Debates of Oct. 21st, 2010

Opposition Motion—Federal Spending Power

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for this very relevant question. In the 1990s, following its 1993 victory, the Liberal government had to make cuts to the federal bureaucracy in order to pay back the deficit created by the preceding Conservative government. That Conservative government, in a completely similar fashion, if not an identical one to the current Reform Conservative government, created a deficit that was unbelievably huge for Canada at that time.

They looked at the programs. The Liberal government struggled to successfully balance Canada's finances, and did so in exemplary fashion. A number of countries, such as Australia, Great Britain and others, followed its example.

Both then and now, the Conservative government wanted to cut corporate taxes and reduce government services to the bare minimum. So it overspent and created a massive deficit, but the current Reform Conservative government is creating an even bigger one. Unfortunately, that is what has happened with Conservative governments, historically—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for sharing his time with me during this debate on the Bloc Québécois motion.

I find this motion rather curious in that it claims to deal with an urgent issue of vital importance to Quebec, according to the Bloc Québécois. The ideology behind it draws on ultra-conservative theories that even the reform government opposite refuses to tackle officially.

I will begin by looking at the timing of this motion. The member for Beauce, in a speech to the Albany Club in Toronto on Wednesday, October 13, pretended that the federal government intervenes in provincial jurisdictions, particularly in health and education, two areas where, in his inflated opinion, it has no constitutional legitimacy to do so.

This eloquent rant continues by stating that we should envisage a new way of conducting federal-provincial relations. The big bad wolf, as the member for Beauce calls the federal government, should not interfere in provincial matters and activities.

Clearly, it is a simplistic way of summarizing the highly complex task of governing a federation. Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind my colleagues, who seem to have forgotten, that we are still a country.

The most ironic aspect of this Bloc motion is its source. And yes, they were inspired by a Conservative member, a former minister, who now aspires to spread the true Conservative doctrine throughout the land.

Before delving into the arguments against this motion, which seem exceedingly clear to me, I would like to point out a glaring inconsistency in the Bloc Québécois motion.

Since when does that party, which claims to be the only “true” defender of Quebec interests, need a Conservative Reform MP to put on the radar what it now sees as a pressing issue? Is it its way of taking credit for an initiative someone else has been shopping around?

Let us now look at the arguments which, in my opinion, call into question the relevance—not to mention the urgency—of this issue.

At present, in Quebec, this is not even an issue. Quebec citizens have much more pressing concerns—such as the future of their pension plan, their health system and their jobs—than such very esoteric constitutional matters.

Furthermore, whether you are a nationalist or a federalist, today, as was the case 15 years ago, this is not an issue in which Quebeckers are engaged on a daily basis.

The issues central to the major debates on the future of Quebec that we have had over the past 25 years are language, culture, pride and other aspects of identity. I have never heard talk of the spending powers of the different levels of government outside of political circles.

The Bloc members will now rise together to proclaim loud and clear that this motion is vital because the current government does not respect the division of powers set out in the British North America Act.

I would like to digress a bit here to stress the subtlety of referring to that constitutional act, since I assume the Bloc Québécois would not be not referring to that act, given that Quebec refused to sign the Constitution in 1982. But, on second thought, I could be wrong.

The Bloc Québécois claims that the federal government should not help the provinces when it comes to heath and education, because those areas fall under provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution.

Let us take a closer look at the ins and outs of the Constitution Act of 1982.

Here we have the Bloc saying that the federal government has violated the Constitution that the province refused to adhere to. On the other hand, it appears that it is somewhat opportune to refer to it while still refusing to admit the brilliance of its scope. When it works in the Bloc's favour, it likes it, but when it does not get enough out of it, it is a disgrace. This is looking more and more like a case of wanting one's cake and eating it too, or, as we say in Quebec, “avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre”.

At the heart of this debate on the division of government powers and responsibilities lies, I believe, the whole question of the very delicate balance we are trying to achieve in terms of governance within the federation. This balance is not only vital to making this country work, but it is also the primary reason we have been so successful over the past 143 years.

