Debates of Jan. 29th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Annual First Ministers' Conferences

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the same thing. There are various different ways of achieving a price on carbon. I am not sure I need to give Environment 101—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

Is the hon. parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify. Does he support a price on carbon?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that the discussion involved a discussion on the price of carbon.

As I said in my speech, given the total absence of leadership on the part of the federal government, the provinces have already moved in their various different ways on this issue and have filled the void left by the total inaction on the part of the federal government.

The leader of the Liberal Party said that he would work with the provinces and provide leadership within their own actions without rescinding the actions that have been taken already by various provinces in this area.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

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?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is actually quite right. It is possible to do two things, and both of those things he mentioned are things the Liberal Party is committed to do.

On the one hand, he mentioned that the provinces have already taken action on this issue. That is correct. We applaud the provinces for that. It would not be the intention of a Liberal government to repeal what the provinces have done.

The second component that he mentioned, which is also true, is that a federal Liberal government would provide leadership on this issue in terms of the direction of the country as a whole. The Liberal government would do something that the current government never does, i.e., we would actually meet with the provincial governments and discuss what each is doing and forge, together, a national and responsible plan for the environment.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Hochelaga.

I am pleased to rise today in the House on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to address a subject that is very important to me, federal-provincial relations. These have been neglected in the past by both the current Conservative government and previous Liberal governments.

This subject is of great interest to me, and so I am pleased to add my voice, on behalf of my constituents, to those of my colleagues. I hope that the motion moved by the Liberal Party on its opposition day will be adopted. I will be supporting it, and I hope that all my colleagues will support it as well. I will focus my arguments on convincing my colleagues to support the motion because there does not seem to be clear support on the other side of the House. I will do what I can to convince them.

Before I get into the details, I want to give a little background on how the Council of the Federation was created. This very important intergovernmental organization was created in 2003 by the provinces, thanks to the leadership of Quebec, led by Premier Charest, who represented Sherbrooke at both the federal and provincial levels. He was the one who initiated talks on the creation of the Council of the Federation, which was designed to be a place where provincial representatives could come to a consensus and involve the federal government in discussions, in order to advance Canada and the provinces' common interests with respect to the interests of the federal government.

I will read the letter written by Mr. Charest that was in the initial agreement, because I think it is important:

The Council of the Federation, initiated by Québec, is inspired by the view of politics that the best way to advance ideas and societies is through extending one's hand, not by turning one's back.

The Council paves the way for a new era of cooperation between the provinces and territories of the Canadian federation.

This permanent organization for exchange and dialogue will bring the relationships among Canada's federated partners into a renewed dynamic. This internal diplomacy [an interesting term that I will talk more about later] will aim to build alliances based on common priorities; it will promote greater mutual understanding of the partners' particular hopes and needs; it will increase the influence of the provinces and territories on the evolution of Canada.

The same document recalls the foundation of our country, which was created in 1867 based on the federative model. It is important to remind those watching us of the principles of this model:

It is worth remembering that [almost 150 years ago] the governments of the former British colonies north of the U.S. Republic deliberately agreed to join together as a state with a federative mode of governance. In choosing federalism, the new partners could preserve and promote their individual identity and autonomy while establishing a new order of government, one that would encourage their development by pooling their resources and sharing risks and opportunities.

At the time, Canada was the first federal experiment in the British Empire. Today, over 40 per cent of the world's population lives in states that have chosen a federal regime.

Canada was the first country in the British Empire to adopt such a system. It goes on to say:

Many countries are planning to adopt this model while others have chosen some of its ideas and features. For these reasons, we must conclude that the decision of the former colonies in 1867 was indeed a wise one.

Further on in that document, they talk about the importance of co-operation and respect for the different levels of government in a federation.

