Debates of Dec. 1st, 1998

Supply

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Before giving consent to anything, I remind you that this motion was introduced this morning, and I would like to know why I was not allowed—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but this is not a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can deal with both issues.

The member in his remarks made a point of talking about the arrogance of the federal government simply ordering things around in the union in a top down fashion. This government for quite some time now has been working very hard in co-operation with the provinces on a whole range of problems.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Justice in the social union discussions have been working very diligently with all of the provinces to bring about a consensus on needed changes to the social union framework. That is what is going on.

For the federal government to order—actually not the federal government in this case but the House—by passage of this motion, whether it is December 31 or before the first budget, is setting a setting a condition around these negotiations that we have no authority to set. The provinces are partners in this so how can we presume to tell them when they are going to conclude this agreement? I would also suggest it introduces an item into the negotiation that mitigates against the kind of consensus we are all trying to achieve. These are extremely important services that affect all Canadians in all parts of the country.

The member is absolutely right when he makes the case that they should be conducted in an atmosphere of co-operation and consultation. We should work toward a consensus, all partners to the agreement, all the provinces, the territories and the federal government. That is the final part of the comment. The federal government is not a passive bystander in this. It has a role to play.

The question I have for the member is, in supporting so fervently the consensus arrived at by the provinces, is he saying that this position is the position of the Reform Party?

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the precise position of the Reform Party with respect to the social union reform of the federation has been laid out in some considerable detail in our proposed new Canada act, a copy of which the hon. member opposite can find at our web site at www.reform.ca, or by writing to my office postage free. I would be happy to send him a copy of the new Canada act. It endorses in large part the recommendations of the premiers on the social union but goes further in other areas. It is not identical, but we do believe that social union is a major addition to the debate.

The hon. member said he was going to address both issues, one of which was timing. All day we have heard from the Liberal members that the December 31 deadline in our motion was unrealistic. We have listened to the concerns of various members opposite. We want to be co-operative in this.

This morning, we supported a motion from the Conservative Party to extend the deadline.

Just now I sought unanimous consent for a motion to extend the deadline to later in the year 1999.

Perhaps the hon. member opposite has a better idea about a deadline, but some kind of deadline is necessary if we are going to stop the vacillation of the federal government. That is all we are saying.

This does not come arbitrarily from the official opposition. It comes from the premiers themselves. Paragraph 6 of the framework on the social union says the “premiers stressed that negotiations should now proceed with a view to concluding a draft agreement by the end of the year”. That is where the idea came from, not from ourselves.

I would once again invite the Liberal members opposite to reconsider our support for an earlier motion on the part of the Conservative member to extend the proposed deadline. We are not stuck. We do not want to split hairs here. We do not want this very constructive motion to be not supported because of arbitrary deadlines. We are prepared to be flexible. But at the end of the day, as the premiers indicated, we do need a deadline to ensure the government does not endlessly vacillate, prevaricate and obfuscate.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

This motion is a very important subject which is very important to the government and very important to Canadians. The motion however is an unfortunate mix of good intentions and a blatant attempt to score cheap political points. As such it is insupportable.

The motion before us asks the House to urge the government to conclude an agreement on the social union with the provinces prior to December 31. When the Prime Minister and the other first ministers initiated these negotiations last December, they intentionally avoided setting artificial deadlines. This initiative is too important for Canadians. It must be done right.

Last night both Premier Romanow and Premier Tobin rejected establishing artificial deadlines. It is unfortunate the focus of this motion is an attempt to capitalize on what is an important issue, one that this government takes seriously and one that is important to all Canadians.

Let us look at the important elements of our social union and what this government is trying to achieve in these negotiations.

What the federal, provincial and territorial governments are trying to do is to arrive at a framework agreement on the social union. The idea is to strengthen the social partnership between the provinces, on the one hand, and the governments and citizens, on the other hand.

The Government of Canada feels that the new partnership should have three objectives: to provide equal opportunities to all Canadians, wherever they live or travel in the country; to increase co-operation between the governments so as to better serve Canadians; and to make governments more accountable to Canadians for the results they achieve.

