Debates of Oct. 29th, 2007

Opposition Motion—Federal Spending Power

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Bloc has become more irrelevant as we have seen Quebeckers and the Government of Quebec working with the federal government and other provinces to create a strong province within a united Canada.

Limiting the federal spending power will do exactly that. There is an opt out clause. Quebec, along with other provinces, including Nova Scotia and Alberta, supports limiting the federal spending power. This will be in law for the first time: the Government of Canada will not be able to impose its will on the provinces and territories or on Canadians. There will have to be a real partnership and a real conversation about what the majority of Canadians want if a new national program is to proceed. That is how medicare happened. That is how all new national programs should proceed.

We should make sure that if we ever use the federal spending power it has the support of the majority of the provinces and the support of the majority of Canadians.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister's fine speech articulated exactly what this government's intentions are and also the proactive approach this new government is taking to its plan for open federalism.

I join today's debate regarding, among other matters, bringing fiscal balance back to federal-provincial affairs. Before discussing what our Conservative government has achieved on this front in a relatively short time, it is important to place this debate in context.

It may be helpful to my hon. colleagues to think back to the state of affairs of just a few years ago under the previous Liberal government. The former Liberal government believed the concept of fiscal imbalance was mere allegation. It consistently and repeatedly refused to even acknowledge its existence.

Indeed, the former Liberal minister of finance, my friend from Wascana, was unequivocal on this matter. He stated that on “the allegation of a fiscal imbalance in Canada...I do not agree”. He said that “to those who hold these views, I believe that they are, in my opinion, wrong...they are in error”.

Even after being relegated to opposition, Liberals have remained consistent in their position. That is not something one can say often about Liberals, but in this case they appear to be.

The current Liberal leader has repeatedly reiterated the Liberal Party's dismissal of the fiscal imbalance's existence, bluntly stating earlier this year: “Don't ask me to pretend there is a fiscal imbalance...and [hope] I will fix it. I don't want to create these kinds of expectations”.

While the Liberal government was dismissing the fiscal imbalance, the Bloc, the mover of today's motion, was largely ineffective in ensuring the fiscal imbalance was addressed. As a regional party, it has been by its very nature relegated to opposition. In contrast, our national Conservative government, with a strong Quebec contingent, had the ability to deliver by addressing the fiscal balance.

That is where the balance debate has been situated: a Liberal government that denied the existence of the fiscal imbalance and an ineffective Bloc opposition unable to deliver results. Liberals would not act and the Bloc could not act.

When our Conservative government came to power, we committed to an approach of open federalism, an approach that would restore fiscal balance to Canada. In budget 2006, we started the process by setting out a principles based plan. In budget 2007, we followed through on that plan, clearly outlining how we would restore the fiscal imbalance.

Before continuing, I note for the benefit of the House today that the Bloc effectively endorsed our plan to restore fiscal balance when it voted for the budget.

Indeed, by providing over $39 billion in long term equitable and predictable funding for shared priorities, budget 2007 effectively restored fiscal balance with provinces and territories.

What is more, transfers were put on a long term predictable path. Through the Canada health transfer, we are providing provinces and territories with long term support, support that will continue to grow at 6% annually, reaching $30.3 billion by 2013-14. The Canada social transfer, growing at 3% annually, will reach $12.2 billion by 2013-14.

Also, by that time we will have provided $3 billion in total support for labour market training.

Additionally, in that year alone, we will be providing $5.7 billion for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure.

Altogether, funding under these transfers will have grown to $48.7 billion by the year 2013-14, a massive 60% increase compared to the 2005-06 numbers.

We also made governments more accountable to Canadians by clarifying roles and responsibilities while simultaneously strengthening the economic union based on our Advantage Canada blueprint.

Restoring fiscal balance ensures provinces and territories have both the means and the clarity of purpose to develop and provide programs and services that serve Canadians well.

For Quebec, this means that in 2007-08 the province will receive over $15 billion in federal funding for equalization, health, post-secondary education, labour market training and infrastructure.

This plan ensures our federation will work for the good of all provinces and all Canadians, including Quebeckers. Indeed, an array of prominent Quebeckers praised our plan. Quebec premier, Jean Charest, noted that it gave his government “satisfaction in the sense that we have fought for this for a number of years, and now the Conservative government has moved substantially on this issue”.

