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.