Debates of Dec. 1st, 1998

Points Of Order

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if in order to make my point I must refer to my colleague without naming his riding, as did the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I shall carry on without naming his riding, confident that all the members of this House know full well who I am referring to.

His decision not to comply with your ruling was a very difficult decision for him to make. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, you made this ruling on the basis of the disturbance his remarks may have caused in this place.

I respectfully submit that his request, which, in my sense, was a very reasonable one, was for you to examine remarks—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton North.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think probably what my colleagues feel is that there is not equality in the way in which every member is treated. I can understand the position that you are in. It is awkward. You have to make a call on the fly and it is a difficult thing for you to do. I think my colleague from Winnipeg made a good point that rather than just standing there for what seems forever when we are in the short, tight period of question period, maybe you do need to be a little more proactive.

I have just gone up to my office and reviewed the tape of my question period time and over five minutes was spent on that. There was nothing unparliamentary in what I said. But what I sensed from you, Mr. Speaker, was that because you were angry with the Bloc you ended up taking it out on me. I am not sure there is any wisdom in that.

[The Speaker]

I am getting a pretty good picture of where we are going. With respect to this point of order I am going to make a suggestion.

At the beginning of this parliament the House leaders came to me with a suggestion about question period. It seemed like a good suggestion at the time and I think it is a good suggestion even to this day.

This was a bad question period. It was probably the worst that I have been through as Speaker of the House. Perhaps the blame should rest on my shoulders. After all, I am your Speaker. You have chosen me. Perhaps the tactics that I have used have been less than proactive, as was suggested. However, I have always been of the view that members of parliament, indeed most people, are reasonable people. You have come to the same conclusion today. You have seen what we can do to ourselves in this institution.

I would like to convene before the question period tomorrow. I see that most of the House leaders are here now. I would like to convene the House leaders and if they so wish their whips, but if not just the House leaders, in my chambers. I will have them contacted before the end of this day with a time. This is serious enough that I would like them to sit down with me in my chambers. We will address this problem together and we will solve this problem.

The House leaders are here, except for of course my colleague who is not here. He will be informed and he will come to be with us also.

I want this point of order closed down. If there is another point of order I will listen to it.

Does the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve have another point of order?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like another element to be added to the debate. Since all parties have spoken on the topic and since one element was missing, I can assure you that this has nothing to do with your ruling.

[The Speaker]

We will leave the matter as it stands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition today in question period the Prime Minister stated that the federal government had tabled an agreement in December 1997 in response to the premiers' social union agreement.

We cannot find any such agreement and we are wondering if the Prime Minister could please table it so that it could be made available to us.

[The Speaker]

As far as I know he did not quote directly from the document. If he did not quote directly from the document, we might ask him through the government House leader if there is such a document and then go from there.

The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the amendment.

Supply

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a colleague.

Members of the House deal with many different issues on a day to day basis. During any given session we could be talking about bank mergers, agricultural subsidies or assistance to northern communities. The topics are as diverse as the physical and human geography of the country. Each is important in its own way because each impacts on the communities and the people we represent.

I am sure we would all agree that Canada's social union is an issue that touches both the hearts and minds of every Canadian in each corner of this great nation. I am happy the Reform Party has taken an active interest in the social union framework. It is certainly an issue which the government and the Prime Minister take seriously.

Today's motion neglects to mention that the idea of the social union framework arose not from the Saskatoon agreement but rather from a meeting between the Prime Minister and his provincial colleagues in December 1997.

The government has always supported the initiative from the start. While I understand the opposition's desire to speed things along, I cannot support the motion. Nor should the House support it. Negotiations are still ongoing and we must resist the temptation to rush recklessly forward. There are important issues on the table and it demands that they be addressed both thoroughly and thoughtfully.

Thomas D'Arcy McGee, one of the architects of our modern system of government, once characterized federalism as a great principle that speaks to the very foundations of human nature. I like this. It shows the kind of spirit that went into the development of this great country.

The principles at the heart of the federal idea are noble ones: mutual support, understanding and accommodation. These are the principles upon which the country was built and helped make Canada what it is today.

But when we focus on disagreements and disputes, we lose sight of these principles. We lose sight of how we all benefit from federalism.

Our parliament and our country were not built by men who kept saying that it was beyond their ability or wondering what they would get out of it. They were built by people who focussed on what they could accomplish together.

