OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 165 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, January 29, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES January 29, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 165 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 165 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 165 (Version officielle) 147 165 29 01 2015 2015/01/29 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1000) [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of a Canadian parliamentary delegation concerning its visit to the United Kingdom from May 16 to May 20, 2014. [ Translation ] I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation concerning its visit to Macedonia from September 1 to 3, 2014.

[ English ] Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present the 30th report regarding membership of the committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 30th report later today. In addition, I have the honour to present the 31st report of the committee.

The committee advises that pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the sub-committee on private members' business met to consider the items added to the order of precedence as a result of the replenishment of Monday, December 8, 2014 and recommends that the items listed herein, which have been determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House. The Speaker : Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2) the report is deemed adopted.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act Hon. John Duncan (for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Bill S-7. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill S-7,

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . (Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Motion for Concurrence Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier today be concurred in. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

(1005) Petitions Agriculture Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of numerous residents of my riding and surrounding areas who are asking the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies to support small family farmers, especially women, to recognize their vital role, and to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that the rights of small family farmers in the global south are protected.

[ Translation ] Mining Industry Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have before me hundreds of petitions, which I am pleased to present in the House today. Some of these petitions have to do with creating an ombudsman position for the extractive sector.

Canada Post Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, other petitions are calling for an end to the cuts at Canada Post.

Belugas Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, some of the other petitions are calling for the protection of beluga whales in the St. Lawrence.

CBC/Radio-Canada Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the final petitions are calling for an end to the cuts to the CBC.

[ English ] Sickle Cell Disease Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House today regarding sickle cell disease. Red blood cells harden into long slivers that block veins and arteries, causing injuries to the blood vessels of organs, including the brain and lungs. About 10% of children develop strokes. Children with sickle cell disease are also extremely vulnerable to infection and have periodic health crises that cause terrible pain and difficulty breathing. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to adopt Bill C-221 .

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present petitions signed by thousands of Canadians in support of my initiative to secure 10-year multiple entry visas for Canadian citizens travelling to China. Last year, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced an agreement with China that entitles American citizens to receive 10-year multiple entry visas for tourism and business purposes and five-year multiple entry visas for students studying in China.

Accordingly, today I introduced a motion calling on the Canadian government to secure the same rights for Canadian citizens. Our idea would help our business community, assist family members to visit each other, and improve cultural exchanges. It would reduce costs, increase flexibility, and secure maximum opportunities for Canadian citizens who are living in an increasingly global world.

[ Translation ] Proportional Representation Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions here today. The first has to do with proportional representation. [ English ] The petitioners are from Victoria, Sidney, within my own riding, and Nova Scotia, Langley, and New Brunswick. They are all calling on the House to review the current perverse, first past the post voting system and to move toward a form of proportional representation based on public consultation.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of the Vancouver area. They are calling for the government to act to make the tanker ban, which is a moratorium established in 1972, legislated and permanent to protect the coast of British Columbia from oil tankers.

Child Care Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition with respect to affordable child care. The signatories to the petition want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that after nine years of Conservative government, child care costs are soaring, and almost a million kids with working parents have no access to regulated child care spaces. Further, quality child care and early learning offer children a head start in life while easing poverty, strengthening our economy, and expanding women's career opportunities.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to work with the provinces and territories to implement the NDP's plan for affordable child care across Canada.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Business of the House Business of the House The Speaker : The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business. [ Translation ] As members know, after the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the new items so as to alert the House to bills which at first glance appear to impinge under financial prerogative of the crown.

This allows members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. [ English ] Accordingly, following the December 8, 2014 replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that there are two bills that give the Chair some concerns as to the spending provisions they contemplate. (1010) [ Translation ] These are Bill C-356,

An Act respecting a National Strategy for Dementia , standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt , and Bill C-640,

An Act respecting VIA Rail Canada and making consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act , standing in the name of the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine . [ English ] I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for these bills, or any of the other bills now on the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity. [ Translation ] I thank hon. members for their attention.

Points of Order Decorum in the House Points of Order Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. [ English ] Yesterday after votes I would have liked to rise on this point of order regarding the use of telephones in the House. However, I was aware that as you had been interrupted by members of marginal parties, Mr. Speaker, and that you also had an appointment with a dead Scottish poet, I thought I would hold off until this morning. In

chapter 13 of O'Brien and Bosc, House of Commons Procedure and Practice , page 638, on rules of order and decorum, it is clearly stated that the use of cellular telephones is not permitted in the Chamber. Yesterday we voted for about 50 minutes. It took seven pages in yesterday's Hansard . During the whole time, there was a member of the House stuck in the corner over there who was animated, talking, using his iPad. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: An iPad is not a telephone. An hon. member: It is a telephone. It can be used as one. Mr. Royal Galipeau: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I would be allowed to make my point of order, and other members, if they wish to respond, could respond after. I will give you the reference, Mr. Speaker. [ Translation ] In response to a point of order raised on September 28, 2005, by the late MP Michel Guimond regarding the Hon. Joe Volpe's use of a cellphone in the House, the distinguished and certainly honourable Karen Redman, who was the chief whip for the Liberal government of the day and whom the member for Ottawa South supported, said: Mr.

Speaker, collectively we know the rule is that no cell phones are to be used in the House and we take this rule very seriously...I certainly take this criticism very seriously and I will endeavour to make sure the members of the government adhere to the rule of no cell phones in the House. [ English ] This is how Speaker Milliken dealt with this: The use of cell phones is not supposed to happen on the floor and that does include behind the curtains. I have had occasion to chastise hon. members for making this error even behind curtains. They are supposed to go to the lobby to use these things.

I would urge all hon. members to cooperate. We can find this ruling on page 8151 of the House of Commons Debates . The ruling by Speaker Milliken is serious. There are two issues. One is the disturbance telephone calls or using iPads or whatever can cause in the House. Second, the risk that members of Parliament can become subject to outside instructions during votes is serious. It does not matter how gentle is Charlie McCarthy. We have to worry about who really is Edgar Bergen. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Royal Galipeau: Just in case it is not clear, the member who did this during 50 minutes was the hon. member for Ottawa South .

(1015) The Speaker : I appreciate the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans raising this issue. Perhaps we will hear from the member for Ottawa South later on today. In the future, I would take this opportunity to remind members that with the advancements in telecommunications, members have to be extra sensitive in what they are doing. I am not sure if the member is suggesting that he was using his iPad in some kind of telephone mode, such as FaceTime or Skype. Mr. Royal Galipeau : Mr. Speaker, in response to your query, he was using it either as FaceTime or Skype or some other means.

It was definitely in contravention of Speaker Milliken's ruling. Actually, the member was in the House when Speaker Milliken gave that ruling. Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, after the votes last night, I had numerous other members of my caucus who were sitting toward that end of the chamber tell me that they had actually witnessed this and that at several points, the tablet, or whatever device it was, was displayed in such a way as to pan what was going on here. It was clearly visible to other members of the chamber. This is very disruptive.

This is completely inappropriate. It is against all the rules. It went on for an extended period of time and created a fair amount of consternation. I think this should be nipped in the bud, just to ensure that we do not have a perpetuation of this kind of activity. The Speaker : Certainly, I will look into it further, and as I said, perhaps we will hear from the hon. member himself and see what comes of that.

Government Orders Business of Supply [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion — Annual First Ministers' Conferences Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) moved: That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister of Canada should hold annual First Ministers' Conferences. Motion He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, I am pleased to rise in the House to support one of the commitments made by my leader, the member for Papineau . This is a very simple and obvious commitment completely removed from partisanship.

I invite all members of all parties to get behind this commitment by voting for the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister of Canada should hold annual First Ministers' Conferences. As I said, I am pleased to speak in favour of this motion because it is very clear to me that it has become necessary; however, I am not pleased that it has become necessary. It should not be necessary. It was not necessary under any of the prime ministers before this one.

