David Christopherson

[Food Safety, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we all hope that the new discovery of BSE in Canada is an isolated case. The disease once devastated our agriculture industry, and there is huge potential for serious economic problems. South Korea has already moved to close off beef imports.

Can the minister tell the House if the source of the illness has been found and what assistance has been offered to ranchers and farmers?

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I want to follow up a bit on the last question, because it is incredibly unclear as to what exactly the Liberal position is when we talk about the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments, which is exactly the focus of the motion before us.

On the one hand, we are hearing that the party that sponsored the motion in front of us today has said that it should be the provinces that deal with the issue of pricing on carbon, not the federal government, but at the same time it says that the federal government should be stepping up to the plate and playing a leadership role.

Which is it? As well, if the federal government is to play a role, specifically what is the member saying that his party would have the federal government do on the issue of carbon pricing?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as layoffs continue to pile up even higher, Conservative economic credibility is dropping even lower. Canada just had its worst year of job growth since 2009. Plunging oil prices and federal downloads are set to tear multibillion-dollar holes in provincial budgets.

With the health of our economy and the jobs of so many Canadians at stake, why does the Prime Minister continue his political petulance and refuse to even meet with the Council of the Federation?

[Employment, January 29th, 2015]

So if I get this right, Mr. Speaker, losing jobs is good news for the Canadian economy, according to the Conservatives.

Hundreds are being shown the door with no warning, yet this minister expects congratulations because he signed a secret deal to only fire 20% of the staff.

Conservatives rubber-stamp these deals with no transparency and have a record of failure when it comes to holding these companies to account when they break their promises. Just ask any of the thousands of former Stelco workers in my hometown of Hamilton.

When will the Conservatives stop signing secret deals like this that consistently sell out Canadians and their jobs?

[Employment, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, another foreign takeover approved by the Conservatives and another round of pink slips for Canadian workers. Hundreds of staff summarily fired at Tim Hortons headquarters are just the latest sad reminder of the Conservatives' failure to protect Canadian jobs. Many of these people had put their whole careers into this company, only to be let go with no notice when the new foreign owner swept in.

Why did the Conservatives yet again fail to stand up for Canadian workers and their jobs?

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can demand that I answer him whatever way he wishes, but I will still answer the way I wish. The way I wish to answer is to go right back to the first point I made.

The member stands up and brags about these 300 meetings. Can he imagine what would happen if there was just one with all the premiers at one time?

The member is trying to suggest that the 300 number would go down to two. That makes absolutely no sense at all, just as it makes no sense at all for the government to talk about how productive it is when, at the ministerial level or at the minister of state level or even at a parliamentary secretary level, there is respectful dialogue between the federal government and the provinces and territories.

I would extrapolate from the member's comments that the 300 times is meant to say that those were 300 good meetings and 300 good things happened. I am not questioning the veracity of that. However, I am suggesting that starting to have more regular meetings with the Council of the Federation makes a lot more sense than telling it to hit the road.

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response from my friend from Trinity—Spadina. In response to his response to me, I would just point out that in '06 it was not the NDP that threw the Liberals out of power; it was the Canadian people who decided the Liberals needed to be removed from power.

More importantly, moving to ground that we agree on, particularly as it relates to southern Ontario and our shared economy around the Golden Horseshoe, I certainly agree with everything the member has said in terms of the government's record with respect to the steel industry in Hamilton. I think it is fair to say that we could probably apply that right across most of what has been happening in southern Ontario: the lack of concern and the lack of caring.

The member talked about local members. I do not like to attack local members unless there is a really good reason. This is a really good reason. There has not been an adequate response from the government members in our area and from the government. The jobs that matter and the pensions that matter were all treated in a cavalier fashion by the government in terms of the unilateral actions it has had. To this day, the government will still not make public the actual document it signed that has put these jobs and pensions in jeopardy.

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate.

Before I get to the remarks I prepared ahead of time, I just have to comment on the whole notion. The premise of the government's argument was that we do not need to meet at the premier level because all the other meetings we are having work out so well, so there is no need for us to do that. It makes no sense whatsoever, and I think anyone watching this will understand that there really is no defence for a prime minister who refuses to meet with the Council of the Federation. It is just that simple.

I need to say right from the outset that an NDP government would commit clearly to meetings twice a year with the Council of the Federation, once here in the capital and then rotating across the country, once in a province or territory, then back in the capital. It would be part of the ongoing national discussion that Canadians would have, the kind of discussion we should be having, particularly given the challenges we are now facing here in this country.

I have to also say that I find this passing strange. I understand why the Liberals have brought this in, and this is the only sort of side shot at the Liberals. However, with an election coming, we do not normally lead with our chin. In this millennium, while the Liberals were in power from 2000 to 2006, they met a whole grand total of twice with the Council of the Federation. If the Liberals are saying they will up their game, then indeed let us call it that and they have to up their game, because the last time they were in power they did not live up to what this motion says here today.