The then finance minister of Quebec, Michel Audet, called it “a real breakthrough as far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned”.

Another former Quebec finance minister, Yves Seguin, labelled the plan “a big step forward” that significantly redressed the fiscal imbalance.

The well respected La Presse economic commentator, Claude Picher, remarked that the plan tackled the fiscal imbalance issue “credibly and coherently”.

A key element of that plan for restoring fiscal balance legislated in budget 2007 was a renewed and strengthened equalization program. The new equalization program, fair to Canadians living in all provinces, is formula driven and principled.

Based on the findings of an independent expert panel chaired by Al O'Brien, the plan simplified equalization to enhance transparency and accountability.

It cleaned up, in the words of the Toronto Star, “the equalization mess the [former Liberal government] left behind” by returning stability and predictability to the program.

The O'Brien report proposed comprehensive, principle based reform to the equalization program that formed a solid foundation for the program's renewal. This new system provides a higher relative equalization standard. In 2007-08, it will provide nearly $13 billion, a $1.6 billion increase over 2006-07.

Further, the renewed and strengthened equalization program ensures payments are put back to a formula driven measure of provincial fiscal disparity. Provinces with relatively low fiscal capacity will receive the most on a per capita basis, while provinces with higher fiscal capacities will receive less. As a province's relative fiscal capacity declines, the new program will ensure that payments grow accordingly and vice versa.

Consequently, some provinces may no longer quality for equalization payments, while others may begin to qualify. This is the proper functioning of a formula driven, principle based program as envisioned by the independent expert panel.

To quote Al O'Brien himself, budget 2007 “adopted our recommendations as the core framework.... I'm really quite encouraged”.

By restoring fiscal balance, this government, under the Prime Minister and finance minister, has laid the foundation for a stronger federation to help Canadians realize their potential.

In the words of the prominent Globe and Mail columnist, John Ibbitson, this Conservative government has removed:

...the fiscal imbalance as a primary irritant in federal-provincial relations for some time. That's a good day's work, and deserves greater recognition than this Finance Minister has thus far received.

With fiscal balance restored, governments can focus on things that matter to Canadians and work toward our shared goals of a strengthened health care system, an improved post-secondary education system, the best skilled workforce in the world and a modern infrastructure system and a stronger economic union.

Our Conservative government promised to restore the fiscal balance, where the Liberals would not. In budget 2007, we delivered where the Bloc could not.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the overview that he has given with respect to economic federalism in particular.

For the record, I would like to point out that one of the cases that he mentioned, the Canada social transfers, came out of the social union framework agreement, which was an exercise in cooperative federalism. The other case, contributions to training, came out of the labour market agreements that had been reached under the Liberal initiatives over the past several years. Therefore, it is not totally without context here that we start pointing fingers with respect to the nature of federalism.

However, my question is one that is more directed in terms of equalization. The same article that the member referred to also points to the dilemma, with respect to the province of Ontario, that the infrastructure, the investments, the research and development in industry and the trade that stimulates the Ontario economy in order for it to make the contribution through equalization are at risk.

In the member's notion of open federalism, can he see the day when Ontario will be one of those provinces that is a beneficiary with respect to that formula as opposed to the heavy duty load that it is carrying now against the liabilities that it has being a manufacturing economy?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also, as the hon. minister does, reside in Alberta. We are very fortunate that we have such a strong economy in Alberta and have never been a recipient of transfer payments. We always looked, from our view in Alberta, with envy at the strong industry strength that Ontario had. It has been a strong partner in this country and that is an important aspect that we need to address today.

We talk about open federalism. We talk about respecting provinces. It is that respect that the government provides to every province, be it Alberta, be it Ontario or be it Quebec, so they will be able to participate on an equal and balanced level. We all look forward to the day that all provinces and all territories in this country are have provinces.

This government is very cognizant of the issues that are facing some of our provinces, which is why we are working hard to ensure that all the provinces and territories are treated equally, are able to benefit from the strong economy that we have and the jobs that the industries in Ontario provide to strengthen the entire economy all across this country.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member across the floor is mistaken. He is fooling himself when he says that the Conservatives, of whom he is one, can pride themselves on their strong representation in Quebec. I would remind him that Conservative members hold only 13% of the seats from Quebec and the projected vote for their party is only 24%.