Since Laurier, all prime ministers of Canada have felt the need to meet with their provincial and territorial counterparts regularly. They met as a group and also held bilateral meetings. It just made sense. It makes sense for any civilized federation. It makes sense to everyone but the Prime Minister . [ English ] In 1906, Prime Minister Laurier called the first joint meeting of premiers and the prime minister. As time went by, these meetings became a regular occurrence. In 2003, the premiers formed the Council of the Federation. The council generally meets twice a year.

Unlike traditional first ministers' conferences, where the prime minister invites the premiers, the provinces play the lead role in council meetings, which are coordinated by a provincially funded secretariat. The Council of the Federation has met 23 times since the member of Parliament for Calgary Southwest became Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has not met his colleagues as a group since January 2009.

It is the longest such gap between first ministers meetings in 97 years. (1020) [ Translation ] The provincial and territorial premiers are criticizing this affront to the smooth operation of our federation, and rightly so. Meetings between the federal and provincial governments in Canada are almost always complicated. They have caused a lot of headaches for many politicians. They have not always led to successful outcomes. However, they often do, and I am confident in saying that, overall, these meetings have been positive for Canadians.

The Kelowna accord, which was signed with first nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples in 2006, was one of the great success stories of these federal-provincial-territorial negotiations. The current government refused to honour that agreement. One can only imagine the progress that could have been made had the Kelowna accord become a reality. Another success story was the 2004 health accord, a joint action plan with a 10-year funding commitment. Unfortunately, the current government ignored the joint plan and unilaterally refused to extend the funding agreement.

Those are the results of the current Prime Minister 's unwillingness to collaborate on a joint project. Much of the blame for the problems with the health care system and the poor living conditions of aboriginal people in Canada can be attributed to the current Prime Minister's unwillingness to work with the provinces and territories. The provincial and territorial premiers are not the only ones the Prime Minister is ignoring. He does not appear to be any more inclined to meet with his NAFTA counterparts.

The entire country is suffering because this Prime Minister does not know how to work collegially with others. If the Prime Minister had a greater sense of collegiality, he would understand what a federation is. He would therefore avoid wasting so much of Canadians' time, money and energy on ventures that undermine the very foundation of our country's federative nature.

A sad example of such waste is the pointless and botched Senate reform saga. [ English ] The Prime Minister has spent eight years attempting to achieve fundamental Senate reform, despite the Liberal opposition and literally every expert telling him that he needed to work with the provinces to change the nature of our Senate. In April 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that the Liberals and the experts were correct. Shamefully, the Prime Minister blamed the Chief Justice for this predictable fiasco, when he had only himself to blame for that monumental waste of time and money.

Is he that ignorant of our institutions, or is it plain contempt? A simple, frank, face-to-face meeting between the Prime Minister and his constitutional colleagues could have avoided that debacle. [ Translation ] This is not just about a constitutional principle or a principle of federalism. The absence of first ministers' meetings is having tangible negative consequences for Canadians.

Let us look at what is happening right now. [ English ] As oil prices and the dollar fall, as our economy faces uncertainty, it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada to meet with the premiers and develop a united plan. Under such circumstances, a Liberal government would hold a first ministers' conference. Because they know how important it is to work together, the premiers will meet tomorrow, a few blocks away from Parliament Hill. Regrettably, they have no scheduled meeting with the Prime Minister in the foreseeable future. This is not a symbolic issue.

Our federation faces real and significant challenges, from infrastructure renewal to retirement income security and climate change. These challenges can only be tackled successfully if all levels of government are sitting around the same table. By refusing to meet his constitutional partners around the same table, the Prime Minister shirks his constitutional responsibility. By refusing to pull together the strengths of our federation, he fails all Canadians. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to live up to his responsibility?

Considering the huge challenges we are facing, why does he refuse to bring together the premiers of Canada's provinces and territories in order to work toward solutions that benefit all Canadians? One has to wonder why the Prime Minister would choose to postpone tabling his budget unilaterally with no consultation with his constitutional colleagues. Most provinces and territories typically table their budgets in April or May of each year, having had the opportunity to see what the federal budget has in store and fine-tune their own budgets accordingly.

By delaying the budget until April at the earliest, the federal government has deprived the provinces of that opportunity at a very critical time for all of them. Regrettably, the Prime Minister's lack of collegiality and understanding of what the federation means does not stop there. Here are a few more ways in which the Prime Minister is hurting Canadians in all provinces and territories.

On infrastructure, the 10-year new Building Canada fund, announced in budget 2013, is heavily back-end loaded; until after 2019, very little money will be available to the provinces and municipalities to help them tackle their urgent infrastructure challenges, stimulate the economy, and create jobs. This is wrong. A first ministers' conference would help clarify the needs and establish priorities. On pensions, the Government of Ontario is currently creating its own version of the Canada pension plan. It is expected to phase in on January 1, 2017.

(1025) Other provinces are considering following along. The lack of federal leadership is leading to a patchwork of public pension systems that will act as a barrier to labour mobility in Canada. This should not be allowed to happen. There are much better options, which the Prime Minister might discover should he agree to sit down with his colleagues. For instance, the Prince Edward Island finance minister, Wes Sheridan, has proposed an expansion of the Canada pension plan that would target the segment of the middle class that Jim Flaherty himself said was not saving enough for retirement.

With respect to old age security, while in Davos, Switzerland, the Prime Minister announced by surprise that the qualifying age for old age security would be raised from 65 to 67. Not only will that unnecessary measure penalize Canadian seniors, particularly the less well off, but it will also have a big impact on the provinces, since many Canadians between 65 and 67 years old will be left to rely on provincially funded social assistance in the absence of old age security.

With respect to refugees, in April 2012, the federal government announced it would no longer provide money to the provinces for the cost of refugee claimants' health care, a cruel measure, as the Federal Court said. Some provinces have decided to deliver this essential service on their own. With respect to manpower training, in budget 2013 the federal government announced it would cut the transfers to provinces under labour market development agreements. It simply expected the provinces to contribute their own money to its new unilateral Canada job grant.

It took years to sort out a half-baked solution to this mess, which a good first ministers' conference, held at the outset, would have avoided. With respect to climate change, in the absence of federal leadership, some provinces have taken the lead on Canada's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While this has led to some positive results, the absence of federal leadership has prevented much better results from happening for Canada. The comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, is particularly outrageous.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador gave its approval to CETA after the federal government agreed to provide $270 million toward a $400 million transition fund for its seafood canning industry. Once the agreement was signed, the federal government changed its mind. It is now telling the province that the money was for demonstrable losses in that industry after the agreement was in force. This has resulted in the province signalling a willingness to rescind its support for the agreement, thus breaking our federation's united front on this needed agreement.

In the 18 years I have been actively following federal-provincial relations in this House, never have I witnessed such blatant betrayal of a federal government's commitment toward a province. The letter exchange makes it crystal clear that the federal trade minister did concede that there would be a transition fund to help not only the displaced workers but the whole industry. The expression “demonstrated loss” is nowhere to be seen in the trade minister's letters. This is a pure invention. The good functioning of a federation requires negotiating in good faith and living up to commitments.

The federal government should not retroactively invent conditions that were not in the written agreement between ministers. Premiers, like all Canadians, need a prime minister they can trust. It is because the Prime Minister is so often unable to live up to his commitments and stick to his words that he does not want to meet his colleagues all together? A lack of trust may be the real issue here.

(1030) However esoteric federal-provincial relationships might appear to many Canadians, all Canadians want their leaders, especially their Prime Minister , to be trustworthy. Sure, a first ministers' conference agenda might include many other items, such as interprovincial trade barriers, energy policy, pipelines and so on, but I think I have made my point clear. The leader of the Liberal Party has committed to inviting all of the provincial premiers to an annual first ministers' meeting. Today more than ever, that is the right thing to do.

