Debates of Dec. 1st, 1998

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. This motion explicitly asks for Canadians from coast to coast to be involved. The last time I checked, the aboriginal people of Canada are Canadians.

I draw the attention of the hon. member to the work of the members for Skeena, Wild Rose and others in the Reform Party who have been asking for input from aboriginal people. In fact, these members have held meetings with aboriginal people, asking them what we can do to help. Over 100 aboriginal people have attended each of these meetings.

For the first time, many of these grassroots aboriginals—not the chiefs, not their political leaders, but grassroots aboriginals—are saying thank you to the Reform Party for helping them to get their message out in the House of Commons.

The grassroots aboriginal people have not been heard on this issue. As the member acknowledged, and I know she has worked very hard on this issue, they suffer the worst possible socio-economic conditions in this country. Members of my party have been working very hard to ensure that their message is heard loud and clear.

Over $8 billion is put into aboriginal affairs. However, it has been argued that only $1 out of every $20 gets to the people on the ground. That is appalling. There have been accusations by aboriginal people of the misappropriation of funds by aboriginal leaders. However, when they ask questions, they get the cold shoulder. The first nations are abused, not only by the system which non-aboriginals created, but also by their own people.

I would argue that what the government needs to do and what the minister of Indian affairs needs to do is listen to the grassroots aboriginal people.

The minister came to my riding. Aboriginal people from the Pacheenaht reserve, Becher Bay and elsewhere have been asking the minister for years for answers on where the moneys are going and expressing their concerns about abuses on the reserve. The minister met with the political leaders, but did not speak to the people putting forth the accusations, one of whom was the hereditary chief of a band. It was embarrassing.

I plead with the minister to listen to these aboriginal people and not to wave off what they are saying because of what she has heard from their leaders. The minister should work with the aboriginals to solve their appalling conditions. The first nations should be given the tools they need to provide for themselves.

The aboriginal people do not want separation. The grassroots people do not want the political nirvana of separate statehood or nationhood, but they do want health care, jobs, education and a safer future for themselves and their children.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a doctor and a member of parliament. I think it is correct that about $80 billion is being spent on health care from various sources across the country and about $250 million is being spent on medical research.

How much stress would the hon. member put on increasing assistance to medical research to help the health care system generally?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. secretary of state has done a tremendous amount of work in providing constructive solutions to the health care field. He has written some very eloquent articles on this issue which many of us have read with great admiration.

I think that we have to proportion our resources in research on the basis of mortality, morbidity and the effect on the patient and their families. I compliment the government for putting more money into research in the last budget. It is something that is long overdue and the government needs to be commended for that.

However, I think there are some novel ways in which we can get more money into the research areas. Perhaps one way of doing that is to ensure tax exemptions and tax cuts for people who wish to invest in research facilities. They can use that as a tax write-off. But also moneys can be used within the system to do more research into prevention. What we tend to focus on is dealing with the problems. I draw the attention of the House to the head start motion that was passed in the House in May 1998, my private member's motion, that dealt with prevention in crime and with the basics of children in the first eight years. If we adopted that motion and dealt with those solutions we could save a lot of people's lives and a lot of money across the country.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

I am pleased to rise on this very important issue but puzzled as to how we have arrived at this moment in our history where we are debating a motion that would arbitrarily and artificially impose a deadline on negotiations that are currently going on across the country.

I listened to the previous speaker and I have listened to him on many occasions and heard thoughtful comments in this place from that member of the Reform Party. I see the member for Calgary East who I know does not always agree with his party's positions, particularly some of the more extreme ones. I heard the member for Macleod, the health critic, talk in terms of his party's not wanting two tier health care and various other things he was denouncing.

It has occurred to me as I listen to this debate that this whole thing is about double standards. I want to share with the House a couple of comments, and this is a direct quote, which would seem to run in the face of the comments by the member for Macleod when he said the Reform Party is not advocating a two tier health system. This relates very clearly to the social union negotiations that were going on.

The leader of the Reform Party to the Saskatoon Business Association on April 2, 1995 said: “We want to amend those sections of the act”, the Canada Health Act, “that deny the provinces the flexibility to require some Canadians to pay at least a portion of their own health care costs”.

How would members interpret that in any way other than two tier health care? I find it a complete contradiction in terms, a denial of his own leader's recorded statements, when the health critic for the Reform Party stands here urging the government to move ahead unilaterally on an issue that would clearly impact the delivery of health care and he is denying his leader actually said this by claiming that the Reform Party is not in support of dismantling the Canada Health Act and establishing a two tier health system.

On February 23, 1998 the member for Vancouver North said: “I had to go into a hospital in Florida. It really put a shame to what happens in my riding in North Vancouver with socialist medicine. I do not think there is any harm in having some competition”.

