Debates of Nov. 17th, 2004

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, in this context of September 11, terrorism must certainly be eradicated. We certainly have to have controls and to ensure public safety.

However, I am concerned with the delicate balance that we must maintain between safety and freedom. We see this often in the issue of violence against women: when there is excessive control, all kinds of acts of violence happen. So I have mixed emotions about this.

I wonder about this and I would like to ask the member about it. When the bill was being developed, we heard that there was a possibility of having an privacy officer. Why was this measure rejected? We have organizations for the protection of consumers and all collective rights. It seemed essential to me therefore to have this privacy officer, because this excessive control may lead to major abuse.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for her question.

I am trying to say, as the other speakers on this side of the House have already done, that no additional power has been given to the minister through this bill. At the same time, the commissioner appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to point out that she was satisfied with the bill. She still suggested other measures which, if I am not mistaken—I was not a member of the committee—were unfortunately rejected by the committee.

However, I can assure the member for Trois-Rivières that freedoms are not threatened. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms remains in force. We have means, through this Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is quite valuable, to ensure a good balance between public safety and freedom in this bill.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his presentation. He talked like an expert on the topic.

I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-6, which seeks to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

My party supports the bill. However, it has some concerns regarding measures that could jeopardize the delicate balance between security and the freedom of Quebeckers and Canadians.

We will recall that on December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister created the portfolio of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which combines the activities of the solicitor general aimed at protecting Canada from natural disasters. The department ensures policy cohesion among six agencies, namely the RCMP, CSIS, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Firearms Centre, Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board.

Looking at Bill C-6, we realize that the minister has huge powers. He plays a leadership role relating to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness while respecting the Prime Minister's prerogative in matters relating to national security and the statutory authorities of other ministers.

The minister establishes strategic priorities for and coordination of portfolio agencies, while respecting their distinct mandates, cooperates with provinces and foreign states, and facilitates the sharing of information among public safety agencies as authorized under current Canadian law.

I will now talk about emergency measures in case of disasters. In 1996, I personally lived through the Saguenay floods. When a major disaster happens, concrete measures must be taken quickly.

I speak about them first hand having spent all my professional life in Chicoutimi where I was involved in emergency measures planning. In case of an emergency or a disaster, my role was to coordinate.

We all remember the July 1996 flood in the Upper Saguenay, the Lower Saguenay and the majority of the municipalities of my riding, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, including Chicoutimi, La Baie, Laterrière, Lower Saguenay, Anse-Saint-Jean, Ferland-et-Boileau and other cities and communities outside my riding, like the city of Jonquiere and other surrounding municipalities, with a population of about 160,000 persons. This area includes two large basins collecting water used to produce electricity. I am of course talking about the big Lake Kénogami and the big Lake Ha! Ha!

For almost a week, we had heavy rains in the region covering the Upper Saguenay, all the cities that I just mentioned, and the Lower Saguenay. The two basins overflowed of course. They filled up just like this glass would fill up if I were to put it under a tap. It would of course fill up, and then it would overflow.

Rivers and waterways helped to drain off the water, but because of the dams holding back the waters, the basins were flooded and expanded. Large communities located on those waterways and basins were flooded. We had to relocate a lot of people. That brings me to the importance of quick emergency response.

This happened on a Saturday when I was on holiday. The public safety authorities in my area and the emergency planning committee called me. We got together to evaluate the situation. After a few hours, of course, the situation was so bad that already there was a real overflow. We immediately contacted the mayor of Chicoutimi who was an active participant in emergency planning.

A few hours after becoming aware of the situation, he declared emergency measures in Chicoutimi because of the flooding and the overflow of the main reservoir. In the case of Chicoutimi, it was Lake Kénogami. Other municipalities in similar locations made the same decisions at about the same time: to implement emergency measures or to implement an emergency plan, which meant evacuating the population, setting up structures to accommodate and feed them, and all the other details such a plan requires.