This is why I invite all my colleagues to support the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister of Canada should hold annual First Ministers' Conferences. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Prime Minister of Canada should meet with Canada's premiers. The NDP fully agrees with that and we have been saying it for a long time now. I believe this goes beyond collegiality. The Prime Minister has a duty here. This is how Canada was founded.

I fail to understand the Prime Minister 's attitude or his vision for working with Canada's premiers. In fact, he has no vision with regard to working with them. Does the hon. member agree that this goes beyond collegiality, that there is a duty here and that in the future, prime ministers, such as our leader, the hon. member for Outremont and future prime minister, will indeed work with the premiers? Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for supporting a motion that, I agree should be self-evident, but is not, for the reasons he mentioned. The Prime Minister has a hard time working collegially.

He likes to meet with people face to face to tell them what to do. He does not like being part of an actual dialogue among peers in a group. He has a hard time doing that with his own caucus—we know how he treats them—his own ministers, his provincial counterparts and all municipal representatives. Canada as whole is paying the price in every area that I mentioned in my speech, and I am sure that over the course of the day many other areas will be mentioned. This has tangible consequences. This is not just a question of a constitutional duty, although my colleague is right.

This is a question of effectiveness, especially given the economic difficulties we find ourselves in. (1035) [ English ] Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister meets with premiers of the provinces. He has met with the premiers of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta. He meets with them to hear their individual concerns and moves forward with those concerns when he meets with cabinet so that everyone understands what those concerns may be.

I will also add—and the member for Trinity—Spadina should know this as well—that when municipal leaders get together with provincial leaders, they are collectively told in advance to show up with a group solution and not individual solutions, because if they do, they are going to fail. That is the way it works. As a former mayor, I know that we work better collectively than we do independently. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister , in all likelihood, would want to meet with all of the ministers, but clearly all of the ministers must have a group consensus on what they want to move forward with.

What I would like to know from the member is this. From the perspective of first ministers, can he tell me of one instance when first ministers collectively came together with one sole purpose? I know they never have. Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, they will not do so under the current Prime Minister because he is not allowing them to do so. Leadership by the Prime Minister does not mean waiting for a consensus of the provinces; it means building one with them. How can he do that if he does not meet with them? My hon. colleague is making my point.

It is not enough for the Prime Minister to meet his constitutional colleagues one by one. He needs to build a team by sitting at the same table with them as soon as possible. It is his duty to face the challenges our federation is facing. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. I would ask him to provide some comment on the great things that can happen if the Prime Minister decides to meet with the premiers. We can talk about the Kelowna accord. We can talk about the health care accord. We can even talk about the constitutional changes from the past.

Great things can happen if a prime minister is prepared to meet, through invitation, with the premiers and try to build on that consensus. Could the member provide some further comment on that issue? Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments of all my colleagues up to now. They are all making good points, as I was trying to express in my speech. I thank my colleague from Winnipeg. I think he is completely right, and I would add something else: meeting with premiers may avoid mistakes. I gave the example of the saga of the Senate.

Over the years, we had this completely useless attempt by the Prime Minister to unilaterally change the nature of the Senate. He could have sat with his colleagues, and all the premiers would have said to the Prime Minister that it would not work, that he could not do it without them. Maybe then the Prime Minister would have listened, or maybe I am too optimistic. Maybe the current Prime Minister is unable to listen in any circumstances. However, let us try. Let us try a good conference with our constitutional partners. It is certainly something that is needed. [ Translation ] Mr.

Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for many years, and this is the first time in Canada's history that a prime minister has refused to meet with the provincial premiers. Nevertheless, we are a federation. The leader of our country does not want to meet with the leaders of each province. This begs the question: is the Prime Minister the type of person who does not like criticism? Can he take criticism? Is that why he also has difficulty meeting with journalists? He could cut himself off from everything going on around him.

You might say that he wants to isolate himself. If he had the opportunity to hop on a plane every week and travel around the world, to be in the news and meet with leaders of other countries, he would do it. However, he refuses to meet with the leaders of our own provinces to solve our economic and social problems. That is how he is not living up to his responsibilities as the Prime Minister of Canada.

(1040) Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague, but I believe that he is being somewhat optimistic about the Prime Minister 's ability to work with his counterparts in other countries. For example, he recently refused to meet with his NAFTA colleagues, which is indicative of a prime minister who has trouble working in a collegial manner. Furthermore, the fact that he has difficulty working with his provincial and territorial counterparts in Canada hinders his ability to do what he has to do for us abroad. For example, his dealings with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador are shameful.

After signing an agreement, the government unilaterally revised the agreement and invented conditions that were not originally in it. It is clear, it must be said and there is no way around it: the Prime Minister is about to turn his back on the Premier of Newfoundland, and therefore all of us, because the agreement has been undermined. Furthermore, this means that all provincial and territorial premiers are wondering whether they can trust this Prime Minister when they sign an agreement with him. [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am sitting here a bit incredulous, because between the years 2000 and 2006, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin only found time to meet with the first ministers twice. I absolutely agree that we need to have a Prime Minister who has meetings with the first ministers.

However, looking at the track record of the party at this end, I am really hit by the fact that they only met twice in six years, and at a time when people are losing more and more jobs and the Conservatives are missing in action when it comes to a real job action plan, what we have here is one proposal from the Liberals, which is to have an annual meeting. Is this the best the Liberals can do? Hon. Stéphane Dion : Mr. Speaker, my colleague should check the record.

I remember very well the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien , had a very successful meeting with premiers on health care just before the 2000 election, and that meeting resulted in a plan. Then after Prime Minister Martin met with them in 2004, they ended up with an agreement that gave funding to provinces to the point that the current Conservative government did not add a penny over nine years to what had been decided about health care. If the member wants a successful example of federal-provincial relations, she should look at the Liberal time.

She can be confident that the Liberals will be back, and we will have a full relationship with the provinces and territories.

Points of Order Decorum in the House Points of Order Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond, if I could, to the point of order raised by the member for Ottawa—Orléans and apologize without equivocation to the House, to the Chair, and to my colleagues. I did receive a call yesterday during the votes. It is something I should not have done. I can assure the House it is something that will not happen again in the future. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I appreciate the intervention on the part of the hon. member for Ottawa South .

Is the member for Ottawa—Orléans rising on the same point? Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa South for being so forthright. I congratulate him. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I thank both hon. members for their attention to the matter. I think we will consider the matter closed.

Business of Supply Opposition Motion--Annual First Ministers' Conferences Business of Supply Motion The House resumed consideration of the motion. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the government in response to this opposition day motion. With all of the different challenges facing our country today, this is the best that the Liberals have. It should not be surprise to Canadians.

I feel sorry for some of the people in the gallery watching this today who probably come from across this country, and sorry for Canadians who are tuned in and thinking that there are a number of challenges, such as the terrorist threats we face, safety and security, or the economy. There are students and seniors in the gallery who are probably thinking about health care or the environment. They probably thought they would hear about that in the House of Commons today.

Instead they hear the Liberals' second priority, because the Liberals' first priority is the legalization of marijuana so that people could go to a corner store and buy a gram of pot. That is their number one economic policy. However, their second policy is to have a meeting with provincial premiers. They are so bankrupt of ideas that the only idea they have is to meet with provincial premiers. I could be wrong, but I saw a clip of the Liberal leader when he was asked what he would do on the first day as Prime Minister, and he hummed and hawed at the question. He did not know.

It is very uncomfortable for a member of Parliament to watch someone who wants to be the Prime Minister and does not have a clue. He did not know what he would do and said that he would meet with his municipal and provincial counterparts. That is his number one priority, and his party members are providing him some cover here today. He did not say that he would meet with his finance minister, or the Chief of the Defence Staff, or the public safety minister to make sure of Canada's safety and security. That was not his number one priority, and neither was it to meet with his cabinet.

