Debates of Dec. 1st, 1998

Questions On The Order Paper

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Did the Minister of Canadian Heritage, or anyone in the Ministry of Canadian Heritage, hold consultations with the National Association of Japanese Canadians prior to deciding to make the changes to the mandate and reporting structure of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation that are proposed in Bill C-44, The Administrative Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary Measures) Act, and if so, what were the results of those consultations?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, parliamentary secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

The Department of Canadian Heritage did not hold consultations with the National Association of Japanese Canadians prior to deciding to make the changes to the mandate and reporting structure of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation proposed in Bill C-44, The Administrative Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary Measures) Act. However, when the amendments to the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act were first introduced in June 1996 in Bill C-49, The Administrative Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary Measures) Act, now Bill C-44, the honourable Hedy Fry, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), informed stakeholders, including the National Association of Japanese Canadians, NAJC, that the government intends to maintain a lead role in race relations policy and programming and that amendments are necessary to avoid overlap and duplication of efforts.

The amendments to the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act are in keeping with the government's commitment to streamline federal boards, agencies and corporations and to make them more accountable to the Canadian public. The amendments will also clarify the mandate of the foundation to ensure that it will be able to achieve its objectives and that it will efficiently and effectively complement the activities of the Government of Canada.

In addition, the changes to the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act will make it easier for the Canadian Race Relations Foundation to be a significant factor in the resolution of race relations issues in Canada. The proposed amendments do not alter our vision of the key role the foundation will play. It will be a centre of excellence, a national resource to serve the information and research needs of governments, public and private institutions, researchers, communities and the general public.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

That this House urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories, prior to December 31, 1998, and based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed to last August 7th at Saskatoon, to strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to secure Canada's social programs for the future.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, 1998, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bill.

In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of today's debate members of the Reform Party will be dividing their time.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the supply day motion before the House.

This motion, as members will note, calls for the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to the end of the year and to establish a stronger partnership for the provision of essential social services such as health care, education and social assistance. It calls for that agreement to be based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed at Saskatoon last August 7.

In other words, the motion calls for a positive, timely, proactive response by the federal parliament to the demands of all provinces for a better and stronger social union. I do not need to tell the House that such a response to the social union proposals from the premiers is long overdue and even more urgent in light of the provincial election results in Quebec last night.

As a democrat who accepts and respects the results of elections, I want to extend congratulations to all those members of the Quebec Assembly who were elected yesterday.

I wish to congratulate Mr. Bouchard's government on its re-election. Congratulations as well to Mr. Dumont and Action démocratique du Québec, which offered Quebeckers a third option between sovereigntists and traditional federalists.

I also want to congratulate Mr. Charest for fighting a valiant campaign with one hand tied behind the his back, a hand tied by the actions or more correctly by the inactions of the Prime Minister and the federal government.

I believe it is imperative that the federal government and parliament send a clear message to all the provinces including Quebec that the reform of the federation is essential and a national priority.

However, over the past 12 months the federal government has had at least three opportunities to send that message and has failed to do so. On November 25, 1997 the official opposition put forward a motion endorsing the efforts of the premiers to initiate reform of the federation through the Calgary declaration, including the seventh point of that declaration which pertained to the reform of the social union.

That motion specifically called for the federal government to communicate the Calgary declaration to the people of Quebec and to consult them on its contents. The government supported the motion but failed to act on it, missing a golden opportunity to communicate to Quebecers the demand for reform of the federation in other parts of the country.

Then on August 7 of this year, after intense negotiation among the provinces themselves in which Premier Bouchard also took part, the 10 premiers and 2 territorial leaders endorsed resolutions calling for a new partnership between the two orders of government for the provision of social services including the refinancing of health care.

However, the Prime Minister reacted negatively in the press to these proposals and his officials have resisted action on several of the main points. Thus there was still no concrete, tangible progress to report on reform of the federation when the Quebec election was called on October 28. Yet another missed opportunity.

At the outset of the Quebec election there was the Prime Minister's infamous interview with La Presse in which he implied again that fundamental reform of the federation, in particular relations between federal and provincial governments, was not an option or a priority. In other words, the tired old song that federalism is good enough as it is, precisely the wrong message to send to Quebec at the beginning of a provincial election.

Three golden opportunities over a 12 month period to send a clear message to all provinces including Quebec that reform of the federation is a viable option and national priority were all missed by the government.

