Rahim Jaffer

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the motion as it stands, it says that we urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to December 31, 1998. That does not mean to accept it in its current form. Even we as the official opposition have some concerns with the current agreement but we feel it is a positive initiative. We feel it should be entertained in this House.

As the premiers have asked, we should be giving the response to them by the deadline they have outlined. The government has known about this agreement for a number of months now. We cannot continue to wait. We have to act. That is what the official opposition motion deals with.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. Leader of the Opposition attempted to answer this question earlier in the debate and I am happy to do so once again.

It is clear that we currently have a problem in our health care system. The only ones in the House who do not want to face up to that fact are the members opposite. They have cut billions of dollars out of the transfers in health care. The only thing the official opposition has ever said with regard to health care, and I know the Leader of the Opposition reiterated it, is that we want to have access to health care for everyone within our Canadian system. We want to strengthen that. It might mean that we have to allow some flexibility under the current system.

It is just not acceptable when 1,400 doctors are going south and there are over 188,000 people on waiting lists. Obviously there is a problem. The government has neglected its commitment on transfers to health care and it is leaving no other options for the provinces to deal with that situation.

Our commitment is to a national health care system. There is no doubt about it. We should look at that system and see how we can provide health care much more effectively. If that means flexibility to some extent with the Canada Health Act, then so be it. But we need to be able to provide the same standards to everyone across the country.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to entertain the hon. member's question, but because the federal government has remained so strong and many people feel that it has neglected especially the regional issues and concerns in this country, the answer is not to continue strengthening only the federal government. As the official opposition and the premiers are putting forward, it is time to look at rebalancing the powers that exist between the federal government and the provincial governments.

This might mean that we would not only just strengthen the areas of provincial jurisdiction, but at the same time strengthen the areas of jurisdiction which are solely federal. It is not just unilaterally looking at the federal government and saying we should have a strong federal government and neglect the provinces as this government has done, but looking at the way to strengthen the balance of power that exists between the provincial governments and the federal government.

We have outlined that in our new Canada act. The premiers have outlined how to do that in their deliberations. I would encourage the hon. member not just to look at it as unilaterally strengthening the federal government, but to look at how to balance that relationship as the whole country is calling out for.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for the opposition motion before us. I will read the motion, to make sure it is well understood:

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 7th at Saskatoon, to strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to secure Canada's social programs for the future.

On November 25, 1997, the official opposition moved a motion supporting the efforts made by the provincial premiers to reform the federation with the Calgary declaration, including the seventh point of that declaration, dealing with a reform of the social union.

That motion specifically asked the federal government to promote public awareness of the Calgary declaration in Quebec and to hold consultations on this issue. I personally questioned the Prime Minister on several occasions regarding his plans to consult Quebeckers, but he did not reply and he did not take any measures to that effect.

The government supported the motion, but did not take the necessary measures, thus missing a golden opportunity to make Quebeckers aware of the fact that other Canadians want to reform our federation.

Then, on August 7, after intense negotiations between the provinces, in which Lucien Bouchard took part, the ten premiers and the two territorial leaders supported the resolutions for a new partnership between the two levels of government regarding the delivery of social services, including the refinancing of health care services.

The Prime Minister did, however, react negatively to these proposals, and his colleagues refused to act on a number of the most important points. There was not yet any concrete and tangible progress toward reform of the federation when the Quebec election was called on October 28.

In an Angus Reid poll on November 24, conducted in Quebec for Radio-Canada, 73% of respondents said that if Premier Bouchard were re-elected, his priority should be to attempt to improve the position of Quebec within Confederation, while only 24% said he should commence to gather “winning conditions” for a referendum on sovereignty.

I would like to remind the government and all members of the House that we have a great opportunity to put partisan politics aside and to put Canada first.

Our motion outlines exactly what we would like the government to do, to give a response to the premiers of all the provinces that want a response before the end of the year as to whether or not the conditions outlined in the Saskatoon agreement are in line with what the government believes should be reformed in the federation for the future. It is a simple request on behalf of the official opposition. I believe that all members of the House see the value of this simple request.