Once again it is a matter quite clearly of the words not matching the music, of saying one thing and believing another. I see that the health critic is here and I want him to know that I believe he cares about Canadians' health. He is a medical doctor. I believe he has serious concerns. But I do not understand how he reconciles the difference between the statements made.

How he reconciles these double standards is a problem that the Reform Party in my view must wrestle with in its caucus meetings. It must be fascinating to be a fly on the wall to listen to “on the one hand we want to do it this way, but on the other hand we think we can sell it better if we announce it another way”.

Frankly, that is what we are seeing here with the issue of putting some kind of arbitrary deadline. All members in this place want to see a deal done on behalf of all Canadians that makes Canada work.

I believe even members of the Reform Party believe that all members who were sent here as federal politicians, anyone who comes here with a federal interest in making this federation work, want to see some kind of a deal structure. There may be exceptions with Bloc Quebecois members obviously who were sent here more as regional or provincial politicians.

I recall very clearly that I was unable to go to Montreal when the big rally took place at the last minute during the referendum. My wife, a member of council, and a number of her colleagues went on a bus and a number of people from my riding went.

They told me what an incredibly moving experience that was. Yet the Reform Party, instead of joining hands with Canadians in Montreal, worked against not only us but against this entire nation. It ran a deficit in its own budget. It went over its own budget. It spent money it did not have which again points out a double standard to try to destroy the Charlottetown accord. I think it succeeded in doing that.

During one of the parliamentary recesses, when we are getting messages from around the world about the financial stability of this country, we saw the leader of the Reform Party at a speech somewhere in Asia totally tearing down the social and economic fabric of Canada. This is someone who would purport to be a prime minister. This is outrageous.

I want to share with members a couple of quotes that came about as a result of the events last evening in the province of Quebec. We all know what we saw in the province of Quebec last night was a clear message. It was a message from the people of Quebec to the separatists that they do not want a referendum.

I say that to my colleagues in the Bloc. It is a clear message. They do not want a referendum. I did not see anybody strutting around. I watched the news. I did not see great yelling and cheering at the supposed victory parties.

In fact, what I saw was puzzlement from the separatists who said “We thought Quebecers really wanted a referendum and they really wanted to separate. Maybe the don't”. What they really want is government to get on with the job. In a vast majority, if someone looks at the numbers, 55% of the people in the province of Quebec last evening voted against the PQ. That is a pretty clear message.

I want to share a couple of quotes. The first one I want to share is a quote from the provincial premier who happens to be the chair of the provincial premiers as they meet this year. It is interesting that next year's chair will be newly elected, re-elected Premier Bouchard.

This year's chair, Premier Roy Romanow, said in talking about the election:

I think what it means is that the task ahead of us is to, if I may use a little bit of play on Premier Bouchard's campaign slogan, winning conditions for referendum, for me the focus now is winning conditions for Canada. And the first order of business is the social union, negotiating it as quickly as we can. Not under any artificial deadlines or timetables. Doing it with dispatch, doing it with determination. The Prime Minister wants to do it, his ministers want to do it. The premiers want to do it. Premier Bouchard signed on, here in Saskatoon in August, to the bargaining position. I underline those words, the bargaining position of the provinces and the territorial governments.

What we've had here is the people of the province of Quebec engage in election and elect their government for the next four years. We haven't had tonight, based on this result, in my mind, something more than that. On the question of social union, and the negotiation that's ongoing, I think that's something that we'll get back to early in the new year without artificial deadlines.

Why would we wind up today in the House of Commons with a resolution? The opposition is continually hammering the government for, in its words, being heavy handed. Should we ignore the negotiations that are going on very well at the table as we speak and impose some artificial deadline whether it is a Reform one or, as the member for Macleod says, a Liberal one? That is absolute nonsense and it is not the way to negotiate a social union contract for the betterment of the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Liberal colleague if there is a commitment by his government to actually bring this discussion, this initiative by the premiers, to some conclusion. It has been ongoing for a year. There has been no real indication from the federal government that it will reach a conclusion.

Is there a commitment from the Liberal government to actually sign a document at some time down the road?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and a responsible position to take. I would hope there is a commitment that our government is negotiating. I know the Prime Minister is interested in seeing a deal done. The House has heard the quotes I shared from Premier Romanow and from Premier Tobin. I know there is a serious desire to see a social union contract put in place which protects medicare, which ensures that proper transfer payments flow and at the same time protects a strong position for the federal government to have a role in leading policy.

We will not be neutered the way the Reform Party would see us neutered. We will stand strong as nationally elected politicians in this place and for all Canadians.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's compilation of yesterday's election results is a rather odd one.