A great deal of cooperation is also required among all levels involved. Since I am here in this Parliament, which has responsibility for the federal services available in my region, I can state that I am aware of this great collaborative effort and the great responsibility these emergency plans entail. They are implemented by Quebec emergency preparedness, by a delegation in each region. The emergency plan, under the direction of the mayor of the municipality and all the municipal departments, is where the responsibility remains. The federal services in that area were the army—we have a base at Bagotville, in Haut-Saguenay—and the RCMP and weather services. These all put themselves under the leadership and responsibility of the emergency measures plan. As far as the army was concerned, more specific measures were involved, and it was mandated to look after a specific area of intervention.

All this shows the need for collaborative efforts, and there certainly was cooperation. An emergency measures plan was put in place, and put in place promptly. As a result, the population was spared a good many problems.

I was also able to see what help was provided by the various players in society. As you remember, all of Canada was made aware. In my region of Quebec, the population was mobilized to help our community, our people. When a disaster hits, political allegiance does not count any more.

I can bear witness: there is simply cooperation and it is important in this type of situation.

Indeed, who is in a better position than the people who live in regional county municipalities and who work with the Government of Quebec to monitor the arrangements made to ensure the safety and the operation of those emergency measures.

Let me go back to the emergency measures. In municipalities, they are periodically reviewed. Needless to say, when an emergency plan is redone, it is as if, tomorrow morning, a disaster will happen. That means that some people are in charge in that structure and their telephone number and address must be available so that they can be contacted rapidly.

The Government of Quebec has established public emergency measures in cooperation with community stakeholders in order to have in place the means to better forecast such incidents. The Government of Quebec has the tools to manage the procedures to be followed in case of a disaster in the province.

At home, we had the flood, the flood of 1996 and the ice storm of 1998, which have contributed to making the population aware that it was exposed to certain risks.

These two events also gave rise to serious questions as to the ability of the Quebec civil security system to ensure adequate protection of people and property in the case of major disasters.

The Quebec government thus elected to have both these events analyzed by a scientific and technical commission called the Nicolet commission. This body made recommendations, of a technical, as well as a legal and legislative nature. It led, on December 20, 2001, to the creation of a new law which replaced the Act respecting the protection of persons and property in the event of disaster. The implementation of this legislation concerned citizens as well as businesses, municipalities as well as the government.

Today, Bill C-6 seek to create a national security structure. Its objectives are legitimate and we understand them. We simply want to stress that the Government of Quebec possesses a department of public safety which is already in tune with the situation in Quebec and that public safety comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

Nonetheless, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-6. We remain concerned, however, by measures which could imperil the balance between the security and freedom of Quebeckers and Canadians, as well as by intrusions into the public safety activities of the Government of Quebec.

Today, I ask the Liberal government to explicitly recognize in this bill respect for the jurisdiction of Quebec. On June 28, Quebeckers and Canadians demanded changes in the way the country is being governed and more compromise in our policies.

The availability of a Canada national safety policy might lead the federal government to interfere in areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. It is time for federal intrusions in the areas of jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec to stop.

Today, the federal government spends more in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces than in its own areas of jurisdiction. We must draw a line somewhere to avoid confusion.

Fortunately, concerning emergency plans, as I was saying, this has not happened, nor will it, I hope. Emergency plans come under the jurisdictions of municipalities, and municipalities are the creatures of the Quebec government. Emergency plans become the responsibility of the Quebec government.

We believe in the principle of Bill C-6, because it will allow for better cooperation between the various government organizations. It will facilitate the exchange of information between the various public safety organizations that enforce Canadian laws.

However, we have some concerns about the exchange of information between organizations and states, because this may have an effect on Canadians' right to privacy.

Since 1993, the Bloc Québécois has steadfastly denounced the ever-increasing federal interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. We were elected by the people to represent their interests. We are in favour of this bill, but we will ensure the respect of jurisdictions and of citizens' individual freedom.

I conclude by reminding members of the House that the Quebec government must still be responsible for the implementation of emergency plans. Under these plans, there must be cooperation and integration of the federal government services that we find in a region affected by a disaster.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. I really appreciate his concern for the balance between general rights and personal rights.

It seems to me that organized crime in every generation is different. Organized crime develops so that it can operate in whatever governing sequence of the day. I do not really know, for example, what organized crime was like in the Roman Empire, but I am sure it adjusted to it and had ways of working throughout the Roman Empire.