We in the Liberal Party are fully aware that our federation can always be improved, but its basic principles—including the federal responsibility of ensuring the greatest possible fairness for all Canadians—are not negotiable.

In that regard, the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Conservatives form the strongest coalition this House has ever seen. For both parties, the best form of governance for Canada would be a federal government stripped to bare bones, in which all real power would belong exclusively to the provinces.

The irony of this approach is that the current government is using its spending power excessively and has run up a huge operating deficit, showing complete disdain for the most basic democratic principles and profound distrust of all of the accountability mechanisms established by our parliamentary system.

This brings me back to the idea of balance. Balance is what we are severely lacking because the Conservative-Reform government refuses to be fiscally responsible, socially fair and the equitable partner the provinces need and expect. Balance is the crucial determinant of a solid and functional Federation. It is the only way to ensure that all players are equally represented, regardless of size, wealth or background.

Prior to 2006, federal governments of all political stripes tried, in their own way, to work harmoniously with the provinces. The objective was always to ensure equitable, fair transfers in the areas of health and education. Clearly this has not always been easy, nor have the provinces always obtained everything they asked for. However, the search for that balance was certainly a constant during those 143 years of congenial federalism.The prosperous and generous Canada of the 21st century is the brilliant result of the fragile but undeniable equilibrium our governments have always sought to achieve.

That said, in working out my pro-federative and resolutely federalist arguments, I am beginning to understand, though I can never subscribe to their reasoning, why my Bloc Québécois colleagues felt it was important to introduce the motion we are debating today. What they want is a federal government reduced to its simplest form. In the face of the Reform-Conservative government's dictatorial and simplistic approach, it is easy to conclude that it would be better to get rid of any possibility of exercising a power that ignores and holds in contempt the tradition of seeking balance that I was referring to just a moment ago.

Federal spending power is a critically important means by which the federal government can exercise its responsibility to make Canada a viable political unit and to strengthen it. This is certainly the way Ottawa has traditionally used its spending power under Liberal governments, such as when we introduced the old age security plan, the national health care act, employment insurance and many others.

Canada is not the European Union; Canada is a true federation with constitutional mechanisms and responsibilities that allow it to ensure a certain cohesion among all of its components. Our differences, be they linguistic, geographic or ethnocultural, are a source of wealth and innovation. They define our place in the world and allow us to be creative in the search for solutions. As someone who left Canada after a long stay here once said: “Canada is a solution in search of a problem!”

The Bloc Québécois has its raison d'être, and I know for a fact that I am not going to be the one to change its outlook. However, I am no more ready than they are to abdicate the vision I have had of Canada for 32 years, one which has inspired me to pursue the federalist adventure.

The federation we created in 1867 was extremely idealistic. I am convinced that there were not many observers at the time who would have bet on the odds of its success. And yet—

Can we forget that for six years in a row, Canada ranked first among the best countries in which to live? Can we forget that Canada originated the concept of the duty to protect, an obligation which is now the guiding philosophy of the United Nations? Can we forget the sacrifices made by all of our soldiers who fought for democracy?

I understand that the intention of the Bloc Québécois was to score a few symbolic points with a population that has many other concerns in mind. But is this really the type of motion that best represents the interests of Quebeckers?

As a proud Canadian and proud Quebecker, I really do not believe that to be the case.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie and it leaves me with a number of questions.

First, given her speech, it comes as no surprise that it was the Liberal Party that unilaterally patriated the Constitution in 1982. The hon. member says that the issue of pension plans is important to her, so when the Bloc Québécois introduced two bills this week to help people who are swindled, I was surprised to see that my colleague remained seated for one and abstained from voting for the other. If this issue is her top priority, as she keeps saying, then I would have liked to see her vote in favour of what the Bloc Québécois was proposing.

The hon. member says we live in a federation. In my view, when Quebec joined, it was a confederation. I am not surprised to hear her use the word “federation” instead of “confederation”.

