House of Commons Hansard #278 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was finance.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance admit that by cutting back the general transfers to the provinces for social programs, and ploughing part of the cuts back into child care, the federal government is imposing its choices on the provinces, which is diametrically opposite to the Prime Minister's promises of decentralization?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has already explained, one of the great advantages of the new transfer program is that it allows provincial governments the flexibility to set priorities to determine what is the most important investment to make in this area of programming.
We are suggesting and promoting the notion that if we want to get people back to work that we have to be able to provide for the proper care of children along the way, a point of view shared by many provincial governments.
All we are trying to do in this case is to ensure that there is support in those areas, so that they can exercise the new flexibility and the priorities that they have under the new social transfer.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister's response perfectly but it does nothing to change the fact that on the one hand the federal government is cutting general transfer payments to the provinces, which they are given to organize their own social services, and is then reinvesting that money into a child care package. That is called ramming your choices down the other's throat. If the federal government does not want to impose its choices on the provinces, all it needs do is stop making cuts in general transfer payments to the provinces. That would be a good way to give the provinces some help.
How can the provinces count on federal funding, when they can only be sure of it for three to five years? The need will still be there after that but the federal government can pull out unilaterally, again leaving the provinces to foot the bill, as it has with the transfer payments?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the hon. member gets his facts from the pages of a newspaper and does not try to seek out the real information.
The real information is that when writing to the provincial ministers, after extensive discussion with ministers and their officials over the past several months, we indicated the initial investment to help augment the supply of quality child care. Once that initial addition for augmentation takes place, we are committed to the ongoing support and maintenance of those facilities.
It would seem that the hon. member for Roberval might want to talk to his colleague, the hon. member from the constituency of Quebec, who on February 9 said: "Does the government intend to make available to the provinces the financial resources to go ahead
with developing child care?" Again on February 24, she said: "Is the government prepared to act on its commitment respecting quality child care?"
It seems that on the one hand, the Bloc Quebecois is asking for a commitment and, on the other hand, the member for Roberval does not want us to hold to that commitment. Which voice of the Bloc Quebecois should we listen to?
Child CareOral Question Period
The Speaker
Colleagues, we only have a few more hours to go.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Human Resources Development announced yesterday a national daycare strategy costing $720 million over five years, on the condition that the provinces match the amount and meet national standards that Ottawa may set.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by making the federal contributions contingent on a matching investment by the provinces, it is favouring the wealthier provinces, which have greater financial capabilities, over the poorer provinces such as Quebec?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, we have gone from Santa Claus to Ebenezer Scrooge in 30 seconds.
It is really surprising that the hon. member for Quebec who last February was on her feet in the House demanding in no uncertain terms that the government live up to its commitment, has now fundamentally changed her mind, reversed her position, and no longer is committed to the government helping children and their families get proper care.
It really is a very sad day when the hon. member who has had such a good reputation in the House for supporting the cause of children has now bought into some kind of partisan attack against a program that is designed primarily to make sure that children get good quality care.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister is intervening after cutting aid to the provinces. That is not what I meant in my letter.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development acknowledge that he is preparing once again to use his spending power to meddle hamfistedly in the daycare sector, which is under Quebec's jurisdiction exclusively, while imposing national standards; and that, if he really wanted to react or to effectively resolve the daycare problem, he would do well to transfer federal funds to Quebec so they could be managed according to our interests? That was the gist of my letter.
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, it is really a great regret that the hon. member has made such a major reversal in position in so short a time.
In the letter sent to provincial ministers we made it very clear that the provincial governments should respond to us. We said: "It is within your jurisdiction. You propose what kind of program you would like to see happen". It is entirely within their discretion, entirely within their authority to decide how they respond to this. No one is interfering. No one is providing direction in terms of specific programs. That is entirely and thoroughly within the orbit of the provinces to manage.
We are going to ensure that in the very crucial question of ensuring proper care for children and the equally important providing of support for the employment of their parents so that they can go back to work, that we are prepared to help share the burden with the provinces and hopefully they will respond in a like kind.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, in the interest of efficiency and generosity on this last day before the break I have a very straightforward question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This is a question we have had difficulty getting a straight answer on but I hope that today we may receive it.