Yet the sun still shines on Canada. Here we find ourselves on the day after the Quebec election with yet another opportunity to send a message to the people of all the provinces that parliament is prepared to respond positively today to the demand for reform of the way this federation delivers and finances social services.

I remind all hon. members that in the final analysis this social union is not a constitutional measure. Nor is it merely some subject for academic debate about federal-provincial relations or the administration of government programs. The social union is about health, education and support for people in need.

At this point in time when federal transfers to the provinces have been cut by $7 billion, when hospitals are closing, when 1,400 doctors have left the country in the last two years, when nurses are striking in British Columbia, and when almost 200,000 people are on waiting lists, the social union is particularly about health care.

When the premiers call for joint action between themselves and the federal government to repair the health care system, when the electors of Quebec support joint action to repair the health care system, and when our motion today calls for joint action to repair the health care system, we are asking the federal government to respond to the health care needs of real people—somebody's mother, somebody's father, somebody's child, somebody's friend—waiting for the government to act.

The motion is asking the federal government to conclude an agreement with the provinces this month that will make a difference as to how health care is provided and financed in the country next year and in the years ahead.

We know from the representations of all the premiers and the polls that there is demand in every province for social services reform, even if there is still some disagreement about the details. I urge NDP members of the House to support the efforts of Premier Romanow and Premier Clark on this issue, to support the motion in principle and then argue for their particular perspective on the details of the social union at a later time. I also urge PC members of the House to support the efforts of Premiers Klein, Filmon, Harris and Binns on this issue to do likewise.

We also know from the Angus Reid poll of November 24, conducted for Radio Canada in Quebec, that 73% of respondents said that if Premier Bouchard were re-elected his priority should be to attempt to improve the position of Quebec within Confederation, while only 24% said he should commence to gather winning conditions for a referendum on sovereignty.

I sincerely hope that Bloc Quebecois members will see in this motion the major features of the social union motions they themselves introduced on October 5 and November 19. I sincerely hope, as well, that Bloc Quebecois members will support this motion, because it reflects the wish expressed by Quebec voters for immediate priority to be given to social service reforms.

Finally, I appeal to government members, indeed to all members of the House, not to miss yet another opportunity to provide some positive leadership on the issue of social union.

This parliament's job in the coming months will be to create winning conditions for all Canadians as we enter the 21st century.

As we enter the 21st century there should be winning conditions for taxpayers, winning conditions for jobs, winning conditions for health care, winning conditions for all our people regardless of their language, culture, ethnicity, station in life or where they live in the country.

I urge all members to support the motion as a positive step toward creating winning conditions for the new Canada of the 21st century.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. leader of the Reform Party. It concerns the deadline of December 31, 1998. I wonder why this particular deadline.

It seems that it has made the motion much more problematic than it needed to be. My understanding is that the premiers would not be happy with a motion passed by the House which required that they and the federal government arrive at an agreement by the end of this month, given what month it is. It seems hard to believe the motion was put forward with any kind of realistic expectation that this could happen, or put forward for that matter constructively, knowing how difficult it would be to meet such a deadline.

Those of us who approach this issue constructively are somewhat mystified at why this deadline would be put in the motion. It is not just in respect of the difficulty of meeting the deadline but also because of the difficulty of having any due process between now and then.

I remember the hon. member and his party castigating the rest of us for lack of public consultation when it comes to these kinds of things. Does the member really think that between now and December 31, 1998 there could be some meaningful public consultation, or has he converted to executive federalism?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I will respond in two ways. First, there is a reason for the deadline. Our understanding is that the premiers want this concluded by the end of the year. The premiers have referred to the end of December as a deadline that must be met.

They are asking for the federal government to respond conclusively to the resolutions they passed in August. They are not saying that the legislation, if there is a requirement for legislation, has to be in place. They want a definitive response from the federal government by the end of the year to proposals which have been on the table for months and months and months. That is the reason for the December 31 deadline.

On the member's second point, of course we see a place for public process but there has to be public process with respect to some agreement that is in place. Until we know the federal government's response to the premiers' resolutions, what would we discuss with the public in a public discussion at this stage? It would be the various options the federal government may pursue. We see all sorts of room for process after there has been some definitive agreement between the federal and provincial governments. In fact we would insist on that.