Early in the history of the Canadian federation, the London Privy Council's Judicial Committee emphasized, with regard to the Constitution Act, 1867, that the goal of the act was not to merge the provinces into a single entity or to subordinate the provincial governments to a central authority, but to create a federal government in which they would all be represented and to which would be assigned only the administration of bushiness in which they had a common interest, with each province preserving its independence and its autonomy.

I wanted to provide that brief historical reminder of the Canadian Constitution, the country in which we live and the way that decisions are supposed to be made when they concern several levels of government. That is not what the Conservative government is doing. We have many examples of that, and it is a shame. In 2006, one of the Prime Minister's big promises was to implement open federalism accompanied by a new relationship between the provinces. This is from page 42 of the platform that carried the current Prime Minister to power:

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.

However, even if it was elected in 2006 on the promise of such co-operation, it is now obvious that the federal government has ignored the provinces many times and that it has made unilateral decisions that had an impact on areas of provincial jurisdiction and sometimes even on their budgets.

For instance, the Canada health transfer has been reduced by 3%. There was an agreement under which the federal transfers for health care were to be increased by 6% every year. Out of the blue, the federal government decided that the increase would be 3%. That amount was therefore cut by 3%. That was announced by the finance minister of the day. All of a sudden, it was decided that that was the way things were going to work and the provinces had no say in the matter. They were against it, but the government moved ahead with the change all the same, without any regard for what the provinces wanted. It is the exact opposite of what should have happened. At the very least, there should been some consultation about it, or some discussion that would lead ideally to a consensus. This is the very basis of our federal system. We are supposed to consult with the other levels of government when they are affected by our decisions. We are supposed to try to build a consensus that ensures the decisions we make will be satisfactory to all the partners involved.

Another example is the employment insurance reform that was put forward unilaterally by the federal government, despite opposition from many provinces that did not agree with the changes. They knew the changes would have an impact on their economies.

A further example is the temporary foreign worker program, a rather controversial program that was finally changed by the Conservatives and that did not meet the needs of the provinces. Another one is the Canada job grant. Without even warning the provincial premiers, the government decided to cut $300 million from the funding for training, which is usually paid to the provinces, in addition to creating a program that infringes on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec spoke against it. I remember very clearly when Quebec’s minister of labour and employment went to Ottawa and did everything she could to meet with the federal employment minister, who did everything he could to avoid her questions and any meetings with her. She tried her best to tell him that his decisions were wrong and that they would have a devastating effect on Quebec’s job training programs.

Another example is search and rescue. When the federal government closed the maritime search and rescue centre in British Columbia, there was no consultation.

Furthermore, there was no consultation on the infrastructure programs. The infrastructure programs were imposed. The government does not like consulting. It probably does not like being criticized. I have the impression that the government is afraid of criticism. As soon as it organizes a meeting, the government knows it is possible that it might be criticized and that people may not agree. When there is no agreement, we must not run away and try to do everything by ourselves. The best thing to do is to talk about it and have productive discussions.

I know I do not have much time left, so I will speak briefly about a very important document that I would urge Canadians to read. I am talking about the Sherbrooke declaration that was adopted by the NDP. It was drafted in Sherbrooke and I am very proud of it. One of the things it talks about is co-operative federalism.

I would like to invite all Canadians to read the document and learn about our vision, the NDP vision, for a co-operative Canada.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to recognize and pay tribute to my colleague from Sherbrooke for an enlightening speech. There is one thing on which I would like him to further comment.

In the early part of his speech he made some interesting remarks about the structure of our federation and the history. I had the opportunity to be one of the ordinary Canadians in the citizens' assembly regarding the Charlottetown accord in 1992. I remember learning a fact that the federations were the most difficult form of government to cobble together. They take nurturing.

In fact, in 1992 there were only 20 federations of all the world's countries and three of those were at risk of blowing themselves apart: the Soviet Union, which failed; Yugoslavia, which failed; and Canada, which was at risk. As my colleague from Sherbrooke points out, it is a fragile construct. The very notion of a federal state is the most difficult form of country to cobble together.