In effect, when we see what happened last night in the province of Quebec, when we see the feelings that exist right across the country with regard to the way the federation functions in its current state, especially with regard to the relationship between the provincial governments and the federal government, there is a real need and desire for positive change.

The premiers have done this on two occasions, first with the Calgary declaration and now with their meeting in Saskatoon. They are urging the federal government as are we in the official opposition to either concur or give some sort of response whether or not the federal government agrees with this initiative.

We in the official opposition have said that we believe this is a positive start. These are exactly the ideas that need to be talked about when it comes to the balance of power in the country and the way relationships exist between the federal government and the provincial governments. It is obvious that sort of sentiment exists right across the country, not just in Quebec where again we see people are not happy with the status quo as we saw last night with the election results.

Finally, I would appeal to the government members, indeed all members, not to miss yet another opportunity to provide some positive leadership on the issue of the social union.

The task of this Parliament in the months ahead is to create winning conditions for all Canadians as we enter the 21st century, winning conditions for taxpayers, winning conditions for jobs, winning conditions for health care, winning conditions for all our people regardless of their language, culture, ethnicity, station in life, or where they live in the country.

I urge all hon. members to see support of this motion as a positive step toward creating winning conditions for the new Canada of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, as you will hear from all my hon. colleagues, we are happy to put forward the motion. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, despite the timeline that we put within the motion and which has also been outlined by the premiers, we feel that it is very important that the government finally take some leadership on the issue. It must put forward a response to give some encouragement to the premiers for the hard work they have done in trying to reform the federation to help us take it into the 21st century.

[Health Care, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about the official opposition. This is about the government's record. Seven billion dollars have been cut out of health care. Nearly 1,400 doctors have left Canada for the U.S. Hospital waiting lists are the longest in history; 188,000 people are waiting for care.

How many more polls will it take before the health minister gets the message and stops this Liberal sabotage?

[Health Care, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, according to an Angus Reid poll released today, the public's greatest concern, even before unemployment, is the way the Liberals are attacking the health care system.

This is no surprise. Since 1993, the Liberals have slashed $7 billion from health care financing, and hospital waiting lists are longer than they have ever been.

Enough talk. When is the Minister of Health going to act?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Calgary Northeast.

I would now like to recap the key elements of Bill C-53. According to the purpose of the existing Small Business Loans Act, which will be maintained with Bill C-53, the government, and therefore the taxpaying public, take on more risk than private lenders. Even with the changes proposed in Bill C-53, the government will still cover 85% of any defaulted loan.

We must ask ourselves two important questions. Does the Minister of Industry think it reasonable to use tax dollars in such a risky manner? And why should taxpayers take more risk than the banks?

It is widely understood in economic circles that government intervention leads to a misallocation of resources. The intervention by the government maintained by Bill C-53 will remove important market forces from the lending process and will lead to the funding of less viable business ventures, which will do nothing to foster a healthy economy.

Clause 5 of Bill C-53 illustrates the government's indifference to the fact that it is playing politics with the paycheques of Canadian people. This clause refers to the minister's liability should a loan not be repaid. However, it is clear that the liability is that of Canadian taxpayers.

As for risk, which is a key element in the proper functioning of a free market, eliminating it creates a moral hazard, in that lending institutions will be less inclined, despite the provisions for due diligence contained in Bill C-53, to evaluate the long term viability of a business venture. This situation will lend itself to the financing of unsustainable market ventures and, under this regime, it is the taxpayers who will inevitably be the losers. This is supported by the government's own statistics, which show that the default rate under the SBLA is 5.6%, compared to 0.8% in the private sector.

The impact of small business on the Canadian economy is substantial, and Reformers have always supported the needs of small business. However, the debate on Bill C-53 is not about whether small business is valuable, but about whether small businesses can get access to financing without government intervention.

I would like to point out that the importance of small and medium size businesses in the Canadian economy must not be under-estimated. The question we need to ask ourselves is the following: Is it possible to use deregulation in Canada to create a framework that will provide this financing in a more efficient way?

I believe the answer is yes, and that is why I cannot support this bill.