His number one priority was a call other people, because he has no ideas. I have said this a number of times. Very rarely do I agree with anything the NDP says or any of its policies, but at least New Democrats bring something forward and put it on the table for Canadians to look at. I would vote against it because I think it would ruin the country, but at least they bring something and put it on the table for Canadians to look at, because that is what responsible political parties do who want to govern the country. I might disagree with them.

I know that the NDP members clearly disagree with many of the policies we bring forward. That is why members vote against them time and time again, as the member for Acadie—Bathurst said. That is fine, but at least they put something on the table for Canadians to look at. The best the Liberals have to suggest is to a hold a meeting. If they form government, they are going to hold a meeting. They have no ideas of their own, but people will be able to buy pot at the corner store under a Liberal government led by the leader of the third party. They have that policy.

The other policy Liberals have is to close down manufacturing in southwestern Ontario because it is apparently bad for the economy to have manufacturing there. The Liberals want to close that down. In Alberta and Saskatchewan they actually want to transition away from the oil and gas industry because apparently that industry is bad. The Liberals' economic policy is to transition away from manufacturing in Ontario, transition away from oil and gas in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and handcuff our western farmers like they did for generations. Neither do they support the shipbuilding industry in Halifax.

We have brought in the largest procurement contract in Canadian history to rebuild that industry in Nova Scotia and British Columbia. They do not support that and want to close those industries down. As for the aerospace industry in Montreal and Quebec, well, not so much because Liberals do not want to buy planes for our air force or contribute and be a part of international efforts and have new planes for our military.

(1045) Their foreign policy is even funnier. Let us talk about the Liberal leader's solution when it comes to safety and security. What was his solution when people in Iraq were being terrorized, as they still are, by ISIL terrorists, forced onto a mountain and starved? Our Prime Minister said that we were going to deliver humanitarian aid, send advisers over, and combat these terrorists head-on. He said that we would send the Royal Canadian Air Force. The Liberal leader's plan of attack was to drop Tim Hortons coffee, blankets, and coats for them so they would be a little warmer in the winter. That was it.

That was the full Liberal plan. What have we done since we got into office? We came into office in 2006 when federal-provincial relations were probably at their lowest point in the history of this country, coming off of a decade and a bit of Liberal rule. Anyone who served in provincial politics during the Liberal time in office will never say those were good times for Canadian provinces. The member talks about Liberal investments in health care. Is he kidding me?

I do not recall the first ministers' meeting where the first ministers and territorial ministers of this country agreed to the unilateral cuts of $50 billion to health and education that were the hallmark of the Liberal government. I do not recall that first ministers' meeting. Perhaps the member might refresh my memory on the date of that particular meeting, when Prime Minister Martin, who was the finance minister at the time, came in and unilaterally cut health and education across the country. That is the history of Liberal first ministers' meetings.

Remember, of course, that one of the other promises the Liberal government made was regarding the Kyoto accord. We remember that one. The Liberals were going to make massive changes across Canada and our environment was going to get clean. The only problem with that was that it was later found out that not only had they not talked with the provinces about it, but they never had any intention of doing anything about it.

In fact, the chief of staff to the former prime minister said that they only said they would do it because it seemed popular and thought it would help them win an election, but they never actually had any desire to implement it. What have we done? Since 2006, we started to reverse that legacy that the Liberals left. The Prime Minister has met with his provincial counterparts. I think the Prime Minister has met with premiers of this province over 300 times since taking office. Recently, he met with the Premier of the Northwest Territories and with the Premier of Ontario. He recently met with Premier Prentice.

These are continuing dialogues that we have. We know that our first ministers also meet with their counterparts through the annual federal, provincial, and territorial meetings. There are a lot of opportunities for us to discuss issues. I meet with my provincial counterparts, and I would like to think that all members of the House meet with their provincial counterparts on issues that are important to them, regardless of whether they are on this side of the House or not.

Members of Parliament have a vested interest in representing their community and bringing those issues back to us, whether they believe in an issue or not. All members of Parliament will try to represent their communities. It is not just up to the Prime Minister . Canadians send 308 of us here to represent our communities. If they have no desire to do it through the Liberal Party, then perhaps they should find someone else to do that for them. I would suggest that is why the Liberal members are in that corner, the NDP members on that side, and we on this side of the House.

They forgot what is important to Canadians, and they continue to do so. They can whine and complain about the fact they are not getting their way, but Canadians are getting their way: Canadians are getting a government that represents them. I will give credit to the NDP. By and large, it is an official opposition that is at least providing a counter. It is providing some solutions, or what it thinks are solutions, and alternatives to what we are bringing forward, and it will be up to Canadians to decide.

(1050) What do they get from the Liberals? They get, “We want to talk about it.” The Canadian people do not have time for that. They work hard. In my riding, people get up very early in the morning and make their way to the GO train or the highway to get to work downtown, or they are farmers and get on their tractors. The farmers in my riding have to look at what prices will be for their crops. They have to worry about all kinds of things. The last thing they want, and the last thing they are calling my office about, is whether or not we had a chance to convene the premiers together and have a chat with them.

They do not care about that. What they care about is whether or not they will have enough money to invest in their businesses. Do they have enough money to pay their bills? At the end of the month will they have enough money to put savings away for their kids' futures? That is what Canadians actually care about. When they elect us, and our provincial and municipal counterparts, they assume that we will work to improve our economy and communities. Canadians can assume that if there is a problem, they can approach their member of Parliament.

I know my provincial counterpart is a Liberal member of Premier Wynne's cabinet. I have no problem calling her and she has no problem calling me if there is something we need to work on together. I look at Canada's economic action plan. The Liberals said it could not be done. They said there was no way we could bring forward a stimulus program, an investment program, working with our provincial and municipal counterparts. There was no way we could bring it in on time and on budget and create the kinds of jobs we were saying we could.

They said it could not be done with NDP, Liberal, and Conservative governments across the country. What did we do? We brought in one of the most successful programs in the history of the country. We did it together. I worked with my Liberal counterpart in my riding. I worked with my mayors. We identified what was important for our communities and we made those investments. We got the job done, because people want us to get the job done. Canadians do not want talk about getting the job done; they just want it done.

They want to know that when they go to work, they will have a new paved road they can get to work on. They want to know that their kids will not have to spend hours on a bus to get to school. They want to know that when they need health care, it is going to be there for them. They want to understand, after $50 billion worth of cuts by the Liberal government, if they can rely on a federal government in the future never to do what the Liberal government did in the 1990s.

On this side of the House we understand that, and that is why we work closely with our provincial counterparts to make sure that it will never happen again. That is why we have increased transfer payments to the provinces. We are continuing to work with our provincial and municipal counterparts because, ultimately, as much as we say it in this place, there is only one taxpayer. It does not matter who or how many times we go to someone, it is the same person.

It does not matter if the person sitting in the gallery watching this is from Ontario or Alberta; they only have one pocket to take money out of, and when almost 50¢ of every dollar goes to politicians at every single level, they do not want us sitting around talking about it. They want us to just get the job done, to roll up our sleeves and do what we are elected to do, and they think that if someone does not have the ideas, they should get out of the way and let the people who do have the ideas get the job done. That is what we are doing.

Time and time again, Canadians know they can count on our government to get the job done for them. The Liberals said that we could not increase transfers to the provinces, cut taxes, and balance the budget. Did we? Absolutely, we got the job done. I remember as a young kid watching the Liberals when they said there was no way we could have free trade with the United States, that it was impossible, that it would kill Canada if we did it. A Conservative government got it done. The Liberals said that we would never reach a free trade agreement with the European Union and bring the provinces along with us.

What did we do? We included them in the negotiations. We achieved a free trade agreement. We got the job done. They said it could not happen. We did it. The Liberals could not conclude a deal with South Korea. They could not do it. We got the job done. We did this for the Canadian economy. We did it in co-operation with our provincial partners, because that is what a responsible government does. It works with its partners.