I would also like to tell my colleague that the people he knows very well, that is, members of the ADQ—a new little group on the Quebec political scene that is very familiar to the Conservatives—also agree with the longstanding consensus that federal interference in areas of our jurisdiction must stop. The ADQ program states:

That the members of the Action Démocratique du Québec reaffirm their commitment to the principles of the division of power and the pursuit of autonomy, which are at the core of the Allaire report and remain the goal to strive for in a real confederation.

I would like the member across the floor to please explain to me how all Quebeckers cannot accept the theory he is defending.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance should know that the questioner has burned the clock but I will allow him a few moments to respond.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of autonomy, I am quite certain that Canadians have autonomy from Great Britain. That was received a long time ago. I think most Canadians would be most appreciative if the Bloc actually joined with us to ensure Canada becomes a stronger nation as a whole.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with supporters like that, our motion will certainly pass. It is obviously well received by some Liberals.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to tell you that I have the honour of splitting my time with the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

If we were talking about a football score, we might be talking about 49 to 10. Forty-nine Bloc members and 10 Conservative members. Not a wonderful outcome for them.

Far be it from me to boast about this result. The idea is to rein in the Conservative members who are preening themselves on their 10 members a bit. I would recall that the Liberals once had 74 members in Quebec out of a total of 75. Today, they have 12. Why? Because they did not keep their promises. They showed disrespect for Quebeckers, most notably when they unilaterally patriated the Constitution.

The question of the fiscal imbalance is somewhat similar. In the pact that was made regarding the division of powers between Canada and the provinces, there was a very clear division in terms of the powers and jurisdictions of each of these two levels of government.

I would recall that the motion we have introduced in this House says that having regard to the promise of the present government to eliminate the fiscal imbalance, it cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the federal spending power in areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

The government will introduce a bill on the federal spending power. If the other provinces want, they can continue to be under the control of the federal government. That is not what Quebec wants. My colleagues said it earlier: what Quebec wants, as unanimously expressed by the National Assembly, is for the federal spending power to be eliminated in relation to areas under Quebec’s jurisdiction, with full financial compensation for any federal program, whether existing or not, and cost-shared or not, which invades Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction.

On the question of the division of responsibilities, the 1867 pact on the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces was quite simple, in fact, if we look at it in the context of the 19th century. If something related directly to people and how they organized their society, it was under the jurisdiction of Quebec or the provinces. That was the case, for example, for the civil laws, which codified the relationships of people with one another and also the way the society itself was organized, through social programs relating to such things as health care, education, cultural matters and, later, agriculture and the environment.

For the responsibilities of the federal government, if something did not relate directly to people or the internal organization of their society, it could be federalized. Examples include monetary policy, international trade and the general regulation of business and industry. We can see very clear distinctions between the powers of the different levels of government.

In the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister repeated a commitment he made during the election campaign, to limit his spending power. It must be recalled that there are two important concepts when it comes to those limits. First, the limits apply to new programs. At present, the federal government subsidizes existing programs in the amount of $54 billion. Those funds have already been committed by the federal government and they compromise the provinces.

Moreover, there is another important distinction. It is stated that the federal government will limit its spending power and that provinces can opt out and receive reasonable compensation. What does reasonable compensation mean? Is it reasonable compensation for the federal government? That would amount to very little, for the reasons I mentioned previously. Indeed, almost no new program could benefit from this measure, since nearly all the programs under provincial responsibility are already covered by the federal government.

Earlier, the minister of the Conservative government referred us to the Séguin commission and its analysis of the federal spending power. However, what she did not say was that the Séguin commission determined that almost all the provincial fields of jurisdiction are currently affected by the intrusion of the federal government into provincial spending power. I rightly pointed out that we are talking about $54 billion.

I could list a number of fields of jurisdiction where federal departments have intruded, in particular, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the department of Veterans Affairs, some parts of the department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Treasury Board, the Privy Council Office and the department of National Defence. It also affects areas such as economic diversity, the environment and finance, especially taxation. Other intrusions are made by the departments of Industry, Justice and Canadian Heritage and the agencies that report to them, which should be provincial of course. As well, the department of Fisheries and Oceans does not deal only with its own field of jurisdiction but also intrudes into provincial jurisdiction in terms of the environment. The departments of Human Resources and Social Development, Natural Resources, Health, Public Safety, Transport, including Infrastructure Canada, also intrude; and I am only mentioning some of them.