What we have heard from all sides has been interesting during the course of the debate on Bill C-53. Members from all parties have said how much they care about small business. In summarizing their comments on Bill C-53, my colleagues outlined how important small business is to this economy and how important it is to them as members of the House. Many of those members actually were small business people prior to becoming involved with the House. No matter where members stand in the House, no one is against small business.

The fact remains that we all have different views as to how to support small business and as to what should be done in providing that support. As I outlined in my brief address, the suggestion of members opposite has always been to implement various programs in order to intervene in the economy which can cause an unfortunate obscurity in the economy. Members on this side of the House have always argued that we should leave the business of business to the business people. I am sure the solutions will be found.

Government members have a responsibility to create a framework for a positive business environment. That is what many of us from this side of the House have argued. We have said that Bill C-53 is a sort of band-aid solution for the problem of small business financing. We have encouraged members opposite to look at the fundamental problems in relation to access to financing for small business and to look at ways to reduce taxes and other burdens on small business as opposed to implementing other government programs that will only add more paperwork and put taxpayers and small business people at risk in the sense of liability. This is the basis of our argument. It is the basis of what this side of the House has been offering as a suggestion. It is an alternative approach to what we believe has been a flawed direction on behalf of the government.

I commend all members of the House on their input as to how to help small business. Let us really look at ways to reduce the burden on small business. Let us reduce taxes. That is one of the reasons my colleagues and I oppose Bill C-53.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-53. I will be restricting my comments to Group No. 1 amendments put forward by my hon. colleague for Mercier.

Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small business, is this government's attempt to put a band-aid solution on a problem of access to financing for small business.

The Liberal government has helped to create that problem.

The mandate of the Small Business Loans Act is to facilitate debt financing for small, young businesses that would not likely obtain that financing under the current banking oligarchy in Canada. This mandate, which will be maintained under Bill C-53, essentially dictates that the government and therefore the taxpayer should take on more risk than private lenders are prepared to incur.

The only reason the taxpayer is forced to incur that risk is the Liberal government has mismanaged and over regulated the banking industry.

Even with the changes contained within Bill C-53, the taxpayer still covers 85% of any small business loan defaults. One of the amendments put forward by my hon. colleague calls on this taxpayer liability to be reduced to 50%. I am sure members of this House have enough respect for the average Canadian working to support this proposal.

Whether the members chose to support or oppose this bill, it must be remembered that the essential aspect of Bill C-53 is to provide high risk loans that the private sector cannot or will not provide.

If members of the House believe this is a fair risk to place on the shoulders of Canadian families they should support the bill. If they believe it is an unfair risk to place on the taxpayer they should oppose the bill. Furthermore, if members believe the private sector can and should provide small business financing they should oppose the bill and force the government to make fundamental changes to the financial services sector.

Two questions immediately came to mind after reviewing this bill. Why should the taxpayers take on more risk than the banks and is there no other way to ensure that small businesses have access to much needed investment capital?

The intervention by the government maintained by Bill C-53 will remove important market forces from the lending process and will lead to the funding of less viable business ventures. This may help to garner political support for the Liberals but will do nothing to foster a healthy economy.

This government seems to have no concern for average Canadian families struggling every day under the highest tax burden in the G-7. Clause 5.1 of Bill C-53 illustrates the government's indifference to the fact that it is playing politics with the paycheques of Canadian people.

This section refers to the minister's liability should a loan not be repaid. However, it is clear that the liability is that of the Canadian taxpayer. It is not the industry minister's problem if high risk loans are defaulted on. It is the taxpayers'.

For this reason I fully support the amendment and would include reference to the taxpayers in the legislation so that it is transparent to legislators just who is ultimately responsible should the loans under this act fall to default.

I think the issue of risk should be examined more closely. Risk is a key element in the proper functioning of a free market. If it is artificially lessened or eliminated from market interactions it leads to a misallocation of scare resources. That is, lending institutions will be less inclined, despite the provisions for due diligence contained in Bill C-53, to evaluate the long term viability of a business venture.

This situation will lend itself to the financing of unsustainable market ventures and it is the taxpayers under this regime who will inevitably be the losers.

This is supported by the government's own statistics which show that the default rate under the Small Business Loans Act was about 5% while the private sector was at approximately 1%. This is substantial when one considers the amount of money at stake.