I urge hon. members not to let the time factor be a restraint from voting against the motion. The House has to put some pressure on the government, which has been dragging its heels for years on this subject, to come to some kind of conclusion now on matters that have been before it for months.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about how important it is to invest in our health care system for the benefit of all. The member doth protest too much.

This is the member whose party supports a two tier health care system, one for the rich and the leftovers for the rest of Canadians. He is also the leader of the party that wants to scrap the Canada Health Act which provides the foundation for the quality of health care in Canada.

Will the member reverse his position on two tiered health care and on eliminating the Canada Health Act?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member shows a gross and I would suggest a deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the position of the official opposition. Our position has always been that health care should be available to all Canadians regardless of ability to pay and we do not support an American style of health care. We never have and never will.

We are open to amendments to the Canada Health Act. Coming out of the social union discussion we may require amendments to the health act. If the member is concerned about the health care act, he should be concerned about the violations of it today. One of the five criteria of the Canada Health Act which the government swears is its number one priority is accessibility to the system.

Accessibility means being able to get health care when one needs it. With 188,000 people on waiting lists, that one criterion of the Canada Health Act is being violated tens of thousands of times per day. It is violated not by anything the official opposition has done but by the inaction of the federal government.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition about the social union.

I want to reiterate some of the comments that he made regarding the need for the federal government to show leadership and to acknowledge to Canadians that there is room for reform in the federation.

I would like to take a moment to explain what the social union is. As the premiers stated in Saskatoon in August, “it is about governments working together within their constitutional responsibilities to ensure strong and sustainable health, education and social services for all Canadians. It is not about more power for one order of government or another”.

To put it quite simply, the social union would mean better health care for all Canadians by ensuring that the funding arrangements between the federal government and the provinces is reformed on the basis of transparency, consistency and sufficiency.

It was at Saskatoon that the premiers unanimously endorsed the social union. That does not mean that there was not some heated debate. There were concerns expressed by all the provinces. Some provinces may have more difficulty with some areas than others, but they compromised and they agreed to set a parameter of an agreement.

The social union has the support of four Progressive Conservative premiers. It has the support of three Liberal premiers. It has the support of two New Democratic Party premiers. And it has the support of the Parti Quebecois premier. It crosses all party lines.

When the social union was debated in October, it had the support of all the opposition parties. The federal Liberals stand alone in their opposition to the social union. One has to question why that is.

As Premier Romanow of Saskatchewan put it, “the Canadian social union has been challenged in recent years by the unilateral actions of the federal government”. It is time for the federal Liberals to accept the evolving relationship between Ottawa and the provinces.

The re-election of the Parti Quebecois yesterday has assured Canadians that the social union issue will not go away. We are faced with the paradox of the position of Premier Bouchard who on the one hand is talking about strengthening the social union while on the other hand he is intent on creating the winning conditions for a referendum to take Quebec out of the federation.

It is clear that Quebeckers have decided to re-elect the Parti Quebecois because they believe it to be the party that is best able to govern and represent their interests.

It is also quite clear from the polls that what the large majority of Quebeckers want is reform within the Canadian federation, with increased control of their personal affairs. This is what the Reform Party offers, not only to the Province of Quebec, but also to all Canadians from all the provinces and territories. Together, we must work to meet the winning conditions for the creation of a new Canada.

While this motion should not be seen as a response to yesterday's election, it is clear that the federal government has allowed Premier Bouchard to gain the momentum.

With this motion, federalists can once again reclaim the initiative that was started by the premiers. It is with this opportunity of supporting this motion that the federalist forces in this country can reclaim the position of leading toward a new direction in the federation.

We can show all Canadians that by strengthening the partnership between the two orders of government, by strengthening the social union we can improve the federation.

The premiers' agreement was not outrageous. It can in no way be construed as an attack on the federal government or federal powers.

For example, the premiers asked for collaborative arrangements on federal spending in areas of provincial-territorial jurisdiction. This means that before the federal government starts spending money in an area of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government should collaborate with the provinces. How can this be construed as an attack on the federation?

I asked my constituents about this in my latest householder. The question was: Do you agree that the federal government should be prevented from spending money in provincial jurisdictions without the approval of the majority of the provinces? With over 1,800 responses to date, over 80% of these respondents said yes. The federal government should be prevented from spending money in areas of provincial jurisdiction without the agreement of the provinces.

