Debates of Dec. 1st, 1998

Supply

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comparison irresponsible. It does not make sense. We will forget it.

We are speaking about something very important. It is not time to suggest bad purposes to others. We are working to improve health care, social policies for the people.

It is something important but it seems like the Leader of the Opposition considers that a power grab from one government to another.

What I know is we need to improve our capacity to work together, the provincial and federal governments. We are looking at it very responsibly. The provinces ask us to do the same. No one speaks now about the deadline of December 31. This is not responsible.

We will go ahead to have a good federation. We will improve both the capacity to work together to our shared objectives and the capacity for the provinces to experiment in the diversity of their own solutions. It will be a win-win solution for federal and provincial governments and above all for all Canadians.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the minister a question again, and I will do it very slowly, because what I heard from him were a couple of notes jotted down on a sheet. There was no forethought, there was no organization in that. I suggest he read Hansard tomorrow to see how little sense that speech actually made.

The member for Calgary Southwest asked him in good faith what is the problem, what is the hang-up with the federal government, and again more blather.

The minister knows how serious this issue is. The government can talk about the fact that everything is great in Quebec and in every other province. But the government did precious little to help the federalist side in the election last night and then the minister stands up today as if everything is terrific. It is not. We have a separatist government again in Quebec.

I would like him to stand up and say exactly what it is with his government that is the hang-up to seeing through this social union that every premier in the country wants.

We do not need a lecture on unity this morning. We need the minister to stand up and say what he will do to make sure the social union goes through with every premier in the country and what his hang-up is. Name it, please.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the central answer to the question is we want something even better than what the provinces have suggested for all Canadians. The provinces agree that their current proposal is for negotiation. It is not something they want us to sign as it is. They want to look at it with us as we may improve it.

So where is the problem to try to improve something so important? As the hon. member was starting to say in the question, if we have a social union why do we have so much poverty and unemployment and so on? It is true we have a lot of things to improve in the federation and we will not succeed if we do not invent good solutions for Canadians.

I will tell the House what we need for that. We need imagination and faith in this country.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to congratulate Lucien Bouchard and the Parti Quebecois, in whom the people of Quebec put their trust yesterday. They will form the next government in Quebec.

I also want to congratulate Jean Charest and the Liberal Party, Mario Dumont and the Parti de l'action démocratique, and all those who participated in this election, whether or not they got elected, illustrating what democracy is all about and how much courage is required to take on this task.

I should point out that the government Quebeckers elected yesterday is a good government. This was not a referendum. We sovereignists never said it would be. The federalists in Quebec were the ones who held it would be a referendum election. They will have to live with that now.

We never made any such assertion. We are asserting, however, that it is indeed a sovereignist government that the people of Quebec elected yesterday, confirming the decision they had made in the 1994 provincial election and in federal elections, first in 1993 and again in 1997, with more than 60% of the members from Quebec in this House being sovereignists.

That said, today, we must realize that, from across Canada and also from Quebec yesterday everywhere, a clear message has been sent to Ottawa. It concerns social union. This has been a traditional demand of Quebec's for over 50 years. That is why I was somewhat amazed to hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs state that the motion before us was a panic reaction. This is an issue that has been debated for 50 years, and we are told this morning that it is a panic reaction.

I am also a little surprised to hear him tell us that this was an artificial deadline. It is strange that this government insisted so much on Quebec taking part in these negotiations, considering that, since 1994, the PQ government was present at the negotiation table 89% of the time, while from 1990 to 1994, the provincial Liberals were present only 23% of the time. This is the reality.

The federal government kept telling the PQ government to take part in the negotiations, because it was important to settle the issue. That was before the election. Now, less than 24 hours after the results came in, this government says “This is not urgent. Why all the fuss?”

I did hear Roy Romanow yesterday and I am very disappointed by the attitude of the NDP today, because there are NDP governments—I can think of Mr. Clark and Mr. Romanow—that insisted on Quebec taking part in these negotiations, and that saw how important it was to settle this issue.