To provide equal opportunities also means to respect the great diversity that is an integral part of Canada. We must therefore be flexible enough to meet the diverse needs of Canadians. That diversity is the result of cultural, linguistic and geographical factors, or of other specific circumstances or features.

This means that governments must work together with the aboriginal peoples of this country to meet their particular needs.

As the premiers pointed out in the Calgary declaration, it also means recognizing that the equality of the provinces is compatible with recognition of Quebec's particular needs, in the form of its French-speaking majority, its distinct culture and its tradition of civil law.

Finally, equality of opportunity means ensuring that Canadians are free to travel anywhere in their country, without facing obstacles related to place of residence and without concerns about access to social benefits.

Our social union is about our solidarity with one another. It is about our understanding that we are stronger together, that when Canadians in one part of Canada are in need, Canadians from all parts of Canada are prepared to help. This in turn means greater collaboration among governments in Canada, learning to manage their interdependence to ensure the most effective and efficient service to Canadians.

In this era of globalization, with an increasingly competitive world economy, it is no longer possible, if it ever was, to segregate public policy into neat, air-tight compartments of social policy and economic policy, federal and provincial-territorial responsibilities, or even domestic and international considerations.

Canadians want their governments to work together to modernize our social programs, to face the challenges ahead, to help individuals and regions adapt to the new knowledge-based global economy and to ensure that social programs work and are affordable and sustainable.

How do we translate all of this into action? Practically speaking, it means that all governments should make commitments to information sharing, to joint planning and to joint action where this would provide more cost effective service to Canadians and to advance notice and consultation.

We are already working together with the provinces and territories in this new collaborative partnership approach. A good example of this is the new national child benefit which the Government of Canada developed with the provincial and territorial ministers. It focuses on the goal of helping Canada's children. This collaborative approach promises to bear fruit in other areas, including developing a national children's agenda, programs for persons with disabilities and youth employment.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have also made it clear that renewing medicare and modernizing Canada's health care system will require co-operation among all governments in Canada.

The future social union framework agreement will give effect to the new partnership between governments in the social policy sector by requiring a more co-operative approach to federal spending authority.

In all the world's large federations, the national government has this authority. It is because of this authority that the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the provinces and territories, can ensure that all Canadians have access to more or less comparable benefits and services. This was how the government promoted equality of opportunity for all Canadians.

It is clear that, without this spending authority, we would not have Canada-wide social programs, such as medicare. In fact, we would not have the national social safety net.

Even if the federal spending power is an essential component of the Canadian social union, one that is recognized in the Constitution, we must exercise it prudently, taking into account and respecting the important responsibilities assumed by the provinces in the area of social policy.

For this reason, the Government of Canada promised in its 1996 Throne Speech not to implement any new cost-shared programs without the consent of the majority of provinces. Provinces opting out of these programs would be entitled to financial compensation, provided they offered a comparable or equivalent program.

Similarly, the legislation creating the Canadian Health and Social Transfer, the CHST, which is the main federal instrument of support to the provinces in the area of social policy since 1995 calls for the drawing up of new principles or objectives, by mutual agreement.

The Government of Canada has also made an effort to make the funding of social transfers more predictable, by having multi-year financial commitments, by establishing a minimum guaranteed floor for the cash component of the CHST, and by holding consultations prior to renewing or modifying any taxation agreements.

Social policy principles and commitments to collaboration among governments must be put into practice and made effective. A social union framework must include appropriate mechanisms and means to ensure this through public accountability and transparency. This means public reporting by all governments, linking expenditures to results for Canadians. It means developing comparable measures and, where appropriate, making use of experts and non-governmental organizations for independent evaluation and social audit.

It also means recognizing publicly the roles and contributions of each government, so the public knows who should be held accountable for what. And it means engaging Canadians, providing opportunities for their input into policies and programs and the assessment of their effectiveness.