The premiers also asked for a new dispute resolution mechanism that would prevent disputes and resolve them fairly when they arose. How does this challenge federal powers?

The provinces also asked for an opt out provision that would allow provinces to opt out of any new or modified Canada-wide program with full compensation provided that the province carries on a program that addresses the priority areas of the Canada-wide program.

The premiers claim that this is an essential dimension of the provincial-territorial consensus negotiating position. The premiers are being realistic with this position. Because our country is so diverse, one cannot always impose a one size fits all solution.

The social union has the unanimous support of the provinces. Polls just prior to the Quebec election indicated that 73% of Quebecers did not want separation but rather a renewed Canadian federation. With this motion, the Reform Party is offering that renewed Canadian federation, an opportunity to create the winning conditions for a new and stronger Canada.

However, I do wish to put forth the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “House” the word “strongly”.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke has been very involved on behalf of the official opposition in endeavouring to ascertain the positions of the various provincial governments with respect to the social union.

She is also a representative from the province of British Columbia. Would she care to comment on the importance of the social union proposals to that great province? That province will be the second largest province in Canada some time in the 21st century. Would she care to share a bit of her knowledge and experience on that subject?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The province of British Columbia, probably more than many, feels very disconnected from the federation, from the central government in Ottawa. Often we find ourselves on the other side of a situation.

It is very important for the federal government to recognize that British Columbia is a growing province and is most likely to be the second largest province in the next century. The federal government must recognize that all the provinces have grown up.

It is time for this federal government to recognize that in 1867 the jurisdictions of health, education and social services were given to the provinces. The provinces are ready to assume responsibility. The provinces are asking the federal government to acknowledge that they are capable of assuming that responsibility and agreeing to the social union. It clearly establishes some rules for this new partnership, with the recognition from the federal government of the provinces' ability to deliver services, and this new partnership will be confirmed with the agreement of the social union. Because there is a set process and regulations to be followed, this will enable the provinces to do what they can do best, which is to deliver services to their people who would receive the best services because they are done by the government closest to them.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member, is what we are really talking about here not just a warmed over Charlottetown accord which is going to give more power to the provinces, weaken the federal government and play directly into the hands of separatist Premier Lucien Bouchard? Is that not what they are proposing on the other side?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. There is no reason that the federal government would be less strong. All we are talking about is an open relationship between the federal government and the provinces recognizing the vision the founding fathers had of confederation in 1867. There is no way this would weaken the federal government any more than it already is by telling Canadians that they are not prepared to look at the country evolving from 1867, that they are not prepared to look at change, that they are not prepared to work with the provinces to provide better health care, education, and social services to the people of Canada.

There is no way that this agreement can be considered the same as the Charlottetown accord. I would suggest that with this debate and the debate we had on the supply day motion a week ago, we are trying to get this government to open up the debate so Canadians will have an understanding of what it is we are talking about. This House is a good place to start the debate. It is important for all of us to continue this debate out in the public and include Canadians in the decision making.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be one essential question that must be asked first of all: Why do we have a federation?

My suggestion, the suggestion of the Government of Canada, is that we have a federation in order to ensure that we are able to pursue common objectives within our diversity of experiences. Unitary countries can set common objectives, but cannot draw upon the wealth of diversity of experience as a federation can. Ten self-centred republics to the north of the United States could have the diversity of experience, but not the same capacity to set common objectives and benefit from each other's support.

I say this because it is natural for provincial governments to be concerned primarily by the diversity of experiences, or in other words their own autonomy, while still keeping in mind the necessity for common objectives. It is equally natural for the federal government to be concerned primarily with common objectives, while still keeping in mind the diversity of the country. This is exactly what is happening with the negotiations for social union, an issue of extreme importance for all Canadians.

At the invitation of the Prime Minister of Canada, primarily, as well as the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister and the premiers, along with the territorial leaders, reached agreement on December 12 to try to improve the Canadian social union.

The provinces set out to work together, coming up with a common approach only on June 18. I cannot blame them for taking six months; this is a complicated matter.

The Government of Canada took a month, until July 16, to react. The Quebec premier really joined the discussion only on August 7, and without the leadership of a government in Quebec with a belief in Canada, things became more complicated and progress slower. Since then, we have been discussing these two propositions together: one from the provinces and one from the federal government. Both are under examination.

