House of Commons Hansard #165 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was premiers.

Topics

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Kevin Lamoureux

An iPad is not a telephone.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

An hon. member

It is a telephone. It can be used as one.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I would be allowed to make my point of order, and other members, if they wish to respond, could respond after.

I will give you the reference, Mr. Speaker.

In response to a point of order raised on September 28, 2005, by the late MP Michel Guimond regarding the hon. Joe Volpe's use of a cell phone in the House, the distinguished and certainly honourable Karen Redman, who was the chief whip for the Liberal government of the day and whom the member for Ottawa South supported, said:

Mr. Speaker, collectively we know the rule is that no cell phones are to be used in the House and we take this rule very seriously...I certainly take this criticism very seriously and I will endeavour to make sure the members of the government adhere to the rule of no cell phones in the House.

This is how Speaker Milliken dealt with this:

The use of cell phones is not supposed to happen on the floor and that does include behind the curtains. I have had occasion to chastise hon. members for making this error even behind curtains. They are supposed to go to the lobby to use these things. I would urge all hon. members to cooperate.

We can find this ruling on page 8151 of the House of Commons Debates.

The ruling by Speaker Milliken is serious. There are two issues. One is the disturbance telephone calls or using iPads or whatever can cause in the House. Second, the risk that members of Parliament can become subject to outside instructions during votes is serious. It does not matter how gentle is Charlie McCarthy. We have to worry about who really is Edgar Bergen.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Just in case it is not clear, the member who did this during 50 minutes was the hon. member for Ottawa South.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I appreciate the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans raising this issue. Perhaps we will hear from the member for Ottawa South later on today.

In the future, I would take this opportunity to remind members that with the advancements in telecommunications, members have to be extra sensitive in what they are doing. I am not sure if the member is suggesting that he was using his iPad in some kind of telephone mode, such as FaceTime or Skype.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, in response to your query, he was using it either as FaceTime or Skype or some other means. It was definitely in contravention of Speaker Milliken's ruling.

Actually, the member was in the House when Speaker Milliken gave that ruling.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Vancouver Island North B.C.

Conservative

John Duncan ConservativeMinister of State and Chief Government Whip

Mr. Speaker, after the votes last night, I had numerous other members of my caucus who were sitting toward that end of the chamber tell me that they had actually witnessed this and that at several points, the tablet, or whatever device it was, was displayed in such a way as to pan what was going on here. It was clearly visible to other members of the chamber.

This is very disruptive. This is completely inappropriate. It is against all the rules. It went on for an extended period of time and created a fair amount of consternation.

I think this should be nipped in the bud, just to ensure that we do not have a perpetuation of this kind of activity.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Certainly, I will look into it further, and as I said, perhaps we will hear from the hon. member himself and see what comes of that.

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister of Canada should hold annual First Ministers' Conferences.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, I am pleased to rise in the House to support one of the commitments made by my leader, the member for Papineau. This is a very simple and obvious commitment completely removed from partisanship. I invite all members of all parties to get behind this commitment by voting for the following motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister of Canada should hold annual First Ministers' Conferences.

As I said, I am pleased to speak in favour of this motion because it is very clear to me that it has become necessary; however, I am not pleased that it has become necessary. It should not be necessary. It was not necessary under any of the prime ministers before this one.

Since Laurier, all prime ministers of Canada have felt the need to meet with their provincial and territorial counterparts regularly. They met as a group and also held bilateral meetings. It just made sense. It makes sense for any civilized federation. It makes sense to everyone but the Prime Minister.

In 1906, Prime Minister Laurier called the first joint meeting of premiers and the prime minister. As time went by, these meetings became a regular occurrence. In 2003, the premiers formed the Council of the Federation. The council generally meets twice a year. Unlike traditional first ministers conferences, where the prime minister invites the premiers, the provinces play the lead role in council meetings, which are coordinated by a provincially funded secretariat.

The Council of the Federation has met 23 times since the member of Parliament for Calgary Southwest became Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has not met his colleagues as a group since January 2009. It is the longest such gap between first ministers meetings in 97 years.

The provincial and territorial premiers are criticizing this affront to the smooth operation of our federation, and rightly so. Meetings between the federal and provincial governments in Canada are almost always complicated. They have caused a lot of headaches for many politicians. They have not always led to successful outcomes. However, they often do, and I am confident in saying that, overall, these meetings have been positive for Canadians.