As Canadians, we live in North America and are next to the richest nation in the world. It is very important that we are aware that there are organizations which are trying to use our best technology and our concern about human rights to their best advantage.

I would simply ask my colleague, in the Confederation that we have and knowing the experience that some provinces have had with organized crime, what his thoughts are about what we can best do in this country to deal with organized crime?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course there needs to be cooperation. I can well imagine an independent Quebec. An independent Quebec would have its own organization to fight organized crime, as it did to fight biker gangs.

I believe we will cooperate with English Canada that will form a country. There will be cooperation and sharing of information. However, Quebec will, of course, have its own set of rules.

This afternoon I wanted to warn this government, those who will be responsible for this law, that Quebec has specific responsibilities concerning disasters. My intervention was mainly based on this.

Quebec has exceptional expertise in this field. I experienced it. I can therefore talk about it. I have trouble seeing a government or a minister intervening in this area of jurisdiction which belongs to Quebec when it comes to implementing an emergency plan.

There is an entire structure to assist people facing a disaster, be it a flood or an ice storm.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord very much for his comments.

I followed the member's discussion about the degree of cooperation that exists between the federal government and the provinces and territories when it comes to dealing with natural disasters or emergencies. I was very interested in the way that he described that.

I know it is consistent with his colleague, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, and his role and the degree of cooperation that exists with the Quebec government. When people are threatened, they throw down all their political alliances, all their other thoughts, and they work together to alleviate pain, suffering and threats.

I had the great opportunity a few months ago to visit Washington, D.C. and the department of homeland security. It has an operations centre where it evaluates threats on an ongoing basis. It collects information from all the various agencies around the United States. The level of participation and involvement ramps up depending on the threat assessment and the risk profile. All the various agencies would be there.

If it was a very large threat, it would involve the department of defence, the coast guard, and the people that are dealing with infrastructure. In fact, here in Canada we have a parallel or similar operation in our operations centre and threat assessment unit. There we bring together these various agencies and departments. So there is a coordinated response to the threats.

The member might recall that a couple of years ago we had the big power outage in the northeastern U.S., parts of Ontario, and I think parts of Quebec were affected as well. However, I would not swear to that. It would be fair to say that the impression created was that there was a lack of coordination. We had various departments and governments saying various different things. The citizens of this country were confused.

Therefore, the intent of this operations centre is to have a more coordinated response to threats such as that, so that everyone is on the same page, if I can use that expression, and that there is a balance between the amount of information that is needed to communicate to Canadians and Quebeckers in a reasonable fashion. There is also the demand to have timely information.

It is a careful balance. I do not imagine it is a science. It is more of an art. However, if there is a better coordination where the people are together and sharing the same information and doing that kind of analysis, I am sure that helps. I know the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has some very specific experience with the flooding of the Saguenay and the toll that it took and the level of cooperation with the various agencies dealing with it.

We now hear for example in Nova Scotia that people are upset with the power corporation. They say that the corporation should have anticipated the kind of snowfall and the effect it would have on the transmission lines and the trees. Has the member studied at all the situation in Nova Scotia? Does he think that the citizens there have a right to be angry at their public utility for not anticipating and preparing for this type of emergency?

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to comment on what the member opposite just said. However, I would like to clarify my comments about the emergency plans. Indeed, I described the facts surrounding the flood that affected the Saguenay region in 1996.

The government opposite is often tempted to interfere in the jurisdiction of Quebec and other province. These past few days, we have been discussing—I will digress for a moment—the establishing of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

The real disaster in case of a major natural calamity in a region of Quebec would be to have, in addition to an emergency plan established by the Government of Quebec and delegated to the municipalities, another emergency plan established by the federal government. I can tell you that that would be very bad, even unacceptable and inconceivable, given the necessity to act extremely fast in such cases.