The issue goes back a long time. I said 50 years, which includes not only Maurice Duplessis, but also Jean Lesage, René Lévesque and Robert Bourassa. These people were from various backgrounds and represented different parties. However, they all shared the same view on this issue.

I would like to quote Jean Lesage who, in 1960, said the following and certainly not because he was panic-stricken:

This full financial compensation with the right to opt out should take the form of additional taxation rights, specifically reserved for the provincial governments, and of corresponding equalization payments. Each province would be free to dispose of these revenues as it pleases, within its own jurisdictions.

Daniel Johnson senior added the following in 1966:

Quebec hopes that it will be understood once and for all that, for socio-cultural reasons, it insists wholly and absolutely on its constitutional areas of jurisdiction being respected and accepts no federal interference in those areas, whether direct or indirect.

In 1970, Robert Bourassa, who can most certainly not be suspected of any sovereignist leanings, said:

Quebec continues to believe that this federal spending power in areas that come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction ought quite simply not to exist, and the federal government would do well to quite simply renounce it totally.

This was not panic speaking, it was a clear judgement by Robert Bourassa. In 1978, René Lévesque added:

Quebec believes that federal spending powers ought to be restricted only to those areas listed as exclusive or joint federal responsibilities.

This is what Quebec has been saying clearly for 50 years. Today in Quebec this is a view that is held not only by the Parti Quebecois, which will form the next government as a result of yesterday's election, but is also shared by Mr. Charest of the Liberal Party and Mr. Dumont.

This strategy of the sovereignists, along with that of the federalists, and indeed of all leaders of political parties in Quebec, all those who are politically active in Quebec, with the exception of the federal Liberal Party and the members of that party from Quebec who sit in this House, such as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, shows that we have the interests of Quebec at heart. What is being practiced here is not the politics of the worst case scenario, which is the worst kind of politics. We are acting in defence of Quebeckers' rights.

Nor are we engaged in a kind of blackmail, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said earlier. Good heavens, sovereignist policy has never had anything to do with holding a knife to anyone's throat. It was first expressed by Léon Dion, the father of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and in pretty clear terms. Today, they are trying to convince us that it was the sovereignists who did so. We must get back a bit closer to the truth.

I believe the minister does not appreciate being confronted with reality, but that is what was said, and history will prove it. The sovereignists have never applied this policy. We were clear. We are here to defend our interests.

Yes, we believe in sovereignty, and it is our right to do so, just as others have the right to believe in federalism. That is not what we are debating today because, for once, federalists and sovereigntists are in agreement, the parties here—I hope that the NDP will rethink its position—because Mr. Clark is a New Democrat, Mr. Romanow is a New Democrat, Mr. Harris, Mr. Klein and Mr. Filmon are Progressive Conservatives, the Reform Party, the Progressive Conservative Party here, Jean Charest, Mario Dumont, Lucien Bouchard, almost everyone except, once again, the Liberals.

Who but this government is preventing the provinces and the federal government from changing for the benefit of all Quebeckers and Canadians? It sings the same old song at every referendum, makes up all sorts of stories before a federal election, and then, the morning after, tells us there is no rush to resolve the situation.

For months, we heard quite the opposite. Now they tell us no action is necessary. We say something has to be done and done fast. As the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly pointed out, we are not talking about a constitutional amendment. We are talking about an administrative agreement.

Why is this urgent? Because there is a budget in the offing. Because there are surpluses: $10.4 billion that the government has built up over the first six months by dipping into the pockets of the unemployed, by helping itself to money that should go to the provinces for post-secondary education, welfare and health, particularly health.

When the budget is brought down and if we do not reach an agreement making it possible to opt out with full compensation, we will see this government again launch into a spiral of reckless spending that will saddle us with new deficits, again interfering in provincial jurisdiction, having slashed health care funding throughout Canada with dangerous results, and swooping in to rescue us at the last minute, with assurances that Ottawa knows best.