The industry department proudly claims that the taxpayer has only a $1.5 billion liability. This is not an insignificant amount of money. Canadian taxpayers are at their breaking point. Someone has to say enough is enough.

Everyone in this House understands the vital role that small businesses play in the Canadian economy. Many of my colleagues from the official opposition are small business operators. We understand the difficulties small business owners face.

I remind the House that high taxes and regulations come first to mind when I think of how tough it is survive in a small business climate. If payroll and income taxes were lower, life would be easier for small business owners. However, the government does not care enough to do anything about these problems.

If members of the House wish to stand and talk about their commitment to small businesses, then they should first return every cent of the EI surplus. Until that time they have no right to speak on behalf of small business.

The impact of small business on the Canadian economy is substantial and Reformers have always supported the needs of small businesses. However, Bill C-53 is not a debate about whether small business is valuable, it is a question of whether small businesses can get access to financing without the government intervening in the economy.

High risk small business ventures can be financed in a competitive banking system, provided the lenders are not unnecessarily restricted from conducting their affairs in a manner that allows them to incur risk without incurring losses. It is really that simple.

The Reform Party is committed to getting the government out of the business of business and out of the pockets of average Canadian families, but this bill further entrenches the government's role in the banking industry. We must push aggressively to change the industry so that small businesses can get access to financing without the government setting the terms of that financing.

Bill C-53 and its predecessor the Small Business Loans Act allow the government to ignore the real obstacles to small business financing. No more taxpayer dollars should be placed at risk until the government has made substantial changes to the banking industry to create real competition.

At this point small businesses' access to finance can be reviewed and new legislation can be tabled if the government can demonstrate a legitimate market failure.

The government just cannot seem to get the fundamentals right. Bill C-53 plays politics with the taxpayers' paycheques. It demands that the taxpayer take on more risk than the banks by guaranteeing loans. Let us get the government out of the business of business and off the backs of the Canadian taxpayers.

[Concentration Of Print Media In Canada, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Motion No. 423 as the chief opposition critic for industry.

For those who have just joined the debate and for those watching the proceedings on television, the motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a commission of inquiry to examine the concentration of print media in Canada.

The motion is certainly timely as we are all aware of the Southam launch of the National Post just days ago, a national paper which includes within its pages the former Financial Post . We are also aware of the impending Toronto Star takeover of the Sun Media Corporation, a merger that will give Torstar 26% of the total weekly circulation of daily newspapers in Canada.

I compliment the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for the impeccable timing of the motion. On the issue of timing I only hope for his sake that he owns a large block of Sun Media stock since it went up over 60% as a result of the takeover bid.

I make this remark in good humour, but there is an important point in all of this. The success of these private businesses, the profits they make, are disbursed among literally thousands of shareholders. Many of these people are average hard working, overtaxed Canadians investing in mutual funds for their retirements because the government messed up their pensions.

It should be known that all Canadians benefit from profitable industries. We should not be concerned when businesses make decisions to enhance their profits. I would be pretty worried if businesses stopped concerning themselves with profits as this would destroy the Canadian economy.

My first message as it applies to the motion is that we need not be concerned about those in the print media industry merging to improve their economies of scale and their bottom lines. We need not be concerned with the impact this may have on consumer choice.

As far as the interests of consumers are concerned it should be appreciated that companies become profitable and remain profitable by offering consumers quality goods and services at a low price. They make money only when they serve the interests of their consumers. The better they serve, the richer they become.

When companies work against the interests of consumers they lose money because they lose market share. Therefore the free market is the best corrective mechanism by which to address any alleged market coercion or manipulation. Furthermore, the House cannot support both property rights and free enterprise while proposing to create a government body that would have the power and the mandate to prevent companies from exercising their property rights freely through voluntary exchange. The motion is an attack on free enterprise and on property rights.

When speaking to Bill C-20 in the House some time ago I brought my concerns regarding the Competition Act to the attention of my colleagues. I share those concerns again so that members of the House can understand why those who understand and respect the workings of the free market cannot support the motion.