This is a far cry from the old style government-to-government accountability and traditional bean counting. The key must be accountability to Canadians for results.

This is how a social union framework can be made real and meaningful to citizens and taxpayers and it should not restricted by the timeframes suggested by this motion.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simcoe North said at the outset that the premiers oppose an arbitrary deadline. If that is the case, how would he characterize the statement in their accord of August 6 of this year which states “The premiers stressed that negotiations should now proceed with a view to concluding a draft agreement by the end of the year”? Was that an arbitrary deadline? Was it not? If so, what is the difference between that statement and the deadline proposed in this motion? That is my first question.

My second question is, if he does not want arbitrary deadlines and if he does not like the one in this motion, why did he and his colleagues oppose two efforts to amend our motion to extend the deadline? Does he have a better idea? Does he have another deadline in mind, or no deadline at all? Did he just want this to go on indefinitely as it has for 30 years?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as far as a deadline is concerned, whether it is the end of the year, budget time or next June, that is not the proper way to negotiate an issue that is as relevant and as important to all Canadians as this issue.

With respect to the member's first question dealing with the position of the premiers, it is clearly the case that when this engagement was undertaken, the negotiations on the social union, there was never an intention of imposing a deadline at that point. The negotiations need to be permitted to continue without this kind of external imposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member opposite talked about accountability and the need for the federal government to manage programs because it is more accountable and more visible to the Canadian public. He left the impression that he does not feel the provinces are capable of managing these programs in an efficient and accountable manner.

Is it not true that the QPP is more financially sound than the CPP? The Quebec pension plan is more financially sound than the Canadian pension plan.

The provinces are very capable of administering programs, in some cases far better than the federal government is capable of monitoring them, and they are accountable to the auditor general as well as to the people of Quebec.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to consult Hansard . I certainly did not say what she is imputing to me, that the provinces are not capable of remaining accountable or demonstrating their accountability in the areas of their jurisdiction.

My comments dealt with the entire governmental process and all levels of government. I said that what we need to accomplish in the process of negotiating this social union is accountability at all levels. That is the most important factor.

I invite the member to consult Hansard , but there was certainly nothing in my speech that would suggest or imply that the provinces are not capable of being as accountable as the federal government.

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

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.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member at the outset of his remarks questioned the motivation of the official opposition putting this motion before the House at this time suggesting that for some reason it was peculiar to put it forth the day after the Quebec election.

The hon. member will know that each opposition party is allocated a limited number of supply days to debate motions of this nature. We have been planning for some time to hold a motion on the balancing of powers, reform of the federation, the social union and our new Canada act. We did not schedule this day. It appeared this way on the parliamentary calendar.

I think it is quite propitious that we have an opportunity to debate this in light of the democratic decision of the people of Quebec yesterday. Had we done this before an election of course the hon. member would have said it was interfering in the Quebec election and so forth.

This timing is a complete red herring. There have been two motions now to extend what is not a deadline in the motion before the House. It is a target date. It simply urges to the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to December 31. It is a very similar wording they use in their own declarations.

If the hon. member does not agree with that deadline or that suggested date of conclusion, perhaps he has another one he could suggest. The Prime Minister told us he has always in his political career supported Senate reform as an objective. He has been here for 35 years. Is that how expeditiously this government operates with respect to its constitutional agenda?

I want to ask the member why he does not allow some flexibility with respect to the timing in this motion. Why is it he who is denying unanimous consent to extend the proposed time line in this motion?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct when he says he did not choose the day but his party chose the topic. There are a great many things the House can be talking about at any point in time. They chose today to put on the agenda the social union discussions.

As to the deadline, the motion says that this House urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to December 31. If that is not a deadline I do not know what we call a deadline.

Whether we say prior to December 31 or prior to the next budget, what we are doing is setting up an icon which is a pressure on those discussions that perhaps is not in the best interest. If the hon. member truly believes that the provinces and the federal government should and can get together and work co-operatively as they say, if we look at the statements of the premiers, none of the premiers is calling for this deadline or any deadline and they are all saying this thing is moving, they are happy with the way it is going.

