Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2015]

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, 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.

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member completely ignored my question. Instead he gave one example of consultation by the federal government, whereas I gave several examples where it consulted no one. Thus, he deliberately ignored me by answering my question in the way he did.

I would like to ask him again why the government takes action most of the time without consulting anyone. The hon. member told us that it is just process, as if it were not important to consult the provinces, which are members of the federation, when programs that will affect their areas of jurisdiction—and sometimes even their budgets—are implemented.

This is not about process, but about what needs to be done in a federation. Canadians deserve a federal government that assumes its responsibilities.

Why is the government shirking its responsibilities in so many cases? I hope that the member will not cite one of the rare cases where the government did conduct consultations?

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that it was important to hold meetings before making decisions; however, the government has, on many recent occasions, neglected to take this step and to get a consensus before making decisions that affect the provinces and sometimes the provinces' jurisdictions.

The Conservatives decided to cut annual Canadian health transfers by 3%, from 6% to 3%, without consulting the provinces. Out of the blue, the Conservatives told the 10 provinces that they would be getting $30 billion less every year to fund their health care systems.

There was also no consultation on the EI reforms, the temporary foreign worker program or the Canada job grant. All 10 provinces at the Council of the Federation opposed this new change. Search and rescue infrastructure is another area where the federal government did not consult the provinces. There is certainly no shortage of examples to show how they neglected to consult the provinces.

If consultation and discussions are so important, as the member just said, why are there so many examples like this?

[Foreign Affairs, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing the same thing for two weeks now, but we have yet to see any real action. How many other vigils and marches like the ones in Ottawa today do we need before the government realizes how urgent this is?

Raif Badawi is still being held and has 950 lashes remaining in his sentence. All that for a blog.

What does the government plan to do? When will the minister pick up the phone, call his counterpart in Saudi Arabia, resolve the situation and ensure that Mr. Badawi is sent to Canada as soon as possible?

[Business of Supply, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to my colleague's speech, it seemed that she was wearing rose-coloured glasses and living in a wonderful and, to my mind, make-believe world. The current situation is problematic on a number of fronts. Several sectors of the economy are in trouble at this time. She seems to have left that out completely from her speech.

I would like her to address Canadians' concerns about the economy and the many manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the past nine years under the Conservatives. The manufacturing sector has shed 400,000 jobs.

I would like her to respond to those people who lost their jobs, who had worked in factories for dozens of years, who found themselves without a job last year and, at this point, who are 45 or 50 years old and have to find a new job. It is not easy for them. I would like her to tell them how the government is going to help them.

[Foreign Affairs, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this kind of lip service means nothing if no action is taken.

A woman in my riding is asking her government for help. If the government really cares about human rights, now is the time to prove it.

Raif Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 lashes for creating a blog that Saudi authorities did not like. He has already received 50 lashes. How many more does he have to bear before Canada takes a clear stand on the matter?

When will the government finally walk the talk and put some real pressure on the government of Saudi Arabia to release this activist?

[CBC/Radio Canada, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just does not get it. CBC/Radio-Canada has had to make cuts because the Conservatives have cut its funding. What is happening in Sherbrooke is not the same as what is happening in Montreal. If a one-hour local newscast is cut by 30 minutes, the math is simple, our region's voice is being cut in half. CBC/Radio-Canada is there to keep us informed, and it belongs to all of us.

Will the minister ever understand that the people of the Eastern Townships, like all Canadians, care deeply about their local news?

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his remarks. He seems to be very much in tune with the concerns of his constituents. I believe he is also aware of the importance of parks, whether municipal, provincial or national, as is the case in this bill to establish a national park.

I would like to know what importance he attaches to parks and to the resources allocated to them. Earlier, I put the question to another of my colleagues. According to my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, what importance do national parks have in terms of protecting our environment, our fauna, our flora, as well as our heritage and our history in Canada? Why should we provide them with the necessary resources to discharge the mandate entrusted to them?

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her contribution to today's debate.

I would like her to remind us of the importance of Canada's national parks and their role in protecting our environment and our heritage, and in enabling the greatest possible number of Canadians to discover the beauty of the landscapes, flora and fauna that exist in these parks.

Does she believe it is important to protect these parks and ensure that they operate properly, with the human and material resources required to ensure that they are well maintained, sustainable over time, and useful to all Canadians?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. The preamble is on point, but I will not speak to it because there is not enough time. I will, however, answer my colleague's specific question about what could have been in the budget.

First, the budget should have included tax incentives. I am talking about innovation in the manufacturing sector. For Sherbrooke, this is a very important component that should have been included in the budget. There should have been significant measures to help our manufacturing sector.

I was also interested in the measures having to do with airports, even though they are not necessarily budget-related. The Conservatives decided to change the airports system, but they failed to account for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority designations. However, the Minister of Transport was supposed to be working on this for the past two years. Two years ago she opened the door to the City of Sherbrooke to work on a mechanism to allow non-designated airports to have security staff. However, we have seen nothing in two years and there is nothing in this budget.

Why make a change that affects airports and leave Sherbrooke, its airport and its requests out of it? That is too bad.