Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member first stood he said that this was a silly motion. I guess if it is such a silly motion it makes the member pretty silly for joining in.
If the member would not mind standing and feeling silly once again, I would ask him to explain how anything he said in his speech, anything at all, had the slightest bit of relevance to the alienation of the Liberals in the west or anywhere else in the country because of their ignoring of the concerns across the country.
For the member's interest, I would like him to know that a Mark Trend poll taken in B.C. and Alberta in mid-March found that the tax relief he puffed up as being something important that the Liberals were all calling him about, did not even receive favour with a fraction of a percentage of the people. The persons responding to the poll said that the average amount of tax relief they would like to see would be $2,600 a year not the measly few hundred the government granted.
He talked about the Young Offenders Act being lauded across the country. It is being criticized across the country as tinkering around the edges as usual, nothing worthwhile and certainly nothing worth having.
He thinks, as many of the hon. members on that side have said all day, that throwing money at the west or anywhere else through diversification funds somehow responds to the concerns. What a lot of bunkum. The importance of the western diversification fund does not even appear as a blip on the radar screen in western Canada.
I would like the hon. member to get up, be silly again and tell us what relevance his speech had to the whole debate.