Debates of Dec. 1st, 1998

Supply

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to entertain the hon. member's question, but because the federal government has remained so strong and many people feel that it has neglected especially the regional issues and concerns in this country, the answer is not to continue strengthening only the federal government. As the official opposition and the premiers are putting forward, it is time to look at rebalancing the powers that exist between the federal government and the provincial governments.

This might mean that we would not only just strengthen the areas of provincial jurisdiction, but at the same time strengthen the areas of jurisdiction which are solely federal. It is not just unilaterally looking at the federal government and saying we should have a strong federal government and neglect the provinces as this government has done, but looking at the way to strengthen the balance of power that exists between the provincial governments and the federal government.

We have outlined that in our new Canada act. The premiers have outlined how to do that in their deliberations. I would encourage the hon. member not just to look at it as unilaterally strengthening the federal government, but to look at how to balance that relationship as the whole country is calling out for.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and other members in his party use health care as an example of one of the areas in which they want to balance the federation.

I have to ask again whether the member supports his party in its position that there should be the option to have a two tier health care system where the rich could pay for the health services that they want and whatever is left over, the residuals, would be left for the rest of Canadians.

Is this what he calls rebalancing the federation, by allowing the dismantling of the Canada Health Act and allowing a two tier health system, or does he have some other explanation of how he is going to balance that?

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. Leader of the Opposition attempted to answer this question earlier in the debate and I am happy to do so once again.

It is clear that we currently have a problem in our health care system. The only ones in the House who do not want to face up to that fact are the members opposite. They have cut billions of dollars out of the transfers in health care. The only thing the official opposition has ever said with regard to health care, and I know the Leader of the Opposition reiterated it, is that we want to have access to health care for everyone within our Canadian system. We want to strengthen that. It might mean that we have to allow some flexibility under the current system.

It is just not acceptable when 1,400 doctors are going south and there are over 188,000 people on waiting lists. Obviously there is a problem. The government has neglected its commitment on transfers to health care and it is leaving no other options for the provinces to deal with that situation.

Our commitment is to a national health care system. There is no doubt about it. We should look at that system and see how we can provide health care much more effectively. If that means flexibility to some extent with the Canada Health Act, then so be it. But we need to be able to provide the same standards to everyone across the country.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the Reform Party in this motion, it is that the House of Commons of Canada should accept, without question and without any attempt to negotiate, the position of all the provinces. Is that truly the position it is putting forward?

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the motion as it stands, it says that we urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to December 31, 1998. That does not mean to accept it in its current form. Even we as the official opposition have some concerns with the current agreement but we feel it is a positive initiative. We feel it should be entertained in this House.

As the premiers have asked, we should be giving the response to them by the deadline they have outlined. The government has known about this agreement for a number of months now. We cannot continue to wait. We have to act. That is what the official opposition motion deals with.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak on a topic that is important to all of us, national unity. National unity takes on a special significance today given the results of yesterday's election in which a party dedicated to the break-up of our country was re-elected in the province of Quebec.

Although the Government of Quebec will attempt to say that it has been given a mandate to hold a referendum and begin the departure from Canada, I beg to differ. I believe Quebecers have made a choice of good governance and not separation. Poll after poll indicates that Quebecers do not want another referendum.

The premier of Quebec is looking for what he calls the winning conditions for separation. We must ensure that the only winning condition which exists is that of Canada. It is time that we all rise to this challenge and create the climate for winning conditions for Canada. All Canadians must work together to ensure that there is not another referendum.

The solution is a political one and parliament has a very important role to play. We must give all Quebecers and all Canadians a reason to believe in our country. We must show them that Canada can work. This is a wake-up call for the Government of Canada. It is time for it to be proactive. A Liberal government cannot take the stance it took in the last referendum.

Today in Canada there are options and ideas on the table. The official opposition has already presented the new Canada act. Today's motion contains a framework for Canada as we enter into the 21st century.

The official opposition is committed to ensure that every attempt is made to avoid the break-up of the country that we love so much. Canadians from coast to coast share the same view. We have seen the Calgary declaration garner support from almost all provinces. We have also seen the provinces make tremendous progress on the issue of the social union.

We have a rare opportunity for co-operation between provinces. We must seize this golden opportunity for a new era of federal-provincial co-operation that will benefit all Canadians.