(1055) Let us look at some of the other things we have accomplished. I look at our immigration system. For decades, the immigration system did not properly reflect or provide for Canada's needs. We had lost our way. It was not the same system that brought my parents to this country in the fifties and the sixties. The Liberals gave up. They said it could not be done. They said that it could never be changed in a way that the provinces would agree upon. They gave up. We got the job done.

In the economic action plan we said that we had to bring in a new Canada job grant so Canadians from coast to coast to coast would have access to better jobs and better training. The Liberals gave up. We said it could be done. We got the job done. The Liberals gave up on labour agreements in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. We got the job done. We continuously work with our provincial, territorial and municipal partners because it is important to all Canadians that we do this. We will continue to do that.

When issues of vital national interest called on us to convene the first ministers' conference in 2009, when the Canadian economy was in trouble, we brought the premiers together. That is how we came up with Canada's economic action plan. It is why it has been so successful in creating over one million net new jobs. We worked together. When Ontario found itself in difficulty with respect to the auto sector, we worked with the Liberal provincial government to save the auto sector. We will continue to do that.

What the federation is and what this reflects is the fact that from province to province, territory to territory, and community to community in each of these provinces, it is very different. The realities, the requests and the needs are not exclusive. The premiers and the territorial leaders who approach the Prime Minister have needs of their own in their own communities. That is why it is important to meet with them where they are. That is why the Prime Minister met with Premier Wynn in Toronto. That is why he met with Premier Prentice in Calgary.

When our ministers visit different parts of the country, they meet with their provincial and municipal counterparts. They do that because we have to meet them where they are. It does not reflect the Canada of today to simply suggest that bringing the leaders of the governments to one spot will solve all the problems of the country. That reflects an old view of how this federation works. That is not the new reality of Canada and Canadians do not want to go back to that reality. They do not want to go back to the long, drawn-out constitutional battles that were the hallmark of the Liberal era.

Canadians want a government that focuses on their priorities. They want a government that can and will work together with the provinces and has a track record of doing just that, whether it is on the economy, the environment or natural resources. This government gets the job done on behalf of Canadians in communities from coast to coast to coast. We will continue to do that because it is right for Canadians. We will continue to cut taxes. We will continue to work with our provincial partners. We will continue to open up new markets for our manufacturers.

We will not abandon them as the Liberals have suggested we will do. We welcome the Liberals to a debate about policy on the issues that our country faces. They could maybe join us and the NDP in putting things on the table so Canadians can take a look at them. We know it will not happen.

(1100) Mr. Bob Dechert : Don't hold your breath. Mr. Paul Calandra : I will not hold my breath, Mr. Speaker, as the member for Mississauga—Erindale said. The policies the Liberals have brought forward are quite frightening. The few that they have brought forward, such as the sale of marijuana at corner stores and the closing manufacturing down, are quite frightening. This includes high debt and high taxes. These are the only policies they have brought forward. Based on that and based on what they have brought forward already, maybe it is better for Canadians that the Liberals do not talk about policy.

Our Prime Minister , this government and our members of Parliament have got the job done because we work closely with our provincial and municipal partners, and we will not stop doing that because we understand one thing. There is one taxpayer and that taxpayer does not elect us to talk but elects us to get the job done. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, another meeting that never seems to take place is the member's meeting facts. His arguments have never met a fact. It is astonishing to hear what he just said, and I would ask the Speaker to correct the record.

However, after listening to 10 minutes of that whining and whimpering, I would be afraid he would start crying all over again. Meetings do happen. In fact, the member opposite listed the meetings that were successful, but then said that meetings would never provide any basis for success. One of the most important meetings happened when I was a reporter covering Parliament Hill. It was a meeting between the big city mayors of our country and the then finance minister, Paul Martin. The meeting delivered the gas tax. The meeting delivered the infrastructure funding.

These are two policies which the Conservative government has refused to change because they are so successful. My question is for a group of people that seem to meet only not to meet. The member opposite said that there were 300 meetings with premiers and the Prime Minister since he took office. Besides saying the word “no”, could he give us one solid example of when the Conservatives have met and accomplished something? If they have met and accomplished something, why will they not do it again?

(1105) Mr. Paul Calandra : Mr. Speaker, the member comes from the city of Toronto, which will enjoy some of the massive benefits of Canada's economic action plan, and it does enjoy those massive benefits, whether it is on housing or subways, which will benefit his community. The only people crying in Toronto are the people who elected that member of Parliament to a party that has completely given up. Members of this caucus met recently with the new mayor of Toronto to talk about Toronto's priorities. We are doing that day in and day out. What do the people of Toronto want?

They want better transportation, which is why we are making the billion dollar investment in transportation. When politicians, like that member, on Toronto city council flipped and flopped and could not make a decision, it was up to the federal government to step in and make the decision for the people of Toronto so they could have better transportation. That is what our record is. Again, the member proves just what the Liberal Party has become: a collection of big talkers with no action.

We will take action and we will let him talk, and we will make sure that the people of Toronto are not— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Questions and comments, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, talking about getting the job done, the member from the Conservative Party will agree that a cut to health care by $36 billion got the job done. Cutting postal worker door-to-door delivery got the job done. Where there used to be a person delivering mail to people's doors, now those people are having to go out to get their mail.

Moving the retirement age from 65 to 67 got the job done. That is a good record for the Conservative government. However, on the case before us today, we are here not only for action, but to talk. In a democracy we have the right to talk. The premiers of the country have asked to meet with the Prime Minister to talk about their issues, but he has refused. That is an insult to every premier. Mr. Paul Calandra : Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the member's math. The Liberals actually cut $50 billion from health care, not $36 billion. We have increased health care spending to the provinces by 6% a year.

Unfortunately, when we look specifically at the province of Ontario and the Liberal premiers of Ontario, they have only reinvested 3% of that 6% into health care. I am not sure what they have done with the other 3%, but their big deficits and failed gas plants might explain where those billions of dollars went. We will continue to do what is right. When it comes to Canada Post, the member raised a good point. It is unfortunate that decades worth of Liberal lack of action has left Canada Post in a position now where I think it is delivering one billion fewer pieces of mail a year.

They never put in place a plan many years ago to reflect the new emerging Canadian economy and how people would communicate. We are doing that. We are allowing our crown corporations to succeed. We are allowing Canadian people to succeed. When we talk about our seniors, income splitting has benefited our seniors. We increased the old age security. The opposition parties would both take those away from our seniors, from Canadians. We will fight to keep more money in their pockets. Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. He had tons of great information on the history of our country, and on the Prime Minister meeting with the premiers from coast to coast to coast. Recently Canada has worked with all the provinces and territories to negotiate the labour market agreements and establish the Canada job grant, which will provide literally thousands of Canadians the opportunity to use federal and employer dollars for training so they can build better lives for themselves and their families. These negotiations took a long time.

We negotiated with governments of Conservative, Liberal and NDP stripes. Working together as a federation, we now have a Canada job grant available in every province across the country. Quebec had a great system already in place. It is very similar to the Canada job grant that we have now established in all the provinces and territories. Could the member elaborate on the impact the Canada job grant can have in providing employment, and why it was so important to work with the provinces to establish this program?

(1110) Mr. Paul Calandra : Mr. Speaker, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley is one of the best members of Parliament that community has ever seen. He is also one of the people who worked very hard to bring forward the Canada job grant, and I thank him for that. I know the people in my community who will use this job grant want to thank him as well. What this grant does is match skills with people. It gives people the opportunity to find employment and to get the training they need. We did this, magically, by actually working with our provincial partners. They said that it could not be done.