In discussing social union, he referred to the Meech Lake Accord. As a Quebecker, I remember that the present Prime Minister, then leader of the Liberal Party but without a seat in the House, played a very specific role in the failure of Meech, with the complicity of then Newfoundland Premier Clyde Wells. Today he gets all worked up about those who were responsible for the failure of Meech. He ought to look back at that.

Returning to social union, these are demands that go back 50 years, in Quebec and in the other provinces as well. It is also in part the outcome of the federal government's cuts to transfer payments to the provinces, of its brutal cuts to health care. They are what has triggered this discussion, since the other provinces were forced to make cuts to health care, to the hospitals. That is what they have been pushed to.

I hope the federal government understands the urgency for remedying the situation by restoring transfer payments as promptly as possible, in the next budget, for health care in particular, but also for education and social assistance.

I would like to know my hon. colleague's opinion on this matter, that is on the money the federal government has cut from the provinces in these areas.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I on behalf of my constituents in Mississauga West, a primarily anglophone community but officially bilingual and we try our best even though I am not quite there yet, I want to say to the people of Quebec thank you for sending a clear message to the separatists both in this place and in Quebec City. I thank the people for giving the clear strong message that we want to get on with the next four years of governing.

Yes, we want to negotiate a social union contract. Yes, we need to deal with transfer payments that impact on health care in the province of Quebec, in the province of Ontario and right across the land. Yes, the government has a clear responsibility to ensure that we redistribute the income and wealth in Canada so the provinces which have traditionally been called have not provinces will not suffer.

With the economic strength in provinces like Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and B.C. we can help our brothers and sisters everywhere else in Canada which also has its own individual economic strengths and benefits.

It is all about building a team, a team called Canada. I believe we can do it. After last night I believe we can do it with Quebec as part of Canada.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the current negotiations on the social union. This is a very important issue. These negotiations give us the opportunity to improve Canada's social and health policies.

Discussions are presently being undertaken at all levels of government in Canada in the hopes of making improvements to the social union for our country. These governments are attempting to find the best way for governments to help and serve Canadians.

While there are elements of the motion that are difficult to understand and certainly impossible to support, the motion provides us with a valuable opportunity to debate important new initiatives started by our government to strengthen federalism and to make the country work more efficiently for the benefit of all Canadians.

These negotiations are an important opportunity for Canada to improve the social and health policies that mean so much to all Canadians wherever they may live. All governments in Canada are currently involved in negotiations on how to improve Canada's social union. They are trying to design the best approach for helping governments to help Canadians.

What we call the social union most Canadians know through their direct experiences in their communities. Over the years we have learned to take for granted that wherever we live in Canada quality health care is available when we get sick. Young people can count on first rate education. Those who have lost their jobs or who have been hit by bad times are able to get the help they need. Pensions and benefits are available to secure quality of life in old age. These programs and services are the social union.

The concept of social union focuses on the Canada-wide nature of these programs and services, as well as the importance of providing all Canadians regardless of where they live in the country, or where they travel to, an equal opportunity to benefit from the programs that meet their fundamental needs.

Perhaps more important, the concept of social union captures our commitment to one another, our understanding that we are stronger together and that as Canadians we help each other wherever the need may be. We are always willing to help.

The current negotiations are tackling some difficult issues, but it is important to keep in mind that we already have one of the best social systems in the world. It is to ensure we can improve this quality of life that all governments are committed to succeeding in the negotiations.

The negotiations were launched by the Prime Minister and Canada's premiers at the first ministers' meeting on December 11 and December 12, 1997. At that time first ministers agreed that each jurisdiction would appoint a minister to negotiate a new social partnership to help improve decision making and delivery of social and health policies. While this may seem like a long process these issues are important for Canada and for all Canadians. We must take the time necessary to get it right and the time necessary to succeed.

We have tried not to allow the process to become political. That is why all governments have agreed not to negotiate through the media where too often positions become rigid and exaggerated and the focus is on power and conflict. These negotiations are and must be focused on what is right for Canadians.

I will provide the House with a sense of our current social union, with a sense of why the government believes we must improve it, and with a sense of what we are trying to achieve through those negotiations.

Most of us take for granted the advantages we receive from the social programs put in place throughout the country. The network of social benefits that permits us to have our high level of living is relatively new. It was established only after the second world war when the depression was still fresh in our collective minds.

Old age pension plans, employment insurance, student loans and health insurance were all founded within the last 50 years with the collaboration of all levels of government in Canada through debate, dialogue, disagreement and ultimately compromise.