I also feel that the Calgary declaration and the social union will give Quebecers a reason to believe in this country. The time for rhetoric and feel good statements is over. It is time for this government to act.

Let us consider what we are discussing today. The social union negotiations which are currently taking place between the federal government and its provincial counterparts are a tremendous step. First, we have seen a unanimous provincial consent on the issue of the social union. This is significant given the ideological and partisan differences which exist among our provinces. Second, the social union will afford the provinces the right to create programs tailored to their individual needs.

When we talk of social union, what exactly are we referring to? We are referring to a new system where the provinces would have greater freedom to design social programs to fit their individual character. There needs to be more federal-provincial consultation in the design of social programs and a collaborative approach to the use of federal spending powers.

Provinces should be given the ability to opt out of programs and receive compensation as long as they implement a program which addresses the specific needs. It is clear that in certain areas national standards are needed, but national standards do not necessarily mean federal standards. They need to be developed jointly with the provinces.

When disagreements do occur, a dispute settlement process is needed which is not dominated by one side. Perhaps more important, a social union is needed so that the federal government cannot unilaterally dictate standards, cut funding, and then expect the provinces to maintain these standards.

The provinces need to know that sufficient funds will be made available by the federal government so that programs can be effectively implemented. The social union is essential because our country is large and diverse. A central parliament cannot hope to effectively address the needs of diverse regions.

My one and a half years as an MP have reinforced my view that decentralization in key areas is the best method of dealing with our diversity. It is time that the federal government realize this and stop playing with the future of our country. The federal government has done an effective job of convincing Canadians that any sharing of powers is detrimental the well-being of our nation. We have reached a point when we must re-evaluate the manner in which we approach our deteriorating social net.

Let me draw the attention of members to what is happening in my home province of Alberta. In Alberta today we receive $578 million less than we did in 1994 for health care. At the same time, Alberta's health care spending has risen by $400 million largely due to an aging and increasing population and high costs of medical technology and drugs. Overall Alberta has gone from a 50:50 cost sharing arrangement with the federal government to a situation where the federal government now funds approximately 14% and the province of Alberta spends about 86% for health, education and social assistance.

Lacking predictable funding, provinces like Alberta have been scrambling to address the long term issues that have risen in our social assistance program. Provinces now share all future risks due to rising costs, aging population and lifelong learning.

As the government assumes a lesser role in the area of social care, this void is being filled by families, individuals and communities. There are over 700 community organizations and literally thousands of dedicated volunteers delivering social services in the city of Calgary. However, despite the best efforts of these fine people there are simply not enough resources set aside for social programs.

In my home town of Calgary there is an estimated 1,000 homeless people requiring shelter. A recent attempt to provide shelter for 150 of Calgary's downtown homeless population failed largely due to costs and red tape. Many people find themselves on the outside looking in. This is not acceptable. Hence we see the desire of the provinces to create programs for their specific needs.

Again, the federal government is taking its usual slow time to respond. Therefore our motion is calling for a deadline. The Leader of the Opposition has asked the government what is the hold up. The government is not answering.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is high time we took this responsibility seriously.

Therefore I call on all members of the House to cast aside partisan politics and help create the winning conditions for federalism.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

We are given an opportunity for debating today a concept-social union. It is important to note that it is not tabula rasa. It is not a new concept. It was first used in continental Europe in the 1970s. Members can find it applied in a practical sense in countries like West Germany. One should draw a lesson from that that the attainment of a social union, which is a pragmatic term, requires institutional changes and adjustments in many levels of government. In the European case it involved bringing in three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, and some consequential constitutional changes. It is not something that can be legislated overnight by a wave of a magic wand.

In Canada we have had some experience, not all of it necessarily successful, with varying conceptions of the locations of social policy making, sometimes helped by court decisions and sometimes hindered.

What I am saying is that the issue is complex and cannot be resolved in a quick snap debate and knee-jerk reaction to events in other places.

The motion before us is an official opposition motion and a very specific motion. It sets an artificial deadline of December 31, 1998. Why? It urges the conclusion of an agreement with provinces, to legislate in other words. It is also predicated on what is stated to be a unanimous resolution of provinces, although we have already had suggestions from the member for Winnipeg—Transcona intervening in this debate that while there was a consensus there was not an identity of views on all subjects.

