Val Meredith

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore if we can take back the good news that her government will give back to small businesses the EI overcharge it is taking from them.

Can we take that good news back to our constituents?

[Social Union, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Liberals continue to get away with misusing question period.

Canadians are watching a unique debate in the House of Commons where four opposition parties are joining with all 10 premiers in the country to promote the social union. Only the Prime Minister and his federal Liberals oppose this initiative.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the government is doing less.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, this is more than an economics problem. I appreciate what people are saying. Yes, the government could have found the money by more carefully spending it in other areas which took priority.

This is much more than an economics issue. This is a question of respecting the jurisdictions that were given to the provinces and the federal government under the British North America Act, our original constitution. It is about respecting the foresight of our Fathers of Confederation when they were trying to bring all these entities together as a country.

If we go back to respecting that issue, it is about money but it is about far more than money.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I think the member has it all wrong. That is not at all what the provinces are saying.

The provinces are saying that in a partnership there has to be a consensus as to where the money is going and that the federal government has no business buying its way into provincial jurisdictions. It has no business going into another social program, another health program, without the approval and the support of the majority of the provinces. That is a realistic thing to ask of the federal government.

The provinces are not saying they do not want the federal government involved and they will not let it determine where it is going to spend, but talk to the provinces and get some consensus at the provincial level so that they are on board. It is this dictatorial way of coming in, spending the money and telling the provinces where in their jurisdiction the money will be spent that is the problem. I will say that from my own experience, the provinces often have a better idea of where that money should be spent than somebody sitting here in Ottawa 3,000 miles away.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting listening to the debate on the motion this morning. The motion is basically in support of the provincial premiers and the provincial governments that met in Saskatoon in drafting up the social union and then coming to an agreement.

The debate seems to have narrowed down to wanting more money for health care. I do not deny that is an important issue, however I feel this is far greater than just a debate on whether or not we get more money for health care. This is a debate on the future of our country and the relationship between the federal and provincial governments.

I suggest that the relationship we have had over the past 30 years has not worked very well. What we are looking for is a relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments that will be progressive, that will be futuristic and that will work in the 21st century.

It was interesting to listen to my colleague across the floor, the Minister for Human Resources Development talk about this government modernizing and being progressive. I suggest that just is not so. This government is dragging its feet. It is looking at the old way of doing things, the old way of domination. It is not looking at a new progressive partnership with the provinces. It is incumbent upon the government to listen to the debate today on how we are looking for a new progressive partnership with the provinces.

The Liberals are not showing leadership. They are not showing Canadians that they know what leadership is all about when they refuse to accept the premiers' outreach in changing the relationship between the federal and provincial governments so that it will work better in the future.

The Liberal government really should reconsider its opposition to what is being proposed by the premiers. I find it amusing that even the separatist party in the House of Commons, the Bloc, seems to be doing more for national unity than the Liberal government of the day.

I would like to introduce to the House some comments out of the new Canada act which the Reform Party presented to the House in the spring. This is an attempt by the Reform Party to deal with some issues to modernize our government so it will be ready for the 21st century. We suggested a few things and in Saskatoon the premiers seemed to agree with our intent.

We suggested that there should be limits on federal government spending power. The federal government should not just walk in and take over provincial jurisdiction because it has money to spend. We felt that the federal government should not be financing new programs unless there is support from the provinces. We used a figure of seven provinces having over 50% of the population. The premiers have agreed to a lesser mark than that. The premiers are being very generous in saying it just needs the majority of the provinces.

We feel that any province that chooses not to participate should receive a grant equal to the population of the province multiplied by the per capita spending of the federal government for that new program. The provinces have agreed to something even more controlling and more definitive than that. The provinces are being very generous in agreeing to this partnership with the federal government.

We go on to mention other things in this resolution. We mention a dispute resolution mechanism. We feel it is necessary to establish the parameters of how a disagreement is going to be handled up front before getting into that situation. Again we are far more stringent in our presentation than the premiers. The premiers have agreed to something that is more generous with the federal government.

I find it very interesting that the premiers seem to be reaching out. They seem to be willing to accommodate. The premiers are willing to be flexible, to use the minister's word. I find no flexibility in the federal government's approach. I find no flexibility in this old way of doing business with the provinces, this old concept that someone has to be in charge.

The government talks about partnerships. A partnership is when people work together on an equal basis, respect each other's authority under the constitution and respect each other's position at the bargaining table. That is missing from the federal government. It does not seem to be willing to be a true partner.

My colleagues have talked about the cuts to transfer payments and that is a fact. That is something the other side cannot argue. It is a fact that in the last four years this government cut 23% of transfers to the provinces.

