Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I contribute to this debate because I look forward to opportunities to discuss the social union in this Chamber and to debate the social framework, the agreements that are going to guide the federal and provincial governments in the delivery of improved services. I think this is a very important topic. I do not want to reflect too much on the motives of the official opposition in bringing forward this motion, but I have to wonder why we are into this kind of debate the day after the Quebec election.
I hear a lot of language on the other side of the House that talks about an open debate and the desire to improve programs in Canada. I also hear, quoted by the previous speaker for the Reform Party and in his question to my colleague, this sense of a desire to facilitate this process based on a statement by the premiers in August of this year.
Let me share with the House some statements which were made by the premiers yesterday and today, not five or six months ago. The chairman of the process, the premier of Saskatchewan, stated: “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 and the premiers want to do it”. That is a statement made yesterday by the chairman.
Let us take a Liberal premier of Atlantic Canada, Brian Tobin of Newfoundland. He stated: “On the question of social union and the negotiation that is ongoing, I think that is something that we will get back to in the new year. I think we are making good progress with the national government”.
Let us take a Conservative premier, the premier of Ontario, who today at one o'clock said: “We obviously would like to see some progress after the budget—I mean on the social union discussion”. He is not demanding a December 31 deadline.
Based on what did the Reform Party undertake to draft this motion upon which we are going to be called upon to vote in 15 minutes?
The motion states:
That this House urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories, prior to December 31, 1998, and—
I have two problems with this. The first problem is the deadline; not the specific deadline but a deadline. Let the process go on. Let the provinces in good faith come to the table to discuss this along with the federal government. These are people who want to solve problems on behalf of the people we all serve. Let us not presume from the federal House of Commons to set any deadline for them. They are responsible people. I heard the member talking about the ability of the provinces to manage these programs. That is a position I endorse. Certainly they can and certainly they are competent to make the decisions about how and when these negotiations should proceed.
The second part, the second reason why I cannot support this resolution is that it is based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces.
We are the federal House of Commons. What I find disturbing about Reform's position on this is that it seems to act as though there is no federal role, as if there is no reason for the federal government to concern itself with these programs. I do not share that view.
Do they need to change? Absolutely they need to change. Change is something we are always going to have to face and it is hoped that we create a framework, a relationship with the provinces that allows change to be ongoing. Circumstances have changed. Economic circumstances have changed. People's mobility has changed. People's opportunities have changed and the programs that the federal government and the provincial government operate jointly should change in order to reflect those changes in the community. That is a given.
As someone who comes out of the social policy, the social program area, as director of child welfare in Manitoba for a period of time, not only do I believe that the provinces have the capacity and the ability to deliver these programs, I think they are better able to deliver these programs. I think that case oriented decisions about social services should be made by those people who are working closest to the people who are receiving them. I absolutely endorse that. I do not have any difficulty with those positions.
However, I also believe, as the people who created this federation believed, and as we have acted in accordance with throughout the life of this country, that there is a reason for our being a federation and that there are certain rights and abilities we all exercise because we are a federation. I also want those things considered and respected.
I want to know that when a disabled person moves from one province to the other they will receive services. I want to know that when a person goes into another province they will have the ability to work. I think there are pan-Canadian issues here. There also is a very real ability for the provinces and the federal government, working collectively, to learn a lot about a better way to deliver services.
I am a little saddened, frankly, by the discussions I hear coming out of the Bloc, because when I meet with members of the Bloc and I meet with people within the province of Quebec who are working in social services, and I do this rather regularly, what I see is a very creative approach to a great many of the services I have worked with. I think they have really captured some very important concepts and have developed some very important policies in how one activates communities and involves communities in the way of services.
I think in many ways some of the activities that have taken place in social services in the province of Quebec have proved to be a model for the rest of Canada. I think they are an important contributor to the development of policies and services across Canada. So I am saddened when I hear this debate sort of draw back into a discussion of powers and rights because I think when we focus our attentions and energies on powers and rights, we are talking about things that are mainly of interest to a few politicians and we marginalize the rest of Canada.
I think what Canadians want to hear us talking about is services and opportunities, ways we can be supportive of the kinds of goals they have, whether they live in Chicoutimi or Winnipeg or Prince Albert. They want to know their children will have a good education. They want to know they will have work. They want to know their health care will be of the highest quality possible. If we focus on solving those problems, if we focus on building a relationship with the provinces that allows us to collectively focus all our talents and energies on solutions to those problems, we will have done a great service to this country. But if we simply fall back on to endless arguments about powers and rights, I think we all lose. I think the people of Canada lose. I think the people in this Chamber and in all the chambers across the country lose.
I am very pleased with what I heard coming from the New Democrats and the Conservatives. What I heard the speaker for the New Democrats talk about was a commitment to services. He wanted to talk about services, as I heard from the Conservatives. I just wish we could find a way in this House to put aside on these important services some of this battling that seems to serve no one other than perhaps a few of our friends in the media.