The Kelowna accord, which was signed with first nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples in 2006, was one of the great success stories of these federal-provincial-territorial negotiations. The current government refused to honour that agreement. One can only imagine the progress that could have been made had the Kelowna accord become a reality.

Another success story was the 2004 health accord, a joint action plan with a 10-year funding commitment. Unfortunately, the current government ignored the joint plan and unilaterally refused to extend the funding agreement.

Those are the results of the current Prime Minister's unwillingness to collaborate on a joint project. Much of the blame for the problems with the health care system and the poor living conditions of aboriginal people in Canada can be attributed to the current Prime Minister's unwillingness to work with the provinces and territories.

The provincial and territorial premiers are not the only ones the Prime Minister is ignoring. He does not appear to be any more inclined to meet with his NAFTA counterparts. The entire country is suffering because this Prime Minister does not know how to work collegially with others.

If the Prime Minister had a greater sense of collegiality, he would understand what a federation is. He would therefore avoid wasting so much of Canadians' time, money and energy on ventures that undermine the very foundation of our country's federative nature. A sad example of such waste is the pointless and botched Senate reform saga.

The Prime Minister has spent eight years attempting to achieve fundamental Senate reform, despite the Liberal opposition and literally every expert telling him that he needed to work with the provinces to change the nature of our Senate. In April 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that the Liberals and the experts were correct. Shamefully, the Prime Minister blamed the Chief Justice for this predictable fiasco, when he had only himself to blame for that monumental waste of time and money.

Is he that ignorant of our institutions, or is it plain contempt? A simple, frank, face-to-face meeting between the Prime Minister and his constitutional colleagues could have avoided that debacle.

This is not just about a constitutional principle or a principle of federalism. The absence of first ministers' meetings is having tangible negative consequences for Canadians. Let us look at what is happening right now.

As oil prices and the dollar fall, as our economy faces uncertainty, it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada to meet with the premiers and develop a united plan. Under such circumstances, a Liberal government would hold a first ministers conference.

Because they know how important it is to work together, the premiers will meet tomorrow, a few blocks away from Parliament Hill. Regrettably, they have no scheduled meeting with the Prime Minister in the foreseeable future.

This is not a symbolic issue. Our federation faces real and significant challenges, from infrastructure renewal to retirement income security and climate change. These challenges can only be tackled successfully if all levels of government are sitting around the same table.

By refusing to meet his constitutional partners around the same table, the Prime Minister shirks his constitutional responsibility. By refusing to pull together the strengths of our federation, he fails all Canadians.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to live up to his responsibility? Considering the huge challenges we are facing, why does he refuse to bring together the premiers of Canada's provinces and territories in order to work toward solutions that benefit all Canadians?

One has to wonder why the Prime Minister would choose to postpone tabling his budget unilaterally with no consultation with his constitutional colleagues. Most provinces and territories typically table their budgets in April or May of each year, having had the opportunity to see what the federal budget has in store and fine-tune their own budgets accordingly. By delaying the budget until April at the earliest, the federal government has deprived the provinces of that opportunity at a very critical time for all of them.

Regrettably, the Prime Minister's lack of collegiality and understanding of what the federation means does not stop there. Here are a few more ways in which the Prime Minister is hurting Canadians in all provinces and territories.

On infrastructure, the 10-year new building Canada fund, announced in budget 2013, is heavily back-end loaded; until after 2019, very little money will be available to the provinces and municipalities to help them tackle their urgent infrastructure challenges, stimulate the economy, and create jobs. This is wrong. A first ministers conference would help clarify the needs and establish priorities.

On pensions, the Government of Ontario is currently creating its own version of the Canada pension plan. It is expected to phase in on January 1, 2017.

Other provinces are considering following along. The lack of federal leadership is leading to a patchwork of public pension systems that will act as a barrier to labour mobility in Canada. This should not be allowed to happen. There are much better options, which the Prime Minister might discover should he agree to sit down with his colleagues.

For instance, the Prince Edward Island finance minister, Wes Sheridan, has proposed an expansion of the Canada pension plan that would target the segment of the middle class that Jim Flaherty himself said was not saving enough for retirement.

With respect to old age security, while in Davos, Switzerland, the Prime Minister announced by surprise that the qualifying age for old age security would be raised from 65 to 67. Not only will that unnecessary measure penalize Canadian seniors, particularly the less well off, but it will also have a big impact on the provinces, since many Canadians between 65 and 67 years old will be left to rely on provincially funded social assistance in the absence of old age security.