We need a bit more of this kind of enthusiasm today, because Canada is constantly evolving. It is a work in progress. We have a solid foundation, but we must keep building.

That is exactly what the government is doing. The Reform Party asked about our plans concerning the social union framework. The answer is straightforward. We are negotiating with our partners. It is that simple.

The government is confident that we will negotiate a framework agreement that is good for the country and all citizens. That is how the government operates. We take a reasoned approach designed to produce maximum benefits for Canadians.

That is certainly the approach we are taking toward renewing the federation. We promote national unity by building a better Canada for all Canadians. That is what Canadians want. If we ask people on the streets of Kitchener, Halifax or Drummondville what their priorities are, we will get the same answers: jobs, safe streets, good health care and a healthy environment for themselves and their children. That is what Canadians want and that is exactly what we are working on giving them.

Despite what some may be implying, building a stronger Canada does not mean focusing exclusively on the Constitution. The Constitution is a useful tool for state building that continues to serve the country well. It needs to be respected, but constitutional change is not the only way to improve the federation.

The government has worked very hard over the past five years to improve our country. It has worked systematically in partnership with the provinces to address the needs of Canadians. Negotiation of the social union framework is part of the these efforts.

A number of our initiatives have been introduced on a variety of different fronts. They have been developed with the goal of better positioning Canada as we enter the 21st century. We have a plan that we outlined in the Speech from the Throne. We are following that plan systematically.

First I will discuss some of the advantages we have made on the fiscal side of things. Getting our books in order is fundamentally important because it allows us the freedom to pursue our goals. Then I will identify the principles that underlie our current efforts toward renewing the federation.

We must look at the initiatives the government has undertaken which prove that progress has and will continue to take place. That should give members of the House a good idea of how much has already been accomplished over the past five years.

The government has made historic inroads in deficit reduction and has worked with Canadians to balance our books. I am proud to say that the world has taken notice. The financial gurus who were disparaging us just a few short years ago are now changing their tunes.

Thanks to the sacrifices that Canadians made and the conditions we have set in place to ensure a strong Canadian economy, we have continued a five year tradition of beating every one of our fiscal targets. The federal budget balance has improved from a deficit of $42 billion in 1993-94 to a surplus of $3.5 billion in 1997-98, a $45.5 billion turnaround in just four years.

While unemployment is still too high it has fallen from the 11.4% in the fall of 1993 to the 8.1% of today, the lowest level in eight years and a record improvement exceeded only by the United Kingdom among the G-7 nations.

Throughout the decades of the seventies, eighties and the early nineties our deficits were much higher than those of the U.S. Now we have a surplus. Interest rates on long term government bonds which directly affect mortgage rates and business loans are at their lowest levels in three decades. A good economy goes a long way in promoting a strong and unified Canada.

The opposition motion fails to recognize that when we are in a partnership it takes agreement and it takes consensus among all the players. While it is true that there has been consensus reached and the government will build on that coming from the Saskatoon meeting of August 7, there is not the unanimous consent the motion is predicated upon.

The government has shown that it is willing to work in a meaningful way in a partnership with the provinces and territories to continue to have a government and a nation that are relevant and good for Canadians both today and into the next century.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to what I call a wonderful accolade which has been given to the government, a wonderful vote of confidence, a wonderful gesture of the opposition stating that it has the utmost confidence in the government to conclude in 31 days what I would call one of the most fundamental, one of the most important and one of the most significant agreements in Canadian political history.

The opposition through the Reform motion is calling on the government to conclude an agreement by December 31, 1998 on what its version of social union would be. It is calling on the government to unilaterally conclude those discussions and to come up with an agreement by December 31.

If we really reflect on it, as the hon. member for Burin—St. George's should do instead of babbling on over there, the opposition is telling us that we should have a clear and full mandate to unilaterally, without the scrutiny of the opposition, conclude that agreement.

If we think about what social programs are to Canadians, the values that Canadians instil through their social programs and what they mean to them practically in their day to day lives, this is quite an accomplishment. The opposition is giving us quite an accolade.

On social programs, our health care system, our employment insurance system and our job training system, things that Canadians cherish and rely upon, the opposition is telling us that with unanimous consent of the House we should be able to conclude an agreement within a 31 day period.