The history of the social union is a remarkable story of creativity and mutual respect. It is a story of the commitment of generations of Canadians to caring for one another and to accommodating our differences as we pursue our common purpose. Most impressive has been our ability simultaneously to achieve Canada-wide initiatives while enhancing the freedom of provinces to act for their residents.

The commitment to improve is particularly important now because Canada like all countries in the world faces tremendous challenges. As the baby boomers begin to enter the retirement years our aging population will put real strains on our pension, health care and social systems. Within 20 years the number of Canadians over 65 will increase by 50%. With no change in the system in almost 30 years fully one-third of the federal budget will be needed to be spent on seniors pensions.

Federal and provincial governments after consultations with Canadians have already taken steps to ensure the Canada pension plan. With globalization and the emerging information economy we will need more than ever a literate technologically skilled and mobile labour force. Our social programs must adapt to the changing labour market and new directions in the nature and organization of work. Our youth are entering a labour market that is very difficult and different from the one we knew. We must equip them with skills and information they require and need, and the freedom to pursue opportunities wherever they arise.

We must ensure for all Canadians access to learning and unfettered mobility. We have more to do for Canadian children to ensure that they are ready to learn and have the fair start necessary to participate fully in Canada's economic and social opportunities. Each Canadian must have access to the opportunities afforded them by all for all of Canada.

All governments have had to take tough measures to balance their budgets and thereby increase our flexibility for the future and our resiliency in the face of global forces. This has put a premium on efficiency and on making sure that governments do not duplicate one another. We share risks and resources and we learn from one another. We can and we must work together and make it better for Canadians.

Given the value we attach to our social and health programs, given our contribution to our quality of life and given the challenges before us, governments are working together to set out the basis for an even stronger partnership, a new social union framework. The negotiations on the new framework provide an opportunity to strengthen our co-operation for the benefit of all Canadians. To do this we must be consistent with the core values and principles of our Canadian federation.

The first we must note is that the Constitution must be respected. Respect of the Constitution and constitutional power and competencies is essential to maintain the effectiveness of public policy and the mutual respect that is a basis of this partnership. The foundations of this social union must respect the Constitution.

Second, we must show greater co-operation to meet the needs of Canadians. Governments are now co-ordinating their work on behalf of children, youth and persons with disabilities through recent initiatives. That should carry on.

Third, the ability of governments to act must be preserved. Greater co-operation should not and cannot mean that governments cannot do anything without asking permission of each other. We can strengthen our partnership without hindering our capacity to act. We can avoid what the Europeans call the joint decision trap. The framework must preserve the capacity to act and to adapt to change as required and as needed.

The fourth idea I present is the principle that the federation must be flexible. We are learning how to reconcile joint action with enhanced flexibility for the provinces. We have seen this in the recent labour market agreements which allowed provinces to choose the approach most suited to their labour market. We have seen this in the national child benefit in which provinces were able to invest as appropriate to the challenges they faced. A new framework must ensure that flexibility.

The fifth notion is that the federation must be fair. Canada has lead the G-7 in bringing down its deficit and gaining fiscal control. It has achieved this with relatively less conflict and friction than what might rightfully be expected but not without consequences. Canadians are worried about the adequacy of funding for core programs. With the prospect of a fiscal dividend the federal government is conscious of the challenges facing the provinces, and we need to act accordingly.

We must keep each other informed. That too is important and fundamental to the framework. We must also enhance accountability for Canadians and to Canadians. That too is part and parcel of this union. It is very important that we have the opportunity to establish this new partnership and a new balance to manage the interdependence of services for all Canadians. It will prevent the elimination of the doubling of cost and it will lead to a much better federation.

The test of our efforts is simple. Are Canadians better served? Are governments more transparent and accountable to Canadians? Are we in a better position to improve our health and social policies and to promote the well-being of Canadians in all parts of Canada? Have we improved mobility for Canadians? Above all, have we achieved greater equality for opportunity in Canada?

The answer is that we will do that in the best interest of all Canadians. While the motion before us appears reasonable enough on the surface, it cannot and shall not be supported. We need to carry on in a way that is in keeping with the values, institutions and the symbols that define us a people and unite us as a nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague across the way. He outlined five points and because of the shortage of time I would like to ask him questions on two of them.

The first issue was that the Constitution must be respected in all cases. How is it that the Constitution can be respected when the federal government is interloping on provincial jurisdictions as given to them in the 1867 Constitution?

The second question deals with his fifth point. He said that the federation must be fair and that the federal government must be allowed to do the job it feels it is there to do. Is it fair when the federal government goes into a medicare program with a promise of 50% funding and years later is only providing 11% funding?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the questions.