Was it done? It absolutely was. We have brought in the Canada job grant across the country. We got the job done. What is the Liberal plan for the economy? It is high debt and high taxes. Canadians rejected it once, they rejected it twice, they rejected it three times, and they will reject it a fourth time. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, for my friend and colleague from Acadie—Bathurst , I will try to help him out by finishing off some of the thoughts I am sure he did not have time to share. The $160 billion added to the national debt, the Conservatives got it done.

A 66% increase in Canadians who work for minimum wage under the government, they got it done. A youth unemployment rate that is twice the level of the national average, congratulations, they got it done. Closure of veterans' offices from coast to coast, they got it done. Getting booted off the UN Security Council, the pride of the international community, the Conservatives got it done. How could meeting with the premiers of the country make it any worse than the job the Conservatives have done? Mr. Paul Calandra : Mr. Speaker, we now have a transition in the Liberal policy.

Now the Liberals are saying that the Government of Canada, through the economic downturn, should not have been working with the provinces to stimulate the Canadian economy. Now all of a sudden the Liberals do not want us to talk with them. What did we do? We put together the Council of the Federation in 2009. The Prime Minister met with the premiers. We tackled Canada's economic downturn. We are one of the first and most successful countries that will bring back a balanced budget. We are the envy of the world in job creation.

We are balancing the budget, reducing taxes, making our communities safer, investing in infrastructure and investing in people. We cut taxes for our seniors. We reinvested in health care. We reinvested in education. We brought in the Canada jobs grant. On every count that matters to Canadians, we are building a bigger, better, stronger, safer Canada despite the fact that the Liberals have given up. We will never give up on making Canada bigger, better and stronger. We will not do it like the Liberals, by increasing taxes and running deficits long into the future. The kids in the gallery do not deserve that.

They deserve a government that will roll up its sleeves and get the job done. That is what the Prime Minister and this government are doing. We will continue to do it long into the future. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the motion.

I move: Motion That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Monday, February 2, 2015, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

(1115) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Does the hon. member for Ottawa South have unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to) Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Before I get to the remarks I prepared ahead of time, I just have to comment on the whole notion.

The premise of the government's argument was that we do not need to meet at the premier level because all the other meetings we are having work out so well, so there is no need for us to do that. It makes no sense whatsoever, and I think anyone watching this will understand that there really is no defence for a prime minister who refuses to meet with the Council of the Federation. It is just that simple.

I need to say right from the outset that an NDP government would commit clearly to meetings twice a year with the Council of the Federation, once here in the capital and then rotating across the country, once in a province or territory, then back in the capital. It would be part of the ongoing national discussion that Canadians would have, the kind of discussion we should be having, particularly given the challenges we are now facing here in this country. I have to also say that I find this passing strange. I understand why the Liberals have brought this in, and this is the only sort of side shot at the Liberals.

However, with an election coming, we do not normally lead with our chin. In this millennium, while the Liberals were in power from 2000 to 2006, they met a whole grand total of twice with the Council of the Federation. If the Liberals are saying they will up their game, then indeed let us call it that and they have to up their game, because the last time they were in power they did not live up to what this motion says here today. If I might, I would like to just take one step back in terms of the context for the discussion we are having today.

Under our constitution, the federal government and the provincial governments exist as equals. Again, in our constitution, the federated government with its capital and seat of government here in Ottawa is no more important, has no veto above, and has no ability to dictate to the provinces, because the provinces are 100% equal and sovereign in the areas that they represent and that the constitution defines for provinces. As a former Ontario cabinet minister myself, I have attended federal-provincial-territorial justice ministers conferences. The key to two equals talking and working together is respect.

Respect is the cornerstone for a relationship based on equals. Here is a bit of housekeeping. I need to mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Victoria . There is a notion that the federal government and the Prime Minister will decide when they will visit the little peons there in the provinces—when it suits them. When they come together, the government and the Prime Minister may or may not go by and say hello. They will decide that, because of course, being the federal government, they are the big shots. They are number one. They decide when we will meet and when we will not.

That is the attitude, and that is the core of the problem. It is that attitude towards provinces and territories. It is the disrespect shown to sovereign governments under our constitution. That is why it is so important that the Canadian people hear clearly that an NDP government would honour and respect that relationship, and we would meet twice a year, once in the capital here in Ottawa and, rotating around, once in the provinces and territories.

(1120) If we accept that it is a relationship of equals and we look at what the government is doing, it makes sense that we would go back and look at what the government said it would do in terms of this relationship when it was running to get that strong, stable, Conservative, majority government that it wanted. What was the commitment? On page 42 of the platform on which the government ran are the promises they made to the Canadian people, when they asked them to give them 39% of the vote and they would take 100% of the power.

When they also said this is what they would do with this relationship, it sounded so good. The platform states: 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. What happened to living up to that promise, because that is sure not what we are seeing? That obligation is not being honoured.

Instead, we hear, “I will deal with you when I choose to.” That attitude is what has led to this impasse. The Constitution provides the division of powers. However, there are overlaps. It is not 10 sovereign nations and 3 territories. We are still within one nation. That is why it is called Confederation, as opposed to a unilateral system, which is the way the government wants to act, as if there is only one government and what it says goes.

We have a Constitution that says the delivery of health care is the responsibility of the provinces and yet, from a confederated point of view, the health of all Canadians is obviously in the interest of the national government, which is the government that has the biggest levers of power to leverage the kind of funding that can provide the support for our universal health care system.

Therefore, how can it be that a government that says it stands up for Canadian values on a file like universal health care feels it can just ignore the Council of the Federation and there is no need whatsoever to be talking collaboratively about ensuring that, arguably, the most precious thing that Canadians have is the universal health care system? That should be top of mind of every premier and every prime minister at all times, as well as coming together to talk about how to deliver a health care system that meets the needs of our people, especially as the population is getting older.

There is an awful lot of us boomers. We are getting older. The population around the world is getting older. It is not a new problem, not unique to Canada, but we have a unique opportunity to solve it in a made-in-Canada way, which is through the Council of the Federation meeting with the federal government, as equals. Retirement security is a huge issue. In 2009, the council called for a national summit on retirement security. What was the government's response in the interim?

It was a unilateral cut to our income security by telling people that they do not get to collect OAS until they are 67; and let us not forget the insult of announcing it outside of Canada. Not only did the Conservatives not raise it during the election, but they did not have the guts to do it here on our soil when they attacked Canadians' income and retirement security.

In closing, to tackle the issues that matter most, such as the environment, jobs, our health care system, and retirement security issues, we need to be working in co-operation, and that means showing respect, a respect that has been missing from the Prime Minister and the government, and a respect that an NDP government would make front and centre in our relationships with provincial and territorial governments.

(1125) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, before I pose my question, I will just remind the member, as he said he took one shot at the Liberal Party, that there was a premiers' conference scheduled for 2006, I believe, and when the election was called not only did we lose the national daycare policy, not only did we lose $2.7 billion for housing, and not only was the Kelowna accord thrown to the rocks, but that meeting went by the way as well. I would just like that to be corrected and shown on the record. The value of meeting is critical.

I know that the member who just rose in the House understands that this is nowhere more critical than in the city of Hamilton, where the steel plants are at risk despite federal meetings that produced a bailout package, where pensions are at risk despite federal meetings where pensions were discussed, and where the economy of southern Ontario and the diversification of the manufacturing base—a goal that I hope all of us in the House share—are at risk because of the fact that we are losing traditional jobs in traditional factories and in traditional steel plants.

I was wondering whether or not there was any indication that anybody from the party opposite, which seems so averse to meeting and cancels free trade talks and trade talks with Mexico and the United States at the drop of a hat, and despite the fact that it has elected people from Hamilton, has convened a meeting to try to save the steel industry and put it back on a solid footing so that all of the industrial base of Ontario—in fact, all of the cities of Ontario—have local steel and local supplies they can rely on as we diversify our economy. Mr. David Christopherson : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the response from my friend from Trinity—Spadina. In response to his response to me, I would just point out that in '06 it was not the NDP that threw the Liberals out of power; it was the Canadian people who decided the Liberals needed to be removed from power. More importantly, moving to ground that we agree on, particularly as it relates to southern Ontario and our shared economy around the Golden Horseshoe, I certainly agree with everything the member has said in terms of the government's record with respect to the steel industry in Hamilton.