The Competition Act rests on the assumption that the government can meddle and regulate its way into a free market. In his recently published book entitled The Myths of Antitrust , author Armentano wrote:

Trades of private property are either voluntary or they are not; one cannot legislate the free market or create competition. To have a free market the government must leave the markets alone; to have the state make markets “free” is again a contradiction in terms.

I am also reminded of Nobel prize winning economist Dr. Friedman, who wrote:

A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance in the form of a tariff or some other device.

With respect, competition and free enterprise are concepts that are not properly understood by my colleague from Waterloo-Wellington. The number of companies providing a product or service is not a reliable indicator as to the competitiveness of the market. The key to ensuing competition is removing the barriers to access and entry into the market and into that segment of the economy.

I add at this point that the television industry should be the focus of our attention. The CRTC acts as a barrier to competition. As long as no such regulatory body encroaches on the print media industry, we need not be concerned with concentration of the industry.

I believe we can learn a lesson from the banking industry that might help my colleagues understand why the motion must be rejected. The government has created an environment in Canada that has encouraged the creation of a banking oligarchy. Instead of deregulating the banking industry to allow for competition, it meddles further into the banking industry with foreign ownership restrictions.

When Canadian small businesses cannot get adequate financing for new innovations, they justify the need to create another government program called the Small Business Loans Act. We can see how one government intervention leads to many more until we are so far removed from the free market that we cannot begin to understand the potential for market based solutions to public policy problems.

Competition legislation is nothing but a bundle of contradictions. The entire purpose of being in business is to drive competitors out of business. Every entrepreneur wants to capture more and more of the market share by providing a better product at a better price than his competitor. This is called anti-competitive pricing and dumping.

Entrepreneurs eager to obey the government should not try to outdo their competitors by providing consumers a better price. They should keep their prices and services at the same levels as those of their competitors. That too is against the rules. It is called collusion.

Entrepreneurs should raise their prices far above their competitors so that they are not guilty of anti-competitive pricing or collusion. Wrong again. This is called price gouging.

Our competition laws are an unenforceable mess of contradictions. If members of the House give these laws some honest consideration, they too will come to this conclusion.

The Reform Party believes that the creation of wealth and productive jobs for Canadians is best achieved through the operations of a responsible, broadly based free enterprise system in which private property, freedom of contract and the operation of the free market are encouraged and respected.

Economic competition and the resulting prosperity that will come from it are the results of a deregulated market and cannot be achieved by government intervention. As the critic for industry I will work with the private sector to identify and remove the barriers to entry that may be limiting competition. However I will not allow the government to use its power to further meddle into the economy.

I conclude my remarks by asking members of the House to give some thought to all the benefits a vibrant and free economy has given to Canadians. I would like members of the House to look beyond big government solutions to public policy problems and to start working with the private sector to create laws and regulations in Canada that will bring us prosperity.

Once we all come to understand the importance of economic freedom, we will also come to understand why we should not be concerned with print media concentration in Canada.

[Calgary Declaration, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address Motion No. P-22 which reads:

That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, polls and correspondence relating to the Calgary Declaration.

As the motion outlines, in any fundamental democracy it is key that anything governments do with public money or anything governments endeavour to do be made public through access to information to almost anyone who would like to see the information.

There are three key elements that I would like to address in the House today regarding this motion. I will outline them before I begin my speech.

There is the key issue of transparency. Governments need to make more of an effort to become transparent. In addressing this motion it is important to talk about the issue of transparency.

The second issue is federal-provincial relations. In the House we have heard many different points of view on federal-provincial relations. How we enhance and balance those relations is fundamental when heading into the new century. I would like to address the issue of federal-provincial relations and what the government claims could be unfortunately hurt by making more documents public and by making people more aware of what the government is doing.

The third issue is how this will impact unity. There are many issues right now. The Quebec election is taking place. There are different points of view from different provinces when it comes to what direction Canadian unity should take and what sort of changes should be made in the federation.

What this motion tries to address will fundamentally impact the direction of unity in the country. In the long run, if we follow the direction of this motion it could enhance unity by following the two key elements of transparency and federal-provincial relations.

In addressing the issue of transparency I want to say that there has been widespread public disillusionment with governments. Generally, Canadians feel that their governments are trying to hide a lot of information that belongs to them.