The federal government must make a commitment to respect the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly and of all stakeholders across Quebec. The most recent motion on this topic was again adopted unanimously by the National Assembly in June 2002.

In short, it seems to me that the motion before us today is one that should be welcomed by all parties in the House of Commons. It reflects the commitments made by the last two governments, especially the current government. If that is not to be seen as a frivolous commitment, once again deceiving the people of Quebec, we must proceed in the direction of this motion from the Bloc Québécois. It is the only way to correct this very serious injustice towards the provinces.

I repeat, some provinces want to remain under federal control because it is in their interest and is what they want, but that is not what Quebec wants. I, therefore, invite my colleagues in the House of Commons to vote in favour of our motion.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague opposite, who speaks about the spending power.

First, I would like to remind him that, in the Speech from the Throne and during the election campaign, we discussed the spending power. We are the only party that put everything on the table. Before, the Liberal Party did not make this an election promise. We made it an election promise and we indicated this. This subject was most certainly on the agenda for the second throne speech

Since the beginning, I believe that members on the other side of the House have agreed with us—even though the approach strikes them as a little tiresome—that we are practising an open federalism, which they never did.

All they have done until now, that is for the last 17 years, is that, instead of being a separatist party, they have been a do nothing party. For the last 17 years, they have been parked in Ottawa and they are unable to return to Quebec City.

We offered to discuss the spending power. Today, my colleague seems to know it all. He knows in advance everything that will be discussed and he thinks that he should reject it outright. Since the beginning, the Bloc members have been saying no when they have not yet seen the text, the regulations, nothing at all. However, they say no right away.

Where did my colleague find all these answers, since I do not have them right now?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My answer is that there are two reasons for that. The Speech from the Throne explains when limits will be placed. First, there will be limits only for new programs, but we know that there will be practically none. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, all aspects of areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces are already covered by existing programs.

Second, there is the issue of reasonable compensation. We know that, for the federal government, reasonable compensation is very different from the real value of the programs.

I will give two examples. This is one reason why I appreciate it when the member focuses on the attitude or the behaviour of the previous government because nothing has changed with this government.

There is a deficit with regard to the upgrading of municipal infrastructures. As unbelievable as it seems, this is due to the fact that the federal government withdrew from that area. And yet it kept the money over the last 12, 13 or 14 years, if not 15 years. It kept the money and did not give it to the provinces so they could pass it on to the cities. This just started happening very recently.

With regard to social housing, it is the same thing. We see surpluses of $5.4 billion that could be used for social housing at a time when there is an acute need in that area. The federal government did not invest in social housing for 15 years but it still kept that money in Ottawa.

These are the reasons why we do not believe the Conservatives. We must be cautious because there is a certain degree of apprehension. It is the Conservatives that created that apprehension by setting out the two conditions I stated earlier.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert should know that there is only one minute left for the question and the answer.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

In his December 19, 2005 speech, the Conservative Prime Minister said this:

We will monitor federal spending power, which has been so abused by the federal Liberals. This outrageous spending power gave rise to domineering and paternalistic federalism, which is a serious threat to the future of our federation.

I would like to ask my colleague from Chambly—Borduas if he believes that the Conservatives have in fact been doing the same as the Liberals before them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas has 20 seconds to answer the question.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right, and her question is particularly relevant since it allows me to remind our other colleagues in this chamber that, in Quebec, not only do we feel that we are facing a domineering and paternalistic federalism, but we are convinced that such is the case.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today as part of the Bloc Québécois opposition day. Our motion pertains to a problem that has persisted, in our view, for far too long: the federal spending power. This power constitutes a serious intrusion into Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction. The division of powers was supposed to be firm enough to ensure that the majority nation, Canada, could not impose its views on our nation, Quebec.