We have had it. We are fed up. That is the long and the short of it. And that was the message sent by Quebeckers yesterday. And it is the message being sent by the 10 premiers. And I hope it is the message of all opposition parties worthy of the name in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I gather from the remarks of the Bloc Quebecois leader that he welcomes the motion of the Reform Party. I presume it fits perfectly into the sovereignist agenda of the Bloc Quebecois. Is that not so?

Is the Bloc Quebecois not supporting the motion because the Bloc Quebecois is on the same wavelength as the Reform Party and the Reform Party is on the same wavelength as the Bloc Quebecois? It is sovereignty and it is separation that the Reform Party is supporting here. We can see this clearly.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the motion for one main reason. It is because almost everybody in Canada is supporting the motion and also in Quebec. All provinces are supporting the motion. The only people in Canada who are not supporting the motion are sitting on that side of the House, and they are on a one-way to a dead end.

That is why they are not supporting us. That is why they are acting like father knows best, like Ottawa knows best. That is the problem we have been facing for many years with the Liberals.

They are denying reality not only in Canada but mainly in Quebec and are telling stories and tales to the people. That is why Canadians do not understand what has gone on in Quebec. They had a lesson another time and that is why not only Quebec but all the provinces are supporting the motion of the Reform Party today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean my rising to cause a mass exodus on the part of the Bloc, but while the member who asked the last question is still in the House I want to begin by saying that it is a profound mistake to caricature this debate as one between separatists and federalists, or between those who somehow support the agenda of the Bloc and those who do not. There is a degree of support within a variety of federalists in the country for the whole notion of a social union.

It would be profoundly cheap in the political sense or intellectually vacant to try to caricature the debate as somehow having to do with who supports the separatists and who does not. There may be a convergence of views among the Reform, the Bloc and others, but I do not think this is the appropriate way to portray the debate on this matter.

We have a convergence of a number of things. We have the convergence of the view of the Reform Party which has always been for a more decentralized Canada, a Canada in which the federal spending power is much more restricted than it has traditionally been, and the view of the Bloc which is a traditional Quebec position whether or not one is a separatist.

The reality is that the Liberal government, far from the provinces being the ones who have destroyed or are destroying the power of the strong central government, has systematically weakened and destroyed the power of the federal government in the federation by acting unilaterally and unfairly, by withdrawing from various programs and by acting in a way to weaken its power.

It does not make any sense to demonize the provinces. It is the federal government that has been destroying its own status and its own power in the country by way of withdrawing from the partnerships it established, particularly with respect to medicare and in a variety of other ways.

We have a convergence of what I would say is the Bloc and Reform views of a more decentralized federation and a weakened federal government, with the reality being that the federal government is systematically weakening itself and converging with the reality that the provinces have to deal with the federal withdrawal from medicare, et cetera.

Provinces are saying they need some other way of dealing with this matter. They cannot continue to imagine that they are in some kind of idealistic partnership when in fact they are in no partnership at all. They are constantly subject to the unilateral actions of a federal government which does not collaborate with them. It does not co-operate with them. It does not endeavour to set up ways of dealing with these problems. They want a less conflictual federation, the kind of conflict we see all the time.

The minister thrives on this kind of conflict. I do not think he is particularly helpful in the way he deals with it. He could have answered the questions asked of him in a much more helpful way than giving us the usual Liberal diatribe.

The social union, as I understand it, comes out of two things. It comes out of the anxiety of the premiers after the referendum of 1995 that there was no federal leadership. They needed to do at least what they could do to provide a context in which Quebecers who want to make the country work could see that others in the country wanted to make the country work.

The anxiety about lack of federal leadership continues to this day.

There is still a paucity of federal leadership when it comes to this file. On top of that is the fact that the federal government in its budget of 1995 virtually withdrew from the partnership it had established over the years with the provinces.

