I cannot force him to table it; he has not put it on the record yet. If he agrees to do so, then House rules will apply and the minister will introduce his proposal in the House.
I wish the minister and the government would provide more details. There is no substance; this is an empty proposal. There are numerous concerns and the government does not seem to understand how important social union is.
It is a two-way street. Our NDP colleague who just spoke was quite reticent. He does not really understand what a social union is either.
During the Quebec election campaign, we saw that the Premier of Quebec also perhaps interpreted what he signed in his own way. He quoted only one or two paragraphs of the agreement.
I would like to hear about the famous right to opt out and have the minister read the federal proposal on opting out. What Quebec, with Premier Bouchard, understands is that opting out includes full compensation, but not obligation. The Saskatoon agreement does not say that, however. There is no automatic, universal and unquestioned right to opt out. Absolutely not.
The rules are set when a new program is created or an old one modified, and the government says to the provinces—I said this in October on the subject of the Bloc motion, and I say it again—there is the right to opt out of the administration of a program, but there is an obligation to change or establish a program in line with what was negotiated.
A system of national standards is set up, in the end. Some in Quebec will react angrily to that, naturally, but this is what is to be found in the document on social union. We can agree with that or not. However, could we have the minister's position and a quote from his document on opting out—an important element in the respect of jurisdictions and the administrative capabilities of the provinces and regions? Could we have a bit of information?
The other element is the matter of the veto, which is not a veto. That is in the document as well, and it requires consent. If there is no consent, a veto applies. After the veto comes the right to compensation. But what is that? Could we hear from the government on that? Could we make progress on the matter of the social union?
Could we not involve the parliamentarians in this House? Would the government not agree to strike a committee comprising all parties? We could agree, first, to explain what is meant by social union and see whether we agree on the definitions. We could quickly set up an all party committee. Perhaps we have some good ideas on both sides of the House to move things forward a bit.
The minister could surely propose good ideas and be open to the good ideas of the opposition, and we would know what is going on.
People in every riding ask us “What is this social union?” We try to get into the specifics. We tell them “It is a document that was prepared by the provinces”. This morning, the minister told us that there is also a federal document, a federal proposal. Does such a document actually exist? Is this just rhetoric or is there really a written document? If there is such a document, could it be distributed among parliamentarians? That would be important.
As for the wording of the Reform motion, it goes without saying that we cannot disagree with the notion of social union. The Conservative Party has been discussing this issue for two years, but our approach is much more comprehensive. We talk about a social and economic union, about what we call the Canada pact.
Again, we have been discussing this issue for a long time. It was an integral part of the Conservative Party's platform during the 1997 election campaign. We would like things to move forward a little. They do at the provincial level and they should at the federal level.
The Reform Party's motion stems from yesterday's election in Quebec. Yesterday, the Reform Party was preparing for action. It sent an opposition motion and then changed it. The Reform Party changed its mind. It prepared another motion on a different issue. All this is not very serious. It lacks credibility. Social union is so important. This is part of the everyday lives of Quebeckers and of Canadians. Credibility and seriousness are required.
As for the December 31 deadline, unfortunately, I have my Christmas shopping to do, and I am not alone in that. It is December now. A government has just been elected in Quebec . Some outcomes will be contested, which will not change much, but still. Before a new cabinet is sworn in at Quebec City, weeks will go by. Is it not a bit irresponsible on the part of the Reform Party to propose this?
But I understand the idea. Mr. Bouchard spoke about a December 31 deadline. I understand the other provinces, but would we in this House have any credibility—at least on this side—if we said “We will put in the dates that work best”? I feel this is important.
December 31 is all very fine. The Leader of the Official Opposition told my NDP colleague “there is no point getting all caught up in dates”. Even without getting all caught up in dates, it is still important. When legislation comes into effect, like Bill C-68 on firearms, it is important. A date is a date.
I have problems with the matter of a date. I have a lot of problems as well with what possessed the Reform Party to bring into this House a less detailed proposal than that made by our Bloc Quebecois colleagues in October. Being more detailed, ours forced the government to address matters in greater detail, as we are trying to do again this morning, and to get some answers, to find out what is going on: Is the general store open or closed? Can customers enter or not? What is going on?
We do not really know what is happening with social union. What we hear from the government is “We shall see, there is no hurry, negotiations are under way”.
Today's motion by the Reform Party is like the feel-good Barney song “I love you, you love me”. But we cannot get any details on it. I feel we could have pushed a bit harder on this.
I have great difficulty with the December 31 date. It is not credible. It could have been signed in September or perhaps in October. There was nothing from the federal government, but now it is right before the holidays, a new government has just been elected in Quebec. Give it some time. Will Mr. Facal still be Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs? I think he will. Mr. Facal himself said he had had a good meeting in Edmonton. Could the government not demonstrate a bit more credibility?
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move an amendment. It will perhaps not be along the lines of what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs suggested this morning, but it will reflect the New Democrats' concerns.
I think the Reform Party is prepared to accept this amendment. Again, it is a question of credibility, because the Parliament of Canada should not be telling the provinces to work everything out before December 31.
I seek unanimous consent to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I move:
That the words “prior to December 31, 1998” be deleted and replaced with “prior to the next federal budget”.
This is important. The provinces are worried about the next federal budget and the next throne speech. I am asking that, prior to the next federal budget, prior to the next throne speech and prior to the next cabinet shuffle, the federal government, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister reach an agreement with the provinces that would then be reflected in the federal budget.
It is a minor amendment and takes nothing away from social union, the Reform Party or any other party, or the government. What we are saying is that, with the prospect of a budget of over $140 billion that refers to transfer payments and federal-provincial relations, and a throne speech in which new programs will be announced, would it be possible to have an agreement prior to the next federal budget and throne speech? What we are proposing is some credibility, some responsibility and some action, and we are seeking the unanimous consent of the House.