Certainly we on the government side need always to be cognizant, as do all Canadians, of the importance of respecting the Constitution in all these matters. That is fundamental not only to all Canadians but to all of us in this place. To present the Constitution in a fair manner is important. It is also important to provide a social union framework and context which enable us as Canadians to promote and preserve those things that we hold dear and which need protection and promotion in a fair and equitable fashion.

It is very important that we on the government side continue to do that. We have traditionally and historically been a party and a government of nation building. We intend not to tear down but rather to build in a manner consistent with the kinds of values and ideals all Canadians want us to use. It is important to continue on that vein and do so in the best interest of all Canadians.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion. The Reform Party believes very strongly it is time that Canada endorsed the social union put forward by the provinces and territories. We are urging the government to do exactly that.

I have listened to some of the pabulum coming from across the way. My colleague from Surrey asked a very straightforward question of the hon. member about the government's commitment to health care. When the Canada Health Act first came into place the federal government made a commitment to fund health care to the tune of 50%.

What did the government do? Now it funds it at 11%. She asked a very straight question of the member and we got back this pabulum about the government believes in fairness, that it wants to build up and not tear down. That does not mean anything. That is not a commitment. It is just rhetoric from the government.

Mr. Speaker, excuse me if I accuse the members of the government of being disingenuous with respect to the answers I have heard from them today regarding their commitment to signing and enacting the social union. We think it is extraordinarily important to do this. It is important for the well-being of Canadians who depend on these social programs, but it is just as important for the unity of the country.

Every time we raise specific questions we get empty answers. It is unbelievable that in the House of Commons when we are debating something that is incredibly important to Canadians, that is all we get from the government.

The member for Mississauga West said that the government believes in the social union. That is great. Then why does the government not sign it? This has been before governments for a long time. Many of these proposals have been before Liberal governments for a long, long time.

I think the answer is that the government does not want to give up its powers. It does not believe in national standards. It believes in federal standards. It believes in standards that it alone sets even though all these areas that we are talking about fall under provincial jurisdiction in the Constitution. The gentleman who just spoke said that we must respect the Constitution. The very fact that the federal government is using its spending power to intrude in areas of provincial jurisdiction shows that its commitment to the Constitution is at best tenuous.

The provinces and the official opposition recognize that the federal government can and should have a role to play in some of these services, but let us enter into them on a co-operative basis. Unfortunately, the government often is not prepared to do that.

We have a situation where the provinces and the territories, many of which are represented by Liberal premiers, are calling on the government to take this initiative seriously. The government has had a chance to regard it since August and it has still done absolutely nothing. We say that the real test of whether or not a government is committed to these things is not whether it says it believes in the principles of them in some debate, but it is whether it is prepared to sign onto them.

There was an election in Quebec yesterday. We know that people in Quebec do want Canada to work. They made that very clear in the way they voted yesterday. We know that the premier of Quebec has signed onto this social union. He wants to make this work.

My question is which party is it that is standing in the way of Canadian unity? It is the federal government that is standing in the way. The Prime Minister indicated before the election how much he was going to stand in the way of this by saying that we are not going to have the flexibility that is necessary to make Canada work as a confederation, as a co-operative movement, a movement that recognizes that not all the ideas have to come from the federal government. Some of them can come from provincial governments or from the private sector.

In Canada most of the time the good things that we do are done through co-operative means. Every day in the private sector people get together co-operatively and exchange goods and services, money and all kinds of things. They do it on a co-operative basis. It creates all kinds of good. It creates prosperity, wealth and a lot of good will.

We also know in this case that the provinces and the territories got together and said “We are going to work co-operatively. We are going to try to get together because this is in the best interests of all of our respective constituents”. That is what they did. They got together and brought forward this social union.

We recently saw securities regulators across the country get together and co-operatively work out a new system whereby they would establish standards that would apply across the country. I point out that the finance minister tried to do this awhile ago and completely and utterly failed. We know that a previous Conservative government tried to do the same thing and completely and utterly failed.

We now know that the securities regulators, driven by the interests of private individuals who need to have economic organization in order to make it easier to invest across the country, got together and said that they could do it co-operatively. In other words, they established national standards without being bound by federal standards.

That seems to be the whole problem here. We have a government that is so stubborn, which is really characterized by the Prime Minister, that it simply refuses to sign onto anything that it did not create even though it is operating in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

It is time for the government to set aside that pride, that vanity and to come to the realization that good ideas which benefit all Canadians do come from lower levels of government. That is exactly what we are talking about here.

I do not know anybody who thinks that the social union is a bad idea, except for the federal government. If it does not think it is a bad idea—and I know it will protest when I say that—then why does it not sign onto it? The government has had months and months to do it. There was the prospect of a Quebec election in front of it and the government still did nothing. In fact, in the face of it, it seemed as if the Prime Minister was trying to derail the whole thing.