The motion strikes one as perhaps something that was put forward in good faith by people who stayed up too late watching television and television events but could have benefited perhaps by more examination of the problem area. What we are dealing with is a process of ongoing negotiations between heads of government. It is not for strangers in the process to intervene without carefully considering what is already there.

In fact, constitutions change, federal systems can change by constitutional amendments and by great acts of legislation. But the experience is of course that those are rare events and rarely come to successful fruition unless in periods of national euphoria, the experience of other countries after a great revolution or military victory or something similar.

What worries me in this motion is that it ignores the fact that there is an ongoing process involving heads of government talking to each other in good faith and basing themselves on a reality that since the 1982 Constitution Act it is very difficult to change our Constitution by a formal amendment. To make legislation or an amendment or an agreement which presumably would have to be legislated, the be all and end all, one puts aside the very effective and pragmatic opportunities and processes for changing a federal Constitution.

What we are seeing in action is executive diplomacy being exercised between heads of government.

If one listened to the debate this morning one would see that while everybody approaches with enthusiasm the general notion of doing something new in social policy, there are wide divergencies in what should be done and how it could be done.

One heard from the leader of the third party a very strong call for constitutional changes involving the federal spending power. We heard from the member for Winnipeg—Transcona who was, I think, reflecting the views of his provincial government, not as a spokesman but simply because he is aware of them, a strong opposition by his province to opting out.

These are the crucial details, the crucial elements of a new agreement on a social union that would have to be worked out and before any formal agreement could be made. They are being worked out. There is a give and take in executive diplomacy and that is what it is all about.

That is why I come back to the basic issue that we have an ongoing process. If there is consensus at the end it can lend itself to administrative structural changes in the system of government without the need for a constitutional amendment. With a constitutional amendment if an agreement can be reached but without it with the elements of flexibility built in to accommodate different provincial positions.

We have models for that in the Pepin-Robarts report which I think the leader of the third party commented on and which was helped considerably by the intervention of Léon Dion.

Those particular agreements build in the possibility of a pluralistic federalism that allows different arrangements for different provinces. Would this be the conclusion of the process of discussion and negotiation on the social union now taking place? I cannot foresee that result until the negotiations come to an end.

To put it into an a priori agreement now, here are the blueprints, how are they outlined, I think would fetter and confine a process of adjustment, a process of give and take that is the lifeblood of any dynamic federal system.

My statement to this motion would be that it is premature, it interrupts an ongoing process and may hurt or delay its successful completion. I think in particular the deadline is something that puts an unnecessary time limit on it.

What I would urge this House to do is accept the spirit of the motion that we are committed in Canada, as we have been ever since 1867, to a concept of a constitution as a living tree, the words of Lord Sankey uttered much later, that a constitution is continually evolving, that executive diplomacy, the give and take of negotiations between heads of government is part of that. It introduces a degree of flexibility and an ability to meet special conditions in one province or region rather than another that formal constitutional amendments do not do.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the points of debate raised by my colleague opposite.

In the social policy renewal initiative began in August 1995 by the premiers. There is a long series of initiatives and steps of progress that has been made in the process of social policy renewal by the provinces and territories since that time. I will not go through that. Given the hon. member's erudition he is well familiar with these.

From August 1995 to December 1998 the premiers have been beavering away in sensible, logical, well thought out steps on social policy renewal. I would like to ask the hon. member what the federal government has done to assist and to influence this process and how long the hon. member believes would be reasonable before the federal government actually comes to some conclusion in this whole process which has now been going on since at least August 1995.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very thoughtful question. It should be remembered that the federal government is only one player in this process and in the spirit of pluralistic federalism we do not seek to impose our will on the other players. We seek consensus.

One of the realities we face when we look at the provinces is personnel change. Provincial elections change, governments change their own attitudes. On this issue we could say we will adopt the Pepin-Robarts report. We will apply this sort of formula.

We would like, however, the provinces to help us on this issue. For example opting out, is this something that all provinces would accept? If it is not, why not? Is it something that some would accept and not others?