I remember the Prime Minister first promising to eliminate the fiscal imbalance. The fiscal imbalance results, in short, from Ottawa raising more in taxes than it needs to assume its own responsibilities. As a result, when Quebec no longer has the tax room needed to finance its own activities independently, the problem cannot be resolved without reducing or even eliminating the federal spending power in areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

In connection with our review today of these obvious intrusions by the federal government, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that the bill the government will introduce on the federal spending power should, at a minimum, give Quebec the right to opt out—with no strings attached and with full financial compensation—from any federal program, whether existing or not and cost-shared or not, which invades Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

I should point out that the Bloc Québécois and successive governments in Quebec City have traditionally held that the federal spending power should be eliminated. The Séguin report, which was supported by all the parties in the National Assembly, recommended that “Quebec vigorously reiterate its traditional stance concerning the absence of a constitutional basis for ‘federal spending power’ since this ‘power’ does not respect the division of powers stipulated in the Constitution” and that “Quebec maintain its demand to exercise an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation in respect of any program implemented by the federal government in a field falling under provincial jurisdiction”. The Séguin commission was very clear that the problem of the federal spending power is closely connected therefore to any discussion of the fiscal imbalance. The exercise of this power is based on the surplus resources under the control of the federal government.

The Conservative government is hesitating, however, to do all that it promised and seems to prefer reserving this power for its own purposes. The Prime Minister fuelled a lot of expectations, however, on December 19, 2005 when he said, “We will work to eliminate the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces”.

As I said earlier, eliminating fiscal imbalance involves eliminating federal spending power in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. I add that, in November 2006, Le Devoir quoted the Prime Minister as emphasizing the importance of eliminating federal spending power:

I have said many times, even since the election of this new government, that I am opposed and our party is opposed to federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions. In my opinion, such spending power in the provinces' exclusive jurisdictions goes against the very spirit of federalism. Our government is clear that we do not intend to act in that way.

This is what the Prime Minister was saying. Yet, despite all this goodwill, we read something totally different in the recent Speech from the Throne:

To this end, guided by our federalism of openness, our government will introduce legislation to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This legislation will allow provinces and territories to opt out with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs.

There are a number of nuances to be made here. First, the government says that it will limit spending power. Indeed, it will be limited and not eliminated. For the benefit of our viewers, limiting means that federal spending will be limited in new shared-cost programs only. The problem is that there are shared-cost programs, but very few of them. So they are announcing a limit to federal spending in areas that are exclusively Quebec's jurisdiction.

What Quebeckers must understand is that most federal spending in Quebec's jurisdiction goes not simply to shared-cost programs, but to blatant meddling.

Some of my colleagues will remember that, in the 1950s and 1960s, most federal spending in Quebec's jurisdiction was cost shared, such as hospital insurance, income security and many others. Well, now, shared-cost programs are increasingly rare. The number of unilateral initiatives by which Ottawa meddles directly in matters not in its jurisdiction has grown since 1996. Now, Ottawa uses conditional transfers to the provinces to get them to act on its priorities.

Meddling takes other forms as well, such as the Conservatives child tax benefit and the taxable $1,200 benefit. I would point out too that there are only two shared-cost programs: the infrastructure programs and the agriculture policy framework.

Another surprising nuance, the government will limit its action to new programs only. Previous shared-cost programs were few in number, and only the government's new creations will be affected. They are certainly reining in the power.

I would also draw members' attention to a specific point. During the 2005-06 fiscal year alone, the federal government spent no less than $55 billion in areas outside its jurisdiction. That is quite a lot, since each time Ottawa puts a program in place or spends in an area that should be Quebec's, Canada decides how Quebec society will be organized.

In addition, when the government tries to limit this power with a minimum of restrictions, it adds more with its "reasonable compensation" for new shared-cost meddlings.

In fact, however, what does "reasonable compensation" mean? What assurance will we have that it is full compensation? In fact, we should take it to mean that Ottawa reserves the right to punish the provinces refusing to take part in its new programs.

And finally, as if that were not enough, we have the completely absurd situation of this government reserving the right to impose Canada-wide standards, even in areas that are not under its jurisdiction. In simple terms, the right to opt out partially from new interferences would be available only to provinces that are compatible. The more perspicacious among us will guess that if Quebec makes choices that are different from Canada’s, well that will be the end of the right to opt out.

After all that, I am wondering where the openness is in this federalism.

In fact, Quebeckers have to understand that the situation as regards our autonomy is deteriorating. Two years ago, Canada controlled 18% of the Quebec government’s budget. With the increases in transfers announced in this year’s budget, Ottawa has now control over 22% of Quebec’s budget.