So we have these two factors which I think put the premiers on the road to Saskatoon last August. I think there is great merit in their proposals and great merit in trying to build a less conflictual confederation.

I do not think the federal government has the authority any more to unilaterally set standards in health care if it is not going to pay the tune. If the federal government is only paying 6 cents or 15 cents on the dollar, or whatever it is, depending on whose figures we believe, it just does not have it any more.

I wish the government would put the money back in, speak with authority and go back to the old system. But if the government is not going to put the money back in it cannot do it. It means that it has to sit down with the provinces and work something out instead of belabouring this with all of its tired, old rhetoric.

We have some concerns about the social union and about the motion. We still think the December 31, 1998 deadline is not helpful and not something which the chairman of the premiers supports. But we also have concerns with the Saskatoon agreement itself and I want to put those on the record. They are not insurmountable things. They are things that could disappear in the course of the negotiations between the provinces and the federal government. I hope they would.

Our particular concern is with respect to the language of opting out, with compensation, out of new or modified Canada-wide programs. There is nothing new about new. “New programs” was in Meech. “New programs” was in Charlottetown. But modified Canada-wide programs would open up the door to a situation in which at some point there could be changes to the Canada Health Act or changes to something else with respect to medicare that could allow some provinces to argue that medicare was now a modified program and, therefore, they had the right to opt out of it.

I can say, in spite of our desire to be agreeable and constructive and to see the merits of the social union and the merits of the provincial arguments on this score, that the federal NDP will never agree to a social union which opens the door to opting out of medicare by provinces.

On the other hand, it is important to get the social union so that we do not have a situation in which provinces might decide to opt out anyway. Because at some point, if it is only 6 cents or 15 cents on the dollar, why would some provinces which feel they could afford it not say that they might as well go it alone? Then they would not have to put up with all of the rules from these guys.

This is the danger, this is the precipice that this Liberal government has led us to with respect to medicare and other programs. By so weakening the federal presence in the existing social union we now have these proposals before us which, in many ways, we would not have if we had significant, real and inspired leadership from the federal government on the unity file and in respect of maintaining a decent federal presence in these social programs. But we do not have that and so we have the situation which is before us.

Another concern that we have has to do with the status of aboriginal people in respect of the social union. There is a concern on the part of the aboriginal leadership that the fiduciary responsibility which the federal government has for aboriginal people is not dealt with in any of the social union documents that have come forward so far.

It certainly seems to me that this is something which has to be addressed in some way or another if we are to conclude an agreement at some time. At the moment the provinces and the federal government do not take this into account at all.

I asked the leader of the Reform Party why he wanted an agreement by December 31, 1998 and he said that he wanted a federal response. The motion does not say “Let us have a federal response by December 31, 1998”, it says “conclude an agreement”. That is not just a federal response, it is an agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments. That is why that continues to be such an unrealistic proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share many of the points of view that have been expressed by the hon. member, except for the usual debate we have about the role of the Liberal government. He knows what we will answer to his critiques. We will say, as is the case, that if we take into account the tax points, the federal government cut much more from its own programs than it did in transfers to the provinces. If we had not done that, our social union would be in pretty bad shape today. We would have a huge deficit, no economic growth and so on. But I do not think this is the matter of debate today.

Today's debate is on how to improve the federation in terms of aspects that are so important to Canadians, social policies and health. As the member has said, the answer is to invent ways for governments to work together, in partnership, in a more efficient way. This needs imagination and faith. We must stop demonizing the provinces and the federal government, as well as the games of the separatists and so on. We must stop unilateral action and we must work together as much as possible. That is why we invented the CHST and that is why we have said that we will not unilaterally decide on new programs like home care or pharmacare.

My question for the hon. member is the same as the question I asked the Leader of Opposition, who did not answer it. Would he sign the proposal of the provinces as it is, or would he consider it, as the provinces are asking us to do, as a base for negotiation in order to improve the social union?

