Stéphane Dion

[Social Union, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not in the best situation to ask for clarification. Yesterday I asked the Leader of the Opposition to say, if he was unfortunately the Prime Minister of Canada, whether he would sign the proposal of the provinces as it is.

He would not say that to Canadians. He never answered. Members of the NDP said that they would not sign as it is. The Bloc said it would sign because it would be a step toward separation. The Tories were unable to say what they would do. Is that the new definition of the united right?

[Social Union, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. When we speak about the Government of Canada we speak about those who believe in the social union. Canada has one of the best social unions in the world.

Not only is the Government of Canada saying that. Recently Harvard university released a study comparing 150 countries in the world on the capacity of governments to give their citizens good services while respecting their freedom. Canada was ranked fifth. That is not so bad.

[Social Union, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in all federations around the world, the distribution of powers applies to the power to legislate, but the federal government can spend wherever it considers it in the national interest to do so.

The provincial governments want us to use this federal spending power in a way that does not upset their priorities. We are very open to discussions with them, because we know that we will end up with the best policies by working together for all Canadians.

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces stated their position in June and we replied in July. It took them six months to come to an agreement. We are not blaming them, because this is a complex issue.

We replied to the provinces in July, and the Quebec premier took an interest in this issue in August. When the Quebec premier is not there to take a leadership role, it is always more complicated.

It took us much less time to agree on the need to clarify the federal spending power—because we started in February 1996—than it took the Conservative government, which had eight years to do so, but did nothing.

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that we are negotiating with the provinces with the following objective in mind: to ensure that all Canadians have access to the social and health services to which they are entitled, through a better framework for negotiations between the federal and provincial governments.

We will have nothing to do with the booty policy.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member rightly pointed out that the December 31 deadline was totally unrealistic.

Indeed, it must be remembered that it was on December 12, 1997 that the Prime Minister and the Premier of Saskatchewan convinced their counterparts to go ahead with improving the social union. The provinces came up with their own proposals in mid-June. The federal government replied in mid-July. The Premier of Quebec only got on board in early August. Without the leadership of the Premier of Quebec, things are much more complicated. Since then, an election was called in Quebec, and that also slowed things down.

We are negotiating rather intensely. I remind the hon. member that his party was in office for eight or nine years and never proposed such measures. They tried the Meech Lake accord, but I would remind him that in the throne speech of February 1996, the federal government agreed to make a move and to improve the use of its spending power more significantly than under the Meech Lake accord. We are already in the post-Meech era.

As for getting parliament involved, I quite agree, but again this is a matter of stages. Right now, negotiations are taking place between governments. There is not a single provincial government that would agree to discuss these negotiations in committee in its own legislature. Again, this is simply a matter of going step by step.

I must also point out that the provinces' proposal was not made public by the provinces, but was leaked to the media, which is very different.

Finally, I have a question for the hon. member. It is the same question I put, in vain, to the leader of the official opposition, who did not answer, and the same one I put to the NDP member, who did reply. If they were in office today, would the Progressive Conservative leader, Mr. Clark, and his party sign the provinces' proposal as it stands?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I share many of the points of view that have been expressed by the hon. member, except for the usual debate we have about the role of the Liberal government. He knows what we will answer to his critiques. We will say, as is the case, that if we take into account the tax points, the federal government cut much more from its own programs than it did in transfers to the provinces. If we had not done that, our social union would be in pretty bad shape today. We would have a huge deficit, no economic growth and so on. But I do not think this is the matter of debate today.

Today's debate is on how to improve the federation in terms of aspects that are so important to Canadians, social policies and health. As the member has said, the answer is to invent ways for governments to work together, in partnership, in a more efficient way. This needs imagination and faith. We must stop demonizing the provinces and the federal government, as well as the games of the separatists and so on. We must stop unilateral action and we must work together as much as possible. That is why we invented the CHST and that is why we have said that we will not unilaterally decide on new programs like home care or pharmacare.

My question for the hon. member is the same as the question I asked the Leader of Opposition, who did not answer it. Would he sign the proposal of the provinces as it is, or would he consider it, as the provinces are asking us to do, as a base for negotiation in order to improve the social union?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the central answer to the question is we want something even better than what the provinces have suggested for all Canadians. The provinces agree that their current proposal is for negotiation. It is not something they want us to sign as it is. They want to look at it with us as we may improve it.

So where is the problem to try to improve something so important? As the hon. member was starting to say in the question, if we have a social union why do we have so much poverty and unemployment and so on? It is true we have a lot of things to improve in the federation and we will not succeed if we do not invent good solutions for Canadians.

I will tell the House what we need for that. We need imagination and faith in this country.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comparison irresponsible. It does not make sense. We will forget it.

We are speaking about something very important. It is not time to suggest bad purposes to others. We are working to improve health care, social policies for the people.

It is something important but it seems like the Leader of the Opposition considers that a power grab from one government to another.

What I know is we need to improve our capacity to work together, the provincial and federal governments. We are looking at it very responsibly. The provinces ask us to do the same. No one speaks now about the deadline of December 31. This is not responsible.