I think it is fair to say that we could probably apply that right across most of what has been happening in southern Ontario: the lack of concern and the lack of caring. The member talked about local members. I do not like to attack local members unless there is a really good reason. This is a really good reason. There has not been an adequate response from the government members in our area and from the government. The jobs that matter and the pensions that matter were all treated in a cavalier fashion by the government in terms of the unilateral actions it has had.

To this day, the government will still not make public the actual document it signed that has put these jobs and pensions in jeopardy. Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think it is on the record and absolutely beyond dispute that, since the current Prime Minister took office, he has met with his provincial and territorial counterparts more than 300 times. That is over the course of nine years. I have done the math on that. That is in fact almost three meetings per month. It is a meeting with a provincial or territorial counterpart approximately every 10 days.

In fact, it is a meeting with a provincial or territorial counterpart approximately every 7.8 business days. The member opposite stood up and said that the NDP policy would be to reduce the number of meetings by the prime minister to twice a year, if they are elected. I know the member's leader, the Leader of the Opposition , does not like to answer yes and no questions, because I tried that with him and he would not do it. However, I will give this member the opportunity to answer a simple yes or no question, which is this.

When the member stood up to propose a reduction in the number of meetings by the prime minister, did he know that our Prime Minister has met more than 300 times with his provincial and territorial counterparts since he was elected?

(1130) Mr. David Christopherson : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can demand that I answer him whatever way he wishes, but I will still answer the way I wish. The way I wish to answer is to go right back to the first point I made. The member stands up and brags about these 300 meetings. Can he imagine what would happen if there was just one with all the premiers at one time? The member is trying to suggest that the 300 number would go down to two.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, just as it makes no sense at all for the government to talk about how productive it is when, at the ministerial level or at the minister of state level or even at a parliamentary secretary level, there is respectful dialogue between the federal government and the provinces and territories. I would extrapolate from the member's comments that the 300 times is meant to say that those were 300 good meetings and 300 good things happened. I am not questioning the veracity of that.

However, I am suggesting that starting to have more regular meetings with the Council of the Federation makes a lot more sense than telling it to hit the road. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Victoria, I just want to make a note to hon. members. There is considerable interest in participating in the debate today.

I remind members that in the segments that are only 10 minutes for a speech and five minutes for questions and comments, if there are a lot of people standing up, I am going to ask members who intervene during that five-minute period, both the questioner and the member responding, to keep their responses to about a minute so that more of their colleagues can participate, as I said, there being great interest in this particular question today before the House. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Victoria. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this important measure.

The motion is: That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister of Canada should hold annual First Ministers' Conferences. It is so trite. Of course I wish to say that I will be supporting that motion, but I want to go much further than that. I am delighted to be the official opposition critic for health. In that particular context, I want to illustrate why this is so important. We have a crisis in the funding and the creation of innovation in our health care system, yet the Prime Minister 's lack of leadership and lack of willingness to meet with provincial and territorial counterparts is very telling.

This is a multibillion-dollar industry. The health care program in Canada is something Canadians are justly proud of. When asked in surveys over and over again, Canadians recognize this is a signature part of our Canadian identity. The father of medicare, former premier Tommy Douglas, set up the first of these programs in the country, and of course, it has been adapted at the federal level. We have to sustain that signature program of the federation. To do so, we need leadership at the highest level.

To do so, we need to have a Prime Minister who deigns to meet with the Council of the Federation, something the Prime Minister, in his platform that brought him to power, said very clearly: 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. What happened?

Apparently there is a meeting of the Council of the Federation here in Ottawa, and the Prime Minister cannot find the time to go. What happened to that promise? What happened to the promise to the Canadian people, the respect, of which my colleague from Hamilton Centre spoke, for a sovereign government within its sphere? That has apparently disappeared. We live in a vast, very decentralized federation called Canada. There are many powers that are shared, some that are given to the provinces in

section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, some that are given to the federal government, and some that are not mentioned, health being one of them. The Conservatives seem to think that a few meetings at the deputy level and a few meetings perhaps with the ministers responsible once in a while is okay. They seem to think that what some people have called “chequebook federalism” works, where they just do a transfer of money and suddenly that is all we need to make a dynamic system like health care function in such a vast and complicated country. All the experts say that if they believe that, they are wrong.

We need to find ways the federal government, using its spending power, can incent the kind of behaviours we need to sustain our precious health care system. We have a law called the Canada Health Act, which was passed unanimously. It has several core principles: public administration of our health system, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. Those are nice words. How do we make those words translate into action? How can we afford a program, with an aging population, and the need for new services, expensive pharmaceutical care, home care, and long-term care?

How do we do that without having a dialogue with the provinces at the highest level to figure it out? Apparently, the Conservatives do not think we need to do so. We do. The Leader of the Opposition has committed that no less than twice a year there would be meetings with all the premiers, not one-offs with various premiers, which seems to be the style of the current Prime Minister . Rather, in a respectful way, they would sit around the table and dialogue about these serious problems. I am simply using health as one illustration of the kinds of problems we need to solve as a country and as a federation.

The Canada Health Act is lovely, with those principles I mentioned, but does the federal government enforce it? Non-compliance is rampant. User fees and private clinics seem to be in absolute contrast to what the principles suggest, yet people are not doing much about it. Are there penalties to address those, or sanctions, as expected, as any law that should be enforced would suggest? No, there is no attempt to enforce those conditions on user fees, extra billing, and private clinics. Indeed, we have a case that is in the B.C. Supreme Court in March that will go on for months.

It will deal with private clinics and whether they are okay under our Canada Health Act. Is the federal government involved? Is the Prime Minister interested?

(1135) The Canada health transfer is a block transfer that gives money to the provinces and territories to deal with the health care system. It is tens of billions of dollars. In 2004, the government made a 10-year commitment to something called a health accord. That expired last year, on March 31. It was $41 billion over 10 years. One day in 2011, the then-minister of finance came into my community of Victoria and said that they were not going to do that anymore. They were not going to fund it the way it was funded before, with a guarantee of a 6% health care funding increase.

He said that it would end in the 2016-17 fiscal year, conveniently after the next election. The Conservatives only committed to a floor of 3% in that document. Henceforth, as the population grows, as the aging population grows, and as pharmaceuticals get more expensive, there will not be enough money. Effectively, the critics have pointed out, there will be a $36-billion cut in health care costs going forward. As I said, coincidentally it will be just after the next federal election. This is a problem. Canada needs a national pharmaceutical strategy. We started one, but it was scrapped.

We need a continuing care plan that integrates home care, facility-based long-term care, respite care, and palliative care. We need a universal public drug plan. We need adequate and stable federal funding, including the old 6% escalator to deal with the growth in our population. We need innovation. Why am I mentioning this in the context of the debate today? It is for a very simple reason: it is one of the signature programs of our federation, and we need to sustain it. We need leadership from the Government of Canada. We need the Prime Minister to take an interest.

All the premiers are fixed on this crisis facing us, the “grey tsunami”, as it is called, of the aging population. We need innovation. We do not just need more money, although we do need a commitment to the escalator we had in the old health accord. We need a commitment to stable, long-term federal funding, and we need a government that enforces the Canada Health Act. However, we also need a Prime Minister to sit down with his counterparts at the provincial and territorial level on a regular basis for a checkup on this signature program. Canadians are so proud of the Canada Health Act.

They are so proud of our medicare system. When asked, they continually tell us that it is one of the things that makes them most proud as Canadians. We could lose all of this if we do not have this kind of dialogue at the senior level. I hear the government members saying that they meet lots of times and that they have ministers who meet. It is called executive federalism, where the deputies get together and chat. I absolutely respect that and understand that it is a necessity in various programs, including those for health. However, we need leadership from the top.