Canada is a nation that has evolved over 130 years. If we think about it, the opposition is now telling us that we should have 31 days to conclude a very significant piece of work. I take the compliment very seriously and gratefully, but I think the issue is far too serious, far too important and far too fundamental to the wishes and aspirations of Canadians for us to do so without fully engaging our partners in this discussion.

Social programs are very important. We take very seriously our role in guarding them and making sure that they are available to future generations just as they are available to us today. It is not so much ensuring that they are available as is but that they evolve according to the wishes and the needs of Canadians over time.

The agreements and discussions that will come forward in coming months and years must reflect the priority of Canadians. They must reflect their wishes. That involves citizen engagement. That cannot be done in a 31 day period as the opposition is telling us.

I do not think any agreement could be drafted, and I am not saying should be drafted, in a 31 day period given the fact that there probably would not be too many opposition members around on December 31, 1998 to review it, to reflect upon it or to offer their opinion.

I do not think that bodes well for the conduct and activities of the House. I do not think that those are the original intentions or wishes of the opposition. However, it reflects their very poorly thought out, opportunistic and ill spirited intent to corner the government for the sake of cornering it by suggesting that it would be appropriate to conclude such a significant agreement within a 31 day period.

Canadians are far more intelligent, far more reflective and take their social programs far more seriously than to be boondoggled by such a very inappropriate and ill conceived notion.

We are working diligently toward building a consensus, working with our partners and working with all sides of the House in an honest debate, not on something that is preconceived and arbitrary, not in the best interest of Canadians and not reflected by the premiers of the province. Within the past 24 hour period they have come forward and said that we should do this thoughtfully and responsibly and get the best possible social union, not just any social union.

That is the difference between members on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House. We are looking to get what is in the best interest of Canadians. That means not concluding a deal just for the sake of concluding a deal. It means making sure that we build upon the 130 year history of our country and that we build upon the efforts, the initiatives and the strengths of our forefathers, the people who built the country.

We have to remember the country did not evolve within a period of 31 days as is now being suggested as the objective, the motive or the principle we should adopt. It is being suggested that as at December 1, 1998 we should put in place an arbitrary deadline for the form and the finality of a social union which will be the cultural base of our social programs for the future and will be the rigid structure.

That is not what this is all about. We are not engaging in a debate that will actually determine the nature of social programs. We are engaging in a discussion about how the implementation of those programs will proceed. We will still need a lot of flexibility over time. We will still need the input of Canadians over time. No matter when or whatever agreement is concluded, Canadians must, should and will be a part of any process. Canadians have to be. We have to engage our citizens in any such discussion.

If we include a December 31, 1998 deadline and say that there will be no further discussions after that point, on New Year's Eve 1998 while the Reform Party is out celebrating the Government of Canada will be finalizing the entire form, structure and nature of the social union.

Let us think about it. Canadians across the country have already thought about it. They do not want it. They want a process which is a lot more responsible, inclusive to their wishes and abides by the wishes of the 10 provinces. The provinces have spoken. They have said that we should continue the discussions, not put arbitrary deadlines on anything but build an agreement which is substantive, in good form and reflects the needs of current and future generations.

I do not think there is much more to say. Canadians know what they need. They know what they want. They know what they deserve.

What they deserve is a process that is fair, equitable, transparent and reflects the fact that it is irresponsible to negotiate an agreement with a gun to the head as the Reform Party is suggesting through a motion that binds the Government of Canada to a December 31, 1998 deadline to conclude all future discussions, to finalize it, to finish it and to have no more involvement.

I will conclude where I began. The Reform Party has given us quite an accolade. It is quite an acknowledgement of our capabilities, our spirit and our willingness to work for Canadians. It is quite a show of confidence. However, it is unfortunately one that I will reject right now because this party and this government are more interested in doing things right, in including the citizens and in doing things the responsible way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member opposite. He said that we have asked them to settle this most fundamental and important agreement ever for the government in 31 days.

I was here during question period and I heard the Prime Minister tell the House that the government originated the social union talks. It must have some parameters upon which it supposedly built, although I disagree with who originated it. He also said that they had a response report in December 1997. We are talking about the government having a response to the premiers social union 12 months ago.

If the government has been negotiating long enough to respond to the premiers a year ago, is he telling me that it cannot wrap up a year and a half long or a two year long discussion in 30 days?