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister was speaking to his parliamentary secretary while I was speaking. I made it quite clear that the NDP would not sign the Saskatoon agreement as it now stands. I went into great detail about how we objected to the language of new or modified Canada-wide social programs. The first dumb question of the day. I just explained why we would not sign the Saskatoon agreement.

The minister said that they brought in the CHST in order to solve these problems. I am saying that the CHST is a form of the very unilateralism that the social union, in its best intention, is designed to overcome. We have had one unilateral action after the other, going back to the MacEachen budget of 1982, which was the first time the EPF transfers were cut unilaterally by a Liberal government. The Tories said that they would never do such a thing. Then they were elected in 1984 and the first thing Jake Epp did was unilaterally cut the—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but I am going to unilaterally cut the member off because we have two minutes for questions and comments.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his talk. I would ask him not to get too hung up on the deadline, mainly in light of the minister's response.

The hon. member sees the resistance on the part of the government to moving forward on this at all. Our reason for putting the deadline was to try to create pressure.

The member suggested that maybe we should ask for a federal response. I know what the member is getting at, but he has seen the federal response. It is pure mush. It does not drive to a conclusion. I would ask the member to reconsider that.

The premiers added a modifying clause to the opt out clause. They added: “provided that the province or territory carries on a program or initiative that addresses the priority areas of the Canada-wide program”. The member is aware of that proviso. Did that help him at all in his objection?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not saying that the motion would be better if it asked for a federal response. I was saying that when I asked the member a question about the deadline, he talked about a federal response instead of talking about the language that is actually in the motion, which is to conclude an agreement. I was not asking for a federal response; it was the member himself in responding to my question.

The modified opt out clause is not good enough for us when it comes to medicare. We entertain no notion by which it would be possible for provinces to opt out of medicare. We can see the possibility for new programs, et cetera, but we consider medicare to be beyond reproach and beyond the reach of any new arrangements with respect to the social union.

We would like to see the federal government do what we think it should do, which is to re-establish its credibility and its moral authority in this area by putting back at least $2.5 billion into the federal transfers and not the piddling $1 billion that may be called for by the finance committee. This is something that the government should do if it wants to bargain in good faith and show Canadians that it really means it when it talks about—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but the time for questions and comments has expired.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition parties are the ones raising the issue of social union in this House. It is very difficult to advance this issue federally.

Members will probably recall that the Bloc Quebecois introduced a similar but more detailed motion whose intent was the same: to spur the federal government to action. Between the Bloc Quebecois motion and today's Reform motion, a meeting chaired by the Minister of Justice was held in Edmonton, if I am not mistaken, with the intergovernmental affairs ministers of all the provinces. It seems to have helped provide both sides with a clearer understanding but nothing has come of it. That is unfortunate.

This morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs alluded to a federal government proposal. Which proposal? I would like the minister to give us an example or two. I would like to know the status of the federal government's proposal.

[An hon. member]

He should table it.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I cannot force him to table it; he has not put it on the record yet. If he agrees to do so, then House rules will apply and the minister will introduce his proposal in the House.

I wish the minister and the government would provide more details. There is no substance; this is an empty proposal. There are numerous concerns and the government does not seem to understand how important social union is.

It is a two-way street. Our NDP colleague who just spoke was quite reticent. He does not really understand what a social union is either.

During the Quebec election campaign, we saw that the Premier of Quebec also perhaps interpreted what he signed in his own way. He quoted only one or two paragraphs of the agreement.

I would like to hear about the famous right to opt out and have the minister read the federal proposal on opting out. What Quebec, with Premier Bouchard, understands is that opting out includes full compensation, but not obligation. The Saskatoon agreement does not say that, however. There is no automatic, universal and unquestioned right to opt out. Absolutely not.

The rules are set when a new program is created or an old one modified, and the government says to the provinces—I said this in October on the subject of the Bloc motion, and I say it again—there is the right to opt out of the administration of a program, but there is an obligation to change or establish a program in line with what was negotiated.

