House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
Social Programs June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we will discuss that. We are in the field. We already have some tax incentives to help poor families provide for their children. Some provinces have similar programs and they would like to talk with us.
I know that the people of Quebec, not the Bloc Quebecois, would like all governments to work together to have a better society in Canada and in Quebec at the same time.
Social Programs June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, through tax incentives, the federal government assists in this area, and this was announced in the budget.
I think the Minister of Finance has improved the system so as to use the taxation system to help the children of disadvantaged families who are at risk. This we have been doing for some time. The provincial governments have a similar system. They are asking if there might not be a possibility of our working together. This request originated with the provinces and I am prepared to sit down with provincial representatives.
As you know, Bloc Quebecois members love to rant and rave in front of an audience, but they ought to know that it was the provinces which asked the federal government for this. If they do not want us to talk about it, I think the losers will be the disadvantaged children of Canada.
First Ministers' Conference June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the question is purely hypothetical. There is no question of any intervention in the field of education at the moment. However, I think the federal government's statement is very clear.
We have said we have no intention of interfering in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces. Moreover, the provinces have the right to withdraw if they wish. Obviously the matter of compensation would be negotiated if we ever got to that point.
At the moment, it is out of the question. We have said we do not want to do it any more. We will focus on our own programs and manage them well so we can ask the provinces to do the same in their jurisdictions.
First Ministers' Conference June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in the Canadian Constitution, the jurisdictions are clear. In many areas, the provinces decide and do things that we do not approve of and we do not make a great song and dance of it every day.
Under certain circumstances, when it is in the interest of all Canadians, as in the area of health, for example, we have five conditions that the provinces have accepted. A few weeks ago, the Government of Alberta was not prepared to go along with the notion that there should be no user fees. The Minister of Health persuaded the Government of Alberta, following discussions, to agree to the five conditions.
These conditions are acceptable to both the provinces and the federal government, because they are in the interest of Canadians.
First Ministers' Conference June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as the dinner will be held at 24 Sussex, it will be hard for me to have people from every province come and get the table ready. The
provinces were in fact consulted. I myself have been speaking to the various premiers over the past few weeks, to discuss subjects that might be raised.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has travelled around the country. He has talked with governments and made his report. We have prepared an agenda, and it will be the job of the meeting chair to prepare discussion. In general, the premiers were aware of the direction of discussions, and I think we will have more on the table than we can deal with in a day and a half.
My relations with the premiers are generally fairly cordial, and if there is something urgent to discuss, we are prepared to do so, but there is more than enough on the agenda for a one day meeting and a dinner.
First Ministers' Conference June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand, when we are proposing to get out of some fields, that I suddenly become a centralisateur. It is a bit difficult for me to understand but I will reflect on it. They want the government to stay in manpower. Fine. If they wanted the government to stay in forestry, mining and many other sectors, it would. However, the government is not interested.
We want to ameliorate the federation and clarify the responsibilities so the citizens of Canada will have a better system of government at the provincial and federal level. This is the goal we are trying to achieve. I am convinced that by Friday most of the provinces will be very happy to accept new responsibilities and accept that the government is getting out of some responsibilities.
If the hon. member wants to tell the Quebec government that I should keep or increase the same responsibilities, that is fine with me.
First Ministers' Conference June 17th, 1996
On that topic, Mr. Speaker, we will review together the report prepared by the provincial governments themselves. They have prepared and submitted to the federal government a report that we have considered.
My feeling is that we agree on many aspects of this study prepared by the provincial governments themselves. This means we will be able to compare notes on these points and, if possible, improve the Canadian social security system. Our positions are well known. Take the five principles of medicare; they are respected by everyone. And just recently, the Government of Alberta, which had resisted complying, signed with the Minister of Health an agreement whereby the five conditions set out in the Canada Health Act will now be applied in Alberta as in every other province.
I would say we are making considerable headway in this area. Our Friday afternoon meeting on this subject will go along the same lines of ensuring that Canada's social security system provides all Canadians with a minimum level of protection, as everyone or almost everyone in this House hopes for.
First Ministers' Conference June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, first, under the Constitution, unemployment is the responsibility of the Canadian government. There is no doubt of this. There was a constitutional amendment on this point in 1947 or 1949. It is our jurisdiction, and we share revenues with the provinces.
The unemployment insurance deficit, when we took over the government, was over $6 billion. We have reduced the deficit and now it makes good sense to build up a surplus for those days when we will need one to pay employment insurance to people who need it. This is simply good management.
As to providing a Canadian securities commission at the request of the provinces, I think, at least I hope that most of the provinces will want to participate in it, because it will mean investors will have far fewer forms than 10 or 12 to complete in order to obtain approval to sell bonds. With the broad flexibility I represent, any province not wishing to participate may do so.
First Ministers' Conference June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, when we withdraw from the programs mentioned in my letter to the premiers, the Leader of the Opposition will have to acknowledge that, despite his predictions, I will be obliged to make him retract what he has just said. I will do it very gently; I would not want to cause the Leader of the Opposition any problem.
As to the forms of compensation, take unemployment insurance as an example. It cannot be by tax points in this case, because it is the employers and employees throughout Canada that contribute to the fund. This money is then redirected to those in Canada who are not working. This must be a direct transfer and not tax points, because the amounts will necessarily vary with the level of unemployment in different parts of Canada. We never know the exact amount from one year to the next. A situation may be
disastrous in one province today and then quickly improve, or deteriorate in another part of Canada.
This is why we have this means of redistributing wealth across the country to those who need it. It has to be a direct transfer and not tax points to ensure the flexibility needed.
First Ministers' Conference June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we are withdrawing from areas of provincial jurisdiction and, when we spend money for certain programs in certain circumstances, we will offer money as is the case for manpower and active measures.
The discussion will be at the ministerial level, but I am very happy to see that the opposition realizes we are going to improve the federation and that we will withdraw from fields we were in previously. I hope all the provinces will be very happy with this.