Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his presentation on constitutional law, even though he got carried away somewhat towards the end.
I cannot find anything in his remarks that contradicts what I said in my speech. No one restricted the federal spending power more than we did in 1996 and through the framework agreement on social union.
In fact, the wording used by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne does not go as far. Why? First, because it deals strictly with shared costs programs, and these programs have almost all disappeared. By contrast, the framework agreement on social union includes all forms of transfers to the provinces.
Second, the agreement clearly specifies that the support of a majority of provinces is required to implement a Canada-wide program that relates to a social provincial jurisdiction.
Third, the federal government cannot set up programs. It can agree on objectives with the provinces, but it is the provinces that establish their own programs. If they have achieved, partially or totally, their objectives, then they can invest in a related area.
This is how the Government of Canada and the Quebec government negotiated the daycare agreement. The Quebec government felt that it had enough daycare spaces—I do not know whether Quebeckers shared that view, but that was the Quebec government's point of view. In the social union framework agreement, the Government of Canada agreed that the Quebec government could invest in other areas relating to children and families. There was an agreement involving hundreds of millions of dollars. What happened? The same thing that happened to the negotiations on the Kyoto protocol: the Conservatives took office and cancelled these programs. Shame on them!