A system of national standards is set up, in the end. Some in Quebec will react angrily to that, naturally, but this is what is to be found in the document on social union. We can agree with that or not. However, could we have the minister's position and a quote from his document on opting out—an important element in the respect of jurisdictions and the administrative capabilities of the provinces and regions? Could we have a bit of information?

The other element is the matter of the veto, which is not a veto. That is in the document as well, and it requires consent. If there is no consent, a veto applies. After the veto comes the right to compensation. But what is that? Could we hear from the government on that? Could we make progress on the matter of the social union?

Could we not involve the parliamentarians in this House? Would the government not agree to strike a committee comprising all parties? We could agree, first, to explain what is meant by social union and see whether we agree on the definitions. We could quickly set up an all party committee. Perhaps we have some good ideas on both sides of the House to move things forward a bit.

The minister could surely propose good ideas and be open to the good ideas of the opposition, and we would know what is going on.

People in every riding ask us “What is this social union?” We try to get into the specifics. We tell them “It is a document that was prepared by the provinces”. This morning, the minister told us that there is also a federal document, a federal proposal. Does such a document actually exist? Is this just rhetoric or is there really a written document? If there is such a document, could it be distributed among parliamentarians? That would be important.

As for the wording of the Reform motion, it goes without saying that we cannot disagree with the notion of social union. The Conservative Party has been discussing this issue for two years, but our approach is much more comprehensive. We talk about a social and economic union, about what we call the Canada pact.

Again, we have been discussing this issue for a long time. It was an integral part of the Conservative Party's platform during the 1997 election campaign. We would like things to move forward a little. They do at the provincial level and they should at the federal level.

The Reform Party's motion stems from yesterday's election in Quebec. Yesterday, the Reform Party was preparing for action. It sent an opposition motion and then changed it. The Reform Party changed its mind. It prepared another motion on a different issue. All this is not very serious. It lacks credibility. Social union is so important. This is part of the everyday lives of Quebeckers and of Canadians. Credibility and seriousness are required.

As for the December 31 deadline, unfortunately, I have my Christmas shopping to do, and I am not alone in that. It is December now. A government has just been elected in Quebec . Some outcomes will be contested, which will not change much, but still. Before a new cabinet is sworn in at Quebec City, weeks will go by. Is it not a bit irresponsible on the part of the Reform Party to propose this?

But I understand the idea. Mr. Bouchard spoke about a December 31 deadline. I understand the other provinces, but would we in this House have any credibility—at least on this side—if we said “We will put in the dates that work best”? I feel this is important.

December 31 is all very fine. The Leader of the Official Opposition told my NDP colleague “there is no point getting all caught up in dates”. Even without getting all caught up in dates, it is still important. When legislation comes into effect, like Bill C-68 on firearms, it is important. A date is a date.

I have problems with the matter of a date. I have a lot of problems as well with what possessed the Reform Party to bring into this House a less detailed proposal than that made by our Bloc Quebecois colleagues in October. Being more detailed, ours forced the government to address matters in greater detail, as we are trying to do again this morning, and to get some answers, to find out what is going on: Is the general store open or closed? Can customers enter or not? What is going on?

We do not really know what is happening with social union. What we hear from the government is “We shall see, there is no hurry, negotiations are under way”.

Today's motion by the Reform Party is like the feel-good Barney song “I love you, you love me”. But we cannot get any details on it. I feel we could have pushed a bit harder on this.

I have great difficulty with the December 31 date. It is not credible. It could have been signed in September or perhaps in October. There was nothing from the federal government, but now it is right before the holidays, a new government has just been elected in Quebec. Give it some time. Will Mr. Facal still be Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs? I think he will. Mr. Facal himself said he had had a good meeting in Edmonton. Could the government not demonstrate a bit more credibility?

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move an amendment. It will perhaps not be along the lines of what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs suggested this morning, but it will reflect the New Democrats' concerns.

