

I wish that Canadians would better recognize this country as being ten provinces and three territories. Perhaps we could all learn from our mistakes. Perhaps by working together as opposed to driving these wedges between the regions of the country we can become a much better country.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his positive attitude. Let me give a few examples.

He acknowledged that any activity which a political party takes has a political dimension. When I go to Brandon and make an announcement which I have done, obviously it has a political dimension. When one undertakes an initiative such as the one we are discussing this morning, out of necessity it has some political ramifications. There is no question about that.

I am particularly pleased that my colleague pointed out that if we look at the country today, indeed if we look at the world, there are some questions we could have been discussing today, debating and exchanging information on which could have benefited all Canadians. I am not sure that is going to happen.

Would my colleague agree that an initiative such as the one that has been undertaken, which he has discussed, could have some potentially positive benefits for western Canadians and western Canadian provinces? I indicated that the Government of Canada was fully integrated into western Canada. There are a lot of services which many people do not know about, but I acknowledge the fact that a couple of colleagues have identified how helpful those have been.

Let us strip away the politics. Let us strip away the other dimensions. Is there some potential benefit in having people from not only western Canada but from eastern Canada, MPs as well as senators, meet with groups to talk to them and to try to understand better than they do now what this country is all about? In this case it happens to be western Canada.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification for his question.

I would suggest that he does not make enough of those announcements in the city of Brandon. Perhaps he could expand on some of those announcements and I would be very happy to be a part of them.

I do not think there is any doubt that it is always to our benefit to listen to Canadians. The Progressive Conservative Party has a task force under way that is listening to those people who are homeless and who are dealing with poverty. We deal with that task force from coast to coast. We would not be able to learn the issues and to better deal with them if we did not listen to the people who are at the root of those issues.

I have no doubt there will be some good that comes from this particular task force. I have no doubt the task force initially was developed and designed to try to elevate the Liberals' profile in an area where their profile is very limited. Will it work for the profile? Probably not. But the members of the committee should well learn something from the people whom they listen to. The people they are talking to certainly know the areas better than the Liberal members do.

As was mentioned once before, I believe by a member from the NDP, I too have some very strong opinions on those issues. I have had the opportunity on occasion to share those opinions with members of the government. Unfortunately they do not implement those opinions as much as they should. They would do a much better job if they did.