With respect to refugees, in April 2012, the federal government announced it would no longer provide money to the provinces for the cost of refugee claimants' health care, a cruel measure, as the Federal Court said. Some provinces have decided to deliver this essential service on their own.

With respect to manpower training, in budget 2013 the federal government announced it would cut the transfers to provinces under labour market development agreements. It simply expected the provinces to contribute their own money to its new unilateral Canada job grant. It took years to sort out a half-baked solution to this mess, which a good first ministers conference, held at the outset, would have avoided.

With respect to climate change, in the absence of federal leadership, some provinces have taken the lead on Canada's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While this has led to some positive results, the absence of federal leadership has prevented much better results from happening for Canada.

The comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, is particularly outrageous. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador gave its approval to CETA after the federal government agreed to provide $270 million toward a $400 million transition fund for its seafood canning industry. Once the agreement was signed, the federal government changed its mind. It is now telling the province that the money was for demonstrable losses in that industry after the agreement was in force. This has resulted in the province signalling a willingness to rescind its support for the agreement, thus breaking our federation's united front on this needed agreement.

In the 18 years I have been actively following federal-provincial relations in this House, never have I witnessed such blatant betrayal of a federal government's commitment toward a province. The letter exchange makes it crystal clear that the federal trade minister did concede that there would be a transition fund to help not only the displaced workers but the whole industry. The expression “demonstrated loss” is nowhere to be seen in the trade minister's letters. This is a pure invention.

The good functioning of a federation requires negotiating in good faith and living up to commitments. The federal government should not retroactively invent conditions that were not in the written agreement between ministers. Premiers, like all Canadians, need a prime minister they can trust.

It is because the Prime Minister is so often unable to live up to his commitments and stick to his words that he does not want to meet his colleagues all together? A lack of trust may be the real issue here.

However esoteric federal-provincial relationships might appear to many Canadians, all Canadians want their leaders, especially their Prime Minister, to be trustworthy. Sure, a first ministers' conference agenda might include many other items, such as interprovincial trade barriers, energy policy, pipelines and so on, but I think I have made my point clear.

The leader of the Liberal Party has committed to inviting all of the provincial premiers to an annual first ministers' meeting. Today more than ever, that is the right thing to do. This is why I invite all my colleagues to support the following motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister of Canada should hold annual First Ministers' Conferences.

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Jonathan Tremblay NDP Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Prime Minister of Canada should meet with Canada's premiers. The NDP fully agrees with that and we have been saying it for a long time now.

I believe this goes beyond collegiality. The Prime Minister has a duty here. This is how Canada was founded.

I fail to understand the Prime Minister's attitude or his vision for working with Canada's premiers. In fact, he has no vision with regard to working with them.

Does the hon. member agree that this goes beyond collegiality, that there is a duty here and that in the future, prime ministers, such as our leader, the hon. member for Outremont and future prime minister, will indeed work with the premiers?

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for supporting a motion that, I agree should be self-evident, but is not, for the reasons he mentioned.

The Prime Minister has a hard time working collegially. He likes to meet with people face to face to tell them what to do. He does not like being part of an actual dialogue among peers in a group.

He has a hard time doing that with his own caucus—we know how he treats them—his own ministers, his provincial counterparts and all municipal representatives. Canada as whole is paying the price in every area that I mentioned in my speech, and I am sure that over the course of the day many other areas will be mentioned.

This has tangible consequences. This is not just a question of a constitutional duty, although my colleague is right. This is a question of effectiveness, especially given the economic difficulties we find ourselves in.

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister meets with premiers of the provinces. He has met with the premiers of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta. He meets with them to hear their individual concerns and moves forward with those concerns when he meets with cabinet so that everyone understands what those concerns may be.

I will also add—and the member for Trinity—Spadina should know this as well—that when municipal leaders get together with provincial leaders, they are collectively told in advance to show up with a group solution and not individual solutions, because if they do, they are going to fail. That is the way it works. As a former mayor, I know that we work better collectively than we do independently. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister, in all likelihood, would want to meet with all of the ministers, but clearly all of the ministers must have a group consensus on what they want to move forward with.

What I would like to know from the member is this. From the perspective of first ministers, can he tell me of one instance when first ministers collectively came together with one sole purpose? I know they never have.

