Mr. Speaker, there seems to be one essential question that must be asked first of all: Why do we have a federation?
My suggestion, the suggestion of the Government of Canada, is that we have a federation in order to ensure that we are able to pursue common objectives within our diversity of experiences. Unitary countries can set common objectives, but cannot draw upon the wealth of diversity of experience as a federation can. Ten self-centred republics to the north of the United States could have the diversity of experience, but not the same capacity to set common objectives and benefit from each other's support.
I say this because it is natural for provincial governments to be concerned primarily by the diversity of experiences, or in other words their own autonomy, while still keeping in mind the necessity for common objectives. It is equally natural for the federal government to be concerned primarily with common objectives, while still keeping in mind the diversity of the country. This is exactly what is happening with the negotiations for social union, an issue of extreme importance for all Canadians.
At the invitation of the Prime Minister of Canada, primarily, as well as the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister and the premiers, along with the territorial leaders, reached agreement on December 12 to try to improve the Canadian social union.
The provinces set out to work together, coming up with a common approach only on June 18. I cannot blame them for taking six months; this is a complicated matter.
The Government of Canada took a month, until July 16, to react. The Quebec premier really joined the discussion only on August 7, and without the leadership of a government in Quebec with a belief in Canada, things became more complicated and progress slower. Since then, we have been discussing these two propositions together: one from the provinces and one from the federal government. Both are under examination.
The aim is not to reach an awkward compromise between the two; the aim is to draw out of the two the best possible social policy, the best possible framework for a decision so Canadians may have the social policies they are entitled to.
This is no easy achievement, because it is an important issue. It involves health and the social safety of people in Canada and because, what is more, we already have a good social union and it is always hard to improve on something good. I hope that the opposition parties will not try to diminish Canada's achievements for political gain.
Canada has achieved something good in its social union, without a doubt, as it has in the Canadian federation in general. It is a success, when you look at what is going on elsewhere in the world. It is not a work in progress. And so it is difficult, and it is not just the Government of Canada saying this.
A study released by the national bureau of economic research of Harvard University about the quality of governments compared 150 governments according to their capacities to deliver good services to citizens while respecting their freedom.
Canada ranked 5th of 150 governments. It is not so bad. We have to improve something that already is good. We need to work together, especially at this time following a lot of cuts and difficulties. Governments have been able to put their fiscal houses in order. Now together we have to choose good policies. It may take time but it is necessary in order to succeed.
Now I would like to link this debate and the unity of our country, Canadian unity. There is, in our opinion, a bad way to pose the problem and a good way.
The bad way to pose it is to react as if in a panic under the pressure of a separatist threat and as if we were trying to appease them with a policy that could be a poor one, but simply to placate them—this is what may be called loot politics. Separation blackmail and loot politics have no hold on the Government of Canada and never will, so long as the government is Liberal.
Another way to badly describe it is to call it a power grab. The federal and provincial governments both explain that is not what is under negotiation.
Our difficulty arises when the Prime Minister is misquoted, especially by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister never said he does not want to improve the federation, to put forward concrete changes. He said that constitutional change now is not the best way to achieve it. The Leader of the Opposition has said the same thing.
Why invent difficulties where there are none? I would understand the Leader of the Opposition putting pressure on us the way he is if the provinces were complaining that the federal government is not negotiating completely in good faith.
I quote what Premier Romanow, chairman of the premiers conference, said yesterday: “The first order of business is the social union, negotiating it as quickly as we can, not under 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 in Saskatoon in August.
The bargaining position of the provinces and the territorial governments is what the premiers did. They set out several positions we would like to see implemented in the social union. It is a bargaining position. It is a give and take. There is compromise, flexibility and no artificial deadlines. I could not agree more. I have other quotes from premiers saying the same thing.
I will now explain why the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is unacceptable to the government and I will suggest a motion that I hope will be acceptable to all parties.
The motion is that this House strongly urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to December 31, artificial deadline. We do not need to rush. We need to work cautiously and seriously, based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed at Saskatoon August 7. I am not sure what that means. Does that mean that if the Leader of the Opposition were the Prime Minister of Canada he would sign exactly what the provinces are suggesting?
If that is the case he and his party should say that very clearly to Canadians. If it is to negotiate in good faith to see if we can improve both federal and provincial proposals we would agree, but this is too vague too support.
To strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to secure Canada's social programs for the future, why do we only want to secure social programs? Do we not want to also improve our social programs?
Therefore I would move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “conclude” and substituting the following therefor:
“The best possible agreement with the provinces and territories and based on the commitment of first ministers in December 1997 and affirmed by the provinces at Saskatoon last August 7, to strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to secure and improve Canada's social programs for the future”.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move this amendment.