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie says that sovereignists are single minded. However, when motions are unanimously passed by the National Assembly, it means that federalist members also voted in favour of these motions. I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about that. Does the Bloc Québécois represent what the National Assembly adopts, or does it represent only sovereignists?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question.

I have no doubt that the National Assembly represents the interests of Quebec. I am not questioning that whatsoever. I know that every provincial government has a stake in defending as much as possible its complete jurisdiction over the vast majority of the programs. Nonetheless, I am also sure that the vast majority of Quebeckers like to know that the federal government has a responsibility toward them and that it will try, in negotiating with the provinces, to create optimal conditions for offering all Canadians the best quality of life possible.

That is the goal of a federation and we are a federation. We are not a confederation.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and other Canadians across this country have applauded this government's policy of open federalism in which the government respects the founding principles of our country and the Constitution and limits federal spending.

However, the leader of the member's party alleged, in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 23, that our style of open federalism would result in a situation where we would return to the strictest definition of the 150-year-old Constitution. He was concerned about an obsessional focus on the jurisdiction and the Constitution.

Would the member opposite please give her opinion on whether this means that her leader would not follow the policies of open federalism and respect for provincial jurisdiction in order to impose his own centralized agenda?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would share with my hon. colleague a quote from his own leader in his letter to Premier Klein about the possibility of Alberta withdrawing as much as possible from the Federation. He said, “There is no reason to have Ottawa collect our revenue. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain as Quebec's experience has shown”.

I imagine that when the Prime Minister mentioned this a few years back to Premier Klein, he was intent on pursuing the Quebec experience of gaining as much autonomy as possible within the Federation.

The fair and equitable share of powers that my colleague has mentioned has always been respected by the Liberal Party. Our main objective as a national party has always been to ensure that Canadians have a fair and equitable chance of having the greatest quality of life possible. That has been our only guiding principle throughout these years, as a government.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Outremont.

I am pleased to rise today on this motion moved by the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher. I can see that the Bloc want to move this important issue for the future of both Quebec and Canada forward.

This government’s intransigence, just like that of its Liberal predecessor, only exacerbates a situation that has dragged on for far too long. This debate resurfaced mainly as a result of the massive cutbacks to social transfers that the Jean Chrétien Liberals made in the mid-1990s. The cutbacks had a major effect on our social services and our fellow citizens. They forced the provinces to reduce spending and slash programs. They hurt everyday people.

These cuts brought people to believe that their federal government was arrogant and was out of touch with their needs. In the years that followed, the provinces indicated that downloaded responsibilities the way that the federal government had done onto provinces was not fair. That then cascaded down to municipalities as well, and to communities.

In 2001, the Quebec government set up the Séguin Commission. The commission’s mandate was to examine the root causes of the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government. Despite this imbalance, the federal government did nothing. And we are left grappling with the issue today because the Conservative and previous governments have lacked the will to find a solution. And yet in 2006, the Conservative Party promised to limit the federal government’s spending power. Four years later, the Conservative government has failed to do a thing.

As the leader of the first truly pan-Canadian party to recognize the Quebec nation, I am outraged, just like the Bloc and many other Quebeckers, by the Conservative government’s failure to uphold its commitment to introduce legislation limiting federal spending in Quebec’s exclusive areas of jurisdiction. The problem is the Conservative government’s inability to work with others. The problem is the government’s inability to build consensus before making decisions. And the problem is its lack of leadership.

And that is why the NDP believes in the need for a synergistic system that respects all governments’ jurisdictional authority. That is what I told the Premier of Quebec. We believe that Canada can have co-operative, respectful, asymmetrical federalism. Those are the principles of the Sherbrooke declaration adopted in 2005 by members of the NDP. The declaration sets out not only a new relationship between the provinces and the federal government, but also a system of shared sovereignty that respects all governments’ areas of jurisdiction. The declaration provides a framework for all NDP discussions on bills involving provincial areas of jurisdiction. Our bill on child care services is a good example of this. The bill gives the Quebec government the right to opt out of this program with full compensation. Now those are realistic solutions.