Would he comment further on the importance of robust federal-provincial negotiations to keep the fabric of a federation intact and therefore the importance of the resolution we are debating today?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Clearly, there is nothing more important than maintaining good relations among the various levels of government when a federation is involved. In fact, there is nothing more important, because this is what sets the foundations and ensures they are solid in moving forward, toward the future.

Without the discussions that the Council of the Federation makes possible in order to reach a consensus, this would not be a viable federation. Over the long term, we would risk losing it if we did not maintain good relations and preserve co-operative federalism.

There are risks in this kind of situation. The current government is taking a risk by always attempting to proceed unilaterally; these risks certainly make our federation more fragile. It is high time that we had a government, before the end of the year, that would make our federation a priority and ensure that we have a stable and solid federation that will be in good shape well into the future.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow-up on the earlier question by the member for Winnipeg Centre. He was a member of the constituent assembly, I think that is what he called it, in 1992. He stated that Canada was in a fragile state at that point. If I look back, Canada had undertaken a number of federal-provincial meetings throughout the seventies and the eighties. Specifically, they always dealt with the Constitution. It seems to me that if Canada was in a fragile state at that point, constantly meeting the premiers and the prime ministers seems to have brought it to a fragile state. It did not seem to make it better for Canadians. I am not following that logic.

Fast-forward to our Prime Minister who has met with premiers and members of other governments over 300 times and look back at what we have done. When the economy needed help, the Prime Minister in both 2008 and 2009 came forward with Canada's economic action plan and he did that by working together.

Could the member comment on how the over-meetings of the seventies and eighties somehow helped to build our country when the member for Winnipeg Centre said that Canada was in such a fragile state following all of those federal-provincial meetings?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the comments by my Conservative colleague are quite funny, since he seems to think that too many meetings create problems. If there had been no meetings and if no one had spoken with anyone else, can he imagine how the situation might have deteriorated and become a lot worse?

I recall that a few times during question period, my colleague mentioned that he has several children. When there is a problem, does he ask his children to talk about it to resolve the conflict or does he ask them to think about the problem on their own so that it will be resolved magically after a few minutes?

It does not work that way, as I am sure he knows. It is through discussion that problems are resolved. If problems are not dealt with as they come up, they only get worse and become more serious. His comments make no sense.

Discussions do not create problems. Discussions make it possible for us to resolve problems.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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 Ahuntsic, International Development.

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion moved by my Liberal colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. The motion reads as follows:

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

I find it somewhat ironic that the Liberals are moving this motion, considering that between 2000 and 2006, as we have heard a few times today, when the Liberals were in power, former prime ministers Chrétien and Martin only met with their provincial counterparts twice in six years. However, this is not the first time that the Liberals have contradicted themselves, and it will probably not be the last time, either. As my leader, the member for Outremont, likes to say, the Liberals like to signal left but then turn right.

As my NDP colleagues and I have pointed out repeatedly in the House, this government has a serious problem with consultation, co-operation and transparency. It is as though the government were allergic to those things, or they are simply not part of the Conservative vocabulary. Sitting down at the table with anyone who is not part of the Conservatives' inner circle does not seem to be part of this Prime Minister's management style or that of any members of the Conservative government. One only has to sit down at a parliamentary committee meeting to understand what I am talking about. The Conservatives do not listen to the opposition's comments or the witnesses' comments, and they automatically vote against everything put forward by another party.

Furthermore, to date, the Prime Minister has been refusing to even meet with his provincial and territorial counterparts on a regular basis. For the sake of the record, I would simply like to remind the Prime Minister that Canada has been a federal state since 1867 and, accordingly, the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the federated entities or provinces are sovereign in the areas of jurisdiction granted to them in the Canadian Constitution. With that in mind, in order for everything to run smoothly, the various levels of government need to co-operate and work together effectively. When the Prime Minister fails to consult or discuss things as equals with his provincial counterparts, he is simply denying that fact and harming federal-provincial relations.