As federal players we are not seeking to impose our will. We are part of a process and we recognize that the delays, which we would regret as much as anybody, occur from the necessary democratic point of obtaining a consensus.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer but it does puzzle me. First of all, the member says the federal government is only one player. I remind the member again that the provinces, the other players, have been playing. They have been playing vigorously. They have been kicking the ball toward the goal post for over three years. What has the federal government been doing? What has it been doing to play in the game? Yes, it is only one player, but as far as I have seen it has not been doing much to play.

The member says that the provincial players keep changing. If that is a reason for not getting an agreement, we will never have an agreement because the players keep changing in any government. Surely the people of the country deserve the players that are on the field at the time to move toward a goal.

Given whoever is playing at a particular time, what is a reasonable timeframe for social policy renewal to reach some kind of conclusion?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the supplementary question. It is not simply that provincial players change. It is that attitudes within provinces change.

At this time, for example, we are getting strong representations from the third level of government on issues of this sort and they are obviously part of the general negotiation. If what is involved may eventually be a constitutional amendment, it is part of the process of incorporating those views, seeing whether they are accepted or rejected.

As I say again, the federal government could develop an ideal type of what we think should be the social union, but we want to be sure the consensus is there. This debate has made very clear that as between even the parties in opposition there is no consensus as to what they mean by the social union. I will not say it is a chameleon word, but it is a word, as Dewey said, whose truth is determined operationally. When they finally get together and say we agree on this, this is the give and take. Then we can move.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is urging the government to conclude an agreement on social union with the provinces and territories before December 31.

I am glad that the Reform Party is taking such an active interest in our social union, but I cannot support the motion. Such an important issue takes time to address. Imposing arbitrary time lines serves no one's best interest.

The government is committed to a few simple principles. We want to continue to build a stronger, more compassionate and prosperous Canada. We want to improve the quality of life for all Canadians. Also we as parliamentarians want to leave a legacy for our children and our youth.

There is no magic formula to accomplish this. There are no simple solutions. Anyone who says that there are is either naive in my opinion or trying to pull a fast one.

Positive change requires concerted effort on a wide variety of fronts. It demands the good will and co-operation of all levels of government as well as the citizens of the country. Perhaps most of all it requires the right attitude. We need to focus on what we can accomplish together. We need to be willing to share our strengths and help each other to overcome our weaknesses.

That is the kind of attitude the government brings to policy making. That is the kind of attitude that will help launch Canada confidently into the 21st century.

The Government of Canada has worked very hard over the last five years to renew federalism. It will continue to do so in the months and years to come, because no healthy system is ever static. We have a vibrant democracy and robust institutions. It is only natural that they would grow and develop over time.

The Reform Party's motion raises some issues that are dear to Canadians. In many respects our social programs reflect the heart of the country. They speak to what we stand for as Canadians. As Canada changes, they need to evolve, but this evolution must follow a reasoned and positive direction. We are talking about programs and institutions that are crucial to the citizens of the country and crucial to our children and grandchildren.

I do not know why the Reform Party seems to be so anxious to rush forward. Negotiations are still under way. While the government is confident that a good framework will be developed, we recognize that these things take time. If we were to support the motion, I believe the House would not be acting responsibly and in the best interest of Canadians.

These negotiations give a good indication of the type of activity we are seeing throughout the government these days. There is a great deal of positive work being done to reform the federation and build a better Canada. I relish the opportunity to discuss this issue.

There is a multitude of reasons why the Canadian federation works. I could list the federal programs and initiatives that have served Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia as well other parts of the country. Every federal government department would be on the list, and the lives of all Canadians and Quebeckers like me would be affected by the activities listed.

Substantial progress has been made on a number of issues. We are withdrawing from mining, logging and tourism. We have launched measures to stimulate job creation through the Canada infrastructure works program. And work will continue as part of the national children's agenda.

There are members of this House who will no doubt continue to maintain that Canada does not work. They claim that the Canadian federation lacks flexibility and that the true aspirations of the provinces can never be achieved in such a restrictive system. If a framework agreement on social union is not signed within a month, they will say it is further proof of the fact that Canada does not work.

I do not share that opinion. I think that the majority of Canadians do not share it either. Therefore, I cannot support this motion. I find it rather ironic that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois stand on the same side of this issue with respect to this motion.