But we just heard a very simplistic solution to the disagreements between the provinces and the federal government. Last week, the hon. member for Beauce proposed his solution for the federation. He proposed abolishing the federal spending power and suggested Ottawa should withdraw completely from the funding of social programs. He said the federal government should just wash its hands of all that. I am disappointed that for the sole purpose of scoring political points and trying to embarrass the Conservatives, the Bloc would lend a totally undeserved legitimacy to the options suggested by the hon. member for Beauce. We cannot believe the Bloc would endorse the irresponsible language of the hon. member for Beauce.

Although our parties have different approaches to Canada’s constitutional future, I thought I shared with the Bloc members a solid commitment to certain social values. It is deeply disturbing, therefore, to see the Bloc align itself with this right-wing ideology that wants to shrink the size of government. It is not very constructive to embarrass the Conservatives at the expense of the public interest.

I see as well that this motion applies the same recipe to Quebec and the provinces, thereby disregarding the House’s unanimous recognition of the specificity of the Quebec nation. It is very surprising to see the Bloc treat Quebec in actual fact the same as any other province. I can understand the desire to place some limits on the federal spending power in Quebec, but it astonishes me to see this extended to the other provinces, which do not want it. With the exception of the Bloc’s new companion-in-arms from Beauce, no one in Quebec wants any dismantling of the social safety net from which all our citizens benefit.

His kind of destructive approach leaves people simply fending for themselves. That is not the Canadian way. Our country was built with people coming together. Our country was built to improve the lives of every Canadian. These are the values that his proposal would take away from the government, and we do not accept it.

Our progress as a society should not be hampered by conflicts resulting from a poor understanding of the federal pact.

We know the government claims it is going to balance the budget by 2016. By then, three major transfers to the provinces will have had to be re-negotiated. The government has already announced that the negotiations are underway.

Once again, there is a danger that the federal government will make major cuts to our social transfers in order to balance the books. We know, though, that provincial expenses are rising faster than the inflation rate. We know the provinces do not have any wiggle room in their budgets. They will not be able to offset any shortfall.

The federal government will have to bring forward flexible agreements that reflect and respect the role and unique responsibilities of the provinces. That is how we can provide Canadians and Quebeckers with a federation that meets their expectations.

That is why I cannot support the motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois, as currently written. That is why my colleague from Outremont will introduce an amendment.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the speech of my colleague was certainly an inspiring one. However, it seems the discourse and debate in the House always focuses on that one way communication, that one way communication between the federal government toward the province of Quebec.

By way of illustration, I recently read about what happened back in the 1960s when we decided to set up a national Canada pension program, CPP, and how we worked with Quebec. I was surprised to learn about how much of what we have today nationally came from the politics of Quebec and how far that province had advanced before the rest of the country, probably much the same way that we all benefited from the health care program in the province of Saskatchewan.

I know the member's father was involved in politics. Perhaps he could touch on that as well since he is from Quebec. Perhaps he could talk about the contribution, from a public policy perspective, that Quebec has given to the rest of the country, which we forget to talk about in the House.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the reference to my late father, which brings a smile to my face. He was a strong believer both in Quebec and in Canada as a Quebecker and as a member of the House. In fact, the very first political campaign he involved me in at the age of 12 was the one that established the quiet revolution. Working with Jean Lesage and many others through the process of the 1960s in Quebec, they established some remarkable initiatives from which we could continue to learn elsewhere in Canada.

One thinks of the establishment of Hydro Quebec, which is such a powerful instrument for economic policy, a collective instrument. One thinks of the fact that the largest bank in Quebec is a co-operative enterprise. It is not one of the big Bay Street banks, but it is owned by millions of Quebeckers. One thinks of the solidarity fund. One thinks of the fact that there is a child care program in Quebec, which is truly extraordinary.

The examples of social progress that have come out of Quebec are inspiring. Quebeckers' creativity and spirit of co-operation are just some of the characteristics that give so much to Canada. This is why we need to have a special approach. We need to tap into Quebeckers and recognize the Quebec nation in order to benefit from its initiatives.