Nevertheless, in 2006, this same Prime Minister promised to promote an open federalism and create new ties with the provinces. Indeed, the Conservative Party's 2006 election platform indicated that the party would do the following:

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.

Unfortunately, history decided that this party would take office, and since then, the Prime Minister has been denying the wonderful promises he made regarding co-operation and openness by simply ignoring the requests of his provincial counterparts and taking a unilateral approach to governance. A unilateral approach can have serious consequences for a federal state. Since it took office in 2006 and especially since the 2011 election, this Conservative government unilaterally made major changes to a number of federal-provincial programs. Take for example the $36 billion in cuts that the Conservatives made to health care transfers. I do not need to spell out the devastating effects that that decision had on the provinces, which have jurisdiction over health care and will now have to manage with considerably fewer resources.

That is not even to mention the employment insurance reform, the reform of the temporary foreign worker program, the $300 million in cuts to the Canada job grant or the search and rescue centre closures. Did the Conservatives consult the provincial premiers before making those decisions? The answer is obvious.

There is no shortage of examples when it comes to the challenges of housing and homelessness. I will elaborate on that. For years, the NDP has been proposing a collaborative approach to housing. My colleagues from Vancouver East and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot have both introduced a bill in the House to implement a national housing strategy.

The main purpose of this bill was to ensure that the federal government would sit down with the provincial and territorial governments and stakeholders from across Canada to address the housing crisis in this country.

When I say crisis, I mean crisis. According to the 2011 national household survey, 30.7% of households in Canada live in rental housing because many do not have real access to home ownership; and 40% of them pay over 30% of their income on housing. That means that two out of five families live in housing that is not considered to be affordable.

In Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Halifax, this is even higher. Fully 19% of families spend more than 50% of their income on rent. In Montreal, it is about 20%, and in my riding of Hochelaga it is still higher. In Vancouver, it is 24%.

One in ten families who rent in Canada spends more than 80% of its income on housing. My colleagues heard right. That excludes food, diapers and school supplies for the children.

This situation is unacceptable for me and my NDP colleagues. To address this problem, we were simply asking the different levels of government to work together on a plan to address the housing crisis. What did the government do? It used the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as a propaganda machine to assess the alleged costs of implementing such a strategy and justify its refusal to support it. That is unreal. Since when do discussions about a possible collaboration to implement a strategy to deal with a crisis come with a price tag? There is no price tag. I just could not get over it, and that is not all.

In the meantime, the federal government is slowly and unilaterally pulling back from funding social housing by refusing to renew the funds allocated to the long-term agreements with a number of social housing projects across the country. This represents $1.7 billion in investments that enable the poorest Canadian families to find housing at a reasonable price so that they can meet their children's needs.

Once again, instead of working with the provinces, the government is off-loading this problem onto them, and they will have to foot the bill.

In the fight against homelessness, the Conservative government has also acted unilaterally and has taken a paternalistic attitude towards the provinces by refocusing its homelessness partnering strategy. Now, a large portion of an already too-small envelope for homelessness initiatives will be used to finance projects that the government has deemed to be better than the existing ones.

There was an outcry in Quebec, which recently adopted a homelessness strategy. Organizations, mayors of several major cities and two unanimous motions in the Quebec National Assembly called on the federal government to mind its own business and to maintain the general character of approaches to addressing homelessness. This would not have happened if the federal government had worked with Quebec.

Nevertheless, the Conservatives are staying the course. Obviously, the members opposite will say that, in the end, Quebec signed a framework agreement to implement the homelessness partnering strategy's new strategic direction. However, when a province is backed into a corner and told that they can take or leave an offer, we are no longer talking about free negotiation.

Just ask the public sector union members under both this government and its Liberal predecessor. They know exactly what I am talking about.