I would point out to my fellow citizens that this will reach a quarter of Quebec's budget two years from.

But the Bloc is calling on Ottawa to agree to simply stop spending in areas under Quebec’s jurisdiction, in particular by eliminating the federal spending power outright, because Quebec has always disputed the legitimacy of that power, and by giving Quebec the right to opt out with no strings attached and with full compensation from any federal program in an area under provincial jurisdiction.

For all of the reasons that have been stated, it is obvious that the Prime Minister’s good intentions were not to be found in the recent throne speech. But the Bloc Québécois is aware that Canadians do not want to completely eliminate the federal power to interfere, because they want the central government to be able to set directions and priorities for the entire country in respect of everything.

That is why our motion is proposing a flexible compromise, by saying that Ottawa should, at a minimum, give Quebec alone a full right to opt out in respect of all federal spending that impinges on areas that are under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

The major advantage of this motion is that our Canadian friends will, if they want, be able to continue denying the division of powers for themselves, but not for us in Quebec.

I will conclude with these words from René Lévesque, which offer an incisive summary of my thinking:

We have lost count of the “national” projects that Ottawa intends to impose by using its spending power, on issues as varied as daycare, forests, parks, etc. We are seeing a mutation, in the deep sense of the term, of what the essence of Canadian federalism has been these past few decades: the provinces' areas of jurisdiction are no longer ever considered exclusive by Ottawa, which arrogates the right to intervene for every purpose to impose its “national” standards in this field, supposedly for the greater good of all Canadians.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's contribution to the debate on the motion. It is easy for the Bloc members to talk about how the federal government should monitor spending power or do this, that or the other thing. However, they never talk about what they might be able to do.

I would like to tell my Bloc colleague, who voted in support of our government twice, that we, the 10 members from Quebec, are getting a lot more done than the entire Bloc Québécois machine.

My question for her today is a timely one. Does my colleague agree with Pauline Marois, the leader of the Parti Québécois, which is the Bloc's head office, and her Quebec identity bill, which would prohibit English speakers in my province from running for office? That is a power that we share with them, and I would like to know what the Bloc members think of this proposal before I share mine. Do they support the bill?

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Once again, I would point out that my Conservative colleague has a special ability to raise issues that are not on the agenda. Perhaps he is not truly here in this House, listening to what people are saying. Perhaps he is not aware that today is the day the Bloc Québécois is devoting to talking about the federal spending power.

I am not sure how to answer because it seems to me that the question has nothing to do with this debate. However, in response to his assertion that there are 10 Conservative members, the votes have been tallied. I would remind him that there are 49 Bloc Québécois members from Quebec and that we are totally dedicated to representing Quebec in an utterly dignified, perfect way. He should start acknowledging that reality when he has something to say.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. First, I would like to bring her back to December 19, 2005, by way of a preface to my remarks. I know that she is familiar with that date and that she has referred to the speech delivered by the Conservative Prime Minister on December 19, 2005. That is the speech he made before the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, which I call the broken promises speech. One of these promises was to monitor the federal spending power. He said:

We will monitor federal spending power—

What has he done? Nothing. A big zero. I would like to hear my hon. colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant on that.

In addition, the Prime Minister said:

This outrageous spending power gave rise to domineering and paternalistic federalism, which is a serious threat to the future of our federation.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on this domineering and paternalistic federalism and to tell me what difference, if any, there is between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant has 45 seconds to answer that question.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her pertinent question. I wish to remind the House of what was conveyed in the speech the Prime Minister gave in December of 2005. There is such a huge difference between what he says outside this House and what he says in the House that I wonder where the clarity—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

—the transparency is. I agree with my colleague that there really is no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois is here to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Government Appointments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

What we are debating today is the Bloc Québécois motion concerning elimination of the federal spending power.

Before the reading of the throne speech, the Bloc had laid out certain non-negotiable conditions relating to it. If these conditions were not met, Bloc members would vote against the speech. One of those conditions was the total elimination of the spending power. With a careful reading of today's motion, we can see that its purpose is really to counteract one of the claims made by the Conservative government: that it had supposedly solved this country's fiscal imbalance.