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, they will not do so under the current Prime Minister because he is not allowing them to do so. Leadership by the Prime Minister does not mean waiting for a consensus of the provinces; it means building one with them. How can he do that if he does not meet with them?

My hon. colleague is making my point. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to meet his constitutional colleagues one by one. He needs to build a team by sitting at the same table with them as soon as possible. It is his duty to face the challenges our federation is facing.

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. I would ask him to provide some comment on the great things that can happen if the Prime Minister decides to meet with the premiers.

We can talk about the Kelowna accord. We can talk about the health care accord. We can even talk about the constitutional changes from the past. Great things can happen if a prime minister is prepared to meet, through invitation, with the premiers and try to build on that consensus. Could the member provide some further comment on that issue?

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments of all my colleagues up to now. They are all making good points, as I was trying to express in my speech.

I thank my colleague from Winnipeg. I think he is completely right, and I would add something else: meeting with premiers may avoid mistakes.

I gave the example of the saga of the Senate. Over the years, we had this completely useless attempt by the Prime Minister to unilaterally change the nature of the Senate. He could have sat with his colleagues, and all the premiers would have said to the Prime Minister that it would not work, that he could not do it without them. Maybe then the Prime Minister would have listened, or maybe I am too optimistic. Maybe the current Prime Minister is unable to listen in any circumstances.

However, let us try. Let us try a good conference with our constitutional partners. It is certainly something that is needed.

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for many years, and this is the first time in Canada's history that a prime minister has refused to meet with the provincial premiers. Nevertheless, we are a federation. The leader of our country does not want to meet with the leaders of each province.

This begs the question: is the Prime Minister the type of person who does not like criticism? Can he take criticism? Is that why he also has difficulty meeting with journalists? He could cut himself off from everything going on around him. You might say that he wants to isolate himself.

If he had the opportunity to hop on a plane every week and travel around the world, to be in the news and meet with leaders of other countries, he would do it. However, he refuses to meet with the leaders of our own provinces to solve our economic and social problems. That is how he is not living up to his responsibilities as the Prime Minister of Canada.

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague, but I believe that he is being somewhat optimistic about the Prime Minister's ability to work with his counterparts in other countries.

For example, he recently refused to meet with his NAFTA colleagues, which is indicative of a prime minister who has trouble working in a collegial manner.

Furthermore, the fact that he has difficulty working with his provincial and territorial counterparts in Canada hinders his ability to do what he has to do for us abroad. For example, his dealings with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador are shameful. After signing an agreement, the government unilaterally revised the agreement and invented conditions that were not originally in it.

It is clear, it must be said and there is no way around it: the Prime Minister is about to turn his back on the Premier of Newfoundland, and therefore all of us, because the agreement has been undermined. Furthermore, this means that all provincial and territorial premiers are wondering whether they can trust this Prime Minister when they sign an agreement with him.

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am sitting here a bit incredulous, because between the years 2000 and 2006, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin only found time to meet with the first ministers twice.

I absolutely agree that we need to have a Prime Minister who has meetings with the first ministers. However, looking at the track record of the party at this end, I am really hit by the fact that they only met twice in six years, and at a time when people are losing more and more jobs and the Conservatives are missing in action when it comes to a real job action plan, what we have here is one proposal from the Liberals, which is to have an annual meeting.

Is this the best the Liberals can do?

Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' ConferenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

January 29th, 2015 / 10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should check the record.

I remember very well the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, had a very successful meeting with premiers on health care just before the 2000 election, and that meeting resulted in a plan.

Then after Prime Minister Martin met with them in 2004, they ended up with an agreement that gave funding to provinces to the point that the current Conservative government did not add a penny over nine years to what had been decided about health care.

If the member wants a successful example of federal-provincial relations, she should look at the Liberal time. She can be confident that the Liberals will be back, and we will have a full relationship with the provinces and territories.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond, if I could, to the point of order raised by the member for Ottawa—Orléans and apologize without equivocation to the House, to the Chair, and to my colleagues.

I did receive a call yesterday during the votes. It is something I should not have done. I can assure the House it is something that will not happen again in the future.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I appreciate the intervention on the part of the hon. member for Ottawa South. Is the member for Ottawa—Orléans rising on the same point?

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa South for being so forthright. I congratulate him.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank both hon. members for their attention to the matter. I think we will consider the matter closed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.