It is great that one or more of the other provinces agree with the new approach imposed by Ottawa. Federalism is about responding to different regional and cultural realities. Meanwhile, many groups in Quebec are going to lose their funding and some will have to close up shop because of the stubbornness of a paternalistic Conservative government that does not think about the long term. You can imagine who will suffer.

In closing, I obviously agree with the principle of this motion. However, I think that the Liberals could have used their opposition day to talk about another subject. There are so many important ones. All they had to do was wait a few months and vote for the NDP. Once the member for Outremont is elected prime minister, there will be not just one but two first ministers' conferences a year.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

Some of the things she talked about were a bit different from what I have heard so far from other members. We tend to think about the relationships between the different levels of government from a purely economic perspective, but there are other things in life, such as culture and housing.

I would like the member to elaborate on this thought. A federalism that works is a federalism of co-operation. The current government, like its predecessor, does not seem to understand that co-operation does not mean unilaterally imposing measures and it is not just about funding for infrastructure, even though that is important.

I would like the member to elaborate on what kind of attitude is needed in co-operative federalism.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I will talk about two things. I am from Abitibi, and when my grandparents moved there, they founded co-operatives because life was hard. Co-operatives were the best way to survive in many ways, including at work, when buying groceries and so on. Co-operation is still an effective way to help each other survive by working together.

I also have an excellent example from my riding, Hochelaga, where there are many great examples. A lot of people in my riding do not have a lot of money. Some people are actually quite poor. Because of that, over more than 30 years, many groups have formed to help people in need. For instance, some community kitchens have sprung up in Hochelaga.

As Jack once said and as our leader continues to say, by working together we can work better for people. We were elected to represent Canadians. Yes, there is the whole economic aspect and the social aspect, but if we want to do a better job representing people, we need to work for them and not against one another.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for supporting the motion. I would also like to take this opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding that my NDP colleagues seem to have.

Their Liberal colleagues are not trying to say today that the Liberal Party's practice at the time is one that we are going to repeat. At the time, the Liberals were not holding annual meetings, but they were holding them at fairly regular intervals. However, contrary to what my colleague said, Prime Minister Martin brought the provinces together three times in two years, and those meetings resulted in extremely important agreements.

I am asking the NDP to check the numbers. The members are giving us incorrect information, and every member is repeating the same thing. We tell them every time that that is not the case. Three meetings took place while Mr. Martin was in office. They need to stop saying that there was only one meeting. That is not true. Those meetings led to an important agreement for aboriginal peoples, the Kelowna accord, which was unfortunately thrown out by the Conservative government. They also led to the health accord. We are talking about a 10-year agreement that is still in force today. The Conservatives have not added a penny to that agreement since they took office. They simply did not put in place the joint agreement on the action plan with the provinces. That is serious.

I just wanted to clear that up. I would like to thank my NDP colleagues for supporting the motion.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question. I just wanted to say that the point of my speech today was to show that we can accomplish things by working together. I also wanted to point out the extent to which the Conservatives fail to work with others.

Decisions are made and consultations may be held after the fact. We were talking about infrastructure earlier. Consultations were held on the overall infrastructure plan but not on the specifics. The municipalities were very surprised and concerned to find out the specifics because the government did not set aside a specific amount for the municipalities. Perhaps consultations are held, but they are not done right or they are not held until after the fact. That is not how the Parliament of Canada should be doing things.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address what I believe is a very important motion. It should be a wake-up call to the government, in particular to the Prime Minister and the staff in the PMO, that their behaviour toward federalism and their attitude, or lack thereof, in recognizing their responsibility to work with the provinces by not having premier conferences with the first ministers is wrong. I would like to take the opportunity to add a few thoughts I have with respect to why I believe first ministerial meetings are of critical importance.