I cannot believe that the member rapped about 31 days. We are not talking about 31 days. According to the Prime Minister, the government has had at least 12 months from the time it gave a response to the premiers on the social union.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand why the member from the Reform Party would be confused or not understand how members on this side of the House could actually enter into a discussion without a preconceived notion. When the Reform Party caucus meets and decides automatically who the Reformer of the week is, all those discussions have usually come to a preconceived conclusion. That is why that particular aspect of my comments today may not fall on completely sensitive ears.

The hon. member is quite right. This is a process that does take time and has taken time. Quite frankly it will take even more time. The country was not built in 31 days. Nor was it built in a year and a half. Nor was it built in a decade. It took several years to come to the point where we have a national health care system with universal principles that is universally accessible.

It took several years to build an economic system where we have infrastructure from one end of the country to the other, where we have different ideals and beliefs about the implementation of labour market principles and where individual provinces agree with it.

Good things take time and it is about time the hon. member learned that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick question for the member. The member who just spoke is well known as an advocate for his region of the country, Atlantic Canada. He spends a lot of time thinking about, debating and working on the issues that are comprised within the social union envelope.

Could he tell the House whether there has been a cry on the part of the Atlantic premiers for a deadline? Are they expressing concern about the speed of this? In his experience are they asking for a specific deadline?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that question actually focuses the debate and the discussion much better. I am pleased to answer it. The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has gone on record. He specifically said that we should continue to work, take our time, be diligent in our discussions, be thoughtful in our discussions and do it right.

The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has been joined by premiers from western Canada as well the constituencies, places or regions that some members opposite may purport to best represent. However, premiers from across the country have said that they support the federal government. They acknowledge the federal government. They are equal partners in the discussion.

They should not be sidetracked into a secondary role based on a Reform motion which imposes upon the federal government alone to conclude the discussions and the negotiations by December 31, 1998. That is not the spirit. That is not the substance of what we are trying to do. The Reform Party should learn that and understand it once and for all.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the province of Quebec voters again turned to the separatist government of the Parti Quebecois, or did they? I submit that Quebecers did not vote for Lucien Bouchard as much as they voted against status quo federalism. Polls indicate that the majority of Quebecers believe in Canada. However they have made it very clear that Confederation must be rejuvenated. This will not be an easy task.

The federal government has avoided it for over 30 years. Despite this terrible record members opposite can make their first steps in the right direction by voting in favour of the motion by the hon. member of South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, more importantly by beginning to create winning conditions for Canada.

Canada was formed into Confederation in 1867 at a time when the Constitution Act guaranteed the division of power between the federal and provincial governments. However, since that time the federal government has clawed back control over areas that rightfully belong to the provinces such as employment training, social services and education. Because of this, Quebec and other Canadian provinces alike continue to feel marginalized by the federal government.

In 1980 René Lévesque took Quebec to the polls in a bout on sovereignty. This was a wake up call to the House of Commons that the social union between the provinces and the federal government was not functioning. Still nothing was done to solve the problem. Instead the federal government under Liberal leader Pierre Trudeau continued to pick away at areas of provincial responsibility and attempted to impose the federal government's will in every facet of social spending.

The Constitution was repatriated to Canada in 1982 with great fanfare, much horn blowing and flag waving. Accords were appended at Meech Lake and in Charlottetown. By 1992 both these agreements had been defeated due to their fundamental failure to address the issues of provincial-federal relations. Worse still, neither of these agreements responded to the grassroots voices of Canadians.

Canadians rightfully rejected the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. At the time only the Reform Party stood against these backroom, made in Ottawa solutions to Canadian unity. I am proud of our record in this regard.

Inevitably in 1995 the Parti Quebecois launched a second vote on separation. Throughout the referendum campaign the Prime Minister led Canadians to believe he was not concerned or worried about the outcome. Canadians were loath to sleep because of these assurances. The Prime Minister was terribly wrong in this assessment of Quebecers' desire for change and we fortunately achieved a no victory by the narrowest of margins.

Why the history lesson? Because all these efforts have brought us exactly nowhere. As of Monday we again sit on Canada's break-up. The clock is ticking. Premier Bouchard is already at work in attempting to manufacture a yes vote in the next referendum. In the last 30 years federal politicians have talked around the issue of Quebec separation. They have never addressed the core problems of federal-provincial responsibility. This head in the sand approach has resulted in two referendums in succession, two failed constitutional accords and the growth of two full blown separatist parties in the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois.