Certainly the rest of the world is trying to figure out the secret of our prosperity. Other countries are looking at Canada and asking themselves how they can achieve that level of success.

I will spend some time talking about that reaction. There is a great deal we take for granted in the country. We sometimes forget just what we have accomplished together. That is not despite our differences but rather because of our differences. They have forced us to become creative and conciliatory. Our willingness to embrace both French and English, to celebrate our aboriginal heritage and to welcome cultures from around the world have made Canada the success story it is today.

I should like to talk a little about the government's agenda. We hear about the need for change. There has been change, something that the opposition neglects, and a lot of it. Perhaps it is time Canadians knew about it.

My colleagues have already addressed the economic successes we have seen recently. I will not delve too deeply into that area. Suffice to say we have a budget surplus of $3.5 billion, the first surplus in more than a generation. That is a remarkable $45.5 billion swing in just four years from the $42 billion deficit we inherited from our predecessors in 1993.

The finance minister's balanced fiscal and economic plan has created a Canadian economic foundation that is among the most fundamentally strong and dynamic in the world.

I will now turn to the social policy side of the government's accomplishments. What has the government done in the last five years, Canadians may ask themselves.

Our social safety net is a source of great pride in Canada. It is the essence of the values we share. Guaranteeing the continuance of our health and social programs is the priority of Canadians and of their governments. Our health care system and other elements of our social safety net are the envy of the world. They point very simply to the principles of mutual help and common interest underlying our federation and our social union. They testify to Canadians' commitment to a shared sense of responsibility for each other and toward the common good.

There are voices saying it is perhaps time to begin dismantling the system or, better yet, to privatize everything. I think that the federal government and its provincial partners must continue to work together on this and find new ways to meet the needs of Canadians.

There have been several initiatives recently which illustrate what I am talking about. The national child benefit was introduced to reduce and prevent child poverty and to assist parents of low income families in either moving from welfare to work or staying employed.

There is also the community action program for children which recognizes that communities are best positioned to address the needs of young Canadians. It builds on community strength by funding neighbourhood groups that deliver services to children at risk.

There are nearly 400 CAPC projects in over 300 urban, rural and remote communities across Canada. Every week almost 29,000 children and 27,000 parents and caregivers visit these projects. I would like to think those are 29,000 children whose lives are just a little better.

A variety of health related activities have been developed over the past few years. Health Canada, for example, provides funding for five centres of excellence for women's health in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. These centres are dedicated to improving the health of Canadian women by enhancing the health system's understanding of and responsiveness to women's health issues. In a similar vein the government is funding a variety of research initiatives. In June the federal government announced its renewed support for breast cancer research.

The government is confident that we will negotiate a framework agreement that is good for all Canadians. Such an agreement would promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians wherever they live or move in the country. It would also strengthen the partnership among governments in order to serve Canadians better. Is this not the legacy we want to leave our children and our youth?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be hedging on the fact that it supports this agreement in principle or that it supports the concept of social union. When does the government see itself as coming to some conclusion with respect to the talks with the premiers?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the opposition member we will not set an artificial deadline for negotiations. Negotiations are ongoing. We have shown flexibility and openness.

We intend to work in collaboration with the provinces to arrive at a social union that is the best social union in the world, as we have worked toward assuring Canada is the best country in the world. We will not put an artificial deadline on such important negotiations.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the hon. member. The member said in her response that Canada was a great country. She said the usual Liberal things: feel happy, feel good and everything is going great.

A United Nations committee came here and blasted us on child poverty. In my speech I said that there are over 1,000 homeless people in Calgary. StatsCan said today that taxes were so high the disposable income of Canadians is getting lower and lower. How can she talk about a feel good approach with everything that is going on? Does she not read all these things? What would be her response to that?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the occasion to repeat what I said in my speech about the different initiatives undertaken by the government, but I will not repeat it because I am sure most Canadians listened to what I said.

In terms of the United Nations index, the member may not know that for five years in a row Canada has been chosen as the best country in the world. No one is saying that we have no poverty. No one is saying that there are not problems. However, the difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House is that we look for solutions to problems. We do not criticize; we look for solutions. We have proven that we have given solutions to Canadians. We have proven that we have solutions to address most of the problems of the world.