Unfortunately, because of different things we have seen in the past, especially with the APEC scandal and other scandals of this government, there has been more and more public disillusionment with the way governments operate.

If we look fundamentally at this motion, all it is trying to do is make federal government operations more transparent. There is nothing wrong with that. Most members of the House would agree that it is in the best interests of governments to become transparent. They definitely should make the public aware of the sorts of things they endeavour to take part in and make available documents, reports, minutes of meetings, memos and anything else that should be made public.

We can especially point to the issue of the Calgary declaration. The public is skeptical. They really do not know what the federal government's role is within the Calgary declaration. Obviously it was a provincial effort. All of all the premiers of the country came together to suggest issues of positive change in the direction of unity.

However, the federal government has a role to play and has taken a role in that process. It is very important to make what its role is public. The issue of transparency is fundamental in trying to regain public confidence in governments and in the way they operate. I believe that is the crux of this issue.

Given the times we live in and the fundamental skepticism about politicians there is no reason for any member of this House to oppose this motion.

The second thing I want to address is the issue of federal-provincial relations. I have heard government members in their debate on this motion so far say that transparency would harm the government's ability to conduct federal-provincial affairs. As a member of this House and as a participant of democracy that is very confusing for me. As I mentioned earlier, when I look at the opportunities for governments in this whole direction of being more transparent and trying to enhance federal-provincial relations, the best way to do that is to make public and include the public in the endeavours the government chooses to take part in.

When one looks at the alienation that exists in this country between the provinces and the federal government there is no better time to change the direction of that public opinion by making government operations more transparent and by sharing information with the public.

Alas, we know what the government's stand is on trying to deal with the regions and the provinces. We have seen so many cases where it does not respect democracy and does not want to enhance its relationship with the provinces. We seen that most recently in the case of Alberta with its Senate elections. People in that province who are trying to change the way democracy works have gone ahead with an election process, trying to make the federal-provincial system of Senate representation work much better. They have been thwarted in that process. There is no direction on the part of government to try to enhance relationships between the provinces and the federal government.

We have also seen that on other issues concerning parliamentary reform. Many people in this country want changes, but we tend to see over and over again the heavy-handed governing strategy of this government and that unfortunately creates alienation between the federal and provincial governments.

The argument that the tabling before this House copies of documents reporting on meetings, notes, memos and correspondence relating to the Calgary declaration will harm the government's ability to conduct federal and provincial affairs is absolutely ludicrous to assume. Because we have not made a lot of these things public is the reason we have harmed provincial-federal relationships to begin with.

The official opposition, in its new Canada act, has outlined ways to specifically address provincial-federal tensions. One of the best ways to do that is to make governments more transparent and to address the fact that we need to make anything the federal government does more transparent. This would allow a relationship to develop between the provinces and the federal government, and the government has failed miserably in doing so. I encourage the government to consider that because there is nothing to hide and there should not be anything to hide.

The final point I want to address is the impact on unity. When it comes to the whole issue of the Calgary declaration, the initiative of the provincial premiers, there is definitely a will for change in the country. There is definitely a will to address this age old unity problem with some new solutions.

I mention the new Canada Act. The official opposition has made that public. We encourage debate on that. We encourage people's feedback on that. We feel it is important that the public gets involved with important issues that will fundamentally change the future of the country. Why do we not see that sort of effort and will on behalf of the government?

One of the questions raised with this motion is how on earth as democratic representatives we can argue against making public any sort of reports, documents or memos pertaining to the Calgary declaration which could fundamentally affect the future of the country. It is a wonderful initiative on behalf of provincial premiers trying to evoke change.

I would like to summarize that if the government were interested in democracy, if it were interested in freedom and if it were interested in allowing positive change to take place in the country, it would make an effort to make its dealings more transparent. The government should want to make an effort to make provincial-federal relations more transparent and more effective. It would make it easier for for them to work together and for the provinces to deal with federal problems and vice versa. To be able to deal with the Calgary declaration in the way the motion says the government should allow unity and the future of unity to be debated openly. That should be encouraged.

All of us in the House should support the motion.