Our approach, based on asymmetrical, respectful and co-operative federalism, should be adopted. This was Tommy Douglas' approach in the 1960s—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed in the speech from the NDP leader, who tried to associate us with the member from Beauce simply because we have used one of his ideas in our proposal. Even a broken clock gives the right time twice a day. That is the case with the proposal from the member for Beauce.

That said, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing the elimination of the so-called spending power since 1993. And now they are saying that we are just playing politics. I would respectfully submit that the most pitiful example of partisan politics was the vote on the gun registry and the manoeuvring done by the leader of the NDP.

If he is open to the Government of Quebec's right to opt out with compensation, why did he not include it in his latest bill on social housing?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. As he knows, we are working with our Bloc colleagues to propose an amendment to the bill concerning social housing and therefore ensure an asymmetrical approach. We are working in a spirit of co-operation and the vote yesterday demonstrated that. That is the NDP's approach.

I was a little surprised to hear we were somehow associating the Bloc Québécois with the member for Beauce.

The motion moved by the Bloc Québécois states, “...the government should, as long called for by the Bloc Québécois and now called for by the Member for Beauce...”

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are in fact a number of sometimes fundamental things that separate us in the House. They may be substantive differences relating to the economy or the constitutional future of the country. However, I have always thought that the Bloc Québécois shared a number of fundamental values with the majority of members of this House and the majority of Quebeckers and Canadians, a vision that is the opposite of the one put forward by the member for Beauce. On that libertarian vision of “every one for themself”, and the dismantling of the state advocated by the member for Beauce, I would have said even a few days ago that it was the antithesis of what a majority of the Bloc believes. So imagine our surprise to learn that the member for Beauce is the model the Bloc Québécois seeks to emulate, their new idol. It will now be him who dictates their social vision for the future of Quebec and the country.

The member for Jeanne-Le Ber, who just spoke, changed course somewhat and cited the firearms registry as the worst crisis ever seen. Rather than evade the question, I am going to address it directly, because that is another example of the difference in approach between the Bloc and the NDP. In fact, it is a good illustration of what we are seeing today. The difference can be summed up as this: when the NDP sees that there is a fundamental difference, a gulf that separates urban and rural constituencies in our country, it looks for a solution. When the Bloc saw that same division in the country, it tried to profit from it politically. That is the difference between the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc members are so blind to the contradictions they live with, day in and day out, that they do not even realize that by following the example of the member for Beauce they are discrediting themselves in the eyes of all Quebeckers, who have always wanted a social safety net, precisely so that the most disadvantaged people, the people who needed it the most, could always count on a government that would be there to help them. Instead, they are proposing that it be dismantled. This is unprecedented. They are going to live with this for a long time, I guarantee it. That is why I am so proud that the leader of the party I represent in the House decided, once again, rather than trying to profit from a division, to stake everything on working constructively, as he always does. As he said, we have acknowledged the pressing need for cooperative, asymmetrical federalism for five years now. We recognize that in these matters, Quebec must have its own voice.

There are three fundamental weaknesses in the Bloc's motion. Their motion, like their approach to the firearms registry, focuses on one thing only: failure. The Bloc Québécois thrives on failure. Everything has to be a failure. If, today, we were to take tangible, constructive and positive action to limit the federal spending power, what would the Bloc complain about tomorrow? The tower of complaints, the immovable wall of the Bloc must remain. No one must ever remove a brick from the Bloc's wall. The Bloc must always be able to whine about everything at all times. So, it starts with something that it knows is completely unacceptable. How ironic. Only one province has been recognized as a nation. The distinctiveness of the Quebec nation was recognized unanimously. For once, we can do something tangible about it. But no, the Bloc moves that it should apply to all the provinces, even if they have never asked for it. The proposals by their inspirational follower, the member for Beauce, are unacceptable to us. The New Democratic Party, which is always in search of constructive solutions and ways to protect the social safety net of the people in this country, would like to move an amendment.