It is fairly easy to claim one has solved something one has never defined, especially when one has not put a dollar figure to it. Under those circumstances, a claim can easily be made that one has a solution to a problem. But it has never been identified, never been defined, never had a dollar figure put on it. That is exactly what the situation is as far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned.

Then the Bloc proposes total elimination of the federal spending power. No surprise there, that the Bloc would adopt such a position but the surprise is that the Bloc is confusing two things: eliminating and limiting.

If memory serves, there was talk of limiting the federal spending power. In October, the leader of the Bloc said that “encadrer”--limiting, meant “éliminer”--doing away with. I imagine he uses the same French dictionaries as I, and if one reads the definitions for eliminate and limit, one cannot conclude that they are synonymous, can one?

Elimination means that something will no longer be in existence at all. Limiting means that limits have been imposed on it. The Bloc needs some consistency in its use of French and needs to say exactly what it wants and not what the Conservative government wants, which is in a completely other register. The Conservative government is in favour of a federalism of openness. As am I.

But I need convincing that this Prime Minister has shown proof of his federalism of openness. This government has been in power for 21 months. There has, however, been not one meeting of all the first ministers of this country to discuss issues affecting all Canadians. Not one meeting with all the premiers. Yet we are in a federation made up of various levels of government of importance to their citizens. Each has its own role to play, as well as a complementarity role with respect to one and the same citizen.

Why is the present Prime Minister not capable of meeting with all of his colleagues, the premiers of the provinces and the leaders of the territories, in order to discuss some extremely vital issues?

We are faced with two extremes. On the one hand, the Bloc wants to completely eliminate the federal spending power and, on the other, the Conservative government is proposing a text that, I would say, is not very meaningful. The government says that it will “place...limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction”.

That is just flim-flam. At present there are very few shared-cost programs. It is as though we were referring to the 1950s or 1970s—I'm not quite sure. Today, these programs are almost non-existent.

Thus, we are anxious for the legislation to be tabled in this House, to see what it is truly all about. However, based on the throne speech, we might as well say that it will make absolutely no difference to our provinces that—I would like to point out—often struggle with concerns of great importance to the citizens.

At present, in the federation, we are working with all the provinces. That is what my government did at the time. You will recall that we signed agreements with our provincial counterparts in some very important areas. For example, the health accord is an agreement involving billions of dollars in which the special characteristics of the provinces in certain areas were recognized. The accord even acknowledged the concept of asymmetrical federalism, another term inviting us to respect what each province is doing in its areas of jurisdiction, particularly in the areas of health and social services. We did that.

Today, I did not hear anyone question that. Yet, this is a reality. When we wanted to set up a child care program, we first consulted the provinces to see whether they would agree to a national child care program. We would have signed individual agreements with each province. When we approached the Quebec government, we realized that it already had a child care program in place. We took that into consideration and, under the family policy, we transferred money that could be invested in other areas related to family child care services.

Is this not a federalism that is geared toward people, a federalism that should be implemented in partnership with the provinces and the other levels of government? This is precisely what we tried to do and, in my opinion, we achieved very concrete results.

However, when I read the Bloc's motion, I realize that it wants to completely eliminate this way of doing things, this partnership. But we are living in a complex world, a world in which Canada must often compare itself to other countries, and this is why all the provinces and the Canadian government should work together to improve the well-being of Canadians across the country, including Quebeckers. We need to all stick together to achieve these objectives.

It goes without saying that the Canadian government will always have a role to play. Therefore, it must use its spending power while respecting its partners in the federation. It is with that in mind that we, Liberals, intend to work. This is why we cannot accept the Bloc's motion, which goes to the other extreme and which seeks to “eliminate”.

I realize that the Bloc is trying to get a new lease on life with its sovereignty project and that, as far as it is concerned, the federal government should not even exist. However, we do not share this view in the Canadian Parliament, and this is why our party will oppose this motion.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, has the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie read the motion tabled today by the Bloc Québécois?

The motion refers clearly to “elimination of the federal spending power in areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec”.

It is not a case of removing all of the budget reserved for other matters, such as defence or international aspects. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the fields of jurisdiction of the provinces.

“Elimination” is the precise term that applies to the fields of jurisdiction and “placing limits” deals with the question of placing limits on the process of tax transfers to Quebec.

How can she say that we talking about something total and complete for Quebec when she has not even read the motion?