In any emergency situation, there has to be an order of command and direction, and it must order remain one of the responsibilities of Quebec. All the government services in place for security and safety purposes must fall under Quebec's emergency plan.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent to proceed immediately to the adjournment proceedings.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Shall we see the clock at 6:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, as much as the Liberal government would like to portray those who knew about, accessed, and benefited from the sponsorship fund as isolated individuals far removed from the corridors of power in Ottawa, it has become increasingly clear that this is not the case.

Liberals in cabinet knew about the sponsorship fund and used it. We now know that when the Prime Minister was finance minister, his office intervened on behalf of a Liberal supporter seeking federal sponsorship money.

The proceedings of the Gomery inquiry cannot and should not prevent the Prime Minister nor members of the Liberal government from standing up and answering to Canadians. That is their job. It is why they receive a paycheque. It is why they should be accountable to the millions of Canadians who want to know why their hard-earned tax dollars have been funnelled away from real priorities and into the back pockets of Liberal cronies.

Unfortunately the people of Canada have become accustomed to the government's lack of accountability. They have watched the government blow over a billion dollars and counting on a gun registry instead of getting tough on crime, or waiving the CAIS deposit for struggling producers.

If the sponsorship scandal was just about the waste of 100 million taxpayer dollars, that would be bad enough, but in fact the scandal is about more than waste. The scandal has revealed cronyism, a blatant misuse of public tax dollars to reward friends of the Liberal Party, and the blind pursuit of narrow, political self-interest. It has implicated senior government officials and elected members of the Liberal Party in what can only be described as an enormous misuse of public funds for personal and political purposes and it has uncovered criminal activity.

The longer this scandal drags on, the more it undercuts the faith and trust that Canadians have invested in their government. That is why the Prime Minister is obligated to answer the questions being posed by the opposition.

Previously the Prime Minister claimed he never made use of the national unity fund. In this very House he said, “Mr. Speaker, first, the answer to the question is: none. I have not used it”. That is in Hansard of March 10, 2004. However, documents reveal that the Department of Finance, headed by the now PM, had accessed the fund for $1 million in 1999-2000.

It has also come to light that in 1999, when the Prime Minister was finance minister, his office called Alfonso Gagliano's office about a sponsorship request that came from Serge Savard, who headed a sports group, seeking $600,000. After the phone call, Serge Savard's group was given $250,000. The Prime Minister defended this by saying his office was helping a constituent. That is simply not true. Mr. Savard is not a constituent. He is, however, a prominent benefactor of the Liberal Party and was a major fundraiser for the Prime Minister's leadership campaign.

The question I posed to the Prime Minister was simple and straightforward and it deserves a straightforward answer. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's designate, the Minister of Public Works, chose not to answer that question on October 22.

Instead of responding to an inquiry made on behalf of the hard-working residents of Palliser, whose courage in the face of a BSE crisis and a crop disaster deserves better than Liberal game playing, the Prime Minister's designate avoided the question.

Instead of being straight with the people who send their tax dollars to Ottawa to fund noble causes such as the defence of this great country and not Liberal slush funds, the Prime Minister's designate instead chose to delay and deny. I will give the Prime Minister or his designate another opportunity today to answer by repeating my original question.

Did the Prime Minister's office make any other calls to Gagliano's office to secure sponsorship money for any other benefactors of the Liberal Party who did not reside in the Prime Minister's constituency?

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for Palliser. I welcome the fact that he asked for an adjournment debate on this question.

It is important that members of the House and Canadians as a whole understand how determined the Prime Minister and the government are to get to the bottom of this matter.

Today I want to remind everyone of the countless actions that the government has taken and continues to take. Let me remind hon. members that the Prime Minister's first act following his appointment in December 2003 was to cancel the sponsorship program and to announce that Communications Canada would be disbanded.

Following that, on February 10, 2004, minutes after the Auditor General tabled her report on sponsorship, advertising and public opinion research, the Prime Minister announced a comprehensive set of measures to get to the bottom of the matter and to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen again.

These measures include: an independent commission of inquiry headed by Justice Gomery; a special counsel for financial recovery; whistleblower legislation; measures to strengthen the audit committees for crown corporations and the possible extension of the Access to Information Act to crown corporations; reviews on changes to the governance of crown corporations, on changes to the Financial Administration Act and on the accountability of ministers and public servants.