So I have the honour of moving the following motion, seconded by the leader of our party, the member for Toronto—Danforth:

That the motion of the Bloc be amended by deleting all the words after “That, in the opinion of the House” and substituting the following: in order to honour the commitment to limit the federal spending power in Quebec's exclusive areas of jurisdiction, given the unanimous recognition by this House of the Quebec nation and the longstanding consensus in Quebec in this regard, the government should, so as to implement co-operative and assymetrical federalism:

(a) provide a systematic right to opt out, with full financial compensation and without condition, of all existing and future programs, whether co-funded or not, that intrude into the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec;

(b) eliminate all federal spending in the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec once a specific agreement has been reached by mutual consent with the government of Quebec;

(c) transfer, at the request of the Government of Quebec, equivalent fiscal room.

Now, there is a constructive and fruitful motion that people can get behind. That is why the Bloc will probably oppose it, but Canadians and Quebeckers will see once again that the NDP has done everything in its power to try to advance Quebec's interests.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. I therefore ask the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher whether he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not consent.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

There is no consent. Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for questions and comments.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was surprised to hear our NDP colleague veer so far off topic in his speech. He did not talk about the Bloc Québécois motion, but instead indulged in what we call Quebec bashing or Bloc bashing. I was very surprised at that, coming from the member for Outremont.

It is clear from his speech that when it comes to giving Quebec the freedom to make its own choices, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP all feel the same way.

The member for Outremont is a former Quebec Liberal MNA and minister. All the governments of Quebec, whether Liberal or Parti Québécois obviously, have called for limiting the federal spending power. Why is he talking all about federalism, which once again runs counter to the unanimous will of the National Assembly—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for Outremont has the floor.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, clearly, we are going to have to buy a second earpiece for my colleague, with whom I often enjoy swimming. He obviously still has a lot of water in his ears. If he had heard the motion we put forward today, he would know that it aims to achieve just that, but without following the example of the member for Beauce, who goes across Canada denigrating, decrying and mocking all of Quebec's institutions. Is that their model, the member for Beauce? If that is their model—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest.

NDP members like to pretend that if they were ever to take power, a prospect that frightens me, they would respect provincial jurisdiction. However, one of the main planks of their social policy platform is to invade jurisdictions by establishing laws such as the early learning and child care act, which would strip parents of the freedom to raise their children as they see fit and intrude on provincial jurisdiction in education and child care.

Our government prefers the universal child care benefit, which helps all families equally throughout Canada. I wonder if my colleague would explain to us why the party opposed this in budget 2006, and if he would admit that the NDP's proposals only lend credence to the Bloc's argument that federalist parties are always seeking to invade provincial areas of responsibility.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is always my favourite party. Every time its members stand to speak, they contradict themselves in the first five words.

The member just stood and asked whether we did not realize that when we talk about child care we should not be sticking our noses into something that, according to him, is purely provincial. And then, in the very next sentence, he said this was why the Conservative federal government was providing a child care benefit.

What else is wrong with this picture? The Conservatives are unbelievable.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the nation status of Quebec, talked about Quebec in general, and talked about how it has achieved that nationhood. I agree with him on that. There are certainly a lot of qualities there.

However, one of the interesting things is that we, the newest province in this country, had our own currency, our own dictionary, and many other things of our own. We were of the Dominion.

Does he believe, yes or no, that Newfoundland and Labrador is also a nation within a nation?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, although I have managed to convey how surprised I am by the Conservatives' questions, I just cannot get over the question posed by my Liberal colleague.

The Liberal Party of Canada voted with the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives to recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada. The specificity of the Quebec nation has been unanimously recognized by this House. If he would like his province to receive the same recognition, I suggest the following: he should talk to the leader of his party, raise the matter and we will see what happens. You know what? He will not do it because his leader will never bring it up. Because of the specificity of its language, historical origins, culture, civil rights, and its other specific institutions, only one province has been recognized as a nation and that province is Quebec.