Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for his eloquent speech on the co-operation that we want and need between the federal and provincial governments. Members on both sides of the House know of his expertise in this area and, as parliamentarians, we all benefit from his informed perspective.
He very effectively summarized the difficulties that naturally arise during meetings between the federal and provincial governments, as they do in any proper democratic debate. However, mostly, he spoke eloquently and fairly about the historic achievements resulting from such co-operation under Laurier, Borden, Diefenbaker, Mulroney and Martin. Finally, he talked about this government's failure to adequately address the challenges facing our country today. It is clear that in our role as representatives of Canadians' interests in Parliament, we cannot sit idly by while this government refuses to co-operate with others.
I cannot claim to rival my colleague when it comes to federal-provincial relations, but I would like to share my perspective as someone who worked for a provincial government for many years and who saw with his own eyes the untold cost of the Prime Minister's unilateral approach. I would also like members to think about our children and imagine what our country will be like if all of the provinces and territories continue to address the challenges of the future in their own way without federal leadership to make such action efficient and consistent.
Students graduating from high school know one thing about Canadian federalism, and that is that it is a system of checks and balances that requires co-operation.
I am deeply concerned to think that our Prime Minister's attitude toward his provincial counterparts is one of occasional contempt and constant avoidance. Although bilateral relations between the Prime Minister and the provinces have not gone completely by the wayside, they are becoming increasingly infrequent and partisan. We are talking about a total lack of interest in working together and the rejection of Canada's federalist model.
If we ask Ms. Wynne, the premier of the biggest province in the country, with a third of Canada's population, she will tell us what sort of response we get from the Prime Minister when we want to work together despite our disagreements.
I know that the Prime Minister is not used to being surrounded by people who disagree with him. Perhaps he does not appreciate the benefits that come with having his ideas challenged. Why does he refuse to meet with people elected by the very Canadians he claims to represent? That is not asking too much.
The benefits of this co-operation are clear. My colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville illustrated that quite well. What about the costs to Canadians every time a challenge is addressed by one federal government and 13 provinces and territories, instead of by just one country? Those incalculable costs will be part of this government's legacy. It is about time we turned the page.
The challenges our country is facing require a coordinated effort. How are we going to protect the waterways we drink from, reduce our impact on the climate we live in, and nourish the land that feeds us unless we all sit down at the same table to make sure we are all on the same wavelength, on the same page? The St. Lawrence is neither Liberal nor Ontarian, the rain in Alberta develops in British Columbia and the chemical waste in New Brunswick does not recognize the borders of the maritime provinces.
Speaking of borders, the Prime Minister likes spending taxpayers' money on celebrating his international trade agreements, more than once, but here at home there are still far more significant trade barriers than there sometimes are abroad.
The provincial premiers are well aware that this problem needs to be addressed, but they are also well aware of their trade interests. Where is the Prime Minister when it comes to an issue as vitally important as our domestic economy?
The provinces have been dealing with our generation's socio-demographic challenges for several years now. I would like the Prime Minister to tell us whether he believes that the aging population is a provincial or federal jurisdiction. I believe—and I think I also speak for my caucus—that this is a Canadian issue. We need to look for Canadian solutions to the issues of health and retirement, and also the issues of finance, income, employment and immigration, at both the provincial and federal levels. It worries me that the Prime Minister refuses to sit down with his provincial counterparts to consult with them on how to approach these issues.
Instead of health care, retirement and the environment, perhaps we should talk about something the Prime Minister truly cares about: oil. Why is this Prime Minister, who loves touting our country as an energy superpower, the same prime minister who has not managed to get a single pipeline built? Perhaps he should sit down with the provinces to talk about that.
The railway and the Trans-Canada Highway were not built by prime ministers who refused to listen and avoided co-operation. This Prime Minister will never be accused of having too much vision for the country, but projects that require a little vision also require some co-operation.
Furthermore, authorities need to work together in order to apply a fair, just and efficient taxation policy. At the federal level and in a number of provinces, entire forests are wiped out every year to add pages and pages to the Income Tax Act, which just keeps getting more complicated. To ensure that the system is achieving its original objectives, in keeping with the fundamental principles of taxation, we need a Canada-wide discussion on the compatibility of this country's tax laws.
Instead of simply trusting what we are saying, I encourage my colleague to consider the words of former justice Louis LeBel, who just retired from the Supreme Court. He clearly expressed what Canadians expect from their government, and I am referring to all governments.
He said:
...I have a certain federalist vision that is more co-operative, based of course on respect for the powers of each level of government but also on a need for co-operation.
That is all we expect of this Prime Minister and all those who follow him: co-operative federalism. Canadian federalism is an important legacy that is required in order to meet the challenges we face and a legacy that Canadians deserve.
Therefore, I invite my colleagues to vote with me in favour of this motion:
That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister of Canada should hold annual First Ministers' Conferences.