The aim is not to reach an awkward compromise between the two; the aim is to draw out of the two the best possible social policy, the best possible framework for a decision so Canadians may have the social policies they are entitled to.

This is no easy achievement, because it is an important issue. It involves health and the social safety of people in Canada and because, what is more, we already have a good social union and it is always hard to improve on something good. I hope that the opposition parties will not try to diminish Canada's achievements for political gain.

Canada has achieved something good in its social union, without a doubt, as it has in the Canadian federation in general. It is a success, when you look at what is going on elsewhere in the world. It is not a work in progress. And so it is difficult, and it is not just the Government of Canada saying this.

A study released by the national bureau of economic research of Harvard University about the quality of governments compared 150 governments according to their capacities to deliver good services to citizens while respecting their freedom.

Canada ranked 5th of 150 governments. It is not so bad. We have to improve something that already is good. We need to work together, especially at this time following a lot of cuts and difficulties. Governments have been able to put their fiscal houses in order. Now together we have to choose good policies. It may take time but it is necessary in order to succeed.

Now I would like to link this debate and the unity of our country, Canadian unity. There is, in our opinion, a bad way to pose the problem and a good way.

The bad way to pose it is to react as if in a panic under the pressure of a separatist threat and as if we were trying to appease them with a policy that could be a poor one, but simply to placate them—this is what may be called loot politics. Separation blackmail and loot politics have no hold on the Government of Canada and never will, so long as the government is Liberal.

Another way to badly describe it is to call it a power grab. The federal and provincial governments both explain that is not what is under negotiation.

Our difficulty arises when the Prime Minister is misquoted, especially by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister never said he does not want to improve the federation, to put forward concrete changes. He said that constitutional change now is not the best way to achieve it. The Leader of the Opposition has said the same thing.

Why invent difficulties where there are none? I would understand the Leader of the Opposition putting pressure on us the way he is if the provinces were complaining that the federal government is not negotiating completely in good faith.

I quote what Premier Romanow, chairman of the premiers conference, said yesterday: “The first order of business is the social union, negotiating it as quickly as we can, not under artificial deadlines or timetables, doing it with dispatch, doing it with determination”.

The Prime Minister wants to do it. His ministers want to do it. The premiers want to do it. Premier Bouchard signed on in Saskatoon in August.

The bargaining position of the provinces and the territorial governments is what the premiers did. They set out several positions we would like to see implemented in the social union. It is a bargaining position. It is a give and take. There is compromise, flexibility and no artificial deadlines. I could not agree more. I have other quotes from premiers saying the same thing.

I will now explain why the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is unacceptable to the government and I will suggest a motion that I hope will be acceptable to all parties.

The motion is that this House strongly urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to December 31, artificial deadline. We do not need to rush. We need to work cautiously and seriously, based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed at Saskatoon August 7. I am not sure what that means. Does that mean that if the Leader of the Opposition were the Prime Minister of Canada he would sign exactly what the provinces are suggesting?

If that is the case he and his party should say that very clearly to Canadians. If it is to negotiate in good faith to see if we can improve both federal and provincial proposals we would agree, but this is too vague too support.

To strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to secure Canada's social programs for the future, why do we only want to secure social programs? Do we not want to also improve our social programs?

Therefore I would move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “conclude” and substituting the following therefor:

“The best possible agreement with the provinces and territories and based on the commitment of first ministers in December 1997 and affirmed by the provinces at Saskatoon last August 7, to strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to secure and improve Canada's social programs for the future”.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move this amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since there already is an amendment before the House, I think it is clear that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cannot move another amendment right now.

Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to move this amendment now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no unanimous consent. The amendment is therefore not in order.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot express strongly enough my disappointment in the minister's speech.

It was just a litany of reasons for delay. It reminds me of Lincoln's comment on people in his day who said they were in favour of the abolition of slavery but could not do it on this day, not on that day, not by this way and not by that way. At the end of the day, of course, they really were opposed to the change that was being recommended.

I would like to ask the minister a practical question. What is it in the proposals put forward by the premiers that is the great obstacle to bringing this to a successful conclusion? Is it the opt out clause, is it the dispute settling mechanism? What are the practical things that the federal government simply cannot solve in its relations with the provinces that prevent this social union agreement from moving ahead?