Let me quote one more time from the chairman: “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”. This is a quote from Premier Romanow: “The Prime Minister wants to do it, his ministers want to do it, the premiers want to do it”.

If that is not an endorsement of the process, I do not know what is. I am not certain what is served by the Reform Party's trying to insert itself into this debate. Frankly I am a little surprised that the Reform Party is so willing to sign a blank cheque. I understood Reformers ran for this Chamber because they had an interest in the federal government. I am deeply concerned about their willingness to run in and sign on sight unseen to a provincial position.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address today the matter of the social union, which will be increasingly prominent in political affairs for various reasons.

Let us first try to define to some extent what underlies the notion of social union. The premiers of all the provinces, for some time now, have been working to force the federal government to reinvest where it cut money, that is, in social programs including health and education, where it substantially and unilaterally cut its transfers to the provinces.

The provinces began discussions to make sure that this sort of thing did not recur in the future and that their ability to manage social programs would be protected to some extent.

The premiers got an agreement permitting them to manage their programs themselves and allowing them to opt out of federal programs, and I will provide a specific example of this in the last minute allocated to me.

In this agreement as well, the provinces clearly indicated their intention to reinvest the money in the coming years in health care. They also mentioned that they had already begun to do so and that the only government that had not done so was the federal government, for the current fiscal year.

The provinces want more money invested in health. As everyone knows, the health system everywhere in Canada needs reinvestment.

Since they have had to cope with difficulties in recent years, however, they are best placed to know where the money ought to be reinjected, how to make adjustments to situations requiring very precise interventions. In the health field, the administrative infrastructures are a provincial jurisdiction. The provincial governments do not want to see the federal government turning up with all manner of programs just to score political points.

I will give an example, this time in post-secondary education. The federal government reduced its contribution considerably. Then suddenly, feeling in need of a higher profile, the Prime Minister launched the millennium scholarship program. Through it, the federal government will be handing out numerous bursaries in the next decade to numerous students. It will certainly do this itself, through a foundation to which it will be sure to appoint its friends, people who will carry out the wishes of the federal government.

All this is intended to ensure that the students see that the money comes from their good friend, the federal government. We in Quebec already have a financial assistance system in place, with eligibility criteria which take into consideration the student's situation, that of the parents, and so on. Now, the federal government can turn up with other criteria, with another infrastructure, adding excellence to the list.

At the same time, it has made hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to education. Would the priority in education not have been to reinvest so that all students could benefit? At the present time, there is a crying need at the university level. We saw this in the last election campaign. A number of rectors and representatives of the education sector called for money to be invested in the university system, but not necessarily as a priority in the loans and bursaries system. If there were needs to be adjusted, we could have taken part of the $2.5 billion reinjected into the loans and bursaries system, but we could have taken and managed the rest according to our own priorities.

This is a striking example of federal-provincial relations in which each government tries to define its priorities in what should be provincial jurisdictions.

This is a fine example of a situation that will create a dispute between governments, rather than real co-operation, initiated by a federal government in need of visibility. It does not meet the real on-site priorities.

But why reach an agreement before December 31? Because we want to avoid having the same thing happen in the next federal budget. Let the federal government announce now its intention to honour the spirit of the agreement, to comply with it, to reinject funds into health and to respect provincial jurisdictions. The federal government must show its respect for provincial jurisdictions by allowing them to manage their own programs, if it contributes to them, with the right to opt out when the provinces have similar programs or the same objectives.

That seems laudable and very reasonable to me. However, the federal government is not co-operating. We hope it will wake up in time. We support the motion that was put forward today by the Reform Party.

We want the government to move in the coming weeks, and quickly, to improve the situation for everyone. In Quebec, everyone, federalists and sovereignists alike, of whatever political affiliation, agree that we have to move forward based on what appears to be a political consensus of all parties in Quebec to move in this direction, as was seen during the last election campaign.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 278

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated. The next question is on the main motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.