Instead of suggesting that somehow this motion is not helpful when obviously it is and is bringing before the House of Commons one of the most important initiatives in the country today, why do members across the way not start thinking about ways to endorse it? Why not look for ways to get behind this instead of fighting it at every step? Unfortunately that is not the way the government operates.

One thing strikes me when we talk about issues like health care. The hon. member who spoke just a minute ago talked about how the government wants to build. That is very laudable and those are nice words. However, I want to review what has happened in the last five years in Canada with respect to health care. I think this really does put the lie to some of the words we have heard from across the way where the government was saying that it believed that we need to work together.

Health care is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Did the provinces have the benefit of being consulted by the federal government when the federal government decided to essentially eviscerate health care in Canada, when it cut $7 billion from health care, when it drove 188,000 people onto waiting lists in Canada? Is that the government's co-operative approach? I do not think so. That is not co-operative.

Here is an area of provincial jurisdiction and what did the government do? It marched in and said it was not going to cut the size of government or pare down its own departments. It was going to cut health care by 35%. I would argue that is much of the reason the provinces finally said they had to get together, irrespective of their own differences, to fight the federal government because it was standing in the way of giving Canadians proper health care.

The government goes ahead and guts health care because it thinks it is more important to find savings gutting health care than to gut for instance subsidies to big business.

Although the words we have heard from the other side sound very nice and warm, they are completely insincere. We do not buy it for a minute. We think the real test of the government's commitment to a social union is action, not more warm words, not more discussions.

We urge members across the way to join with the Reform Party and with other opposition parties today and to vote in favour of what is being proposed so that we can truly unite Canada.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member across the way.

The word co-operation came up an awful lot. It really is hard to sit in my seat and listen to this when I think back to the 1997 election campaign where the Reform Party made signs that said it did not want to have a premier or a prime minister from Quebec. Now I ask, does that sound like the Reform Party wants co-operation with Quebec?

It really is hollow when we listen to words like those from the opposition. The Reform Party would have been very happy to have had a crisis in Quebec. The vote last night was very solid. It does say that Quebecers indeed do want to be a part of Canada. Thank goodness that the people of Quebec have not listened to the Reform Party. The Reform Party's rhetoric, its meanness of spirit, its not wanting to have Quebecers as a part of Canada is awful.

Could the hon. member across the way explain to me how he and and his party could make this statement, that they would never want a prime minister from Quebec?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we really meant to say was that we do not want this Prime Minister who happens to be from Quebec. The real answer is that the Reform Party did not say those things.

The Reform Party wants to see the aspirations of all regions of the country represented when it comes to constitutional discussions. That is one of the reasons this social union is very supportable by the Reform Party. It does represent the aspirations of all the provinces. That is why we are very supportive of it.

I wish the government across the way would be equally supportive. The government turns around and guts health care in Canada. It cut $7 billion in expenditures to the provinces for health care. Then the government stands in this place and says that it believes very strongly in working with the provinces so that we can have national standards for health care.

The government's actions speak louder than its words. I am not surprised that given the government's past actions, it cannot support this motion today.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question.

With respect to that ad, the member explained what the ad was about but there is one point I would like to make. I had a lot of constituents say to me that Jean Charest was incensed that we would label him as nothing but a Quebec politician, but the fact that he jumped and tried to become the premier of Quebec proves that portion of what we were saying about Jean Charest.

Has the hon. member for Medicine Hat heard similar things?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canadians want to see their views represented from all across the country. The very fact that the Reform Party has brought forward a list of ways that we can accommodate not only Quebec but all the provinces through the new Canada act demonstrates that our commitment to this country goes far beyond anything we have seen from the government.

The government is committed to staying in power. The Reform Party is committed to making Canada work. The government will do anything it can can to hang on to power, including gutting health care so that it can balance the budget and at the same time protect the bureaucracy behind it. The government will do anything it can.

If the government were really and truly concerned about Canadians, it would reverse that process. Instead of gutting health care it would gut some of its vested interests, who have been the hangers on in this country for so long and one of the reasons people are so cynical about government in Canada today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has brought forward this motion today which calls on the federal parliament to build a stronger federation by building a stronger partnership with provincial and territorial governments.

The motion calls on the federal parliament to strengthen the social fabric of the country by responding to the demands of all the provinces and territories. All the provinces and territories have put forward a framework of proposals and the federal government has not responded substantively to them. This motion calls for the government to do that.