The people of Quebec are clearly dissatisfied and the narrow margin of a no referendum victory in 1995 sent a very clear message of the vital need for real change in the country.

Not only Quebecers but British Columbians, Albertans and people from all provinces want greater control over the decisions which directly impact the economic, social and cultural fabric of their lives. The symbolic gestures of distinct society and regional vetoes that were made following the referendum vote have proven ineffective and irrelevant to resolving the crisis. In particular, the passing of Motion No. 26 recognizing Quebec as a distinct society demonstrated a blatant disregard for the wishes of Canadians who had twice expressed their opposition to such recognition in Meech Lake and Charlottetown. It had no affect on the desire of sovereignists to separate.

The Reform Party has consistently set out to resolve these problems, not with empty rhetoric and bind faith, not with rolling dice in backroom deals. We have proposed substantive and workable change in the Canadian federation.

In January 1996 we published “20/20: A Vision for The Future of Canada”. This document outlined 20 realities to secession so that the federal government would be prepared to face future threats of separation. More important, we provided 20 proposals for a new confederation. I believe these proposals were the beginning of creating winning conditions for Canada.

In May 1988 the Reform Party again proposed changes to modernize the Canadian government when we introduced the new Canada act. To date the government has taken no action on any of these recommendations. We cannot afford to sit on our hands any longer.

The motion of the floor of the House today speaks to the heart of these matters. If passed it would be the first real step in achieving a fair relationship between the federal and provincial governments from coast to coast. It is not specifically designed for Quebec, nor should it be. However, the framework put forward today addresses key concerns on the minds of people both in and out of Quebec.

There is an understanding among all 10 premiers and both territorial leaders that health care is a top priority. The Parti Quebecois of Quebec, the NDP Government of Saskatchewan, the Conservative Government of Alberta, the Liberal Government of New Brunswick all have called for greater input into the provision of social services. The widespread support for the Calgary declaration should have been used as a springboard for this government to tackle some of the outstanding problems in federal-provincial relations. Instead it sat largely untouched and unused.

The motion on the floor today addresses many of the concerns Canadians have been expressing across the country. It provides a framework of discussion that will lead to a bilateral, universally accepted social union between different levels of government and remove uncertainty facing Canadians. It will provide direction for legislation that can address a wide range of outstanding issues on health care and constitutional reform. Currently there is no federal-provincial dispute resolution process.

As mentioned earlier, the Constitution Act, 1867 guarantees the right of provinces to provide these services. Despite this, the federal government has consistently pursued a policy that has limited the input of provincial authorities. We cannot continue to unilaterally dictate the terms of social union and provincial authorities and expect co-operation under the terms of Confederation. We must establish a framework for open discussion and equal footing.

I am from British Columbia. I state for the record that I am dismayed with the performance of the present provincial government. It has helped to drive British Columbia to the brink of financial ruin. Nurses threaten widespread picketing and doctors continue job action. They are critically understaffed. But the federal government is equally culpable. B.C. is like all provinces handcuffed by the $7 billion removed from health care transfers. This motion lays the framework for legislation that will ensure that when the federal government promises to pay 50% of program costs the promises will be kept. Without this blind assurance, the long term planning of health, social welfare and educational budgets is impossible.

Currently the federal government is the prosecutor, the judge and the jury of any disputes. British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec have all been forced to structure their social welfare programs within very strict guidelines despite the federal government's ability to unilaterally reduce funding through the Canada health and social transfer.

All provinces are not the same. However, all provinces must be treated equally and fairly by providing realistic and mutually acceptable approaches to the participation or non-participation of provinces in Canada and Canada's social programs. This motion gives more latitude in the provision of social care.

The government is focused on the December 31 date. I hear it over and over again.

This is the beginning. We are saying it has to get the framework in place. Obviously the details would be ironed out down the road. We have to make it happen and there has to be a target date. It is nonsense to say we will solve everything. But the entire framework and how it is to happen has to be in place. It is very achievable.

Historically the federal government has guarded this right zealously. However, it has not provided provinces the ability to operate creatively within this framework. The motion today provides that opportunity.