If I might, I would like to just take one step back in terms of the context for the discussion we are having today. Under our constitution, the federal government and the provincial governments exist as equals. Again, in our constitution, the federated government with its capital and seat of government here in Ottawa is no more important, has no veto above, and has no ability to dictate to the provinces, because the provinces are 100% equal and sovereign in the areas that they represent and that the constitution defines for provinces.

As a former Ontario cabinet minister myself, I have attended federal-provincial-territorial justice ministers conferences. The key to two equals talking and working together is respect. Respect is the cornerstone for a relationship based on equals.

Here is a bit of housekeeping. I need to mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Victoria.

There is a notion that the federal government and the Prime Minister will decide when they will visit the little peons there in the provinces—when it suits them. When they come together, the government and the Prime Minister may or may not go by and say hello. They will decide that, because of course, being the federal government, they are the big shots. They are number one. They decide when we will meet and when we will not.

That is the attitude, and that is the core of the problem. It is that attitude towards provinces and territories. It is the disrespect shown to sovereign governments under our constitution. That is why it is so important that the Canadian people hear clearly that an NDP government would honour and respect that relationship, and we would meet twice a year, once in the capital here in Ottawa and, rotating around, once in the provinces and territories.

If we accept that it is a relationship of equals and we look at what the government is doing, it makes sense that we would go back and look at what the government said it would do in terms of this relationship when it was running to get that strong, stable, Conservative, majority government that it wanted.

What was the commitment? On page 42 of the platform on which the government ran are the promises they made to the Canadian people, when they asked them to give them 39% of the vote and they would take 100% of the power. When they also said this is what they would do with this relationship, it sounded so good. The platform states:

Support the important contribution the Council of the Federation is making to strengthening intergovernmental and interprovincial cooperation, expanding the economic and social union in Canada, and advancing the development of common standards and objectives of mutual recognition by all provinces.

What happened to living up to that promise, because that is sure not what we are seeing? That obligation is not being honoured. Instead, we hear, “I will deal with you when I choose to”. That attitude is what has led to this impasse.

The Constitution provides the division of powers. However, there are overlaps. It is not 10 sovereign nations and 3 territories. We are still within one nation. That is why it is called Confederation, as opposed to a unilateral system, which is the way the government wants to act, as if there is only one government and what it says goes.

We have a Constitution that says the delivery of health care is the responsibility of the provinces and yet, from a confederated point of view, the health of all Canadians is obviously in the interest of the national government, which is the government that has the biggest levers of power to leverage the kind of funding that can provide the support for our universal health care system. Therefore, how can it be that a government that says it stands up for Canadian values on a file like universal health care feels it can just ignore the Council of the Federation and there is no need whatsoever to be talking collaboratively about ensuring that, arguably, the most precious thing that Canadians have is the universal health care system? That should be top of mind of every premier and every prime minister at all times, as well as coming together to talk about how to deliver a health care system that meets the needs of our people, especially as the population is getting older.

There is an awful lot of us boomers. We are getting older. The population around the world is getting older. It is not a new problem, not unique to Canada, but we have a unique opportunity to solve it in a made-in-Canada way, which is through the Council of the Federation meeting with the federal government, as equals.

Retirement security is a huge issue. In 2009, the council called for a national summit on retirement security. What was the government's response in the interim? It was a unilateral cut to our income security by telling people that they do not get to collect OAS until they are 67; and let us not forget the insult of announcing it outside of Canada. Not only did the Conservatives not raise it during the election, but they did not have the guts to do it here on our soil when they attacked Canadians' income and retirement security.

In closing, to tackle the issues that matter most, such as the environment, jobs, our health care system, and retirement security issues, we need to be working in co-operation, and that means showing respect, a respect that has been missing from the Prime Minister and the government, and a respect that an NDP government would make front and centre in our relationships with provincial and territorial governments.

[National Defence, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the minister ignores the Auditor General, disregards veterans, and seems more interested in photo ops than in helping veterans.

Now the Conservatives take money from General Dynamics, one of the world's biggest weapons manufacturers, to pay for our military mental health research.

Do the Conservatives not understand that when our soldiers sign on the dotted line, for unlimited liability, to put their lives on the line, it is the government's sacred duty to provide proper care for them? Do they really not understand their duty to our nation's veterans?

[National Defence, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last night, Canadians heard the grim news that yet another Canadian soldier has been lost to suicide. We all extend our heartfelt condolences to the grieving family of Corporal Scott Smith of CFB Gagetown.

Corporal Smith is the 16th Canadian Forces member to die by suicide this year alone. When we have lost more soldiers to suicide than we did to the Taliban, we have a sacred obligation to ask why. When will the minister recognize the crisis in front of him and acknowledge that his government has not done nearly enough?