The United Nations human development index indicated that the Australians, the Americans and the French regard Canada as the country they would most like to live in. I am very proud of the government's record and I see a legacy for our children. We look for solutions that are in collaboration and in consultation with our provincial and territorial partners.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address today's motion.

This motion calls for a social union with co-operation between the Government of Canada and the provinces. There is unanimity in this area—with the provinces, with the territories, with medical groups, with nurses' groups and with the opposition. Unanimity is not easily achieved in a country like Canada. It is hard to find unanimity.

In matters of health care, unanimity is necessary and possible.

I would like to approach the motion in as positive and constructive fashion as I can. The social union the provinces have called for relates strictly to the reason I came to the House of Commons, and that is for a health care system that is better than the one we had when I left my practice.

I would like to summarize why the provinces are so vociferous on this issue. This is not being done in a critical sense but in a factual sense.

In 1993 the federal government spent $18.7 billion on social transfers directed to the provinces. For reasons that most Canadians understand, it decided to drop those transfer payments to $11.1 billion, a drop of $7.6 billion. The government did it unilaterally. There was no consultation, no agreement. That action on the most important social program in Canada precipitated a series of events which has led us to the point where the provinces from every political stripe are all united in calling for a social union that will never allow that to happen again.

There could never be a unilateral action of that kind if a social union were entered into. I have listened over and over again to my Liberal colleagues say that there is in fact a very important program, health care, and they are bound and determined to support it. This would be a mechanism where they could do more than just talk.

There is another thing that has made the provinces so unanimous on this issue. I will give an example that does not relate to health care but is about welfare in British Columbia. B.C. set up some residency requirements after the cuts for social assistance took place. The federal response was to fine the B.C. government. It took away transfer payments, even more for social assistance. There was no dispute mechanism, no interchange of information. The federal fist was slammed down and that was the end of the discussion.

That is the reason today there is unanimous provincial agreement for a social union. It is hard to imagine how the provinces could be more unanimous. Who else is unanimous on these issues? Medical colleagues throughout the country are unanimous. Why? Some of our best nurses are leaving their profession. They are not just leaving the country but they are leaving the profession because they cannot stand the workload they now have. The cuts have gone through the system so deeply that they cannot stand the workload they have.

[An hon. member]

You asked for it.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

I hear from across the way that is a provincial responsibility. It is selective vision.

There is outdated equipment. We have 1.1 MRI per 100,000 people in Canada. Germany has 3.4 MRI per 100,000 people. Why should two countries that are so similar in terms of economic capabilities have such a difference? There is outdated equipment due to those cutbacks.

There has been a drop in the level of confidence in Canada. In 1993, 55% of Canadians considered the health care system excellent or very good. Today, in 1998, only 29% of Canadians find the system excellent or very good. Why? Waiting lists are an obvious problem for doctors, for patients and for nurses. What a shame.

According to a study done for the CMA by the Angus Reid group for the past three years, Canadians feel access to certain health care services has become more restricted.

Why would the federal government care about that? Why would the Liberal members care about that? It is because they themselves will get ill. They themselves will find themselves on waiting lists. They themselves will have grandparents or children left in the cold.

The provinces are asking for something that is fairly straightforward and fairly simple. They are asking for the federal government to never ever take funds from health care unilaterally. If there is a disagreement on the Canada Health Act, if there is a disagreement in the way the Canada Health Act is being implemented, they are asking that there be a dispute settlement mechanism, that there be a tribunal that would sit down and say “Here is one perspective. Here is another. What is good for the patient?”

I always try to put comments about health care in a personal vein and I will do that today. A patient wrote a letter to me not so long ago, a woman from Ontario who was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was told that she needed to have a procedure very quickly and then chemotherapy to follow. She was sent to the specialist. He did a biopsy and sure enough the cancer was worse than it was originally thought. The procedure needed to be done quickly. She was booked for surgery in two weeks and that was considered to be quite reasonable and normal. When the date came the surgery had to be put off. There were not enough nurses for the surgery. It was put off for another two weeks. When that day came, the surgery was done. Then her chemotherapy, which should have been started almost immediately, had to be put off for three months.

The fear, the concern, the worry. That is what the provinces are asking for. It is not for some political juggling match. It is simply to provide the care for that most important social program to that woman with breast cancer who had needs that were not met here in Canada.