In addition, the RCMP continues to look into this matter. Charges have already been laid and the RCMP is continuing its investigation and will follow every lead wherever it may lead.

With these various measures and investigations, I ask hon. members, does it look like we want to hide from the issues? No way. Does it look like we want to get to the bottom of it? I think the answer is clear.

Our actions do not end there. Last February, following the tabling of the Auditor General's report, we allowed the public accounts committee to be struck early so it could begin the review of this matter. The House will recall that when the Auditor General reported on February 10, committees had not yet been struck. The government cooperated with the opposition and allowed the public accounts committee to be struck early. The government cooperated fully with the committee's work. We took the unprecedented action of providing it with cabinet documents dating back 10 years. Does that look like we are trying to hide information? Of course not. In my office, three and a half feet of information was available to all the members of the public accounts committee.

May I add that the information commissioner, in his 2003-04 annual report applauded the government's openness. The commissioner commended the government's policy of proactive disclosure of the travel and hospitality expenses of ministers and senior officials and the government study on making crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act.

Canadians are outraged by what happened with the sponsorship program, and rightly so. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Works and the government as a whole will not rest until we get answers. We believe that with the many actions taken and with the investigations under way, we will get our answers.

Members on all sides of the House have repeatedly called for a judicial inquiry. The Prime Minister set up the inquiry to get to the bottom of the matter. Justice Gomery is doing his work and we should be encouraging him. It is important that we allow Justice Gomery to do his work and the government looks forward to his final report.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member being here to participate in the debate. Unfortunately, that was not the question that was asked of the member. It was a simple, straightforward question about a call to Mr. Gagliano's office. The question was: Did the Prime Minister make any other calls to his office to secure sponsorship money for any other benefactors of the party of the member opposite who did not reside in the Prime Minister's constituency?

Justice Gomery does not preclude the highest minister of the land from standing up and answering this question.

It is unfortunate that the member opposite, the Prime Minister and indeed the entire Liberal government continue to evade responsibility and accountability for the sponsorship scandal. Now the people of Canada are being forced to endure non-answers in addition to the inaction of the government.

As we saw on Monday night, the government has no interest in allowing testimony from the public accounts committee to be utilized by the Gomery commission for the purpose of examining witnesses. Given the opportunity to allow the Gomery commission to have full access to the facts of this scandal, the government, aided by the NDP and the Bloc, chose instead to keep Canadians in the dark. It is a simple question. The Prime Minister's Office--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed in this member saying what he just said about the public accounts committee. In fact, the chairman of the accounts committee and his party voted, the same with the opposition and the government, that parliamentary privilege should be maintained within Parliament. To say that they did not is totally wrong. He should go back and talk to his chair. His chair was very clear on privilege in the past and is very clear on privilege now. I am sure he will also be very clear in the future.

May I repeat, Madam Chair? We cancelled the program. We disbanded Communication Canada. We set up an independent commission. We have a special counsel financial recovery report coming. We have done everything as far as access to information is concerned.

We should be taking the politics out of this and getting to the root of the problem and fixing it. The final report that was stuck in the public accounts committee was there because the opposition's chair left the country and did not allow the committee to finish its work. We should be tabling those 30 recommendations on governance in this House today.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the child care network, the new national child care program the federal government wants to set up. Several times, I have asked the minister quite simply how he intends to answer Quebec, which wants a national child care program that would fully respect provincial jurisdictions and the principle regarding the conditions that would relate to this system.

Quebec and the minister for employment, social solidarity and family welfare are asking that no conditions be attached to this new federal program.

Therefore, the answers provided by the minister have left us dumbfounded. Here is what he had to say in answer to questions put to him in the House. The social development minister told us it was too soon to talk about money, that the principles were still being examined and that a new meeting could be held in January where money issues would be addressed. He maintains that his meeting with his counterparts, the provincial social development ministers, in September was a huge success.

Why did the Quebec minister of employment, social solidarity and family welfare leave this meeting saying there was no agreement and that never in two weeks, two months or two years would he agree to the conditions? He said he did not want any strings attached to the money promised. I am talking about some $1.25 billion for Quebec over five years.