We have an opportunity today to put a positive step forward and engage the provinces in a meaningful manner, a way that does not require constitutional amendments nor placing any one province in an unequal position to that of the others.

The motion on the floor today proposes a social union between the provinces and the federal government. It would create a mechanism to constructively move this process forward. It would give British Columbia a greater say in social policy. It would give Newfoundland fair and even footing with dealing with Ottawa. And yes, it would provide the Quebec people with the greater control they seek without separation.

This motion does all these things from a position of equality and openness. It will provide the blueprint for a secure social safety net and a more solid foundation for the Canadian federation.

I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of it and to help ensure that Canada, which we are rightfully proud of, will be intact and stable for our children.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, aboriginal affairs; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, health.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and his history lesson. As a student of history and someone who reads a fair amount of history, both ancient and modern, I would like to repeat a bit back to the member about Canadian unity and the ability of the provinces to sit down as equals and hopefully work toward a better country for all Canadians.

As the hon. member was speaking I was thinking of an ad that his party supported during the previous election. It said not another leader from Quebec. They were all crossed out. That is a very difficult thing to overcome and that is the type of thing the member has to wrap his head around and overcome if he and his party are to move ahead toward unity in this country.

The motion on the floor today is not about bringing the provinces together. It is a motion to set in place the next referendum in Quebec. It is impossible for the people to meet by December 31. It is an artificial date. It will not happen. Everyone is off over Christmas. It is totally fraudulent and ridiculous and cynical. If the date had been the end of January, the end of February or the end of March I think the member and the party would have received some support for the motion.

How cynical can we be. There is no open discussion. There is no equal footing among the provinces at this time. They cannot meet a deadline when everyone is off during the Christmas holidays. We will not achieve unanimity and it will fail and the new government that sits in Quebec today will say “Look at that. We can't even get agreement on a December 31 deadline therefore the door is open, let's look at a referendum”. That is what will happen.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. People are focused on this very narrow part, the date. If that is the only problem, as the member suggested, let us change it to January or February. Let us change it. I am not stuck on the date. I am stuck on this country. We have to make changes.

It is not working. The people of Canada spoke on Charlottetown. They sent us a clear message. We still have status quo. It has not changed. We need change. We need winning conditions for Canada if my children are to have the country that I had to grow up in. That is what this is all about. I read the motion that we set the framework up. But if the date should be changed let us change it. We are not stuck on the date. Let us change it and make it happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the date he dismisses and does not dismiss. He said if the 31st is not suitable then let us have another date.

This is a negotiation or discussion with the provinces. How can this House commit the provinces to a date? Do we not have to consult our partners? Is it not a little presumptuous of the House to say this or that date? This thing will be a negotiation among partners. Perhaps we should leave the decision about the timing of this to the partners who are negotiating.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I quote a government news release: “Premiers stressed that negotiations should proceed with a view to concluding the draft agreement by the end of the year”.

If we are stuck on that date, change it. The premiers want change and if there is no goal it does not happen. If there is no target it will not be achieved. We have been sitting for years in the House with the status quo. This system is broken. It needs fixing. It is not working.

Let us provide winning conditions for my children so they will have a great country in which to grow up. If the date is what they are stuck on let us change it to January or February. I have no problem with that at all. If they want to put a motion forward to change the date I am sure they would get the consent of the House. If that is the only problem I suggest they put a motion forward to change it and see what happens.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this official opposition motion put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southwest.

The motion reads as follows:

That this House urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories, prior to December 31, 1998, and based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed to last August 7 at Saskatoon, to strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to secure Canada's social programs for the future.

This is a very important motion in the light of yesterday's election in Quebec. It is very important for this House to consider the issue of social union.

What we saw yesterday was Quebecers saying they are not satisfied with status quo federalism nor are they satisfied with the radical option of separation. What Quebeckers said by granting a parliamentary majority to the Parti québécois but an electoral plurality to the Parti libéral du Québec was that they do not support either the status quo or the radical option of separation.

What they said in the public opinion polls and the exit polls was that they do not support the radical option of separation but they do want change. In this desire they form common cause with most other Canadians, certainly with the representatives of the official opposition and the vast majority of those we represent in western Canada, with the various provincial governments which in August agreed on an entente to address the need for change in the federation, and apparently with all or most of the opposition parties in the Chamber.

