Val Meredith

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

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.

[Points Of Order, December 1st, 1998]

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.

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the funding is part of this arrangement.

In August the premiers felt they could conclude a deal with the federal government by the end of December. However, they were not counting on the Canadian version of Stonewall Jackson defiantly protecting and defending his turf.

How can this government ever sign an agreement with the provinces when it does not even know what it is negotiating?

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, ten premiers were able to arrive at a unanimous position during a three day meeting in August. But the federal government has not been able to reach an agreement with the provinces in the subsequent four months.

The government says it is negotiating with the provinces but it has not said about what.

Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians what the hang-up is? Is it the dispute resolution mechanism, the opting out clause? What is the government's problem with the social union?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague across the way. He outlined five points and because of the shortage of time I would like to ask him questions on two of them.

The first issue was that the Constitution must be respected in all cases. How is it that the Constitution can be respected when the federal government is interloping on provincial jurisdictions as given to them in the 1867 Constitution?

The second question deals with his fifth point. He said that the federation must be fair and that the federal government must be allowed to do the job it feels it is there to do. Is it fair when the federal government goes into a medicare program with a promise of 50% funding and years later is only providing 11% funding?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Liberal colleague if there is a commitment by his government to actually bring this discussion, this initiative by the premiers, to some conclusion. It has been ongoing for a year. There has been no real indication from the federal government that it will reach a conclusion.

Is there a commitment from the Liberal government to actually sign a document at some time down the road?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be hedging on the fact that it supports this agreement in principle or that it supports the concept of social union. When does the government see itself as coming to some conclusion with respect to the talks with the premiers?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. There is no reason that the federal government would be less strong. All we are talking about is an open relationship between the federal government and the provinces recognizing the vision the founding fathers had of confederation in 1867. There is no way this would weaken the federal government any more than it already is by telling Canadians that they are not prepared to look at the country evolving from 1867, that they are not prepared to look at change, that they are not prepared to work with the provinces to provide better health care, education, and social services to the people of Canada.

There is no way that this agreement can be considered the same as the Charlottetown accord. I would suggest that with this debate and the debate we had on the supply day motion a week ago, we are trying to get this government to open up the debate so Canadians will have an understanding of what it is we are talking about. This House is a good place to start the debate. It is important for all of us to continue this debate out in the public and include Canadians in the decision making.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The province of British Columbia, probably more than many, feels very disconnected from the federation, from the central government in Ottawa. Often we find ourselves on the other side of a situation.

It is very important for the federal government to recognize that British Columbia is a growing province and is most likely to be the second largest province in the next century. The federal government must recognize that all the provinces have grown up.

It is time for this federal government to recognize that in 1867 the jurisdictions of health, education and social services were given to the provinces. The provinces are ready to assume responsibility. The provinces are asking the federal government to acknowledge that they are capable of assuming that responsibility and agreeing to the social union. It clearly establishes some rules for this new partnership, with the recognition from the federal government of the provinces' ability to deliver services, and this new partnership will be confirmed with the agreement of the social union. Because there is a set process and regulations to be followed, this will enable the provinces to do what they can do best, which is to deliver services to their people who would receive the best services because they are done by the government closest to them.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

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”.