To set up a child care system in the rest of Canada it is $5 billion over five years. They know full well this is not a lot of money, but Quebec can possibly do more. We know that since 1998 Quebec has put $1.7 billion in its child care system.

We know they are trying to buy time. They know what Quebec wants and that is how they have operated since I arrived in this Parliament in 1993. I know how this government works. They say they have a program, that it will take time and that we will come to an agreement. However, in the end, it can take years before anything is signed or before any money goes into the provincial coffers.

A motion was passed unanimously in the National Assembly stating that we want money with no strings attached. The Parti Québécois, the Liberal party and the ADQ voted in favour of this motion.

The government is also saving $1 billion. The Government of Quebec covers $20 of the cost, and families pay $7 for using the child care service. Thus, there is $1 billion less in tax credits claimed by Quebec families that use the child care service in Quebec.

What is the federal government doing? It is keeping this $1 billion in its pockets rather than giving it back to the province that is being used as a model throughout the world. The OECD recently recognized it as such, which is why the federal government decided to implement its national child care program.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Madam Speaker, it was clearly expressed in the election platform and particularly by the Prime Minister, that early learning and child care were a priority for the federal government. The government confirmed that by making a commitment in the Speech from the Throne in October, 2004.

We have promised to invest $5 billion over five years to lay the foundations for a truly national system of early learning and child care, with the help of the provinces and territories.

As we stated in the throne speech, we intend to collaborate with the provinces, including Quebec, and the territories, as we have in the past, in order to create a new national initiative that will lay the foundations for a national system.

On November 2, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Social Development held a very productive meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts. They laid the foundation for what will eventually become a national system that will ensure better access to quality child care services for Canadian and Quebec families and all children everywhere in the country.

They also agreed on the need to establish a long-term vision based on common values, measurable objectives, and well-defined accountability. All the ministers agreed that early learning and child care must be based on the principles of quality, universality, accessibility and development.

They also agreed on the over-arching need for provincial and territorial flexibility. We have found a way of working in partnership with Quebec, as in the past, while respecting its jurisdiction over childcare and we will continue to find a way.

I would like to remind this House and the hon. member that in 2003 we were very successful in putting in place, jointly, a multilateral framework on early learning and childcare. Quebec was sitting at the table when we were having very important discussions around a system to be put in place. Although Quebec did not participate in the agreement, it does receive its share of funds through the Canada social transfer.

Under this initiative, Quebec will receive $247 million over five years. The new national program will also give the provinces and territories the necessary flexibility to plan and implement activities based on their own needs and priorities.

Quebec's childcare system, as everyone knows, is exemplary, and I can attest to that, being from Quebec, and our ambition is to have one throughout Canada.

I think that we could all benefit from their experience and that, with the substantial investment of new funding by the federal government, we could again help Quebec deal with some of the pressures it is facing in developing its own system.

We have been successful in the past and I am confident we will continue to be.

Obviously, for us to live in a federation like this one, the federal government has to work closely with its provincial and territorial partners because, together, we want to ensure a better future for our most precious resource: our children.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite is saying that the federal government made it a priority. I remind her that the Quebec government made it a priority in 1998. Currently, the program is funded to the tune of $1.7 billion.

We do not want to hear that the federal government will cooperate with the provinces and that the Quebec government will have the flexibility that it needs. What we want to hear is that there will not be any conditions attached to the program set up by the federal government.

As for this $1 billion, the billion that we are lacking in tax credits, we want the federal government to send it back to the Quebec government, because it is the latter that made a contribution by setting up a daycare program.

Indeed, there are principles involved and it is Quebec that respected them. I am thinking of universality, quality and accessibility. Therefore, we would not want the federal government to tell us what to do. The Quebec government did its job, but when a service is provided, it should be paid for.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to the minister responsible, who is a federalist, the funding issue was not discussed at that first meeting. We are at the beginning of the process. Another meeting will be held in January. All the provinces will be present, and Quebec said it would be there too.

I want to assure the hon. member that we will negotiate with the federalist government in Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.)