The premiers and the governments they represented gathered together in good faith several months ago to put forward some constructive concrete proposals for the rebalancing of powers between the two levels of government. What did they receive in terms of a response from the federal government? Little or nothing. They received a duck and dodge which the provinces are all too familiar with from the government.

What does it come down to? Let us be blunt. The Liberal Party of Canada really believes its own propaganda, that it is the sole saviour of confederation, that it is the one and only political vehicle for federalism in this country.

It really is a kind of political arrogance that is endemic in the psychology of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is attached to the idea that Ottawa knows best, that top down big brother in Ottawa can unilaterally weave its way into areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction through its spending and taxing powers, that through this enormous intervention on the part of the central government the federation can somehow be kept together.

The story of our federation in the past three decades is one of growing and almost fatal tension between the centralizing, Ottawa knows best mentality of the members opposite who I believe hold the view sincerely. There is the growing need of the provinces and regions to more ably represent their regional concerns in a more flexible federal context. This is the tension that really lies at the heart not only of the sovereignty debate in Quebec but so much of the feeling of alienation and discontent in the rest of the country.

It is very disappointing for me to pick up the newspapers today and read various quotes of members of the Liberal government saying essentially that change in the federation is a non-starter, that we are going to just set our feet into concrete and that we are not going to allow the federation to evolve into the 21st century.

In an article in today's Ottawa Citizen for instance I read a statement from the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River who said “I have not met an MP who is prepared to negotiate away an element of the federal government's role just so we can achieve temporary peace with the brawling provincial children. It just is not on”.

This is typical of the attitude of members opposite. Instead of a constructive, collaborative and co-operative approach, the kind of co-operative approach upon which a healthy federation must be founded, we find this kind of belligerent attitude regarding sovereign provincial governments. They are sovereign in their own jurisdiction, sovereign as defined in the original Constitution of this country in their own areas of competence.

Instead of regarding them as co-operative sovereign governments, the hon. member and many of his colleagues refer to those provinces as brawling children. He says that we just cannot negotiate a single element of what this federal government does, the government that spends $160 billion with a cabinet of 35 ministers.

This government has one of the largest cabinets probably of any federation in the world, much larger than the federation to our south, or Germany or Australia. It is a federal government that encroaches its way into virtually every area of provincial jurisdiction.

The most galling thing about it is that while these Liberals refuse to accept the kind of co-operative change proposed by the provinces, at the very same time they undercut the very authority upon which the federal government's spending power is asserted.

Look at the Canada Health Act. The only guarantee of the enforcement of federal standards in the Canada Health Act is the federal transfer, the Canada health and social transfer.

When the federal medicare system was developed 30 years ago, of course it was predicated on a commitment of 50% funding. That is the basis upon which the unilateral federal standards are imposed on the provinces. Yet today this government which prides itself on its commitment to unity and federal standards has reduced that funding share to 11%. And it still expects the provinces to accept the standards as defined by Ottawa.

What the provinces are asking for in the social union agreement of this August, what the official opposition and other parties are asking for is not unilateral imposition of federal standards but rather, co-operative national standards agreed to by all the provinces co-operatively, not by one of the governments, the central government, unilaterally. It is not a radical concept. It is a concept embraced by virtually every mature and healthy democratic federation in the world.

I appeal to my colleagues opposite to try to be a little more flexible when it comes to this.

A social union should consider collaborative approaches to the exercise of the federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions. This is very important for Quebec, as this is one of its traditional demands. Western Canada has asked for the same thing and, in this respect, it has a great deal in common with Quebec.

When the federal government spends money in provincial areas of responsibility or arbitrarily withdraws funding from a provincial jurisdiction, this may cause friction in federal-provincial relations and problems in service delivery. We need a new agreement describing how powers are shared between the federal government and the provinces. I would ask that the members of this House support this Reform motion.

In closing, much has been raised about the timing, the deadline in this motion, which was simply taken from the accord of the premiers in August. We would like to respond to the legitimate arguments raised about the deadline by members of various parties. I would like to ask for consent to move that the motion be amended by deleting the words “prior to December 31, 1998”, and substituting therefor the following: “before the next federal budget is introduced”.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast has requested the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. Does the hon. member for Calgary Southeast have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.