My seatmate pointed out to me that we had our first first ministers meeting in 1906. The current Prime Minister has not had a first ministers meeting since January 2009. I believe that the Prime Minister not recognizing the importance of first ministers meetings represents a loss of opportunity. I will focus on a couple of agenda items at the get-go as to why it is that the Prime Minister has missed the boat by not going forward with the first ministers meeting.

We have heard a lot about the economy over the last little while, primarily because of the fall in oil prices. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said that there is so much uncertainty with respect to Canada's economy that they cannot even provide a budget date. We believe it will most likely come out sometime in April. If the economy and the forecasting are in such a situation that they had to defer the budget, one would question why the Prime Minister would not want to meet with the provincial premiers to talk about the issue.

We have known about this for a number of months. The impact of the falling oil prices will have an impact on each and every province. We are all concerned about the state of Canada's economy and the impact it is having not only on our national budget but also on the provincial budgets.

Once the federal government provides its national budget, usually within a number of weeks we will see the provinces providing their budgets. That is because, in good part, there is a heavy reliance on knowing how much money the government is investing into social programming and the safety nets that are there. Federal budgetary decisions do have a fairly significant impact on the provincial budgets.

I would ultimately argue that the delay itself could be justification for the Prime Minister wanting to meet with the premiers to get a better sense of what is happening in the different regions of the country, and how a united front with the different levels of government could have a more positive impact for all Canadians.

Add to that the issue of infrastructure, which has been a serious issue for months now within the Liberal Party. Since the federal government's last budget we have been asking questions with respect to the serious cuts that were being put into place for actual expenditures this year and the upcoming year, 2015-16. At the end of the day, we know it is having a profound impact on virtually every community in our country. There is a need for us to get a better understanding.

If we take that into consideration, along with the government's approach on the delay of the national budget, there is a second item that could easily be placed on a national agenda where we have the premiers coming to the table with the Prime Minister.

I can assure members that the premiers all have issues related to infrastructure expenditures. Timing is important. Timing does matter. Infrastructure is investing in our country. If the government seems to be more interested in the election cycle than it is in the infrastructure needs of our country, I suspect that if the Prime Minister were to meet with the premiers, he would be told about them fairly clearly.

I would like to think that the Prime Minister has also met with some of our mayors and municipal leaders. I believe that they have a shared concern with regard to the amount of monies that are necessary to meet our infrastructure needs and where that money needs to come from, at least in part, for us to realize the benefits of investing in priority infrastructure projects.

When we talk about a first ministers meeting, not all of the work is done during the actual meeting. There is a great deal of effort that is put in and invested in the lead-up to the discussion. I would argue that it is the majority of the effort.

For example, if we were to talk about infrastructure, I suspect that what we would have is municipal leaders working with provincial and federal bureaucracy, trying to get a better assessment of all the needs in the different regions of the country. With that, when the first ministers sat down for the discussion, if infrastructure were placed on that agenda, it would be a very wholesome discussion.

That is one of the ways in which we can build the consensus so that provinces as a whole feel they are all being treated equally, that they are being listened to, and that there is a sense that there is a united front as to how much money should be spent in any given fiscal year, given our economic circumstances.

We cannot have that comprehensive discussion and amount of dialogue by parcelling it out. If we wanted to have a national strategy on infrastructure, one of the best ways we could achieve it is by bringing the premiers to the table. A prime minister who was confident of his or her abilities would not be intimidated by the asks that would be put on the table by the different partners of our federation.

It does not necessarily mean that the federal government's only role is to dole out money. We have a federal civil service that I would argue is the best in the world. It has the ability to get an assessment from a federal treasury perspective and from a community perspective by working with the different civil servants at the different levels of the government. The federal government would be very well represented.

However, if we want to build the consensus in terms of having that national program, quite often it is best had at a first ministers conference. We have seen great successes to that effect.

I would like to give a real example, one I have had the opportunity to talk about in the past: health care. I am very passionate about health care, because I believe it is a part of our Canadian identity. If we talk to Canadians and ask them what makes them feel good about living in Canada, being a Canadian or a resident of Canada, quite often the number one answer we will get is a reflection on our health care system.