The motion recognizes that federalism can be a dynamic and a flexible system, able to renew and reform itself in response to the aspirations and the needs of Canadians. This motion provides an opportunity for federal parliamentarians to show the positive leadership needed as we approach the 21st century.

Reformers have long believed that reform of the federation is essential and a national priority. The provinces and territories clearly agree. Reformers have long advocated a more balanced federation, decentralizing the delivery of government services, allowing the provinces and municipalities the flexibility to better meet their own social, cultural, linguistic and economic circumstances.

In November 1997, about a year ago, the official opposition put forward a motion in the House calling on the federal government to communicate the Calgary declaration, which talked about a framework for renewing the federation, to the people of Quebec and to consult with them on its contents. The government failed to act. We saw the results yesterday. When there is no option put forward by strong federal leadership, then we have the kind of result which we saw yesterday.

The provincial premiers and all of the opposition parties have endorsed the framework agreement on Canada's social union. Only the federal government refuses to show some imagination and courage and to enter into negotiations to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of Canadians from coast to coast.

The premiers have pointed out clearly, as have many experts, the difficulties with the present arrangements. The current arrangements for the delivery of social programs in this country have led to federal meddling in important areas of provincial constitutional jurisdiction. They have led to the duplication of effort and expense. They have led to inefficiency in the delivery of the services that Canadians desperately need and they have added unnecessary, burdensome cost to the delivery of the social programs which are so important to Canadians.

An example is the millennium scholarship fund. The federal government slashed support for post-secondary education. Then it set up its own brand of scholarships, which will go to less than 10% of Canadian students, with absolutely no notice to or consultation with the provinces. Government members just said “Hey, we are going to do this. We will slash what you do. We will slash the delivery of services by the provinces, and then we will gain a medal for spending $2.5 billion in your area of jurisdiction”.

Another example is the Canadian foundation for innovation. Again, there was no consultation with the provinces. The provinces had to scramble to bring together their side of the equation so that research and development could continue to work in the provinces.

There is one example of where federal-provincial co-operation did work, and that is the national child benefit. In this one anomaly the federal government decided to do it right. It actually talked to the provinces. It gave them notice. It consulted with them. It made some co-operative arrangements to help our families in this country. The program is working.

What could be more clear for the federal government than to say: “This is not working. Stop doing it. The way to go is with consultation and co-operation”? That is the way to help people in this country. That is what we have to do in the federal parliament.

We have a situation which the federal parliament needs to deal with. In August 1995 the premiers held their annual conference. At that time they said: “Social policy reform is one of the most significant challenges facing the nation”. Every province and every territory was saying that social policy reform was the most significant challenge. They formed a ministerial council on social policy and renewal.

This was not a big secret. The premiers did not do this in a closet. It was very open and above board. They were forming a council to deal with the issue of social policy renewal. Where was the federal government in all of this? Nowhere. The federal government did not say “This is an important initiative. Social security and the delivery of social services to the people of this country is critical. We care about it too. Let us work with you on this important initiative”. There was nothing like that.

In August 1995 the premiers go it alone. The same year this council, moving with commendable expediency, reported principles to guide social policy reform and renewal. The very same year this council had results. Again, what did the federal government do? Did it say: “Let us examine these principles. There are some things we could add. We could assist with this. This could work well because we will bring a national perspective to it”? Again the federal government was nowhere to be found in the process.

Then in August 1996, a year after the process started, the premiers adopted a paper called “Issues Paper on Social Policy Reform and Renewal: Next Steps”, and established a provincial-territorial council on social policy renewal to design options to ensure national standards and principles and to deal with unilateralism on the part of the federal government. Again, where was the federal government in this important initiative? Nowhere.

In April 1997 the council presented its option paper.

In August 1997 the premiers said “Let us negotiate with the federal government”. That was over a year and a half ago. The premiers agreed to continue to work on the framework agreement.

In September they adopted a framework agreement called the Calgary declaration and agreed on guidelines for social policy renewal.

In October 1997 there was a further meeting of this council, which stressed urgency, again pointing to the framework agreement.

In December 1997 the premiers met again and endorsed the framework agreement.

In March 1998 the council met to launch negotiations and for the first time in this whole process, nearly three years from the time it started, the federal government finally decided that maybe it should get involved. It appointed the justice minister to work with the premiers and the territorial leaders on this initiative.

What happened after March? In June the group met. Guess what? The meetings were described as tense. They were reported to be an “apparent failure”. The justice minister, the federal representative who had finally come along on the train, said “We need more time to consider these proposals”, never mind that they had been out there for two years or more.

In August the premiers met again. They issued a major news release concerning the framework agreement and said again how urgent it was.

