Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition about the social union.
I want to reiterate some of the comments that he made regarding the need for the federal government to show leadership and to acknowledge to Canadians that there is room for reform in the federation.
I would like to take a moment to explain what the social union is. As the premiers stated in Saskatoon in August, “it is about governments working together within their constitutional responsibilities to ensure strong and sustainable health, education and social services for all Canadians. It is not about more power for one order of government or another”.
To put it quite simply, the social union would mean better health care for all Canadians by ensuring that the funding arrangements between the federal government and the provinces is reformed on the basis of transparency, consistency and sufficiency.
It was at Saskatoon that the premiers unanimously endorsed the social union. That does not mean that there was not some heated debate. There were concerns expressed by all the provinces. Some provinces may have more difficulty with some areas than others, but they compromised and they agreed to set a parameter of an agreement.
The social union has the support of four Progressive Conservative premiers. It has the support of three Liberal premiers. It has the support of two New Democratic Party premiers. And it has the support of the Parti Quebecois premier. It crosses all party lines.
When the social union was debated in October, it had the support of all the opposition parties. The federal Liberals stand alone in their opposition to the social union. One has to question why that is.
As Premier Romanow of Saskatchewan put it, “the Canadian social union has been challenged in recent years by the unilateral actions of the federal government”. It is time for the federal Liberals to accept the evolving relationship between Ottawa and the provinces.
The re-election of the Parti Quebecois yesterday has assured Canadians that the social union issue will not go away. We are faced with the paradox of the position of Premier Bouchard who on the one hand is talking about strengthening the social union while on the other hand he is intent on creating the winning conditions for a referendum to take Quebec out of the federation.
It is clear that Quebeckers have decided to re-elect the Parti Quebecois because they believe it to be the party that is best able to govern and represent their interests.
It is also quite clear from the polls that what the large majority of Quebeckers want is reform within the Canadian federation, with increased control of their personal affairs. This is what the Reform Party offers, not only to the Province of Quebec, but also to all Canadians from all the provinces and territories. Together, we must work to meet the winning conditions for the creation of a new Canada.
While this motion should not be seen as a response to yesterday's election, it is clear that the federal government has allowed Premier Bouchard to gain the momentum.
With this motion, federalists can once again reclaim the initiative that was started by the premiers. It is with this opportunity of supporting this motion that the federalist forces in this country can reclaim the position of leading toward a new direction in the federation.
We can show all Canadians that by strengthening the partnership between the two orders of government, by strengthening the social union we can improve the federation.
The premiers' agreement was not outrageous. It can in no way be construed as an attack on the federal government or federal powers.
For example, the premiers asked for collaborative arrangements on federal spending in areas of provincial-territorial jurisdiction. This means that before the federal government starts spending money in an area of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government should collaborate with the provinces. How can this be construed as an attack on the federation?
I asked my constituents about this in my latest householder. The question was: Do you agree that the federal government should be prevented from spending money in provincial jurisdictions without the approval of the majority of the provinces? With over 1,800 responses to date, over 80% of these respondents said yes. The federal government should be prevented from spending money in areas of provincial jurisdiction without the agreement of the provinces.
The premiers also asked for a new dispute resolution mechanism that would prevent disputes and resolve them fairly when they arose. How does this challenge federal powers?
The provinces also asked for an opt out provision that would allow provinces to opt out of any new or modified Canada-wide program with full compensation provided that the province carries on a program that addresses the priority areas of the Canada-wide program.
The premiers claim that this is an essential dimension of the provincial-territorial consensus negotiating position. The premiers are being realistic with this position. Because our country is so diverse, one cannot always impose a one size fits all solution.
The social union has the unanimous support of the provinces. Polls just prior to the Quebec election indicated that 73% of Quebecers did not want separation but rather a renewed Canadian federation. With this motion, the Reform Party is offering that renewed Canadian federation, an opportunity to create the winning conditions for a new and stronger Canada.
However, I do wish to put forth the following amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “House” the word “strongly”.