I think the Reform Party is prepared to accept this amendment. Again, it is a question of credibility, because the Parliament of Canada should not be telling the provinces to work everything out before December 31.

I seek unanimous consent to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I move:

That the words “prior to December 31, 1998” be deleted and replaced with “prior to the next federal budget”.

This is important. The provinces are worried about the next federal budget and the next throne speech. I am asking that, prior to the next federal budget, prior to the next throne speech and prior to the next cabinet shuffle, the federal government, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister reach an agreement with the provinces that would then be reflected in the federal budget.

It is a minor amendment and takes nothing away from social union, the Reform Party or any other party, or the government. What we are saying is that, with the prospect of a budget of over $140 billion that refers to transfer payments and federal-provincial relations, and a throne speech in which new programs will be announced, would it be possible to have an agreement prior to the next federal budget and throne speech? What we are proposing is some credibility, some responsibility and some action, and we are seeking the unanimous consent of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member rightly pointed out that the December 31 deadline was totally unrealistic.

Indeed, it must be remembered that it was on December 12, 1997 that the Prime Minister and the Premier of Saskatchewan convinced their counterparts to go ahead with improving the social union. The provinces came up with their own proposals in mid-June. The federal government replied in mid-July. The Premier of Quebec only got on board in early August. Without the leadership of the Premier of Quebec, things are much more complicated. Since then, an election was called in Quebec, and that also slowed things down.

We are negotiating rather intensely. I remind the hon. member that his party was in office for eight or nine years and never proposed such measures. They tried the Meech Lake accord, but I would remind him that in the throne speech of February 1996, the federal government agreed to make a move and to improve the use of its spending power more significantly than under the Meech Lake accord. We are already in the post-Meech era.

As for getting parliament involved, I quite agree, but again this is a matter of stages. Right now, negotiations are taking place between governments. There is not a single provincial government that would agree to discuss these negotiations in committee in its own legislature. Again, this is simply a matter of going step by step.

I must also point out that the provinces' proposal was not made public by the provinces, but was leaked to the media, which is very different.

Finally, I have a question for the hon. member. It is the same question I put, in vain, to the leader of the official opposition, who did not answer, and the same one I put to the NDP member, who did reply. If they were in office today, would the Progressive Conservative leader, Mr. Clark, and his party sign the provinces' proposal as it stands?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister to reread the Progressive Conservative Party's 1997 election platform. It is very clear. In our opinion, the proposal on social union must go much further. We are also thinking about the economic union. If the federal government were open, we could talk of social union and resolve it and talk of economic union as well.

Matters go even further. The social union under consideration also requires a number of federal departments to move. I remind you that the ministers of finance of all the provinces asked the federal government in May and June in the negotiations on social union for money and a five-year commitment.

What we are saying is that we agree with the social union as proposed. However, it must include a financial commitment from the Minister of Finance, as proposed at the time of the agreement in May and June, and must, in our opinion, also deal with the matter of economic union.

At the moment, Mr. Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party have no problem with social union. It is a document that warrants being translated into law, into regulations, but it suits us fine.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member of the Conservative Party to clarify the time frame contemplated with respect to social union.

The motion clearly states an agreement must be reached prior to December 31, 1998, and its purpose is to ensure that the next federal budget will not contain, as last year's budget did, initiatives like the millennium scholarships, which are not in keeping with the Saskatoon declaration.

This is the time of year when the federal budget is being prepared. The longer the time frame is, the more likely the government is to hide behind the fact that the budget is prepared ahead of time.

I would like to understand the member's position with respect to the time frame, while at the same time hoping that an agreement can be reached by the end of December. I would also like to know whether he wants the next federal budget to be in keeping with the spirit of the Saskatoon declaration, so the government does not pull another stunt like the millennium scholarships, but this time around with new initiatives in health care or in other fields.