Will the minister tell Canadians in plain language how granting the separatist government of Quebec a veto over the Constitution of Canada enhances the cause of national unity?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Mr. Speaker, when the people in Quebec voted to elect the Bloc Quebecois we had to accept their democratic verdict. When they decided to elect the Parti Quebecois in Quebec we also had to respect their verdict because this is democracy.
When we give a veto to British Columbia we give it because we believe this is in the national interest. When we give a veto to Quebec we do it because we believe it is in the national interest.
I would hope that the leader of the third party would respect the democratic wishes of the population of Canada.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, the minister provides no rational answer because there is no rational answer.
Any government that can talk itself into believing that a separatist veto over the Constitution of Canada helps national unity can talk itself into any other kind of concession. It is the Neville Chamberlain approach to constitutional negotiation: unity in our time through irrational concessions. When Winston Churchill was asked how to deal with a Prime Minister taking that approach, he replied: "If the Prime Minister trips, he must be sustained; if he makes mistakes, they must be covered; if he sleeps, he must not be wantonly disturbed; but if he is no good, he must be poleaxed".
Does the minister see the wisdom in Winston Churchill's position on how to deal with any minister who undermines the national interest by irrational concessions?
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, in the justice system there is a provision whereby a judge can order somebody to be sent for a mental examination for a period of 30 days. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking that we might give you that authority and that the leader of the Reform Party be the first candidate for that procedure.
The ConstitutionOral Question Period
The Speaker
Colleagues, between poleaxing on one side and medical examination on the other, you are putting your Speaker in a very precarious position. I would ask you to be very judicious in the choice of your words and symbolisms on this day.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, any question of sufficient import to wake up the solicitor general must have had some substance to it.
My final question today is what lawyers call a notwithstanding question. Notwithstanding the desire of Reformers to see the entire government replaced, notwithstanding our desire to see the cabinet shuffled and the Prime Minister impeached, notwithstanding our desire to see the Deputy Prime Minister go on an extended tour of Antarctica, will the government House leader please convey to the Prime Minister, Madam Chrétien and the Prime Minister's colleagues the best wishes of Reformers and our constituents for the season and for the New Year.
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I will say nothing to impeach the good wishes that were expressed by the Reform Party. We accept them in a very positive, forthcoming and gracious spirit. I hope that in the future members of the Reform Party will join with us in our commitment to national unity and abandon what seems to have been their previous obsession with separatism.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, unable to keep his referendum promises, the Prime Minister, in desperation, announced the establishment of two committees, one on the Constitution and the other on the economy. They were to report back to him with recommendations for changes by Christmas.
Would the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether he has received the final reports of these committees, one a phoney, the other a phantom, on changes to be made to the federation?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the responsibilities I have in chairing the jobs committee which was referred to by the hon. member in his question, I can assure him that members of that committee have taken their responsibilities very seriously. Our work is ongoing. As the Prime Minister requested, we will have a report to present to him before Christmas.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister will be getting fine gifts.
Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us what the reports of these two committees will add to his purely symbolic initiatives on the distinct society, the veto and decentralization?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, obviously I am only in the position to comment with respect to the contributions to be made by the committee which I have the honour to be chair.
I would point out to the hon. gentleman that one of the very finest things that can be done to contribute to the spirit of unity in
this country is an ever strengthening Canadian economy generating more and more good solid Canadian jobs.
Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, two years of effort have resulted in failure as the Minister of Human Resources Development does not have one single province signed on to his day care package. Yesterday despite this failure he announced his day care package. The provinces cannot afford this program and the minister knows it.
Why does the minister not admit that he intends to blame the provinces when his day care package goes up in flames?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, why am I not surprised that the hon. member for Calgary Southeast is opposed to a major program to help children across Canada? It comes as part of the general philosophy where her party simply has no interest.
I would like to provide for contrast what the minister for women's equality for the Government of British Columbia said yesterday in her press conference. She said that she is glad the federal government is going to share and is prepared to commit funds to help with children's care. She will be contacting her provincial colleagues to encourage them to support the offer and to work with the federal government.
It shows that the British Columbia minister understands far better than the member for Calgary Southeast the important investment that can be made in child care in helping parents go back to work and in helping to make sure children are well looked after.
Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not huff and puff like Santa Claus going down the chimney but he just about did.
The government is offering over 720 million taxpayer dollars for its ill thought out day care package. The Reform Party believes the Liberal package discriminates against stay at home parents. It provides funds for those who choose to leave child care to others.
Will the minister commit to providing tax relief for stay at home parents?