We will go ahead to have a good federation. We will improve both the capacity to work together to our shared objectives and the capacity for the provinces to experiment in the diversity of their own solutions. It will be a win-win solution for federal and provincial governments and above all for all Canadians.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be one essential question that must be asked first of all: Why do we have a federation?

My suggestion, the suggestion of the Government of Canada, is that we have a federation in order to ensure that we are able to pursue common objectives within our diversity of experiences. Unitary countries can set common objectives, but cannot draw upon the wealth of diversity of experience as a federation can. Ten self-centred republics to the north of the United States could have the diversity of experience, but not the same capacity to set common objectives and benefit from each other's support.

I say this because it is natural for provincial governments to be concerned primarily by the diversity of experiences, or in other words their own autonomy, while still keeping in mind the necessity for common objectives. It is equally natural for the federal government to be concerned primarily with common objectives, while still keeping in mind the diversity of the country. This is exactly what is happening with the negotiations for social union, an issue of extreme importance for all Canadians.

At the invitation of the Prime Minister of Canada, primarily, as well as the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister and the premiers, along with the territorial leaders, reached agreement on December 12 to try to improve the Canadian social union.

The provinces set out to work together, coming up with a common approach only on June 18. I cannot blame them for taking six months; this is a complicated matter.

The Government of Canada took a month, until July 16, to react. The Quebec premier really joined the discussion only on August 7, and without the leadership of a government in Quebec with a belief in Canada, things became more complicated and progress slower. Since then, we have been discussing these two propositions together: one from the provinces and one from the federal government. Both are under examination.

The aim is not to reach an awkward compromise between the two; the aim is to draw out of the two the best possible social policy, the best possible framework for a decision so Canadians may have the social policies they are entitled to.

This is no easy achievement, because it is an important issue. It involves health and the social safety of people in Canada and because, what is more, we already have a good social union and it is always hard to improve on something good. I hope that the opposition parties will not try to diminish Canada's achievements for political gain.

Canada has achieved something good in its social union, without a doubt, as it has in the Canadian federation in general. It is a success, when you look at what is going on elsewhere in the world. It is not a work in progress. And so it is difficult, and it is not just the Government of Canada saying this.

A study released by the national bureau of economic research of Harvard University about the quality of governments compared 150 governments according to their capacities to deliver good services to citizens while respecting their freedom.

Canada ranked 5th of 150 governments. It is not so bad. We have to improve something that already is good. We need to work together, especially at this time following a lot of cuts and difficulties. Governments have been able to put their fiscal houses in order. Now together we have to choose good policies. It may take time but it is necessary in order to succeed.

Now I would like to link this debate and the unity of our country, Canadian unity. There is, in our opinion, a bad way to pose the problem and a good way.

The bad way to pose it is to react as if in a panic under the pressure of a separatist threat and as if we were trying to appease them with a policy that could be a poor one, but simply to placate them—this is what may be called loot politics. Separation blackmail and loot politics have no hold on the Government of Canada and never will, so long as the government is Liberal.

Another way to badly describe it is to call it a power grab. The federal and provincial governments both explain that is not what is under negotiation.

Our difficulty arises when the Prime Minister is misquoted, especially by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister never said he does not want to improve the federation, to put forward concrete changes. He said that constitutional change now is not the best way to achieve it. The Leader of the Opposition has said the same thing.

Why invent difficulties where there are none? I would understand the Leader of the Opposition putting pressure on us the way he is if the provinces were complaining that the federal government is not negotiating completely in good faith.

I quote what Premier Romanow, chairman of the premiers conference, said yesterday: “The first order of business is the social union, negotiating it as quickly as we can, not under artificial deadlines or timetables, doing it with dispatch, doing it with determination”.

The Prime Minister wants to do it. His ministers want to do it. The premiers want to do it. Premier Bouchard signed on in Saskatoon in August.

The bargaining position of the provinces and the territorial governments is what the premiers did. They set out several positions we would like to see implemented in the social union. It is a bargaining position. It is a give and take. There is compromise, flexibility and no artificial deadlines. I could not agree more. I have other quotes from premiers saying the same thing.

I will now explain why the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is unacceptable to the government and I will suggest a motion that I hope will be acceptable to all parties.

The motion is that this House strongly urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to December 31, artificial deadline. We do not need to rush. We need to work cautiously and seriously, based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed at Saskatoon August 7. I am not sure what that means. Does that mean that if the Leader of the Opposition were the Prime Minister of Canada he would sign exactly what the provinces are suggesting?

If that is the case he and his party should say that very clearly to Canadians. If it is to negotiate in good faith to see if we can improve both federal and provincial proposals we would agree, but this is too vague too support.

To strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to secure Canada's social programs for the future, why do we only want to secure social programs? Do we not want to also improve our social programs?

Therefore I would move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “conclude” and substituting the following therefor:

“The best possible agreement with the provinces and territories and based on the commitment of first ministers in December 1997 and affirmed by the provinces at Saskatoon last August 7, to strengthen the partnership between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in order to secure and improve Canada's social programs for the future”.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move this amendment.