I would like to determine whether he is making it clear to the government that it better not make another mistake like the millennium scholarships in other provincial jurisdictions.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We are indeed going further. Far from being closed, the matter of the millennium scholarships is in fact on the table, as part of the negotiations on social union. In our opinion, the millennium scholarships are not in keeping with the agreement signed by Pearson and Lesage in the 1960s.

Everyone should keep the issue of social union in mind and remember that the millennium scholarships will have to be reconsidered in light of the agreement with Quebec.

Regarding the December 31 deadline, to suggest such a date before the next budget has been described as a cynical move. If an agreement is reached before the next budget, I think including it will not be a problem. If the government is committed to reaching an agreement before the next budget, it will have a potential agreement in mind while preparing its budget, as we will see in the throne speech. The throne speech may very well do a great deal of damage.

Notwithstanding all this, I agree with my colleague that the next budget must respect, if not the letter, at least the spirit of social union, the spirit of the Canadian pact.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for the opposition motion before us. I will read the motion, to make sure it is well understood:

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.

On November 25, 1997, the official opposition moved a motion supporting the efforts made by the provincial premiers to reform the federation with the Calgary declaration, including the seventh point of that declaration, dealing with a reform of the social union.

That motion specifically asked the federal government to promote public awareness of the Calgary declaration in Quebec and to hold consultations on this issue. I personally questioned the Prime Minister on several occasions regarding his plans to consult Quebeckers, but he did not reply and he did not take any measures to that effect.

The government supported the motion, but did not take the necessary measures, thus missing a golden opportunity to make Quebeckers aware of the fact that other Canadians want to reform our federation.

Then, on August 7, after intense negotiations between the provinces, in which Lucien Bouchard took part, the ten premiers and the two territorial leaders supported the resolutions for a new partnership between the two levels of government regarding the delivery of social services, including the refinancing of health care services.

The Prime Minister did, however, react negatively to these proposals, and his colleagues refused to act on a number of the most important points. There was not yet any concrete and tangible progress toward reform of the federation when the Quebec election was called on October 28.

In an Angus Reid poll on November 24, conducted in Quebec for Radio-Canada, 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 would like to remind the government and all members of the House that we have a great opportunity to put partisan politics aside and to put Canada first.

Our motion outlines exactly what we would like the government to do, to give a response to the premiers of all the provinces that want a response before the end of the year as to whether or not the conditions outlined in the Saskatoon agreement are in line with what the government believes should be reformed in the federation for the future. It is a simple request on behalf of the official opposition. I believe that all members of the House see the value of this simple request.

In effect, when we see what happened last night in the province of Quebec, when we see the feelings that exist right across the country with regard to the way the federation functions in its current state, especially with regard to the relationship between the provincial governments and the federal government, there is a real need and desire for positive change.

The premiers have done this on two occasions, first with the Calgary declaration and now with their meeting in Saskatoon. They are urging the federal government as are we in the official opposition to either concur or give some sort of response whether or not the federal government agrees with this initiative.

We in the official opposition have said that we believe this is a positive start. These are exactly the ideas that need to be talked about when it comes to the balance of power in the country and the way relationships exist between the federal government and the provincial governments. It is obvious that sort of sentiment exists right across the country, not just in Quebec where again we see people are not happy with the status quo as we saw last night with the election results.

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

The task of this Parliament in the months ahead is to create winning conditions for all Canadians as we enter the 21st century, 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 hon. members to see support of this motion as a positive step toward creating winning conditions for the new Canada of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, as you will hear from all my hon. colleagues, we are happy to put forward the motion. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, despite the timeline that we put within the motion and which has also been outlined by the premiers, we feel that it is very important that the government finally take some leadership on the issue. It must put forward a response to give some encouragement to the premiers for the hard work they have done in trying to reform the federation to help us take it into the 21st century.

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

Mr. Speaker, given what the member has said, does he agree that the federal government and the provinces should certainly negotiate and try to come up with a more effective social union, but would he not agree that it should not be at the price of weakening the federal government's influence in the lives of Canadians? We have to keep the federal government strong. Would he not agree with that?