That is the reason we brought it in decades ago and Pierre Trudeau brought in the Canada Health Act. That is an important issue to Canadians. I remember the 1990s when there were first ministers conferences, when Jean Chrétien, the former prime minister, had premiers come to the table.

Members will say that was when the Liberals cut back on health transfers. However, I was sitting in a provincial legislature debating the issue at the time. The biggest issue from Manitoba's perspective was a fear about a previous agreement that had tax points financing health care, and if the formula was not changed, it was only a question of time before Ottawa would not have cash transfers, just tax point transfers.

I, as a provincial legislator at the time, was saying that I wanted to see cash coming from Ottawa. I believe that was something that was talked about, because back then we asked our premier to raise the issue with the Prime Minister. Maybe I should not take it for granted, but I do take it for granted that it was raised.

I believe Jean Chrétien did a great thing for Canadians by ensuring there would always be an ongoing cash transfer to the provinces. That was a strong statement of policy, and it was in response to what Canadians wanted of their governments, not just the national government but also the provincial governments.

Fast forward to when we had Paul Martin as prime minister of Canada. We are familiar with the health care accord. The health care accord was achieved at a first ministers meeting. It was the prime minister sitting down with the different premiers. Whether it was Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, or Paul Martin, they understood how important this issue was to all Canadians.

In essence, they came up with a 10-year health care accord that guaranteed finances. They also wanted to make sure there was opportunity for Ottawa to have some influence in terms of the way in which health care is ultimately being delivered, if the government wanted to ensure some sense of accountability.

I send out questionnaires and I am constantly consulting with my constituents. If members canvassed their constituents, I have no doubt they would find that they want Ottawa to play a role in health care. Paul Martin recognized that. The best way to deal with that issue was to talk about it in a premiers conference. He sat down with the premiers and came up with this wonderful agreement.

Earlier one of my colleagues made reference to the fact that every other week when we are sitting we will hear a Conservative member of the caucus talk about how wonderful the government is because it is giving so much money to health care. The dollars they are referring to are the dollars that Paul Martin negotiated with the premiers over a decade ago at a first ministers conference. That is the benefit.

One of the reasons I got intrigued by and involved in politics was Pierre Trudeau and his constitutional discussions.

We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have our own Constitution. Why? It is because we had a prime minister who had a vision that saw Canada as an independent nation that needed its own constitution. I took a great deal of pride in that. It would not have happened had there not been first ministers getting together to achieve a national goal.

We can talk about the Kelowna accord. The issues today in our aboriginal community are severe and serious. The Kelowna accord was a massive accomplishment of Paul Martin. He got premiers, first nations leaders, and others coming together and working together. At the end of the day, they produced a document that Canadians as a whole, I believe, supported and that the chamber, with the exception of the Conservatives, I suspect, supported.

These agreements and accords are something best achieved when we have a government that is not intimidated by attending premiers or first ministers meetings, by a prime minister who has some vision, some sense of what he or she would like to see the country look like. That is why I am so proud that the leader of the Liberal Party has made the commitment to ensure that we will have first ministers' meetings in the future. We should.

One issue, and I suspect that my leader does not need to be lobbied on it, is the Canada Pension Plan. The Canada Pension Plan is an issue Canadians from every region are concerned about. We understand the value of that program. It is only the Conservatives who seem to want to turn a deaf ear to what Canadians are saying about the issue of pensions.

We now have at least one province going it alone on CPP, and I believe one of the NDP provincial leadership candidates was talking about going it alone. There may be others talking about it. Let there be no doubt that a number of provinces would support a first ministers meeting to deal with pensions for our seniors, whether it is the OAS and the government's desire to increase the age from 65 to 67 for retirement or the need to invest more in the CPP. These are the types of issues that can make a difference in the lives of Canadians. What they want is strong leadership from the Prime Minister's Office.