I do not consider that to be a fair partnership. When the federal government originally got into the Canada Health Act, a fair partnership was an agreement of 50% funding. The federal government said to the provinces “We want you to do this; we agree to do this and we will fund you 50%”. Now the federal government is only funding 23%.

Where is the commitment to that partnership, to that relationship? I would suggest it does not exist. Because it does not exist, because the federal government is fronting less than a quarter, it has lost the moral right to place demands on the provinces. The federal government has lost the moral right to have the controls it insists on. The government has no moral authority to be taking the leadership position when it is only a minor shareholder in that partnership.

It is time for this government to take some leadership, to recognize the fact that 10 provincial premiers met and discussed this social union and lo and behold all 10 of them agreed. That must have been a very momentous occasion, something we do not see very often in this country. Ten premiers, 10 provinces agreeing to look at the fundamentals of an agreement.

Ten provinces have recognized the need to work together not for power or control, but because that is the best way they see of providing services to their people. Like all of us, they have to seek election, seek the support of their electorate. They are accountable to the electorate for their actions.

Ten premiers have reached a consensus and what do we have? A federal government holding out and saying it does not care what the 10 have agreed on. It is unbelievable what our Prime Minister has said. To quote the Prime Minister, he said “If they”—the premiers—“do not want to take what I am offering, they take nothing”. For somebody who is negotiating and trying to get a partnership working, that kind of an attitude does nothing for co-operation.

The government has to change its attitude. It has to be more willing to change the way it does business with the provinces. If the federal government wants to show leadership to keep this country together, in developing new meaningful partnerships with the provinces not only on the social union but in other things as well, it will have to have the attitude to make it work. If it will not let it work and if it is going to turn its back on something that 10 provinces have agreed to, I do not consider that to be a partnership at all.

I would like to caution the Bloc members. I think that they are using this as an attempt to show that Canadians will not support them when the government, hopefully does not, but it looks like it is not going to be co-operative. I caution the Bloc because what I see here with the 10 premiers coming up with a consensus is that the process does work within confederation.

The process of negotiating for the best for our citizens does work. The problem is the players. The problem is people like the Prime Minister and his cabinet and the people on that side of the House who refuse to modernize their thinking and change the way of doing things, of governing the country.

I would suggest to the Bloc that there is a process. Canadians can work these things out within confederation. We can be equal partners. We can respect each other's positions and it can happen within Canada. We need to make sure that we have a government on the other side that respects that position and is willing to work within it.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The first one is he mentioned that the federal government's program is flexible and adaptable to the provinces. If that is the case, why have both British Columbia and Alberta been fined for being flexible in their programs?

My second question is he referred to his government as modernizing the federation, a true partnership. My understanding is that the Liberal government since taking office has cut transfers to the provinces by 23%. True partnerships are 50:50. He has reneged on his commitment of that partnership. When is he going—

[Dna Identification Act, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to speak about two aspects of what has happened this afternoon and to Bill C-3.

First I will speak about time allocation which the government has used once again. I cannot believe the government would continue a practice that it started in the last parliament. There were 32 time allocations in the 35th parliament, and government members have already done it seven times in this parliament.

It is abhorrent to me and to Canadians that we have a government that is afraid of free speech, afraid of the opportunity for elected parliamentarians to come into the House to debate issues that are important to Canadians. Canadians deserve their elected officials having the opportunity to debate these issues, to debate government legislation, to make sure that the end product is the best that it can be for Canadians. If the government cannot stand criticism and is afraid of being honest and open with Canadians then government members have no business sitting there.

Bill C-3 establishes a DNA data bank. I do not think Canadians have any problem with establishing a DNA data bank. However, I think Canadians including the people in my riding have a problem with a data bank only collecting DNA samples from people who have been convicted. After the fact will not help the police solve the crime. I know people in my constituency would like the police to have everything at their disposal, everything that is available to them by way of modern technology, to find some conclusive evidence to convict people and bring them to court.

The bill falls far short of providing our law enforcement people with the facilities and the analysis they need to bring some of these cases to conclusion. It is hard on families who know that only for DNA samples a suspect may be wandering the streets.

I suggest to the government that DNA is no different from fingerprinting. In the past when the government of the day wanted to institute fingerprinting as a normal investigative tool I am sure there was an outcry that it was an infringement on a person's right to have their fingerprints taken. I am sure a similar debate went on at that time and that it was considered to be the most intrusive measure on an individual's person.