I hear the comment about having the Reform Party admit that it wants two tier medicine. The Reform Party does not want two tier medicine. What we want is care for patients that is timely, that is available, that is modern and which keeps people healthy.

All throughout the world people are grappling with these problems. Most countries seem to put health care as the highest priority, not just in terms of hyperbole, not just in terms of rhetoric, but in terms of practicality.

The social union is moving positively toward that end. Does it have to happen in 30 days? I have listened to my colleagues say that is too quick. Then I say, set a Liberal date. Do not listen to a Reform date. Set a Liberal date. We will be happy to be able to say there is progress being made. But as of now the provinces are asking where the progress is. We will push hard for that progress to be made for one reason, for health care for Canadians, for the patients.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the hon. member from the Reform Party.

The member says the deadline is December 31. Let us assume that everybody agrees on the deadline and we pass the motion. What happens if we do not meet the deadline? Are we going to come back on January 1 and ask for a deadline of January 31 and so on and so forth for the next year? These deadlines are artificial. We do our best and they do their best to make sure the country works. A deadline does not work. If it is not complied with or the agreement is not reached by the deadline, then a second deadline is necessary and there could be no end in sight.

Commitments should be made and we have to work together to improve the federation. That is the commitment we should make rather than to stick to a deadline which is not realistic.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member might be hesitant to face a deadline and that is a valid point Our question is what is the Liberal timeframe? We have seen very little progress on this issue.

The perfect time to have entered into a social union surely would have been prior to the Quebec election. What a powerful tool. What a baseball bat to have driven separatist thoughts lower on the agenda. There may be good reasons for not meeting that deadline. I am perfectly willing to listen to a Liberal timetable. This is trying to drive the agenda toward completion. If December 31 is too quick, I am listening and would like to know, when?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are relatively favourable to today's Reform Party motion. It is similar, if not identical, in purpose to the motion we moved in October, urging the federal government to speed up negotiations on social union, given that the premiers had come out with a statement in August in this regard.

What we get out of the Reform Party motion is that more haste is required. As our leader reiterated this morning, this is an issue that has been around for a long time. Reformers have rarely mentioned it. For 50 years now, Quebec has been calling on the federal government to respect the areas of provincial jurisdiction set out in the Constitution, such as health and the social sector, but to no avail. The federal government has used its spending authority to interfere in provincial jurisdictions and, in recent years, in order to eliminate its own deficit, it has slashed transfer payments to the provinces, with the results mentioned by the member.

Would the Reform Party member agree with Quebec's demand that there should be a right to opt out of new programs in this sector with full financial compensation?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for me it is not a partisan issue but an issue that concerns all Canadians.

I want unanimity for social programs in Canada and, in the case of health care, an agreement is necessary for all Canadians. Personally, I do not like the Bloc Quebecois proposals, but the social union is not a political issue, it is an issue that concerns all Canadians. This is why I am presenting my position in the House today.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Reform supply day motion. It has an essential role to articulate to the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada what we plan on doing to strengthen this country, to strengthen social programs for all Canadians. I compliment the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley for her leadership on this issue.

The Canadian federation is not only based on constitutional principles. Indeed, our country primarily strives to help those who are less fortunate and to provide them with the necessary support.

The federal government definitely has the financial resources to ease the plight of the poor. We all remember how Canadians got together to help their Quebec friends when they had to deal with floods, in the past.

This definitely shows that, when some real disaster occurs, we Canadians help each other. Canadians are once again displaying their fundamental qualities to promote the social union.

The social union is integral for the future of Canada and for the future of Canadians. As my colleague for Macleod just mentioned, it speaks to a stronger partnership which Canadians hold dear to their hearts and which is critically important for the health and welfare of Canadians. It speaks to the saving of our social programs, in particular health care, education and welfare.

The Government of Canada has a fiduciary responsibility to work with the provinces in these areas, and yet what we have seen is the destruction of these programs. These programs have been gutted from within. As a result, people who work in these areas are hanging on by their fingernails. Indeed, the Canadians who are supposed to benefit from these programs, particularly health care and education, are suffering. As we all know, health care and education are being destroyed.