I believe this Prime Minister does not have a national vision on the different issues out there. He takes issues day by day and makes decisions without consultation. The OAS is a great example of that. He was overseas, and while he was somewhere in Europe, he said that they were going to increase the age from 65 to 67. There was no real consultation at all. Then he came to Canada and we saw the reaction. The Liberal Party is going to correct that. We are going to leave it at 65.

We are going to meet with the premiers to talk about the CPP, because we are concerned about pensions. We understand that Canadians want good pensions when they retire. The Liberal Party is committed to working with the premiers, because if we are not prepared to work with the premiers collectively, we will not be able to achieve some of the things Canadians want.

By supporting this motion, one is saying one supports the idea that there is an important role for our national government in building consensus and making a real difference in the lives of each and every person who calls Canada home.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know what happens when Liberal prime ministers meet with provincial premiers. The people of Alberta will recall the national energy program. They remember that.

The member talked about being in the provincial legislature. I wonder if he was in the provincial legislature when the Paul Martin Liberals and the Chrétien Liberals unilaterally cut $50 billion from health and education. I wonder if he spoke up against those unilateral cuts at that time.

The member talks about the Kelowna accord, but he and his party vote against matrimonial rights on first nation reserves. They vote against and would repeal accountability and openness and transparency for our first nations as well.

The member for Markham—Unionville was having a very difficult time with this. I know that the province of Manitoba does not have a price on carbon or a carbon tax. We know today that the leader of the Liberal Party, along with the Premier of Ontario, supported a carbon tax for the people of Ontario and other provinces. I want to be very clear. Does the member support his leader in placing a carbon tax, a price on carbon, whatever they want to call it, not only on the people of Ontario but on the people of Manitoba? Does he support his leader in overtaxing his own people? We know that they resisted it in Manitoba, but today his leader suggests that they want to do that. Does he support that, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the most relevant part of the member's question and attempt to address it. It was in regard to health care. I indicated to him that I was a member of a provincial legislature in the nineties, when we saw a cut in health care transfers. However, there was also a solid commitment made to get rid of the tax point transfer, which would have gotten rid of all the cash transfers. That was a commitment that I suspect came from meetings that were ongoing from first ministers' conferences.

The member talked about how much money the Conservative government is giving toward health care. When he stands up he should be crediting Paul Martin, because he gave the health care increases that we have today. The reason we are investing record high health care dollars is because of Paul Martin and a first ministers meeting that occurred over 10 years ago. That is the reason we have record high health care transfers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is getting awfully difficult to hear. There is an abundance of noise this afternoon.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it really hilarious when we hear the Liberals talk about how important it is to meet with the provinces, yet when they were in government, it was something they hardly did, and when they did, they ignored what was being asked for.

With respect to the government, one of the Conservatives' big 2006 campaign promises was to establish an open federalist framework and to build new bridges with the provinces. It has not happened. We know what happened when they said that they were going to forge a better relationship with first nations, as well.

Paul Martin removed 40% from health care. He basically did away with social housing in the budget in 1995. Why should we believe the Liberals, when there is no difference between the Liberals and the Tories?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member does not understand the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives, it gives me some understanding as to why the NDP members voted with the Conservatives to defeat issues such as the Kelowna accord.

It is almost as if the NDP MPs have been given marching orders. They walk in and criticize the Liberals, no matter what, even if they are somewhat fictitious in their criticism.

At the end of the day, whether it was Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien, or Liberals before, since 1906 there have been Liberal and Conservative governments that have been meeting with the premiers.

In the last go-round, when we had 13 years of Liberal government, there were first ministers conferences seven or eight times. I think the member would probably be better advised to see the benefits of the first ministers meetings we had in the past and maybe start talking more positively about those in hopes that we can somehow convince the current government of the benefits, as opposed to having these bizarre comments about the Liberal Party that just are not based in fact.