I also suggest that it is now a matter of course, a matter of fact. It is just a natural thing that happens: suspects are charged, fingerprinted and become part of the collective knowledge of our system. We are overreacting to the business of DNA being intrusive. It is not intrusive to take a fingernail clipping. It is not intrusive to prick a finger to get a drop of blood. I mean, come on.

We are not talking about a hospital stay overnight. We are not talking about cutting a finger open. That is not what we are talking about. It is very simple and easy to get the required sample.

I would suggest that the day will come. Perhaps this government will not be the vehicle that will institute it but the day will come when DNA sampling is banked, when it is part of the normal course of investigation once a charge is laid.

Why are we wasting time? Why are we reluctant to take that step? Is it because it may be challenged in the supreme court? So what? Is the government not going to make legislation on behalf of the Canadian public, legislation that is good and beneficial for the future of this country because it is afraid it might end up in the supreme court? The role of this House, the role of the legislators who sit here is to make the law. If we are not going to make the law because we are afraid of the courts, then there is something serious here that we had better address.

If we have a government that is going to refuse to address the issues of the day and be aggressive and forthcoming in solving the problems we face in this country because of fear, then it does not deserve to be here. The government does not deserve to take this country into the 21st century if it is living in the 19th century.

Canadians are looking for a government that has guts, that has some fortitude to challenge things that are wrong in the Canadian system and to do things in a progressive manner, to move into the 21st century and provide our police with a tool that is available from technological advancement. Are we going to be driving horses and buggies, walking around, taking trains rather than flying and going to the moon? Technological advancements such as DNA offer us opportunities. We are remiss if we do not take advantage of them.

People in law enforcement should have this tool available for their use in investigating crime and in laying charges, not just for use i after a person has been convicted. It is a little bit late to wait for that.

I hope the government will consider the arguments. It would be unusual for the Liberals to do so. They have invoked closure so they are obviously not willing to listen to the other side, not willing to listen to a debate and not willing to listen to logic. They have made up their minds. They really do not care what Canadians think. It is typical of the arrogant attitude of the government.

I hope that members on the government side will stop, look at the legislation, realize that it is a missed opportunity, that there is something there, that the timing is such that we can move on and will change their minds and make some adjustments to the bill. It has never happened before to my knowledge. I do not expect this government to be any different from the previous government. It would be nice if Canadians could feel that open, honest debate occurred in this House and that the government really took into account the comments, the positive and creative criticism from the opposition, and would make some attempt to improve legislation.

This is a good idea but it needs to be broadened and expanded. I am remiss in saying that I doubt there will be anyone in the official opposition who will be supporting it, simply because we feel it is not good enough to support. It is bad legislation. We do not get anywhere by supporting something that is not going to meet the needs of the law enforcement community.

If we support this bill and if it is enacted, which it probably will be anyway, then the government will put it aside and leave it alone. It will miss the opportunity of doing something very constructive in allowing our law enforcement people to have another tool to help them in protecting Canadians on a day to day basis.

I think it is negligent on the part of the government to continue this kind of posturing, the attitude that it knows best, that what it decides is good for all Canadians. It is not willing to listen to any kind of critique.

Again, I would urge the government to reconsider, to look at improving this legislation. Make it a piece of legislation that will actually do some good for the Canadian public. It may be a cold day before I see that but I hope this government is listening.

[The Senate, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's arrogance in appointing a senator for Alberta has left a bad taste not only in Alberta but in British Columbia.

This approach, this total disregard for the citizens' desire to elect a senator, does nothing for unity in our country. How can the Prime Minister expect co-operation from any of the provinces when he shows such contempt for the people and their provincial governments?

In B.C. we experienced this contempt during the salmon dispute with the U.S. Atlantic Canada saw this arrogance with the east coast fishery. Manitoba saw it with the Red River flood and the federal election call. Ontario seems to be in constant conflict with the federal government.

This past spring the 10 provincial premiers met to discuss a social union and amazingly came out of this meeting with almost unheard of agreement with all 10 premiers on a social accord. What was the Prime Minister's response? Outright refusal to consider this agreement.

Prime Minister, how can this arrogant, combative approach help Canadian unity?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, part of Canadian history is that in the terms of union of 1871 when B.C. joined Confederation there was a constitutional commitment that all native land claims issues would be assumed by the federal government.

My question is for the Prime Minister and the minister of Indian affairs. Is this government going to assume the financial responsibilities for all the land claim settlement costs in British Columbia?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has no problem releasing personal and confidential information. Yet, when it is a question of public policy, this minister refuses to release the information as to how much land claim settlements will cost Canadians.

How much will it cost British Columbians to settle the land claims issues?