What happened in September? The Prime Minister finally said something. Here is what he said in an interview with Southam News: “If they don't want to take what I am offering, they take nothing. That is an alternative too”.

The government, after all of the work done by all the premiers and the territorial leaders, simply says “It is my way or the highway”. That is not what is called leadership.

What we are asking today is that this federal parliament fill the leadership vacuum that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have failed to fill and simply move ahead, at a time when every single provincial and territorial leader has done all of the leg work, to get with the program, help put the ball through the goal and make social policy in this country stronger and better. That is what we are asking and I urge members to support the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from Premier Romanow. He stated: “The first order of business with a social union is negotiating it as quickly as we can, not under any artificial deadlines or timetables”.

I would like to ask the member two questions. First, Reform members come into this House and purport to be acting on behalf of the provinces. Do they or do they not believe that there is a position for the federal government in these negotiations?

Second, how can they come forward to impose a deadline when the very chairman of the process they purport to support does not want it?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the premiers' news release of August 6, 1998. The last sentence of paragraph 6 states: “Premiers stressed that negotiations should now proceed with a view to concluding a draft agreement by the end of the year”. That is what the premiers said.

Clearly, there have to be some goals set. If the timeline for negotiation is infinite, all the federal government has to do is play the violin and say nice words about how wonderful it is to have co-operation within the federation. We will never get anywhere.

There has to be somebody, somewhere, at some time who drives it to conclusion. The premiers have made it extremely clear what they think the proper timelines are.

There is clearly a role for the federal government in this. What we are saying is “Get on with it. Play a role. Do something that will move this ball through the goal posts”. The federal government has not only been doing nothing, not only dragging its feet, but the Prime Minister himself is saying “We are not going to be flexible. We are not going to negotiate. Either you take what we are going to give you or tough bananas”.

That is not the way to give us a strong, co-operative federation. We will have to do something differently.

[The Speaker]

I see by the clock that we still have a little over two minutes, but we will hear questions and comments after question period.

With your permission, in one minute we will move to Statements by Members.

Auditor General's Report

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada for the year 1998.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The Late Dulce Huscroft

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for Dulce Huscroft, giving was a way of reaching out to people.

She gave freely of her time whenever called upon and often because she alone saw a need.

It seems only a few short weeks ago that her family and friends rallied together to show her just how much they cared. Today we gather again to pay our respects and to say goodbye to a truly caring person.

Dulce always put her family first and to them I offer my sympathy.

She touched many of us in her busy life as a school trustee, community volunteer and as a caring parent. We will all miss her.

Bill C-68

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of the forced registration of law-abiding Canadians' hunting rifles and shotguns.

This Liberal folly has cost over $200 million to date and has a long way to go yet.

The justice minister claims that Bill C-68 will save lives. A portion of the money being spent to set up this program could save over 1,700 breast cancer victims and dramatically reduce health care costs in the process. That is far more than the total number of firearm related deaths.

The justice minister also claims that Bill C-68 will make streets safer. In British Columbia, the RCMP's campaign against organized crime has been curtailed, patrol boats are docked and patrol aircraft are grounded.

In rural areas, border surveillance and night patrols have been cut due to an $8.5 million budget shortfall. That represents less than 5% of the money being wasted on her bill.

The bottom line is that Bill C-68 will cost lives and make the streets less safe.

Merry Christmas from the Liberal Party of Canada.

Volvo Environmental Prize

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Volvo environmental prize recognizes individuals who have made outstanding innovations or discoveries that have a significance in the environmental field and are of global or regional importance.

Dr. David Shindler, a professor at the University of Alberta, was a co-winner of the 1998 prize.

Dr. Schindler was recognized for his discoveries on freshwater pollution. The importance of this work becomes greater every year as the world's supply of quality fresh water comes under increasing stress. This prestigious award is one of a long list of honours given to Dr. Schindler for his outstanding achievements and contributions.

David Schindler chose to make Canada his home and we are blessed both by his presence and his work. As legislators it is our responsibility to listen to the David Schindlers of Canada and the world to ensure that we make good, healthy public policy decisions.

Access Awareness Week

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I invite all the people of Abitibi, James Bay and Nunavik, especially the various social integration partners, to take an active part in the events of Access Awareness Week.

It is vitally important we become aware of the importance of making our services accessible to people with functional limitations.

Whether we are talking about medical or rehab services, day care, schools, a recreation centre, work, a business or a cultural centre, we all must make the needs of disabled persons our business.

These people are our parents, our friends, our neighbours, our clients and our colleagues. They are men, women and children who are entitled to expect greater openness on the part of the people around them and society in general.

I hope that this week provides an opportunity to discover new support for the social integration and involvement of persons with disabilities.