If the government wants to hide behind the Canada Health Act and say that Canadians are receiving health care when they need it, it is either not telling the truth or it has its head stuck far into the sand. The cold hard reality is that Canadians are not getting health care when they need it. The Canada Health Act is being violated in four of its five principles. As a result, Canadians needing treatment for cancer, or urgent medical care for heart operations, down to the most mundane operations, are waiting. While they wait they suffer and their families suffer.

For the last few years the government has been content to sit on its hands and say that the status quo is acceptable. It acknowledges that there is a problem, but it has not put forth any constructive solution. Instead it has pointed its finger at us in a derogatory way, saying that we want to destroy these ideals. If we wanted to do that we would not have put forth this motion to save our social programs: health care, education and the supplemental income required by people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

Reform wants to save these social programs and put them on sound fiscal footing within the resources we have available to us. We have to speak practically about this. We are willing to introduce in this House a solution that involves asking the federal government and the provinces to work together to ensure that the feds do what the feds do best and the provinces do what the provinces do best. Is there agreement on this? Indeed there is.

The vast majority of premiers have asked, have pleaded, have begged the federal government to engage in a discussion with them so that in the 21st century we will have social programs that will benefit all Canadians, that will be there for all Canadians in their time of need and will be on sound fiscal footing. That is the essence of this motion.

We also do it from the point of cost. Having the provinces and the federal government doing the same thing is patently idiotic. It is duplication. The left hand does know what the right hand is doing and it is a waste of taxpayers' money. Why do we not let the feds do what the feds do best and let the provinces do what the provinces do best?

It would also benefit national unity because we would then see a willingness on the part of the Government of Canada to work with all of the provinces, from British Columbia to Newfoundland, and the territories to ensure that these social programs are sustainable.

Let us look at Quebec the day after the election. The Quebec people have clearly said that at this point in time they do not want a referendum. They want strong social programs, a strong economy, lower taxes and a better future for themselves and their children. That is what Canadians from coast to coast want.

Despite the best efforts of everybody inside and outside this House, the federalist message does not get to the people of Quebec outside of those in Montreal. Les gens du Québec outside Montreal, in Chibougamau and other cities, do not hear the federalist message because the issue of national unity has taken place between the political and intellectual elites of this country. This message does not penetrate the barriers that exist within the francophone, separatist-leaning media in Quebec and does not get to the French-speaking people of Quebec.

One only has to travel outside Montreal to see that the people live in an information vacuum when it comes to federalist solutions. They live in a bubble into which the rhetoric of separatist politicians is continually introduced.

The truth of what the federalists are proposing, the love that Canadians have for Quebec under the umbrella of equality for all, does not get through. Because that message does not get through the people of Quebec are left with a biased and warped view of what happens outside Canada. I would also argue that what happens within Quebec is not as well known as it should be outside its borders.

If we are going to keep this country together we have to engage in communication between the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada, between the rank and file people in the trenches, on the ground and in their homes, people to people, not between politicians or intellectuals in university.

While the message in yesterday's election says that Quebecers do not want a referendum at this point in time, it clearly did not say they do not want a referendum at all. I would argue that what is going to happen is that the people of Quebec are going to wait until their health and welfare is improved through the Government of Quebec and when they are on stable footing then they will look for a referendum.

We have a narrow window of opportunity. The federal government must meet with the people of Quebec in the trenches, eyeball to eyeball.

There was a large meeting in Montreal of Canadians from coast to coast asking the people of Quebec to vote no in the last referendum. Why did the French-speaking separatist politicians hate that so much? Because it bypassed their power and their control. It got a strong federalist message directly to the people.

Some may argue that is what tipped the balance in favour of the no vote. That is possible. Therein lies a lesson. With back and forth communication between people we will have a chance to keep this country together. If we fail to do that we will certainly be looking at another referendum, again putting Canada at the precipice of a breakup.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, traditionally the people in the territories, who are the poorest and most vulnerable in this country, have depended on a strong federal presence to equalize their standard of living and their place in the country.

I am really concerned about the member's motion because it has excluded the first nations people of this country from participating in a social union. I would like to know why the member did that because, as far as being vulnerable goes, these people are the most vulnerable. The first nations people are the poorest, they have the highest health risks and the poorest housing conditions. I would like the member to explain that exclusion.