Leaving it to a number of officials to deal with is not going to cut it. Canadians want to see their Prime Minister engaged with the provinces on this issue. I have had people come to my office from the Canadian Health Coalition, Canadian Doctors for Medicare, and other leaders in my community saying that we have a crisis coming. The Council of Canadians has also spoken passionately about this, yet what do we hear from the government?

In 2011, it announced unilaterally and with no dialogue that it was going to throw the health accord out, not renew it, and no longer commit to a 6% escalator, despite everyone saying that the need is there. People are asking if we are going to be able to sustain this. The jury is out on that question, but one thing is clear. If we had dialogue at the highest level, at the Council of the Federation, with the Prime Minister , in good faith and with the respect my colleague from Hamilton Centre mentioned, we could solve this. Canadians have rolled up their sleeves and solved things before.

We had a crisis with the Canada Pension Plan and we fixed it. We decided as a country, federally and provincially, that we would put more money into it, that we would deal with what was going to be a crisis if we did not address it, and we fixed it. We can fix medicare as well, but it needs leadership and respectful dialogue. To think that the Prime Minister will refuse to meet, when the members of the Council of the Federation are right here, should shock all Canadians.

When they look at the problems, of which this is just one example, they will see the self-evident need for us to agree with this motion to have that regular meeting between the Prime Minister and the Council of the Federation. Our leader has committed to that no less than twice a year. The government is apparently not doing it.

(1140) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member speak about the effectiveness of the meeting that then prime minister Paul Martin had with the ministers of the provinces to deliver that health care accord. I am assuming that the NDP is looking to build on that very successful model that delivered such a strong health care policy. I am interested to hear the member's reaction to this notion of 300 meetings. It seems that every time the Prime Minister passes a premier in an airport lounge or sits with one at a hockey game, he chalks it up as a meeting.

The Prime Minister has had as many meetings with our premier in Ontario as he has had with Mr. Putin from Russia, and the meetings have been about as effective. Not much has been accomplished, beyond the words “get out” being muttered, in terms of what happened. When the NDP talks about these meetings, is the Martin health care accord reached in 2004 the model it wishes replicated? Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Trinity—Spadina that there needs to be an accord.

Whether that accord in the future is one that takes the form of the one that was signed in 2004 is what the parties will sort out in that respectful dialogue that one would expect to occur. The 300 meetings that might happen in the course of a year sounds a lot like the lack of respect the federal government has when it negotiates with aboriginal people. Conservatives keep a log of how many meetings they have and call it consultation. I suppose if we add up 300, one might think we have had a good dialogue.

We are talking about a sit-down meeting of the kind that Canadians are famous for in finding compromise and going forward with practical suggestions, not just a number of meetings that can be counted up in some mechanical way. Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to comment on this notion of the parliamentary secretary who said that people did not elect us to talk and to listen to the provinces' needs but want the government to act. What I get from the government is that Conservatives cannot walk and talk at the same time. This is ridiculous.

Sorry, we do not want to go too fast for the Conservatives, but we are discussing some serious issues. Why is it that the Prime Minister , who was elected on a platform, on a promise to Canadians, to act as a prime minister and listen, now does not want to listen or talk. The Conservatives just want to act. I would like to name some of the problems on which the government did not meet with the provinces or consult with the provinces and just acted. (1145) [ Translation ] The securities commission is one example.

The federal government decided to move forward without consulting the provinces, even after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the provinces. The job program is another example. After months of opposition, the government decided to admit that it may have made a mistake, that Quebec had a different system and that perhaps the government should have listened to Quebec. As for the EI program, the government decided to modify this program without even consulting Quebec, which is home to 40% of seasonal workers. Can we really have faith in this government? [ English ] Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr.

Speaker, I have to say that the list could go on. My colleague mentioned employment insurance and the securities commission the government wishes to establish nationally, despite vehement opposition from certain provinces. Perhaps if there were respectful dialogue, with listening and acting, then we might be able to find solutions to these problems, as we need to find them so desperately in the context of health care. I would add one example; the safe injection site legislation. The Supreme Court told Conservatives that they had to do it, and what did the government do?

It found 101 ways to make sure it does not happen. That is not the kind of leadership we need. If we sat down with the provinces at the highest level and figured this out, we could solve some of these pressing crises Canadians understand we are facing. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this very important debate. I am sure that Canadians who are watching understand how important it is to have positive relationships among one another. That is very helpful when it is possible, but it is quite difficult in this environment.

Certainly positive relationships with our provinces would be much more helpful. As members of this House know, one of the unique characteristics of Canada's federal system is something dubbed by many as “summit federalism”. The key component of this kind of federalism is commonly known as the first ministers' conference, which brings together the Prime Minister , provincial premiers, and territorial leaders. This allows the first ministers to tackle collective problems in a collaborative way that is good for every Canadian, regardless of the province of residence.

I think that makes sense to anybody who is watching. That sounds like the kind of Canada that they would want. Since 1906, Canada's first ministers have been meeting every year to discuss ideas of pressing federal-provincial concern, to exchange notes and best practices, and, most importantly, to avoid misunderstandings or a misallocation of resources and even duplication. In short, they meet to build a consensus, to craft common policy responses, and to work co-operatively to make Canada an even better place in which to live and work.

That has been happening since 1906, and we have had a lot of success up until the last eight or nine years. Most experts agree that it is critical for these deliberations to be chaired by the Prime Minister , the head of our country, the elected official guided on a broader, more national perspective. Sadly, the current Prime Minister's vision for Canada is much smaller and much more inward-looking than all of that. As evidence of this, the last time the current Prime Minister met with the premiers and territorial leaders was in 2009.

There has not been another high-level gathering of all of the premiers and territorial leaders and our Prime Minister for six years, which means that for six years the Prime Minister has hidden in the proverbial closet and abdicated his national leadership responsibilities to others. I have to wonder what he is so afraid of that he cannot sit down in a room with all of the premiers collectively. Does the Prime Minister lack the confidence? Is that the issue? Is it that he is concerned he will be challenged on his ideological mantra and be rebuked by many of them?

Previous Conservative leaders have not been afraid to meet with the first ministers, and in many cases their meetings have been very fruitful. However, the current Prime Minister continues to hide in his office and avoid working on any kind of pan-Canadian vision for the future of Canada, as is very evident when we talk to the premiers or territorial leaders on a variety of issues and hear their frustration. Certainly there are several issues on the federal agenda that would benefit from a national approach. The establishment of a national securities regulator has been talked about a great deal.

The government has done quite a job at trying to push that forward, but it requires the co-operation of the provinces and territories. Infrastructure renewal is a major issue facing Canada. Yes, money has been put into infrastructure, but has it been put down in a collaborative way? Has it been one project versus another? Was it always done in the best interests of Canada as a whole? That is what our job is and that is what the Prime Minister's job is: to do what is best for Canada as a whole and not benefit just one province versus another.

The economic recovery continues to be a significant problem for all of us. That is especially the case in southwestern Ontario, where we are concerned about the manufacturing sector. There has been a lot of emphasis put on the oil industry, much to the detriment of many of the other provinces. I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech that I will be splitting my time with my great new colleague from Trinity—Spadina . Let us talk about employment and the huge unemployment that is facing many of our young people.

They are graduating from universities and colleges with debts of $20,000 or $30,000, and there are no job opportunities. Little investment has been done in that area.

(1150) The government can talk about creating 1,200,000 jobs, but it does not talk about the 300,000 that have been lost, especially in southwestern Ontario. These are issues that could be dealt with much more effectively if the Prime Minister would set aside his personal fears and inadequacies and sit at the same table with the premiers and talk seriously about how we can together get Canada to move forward. As an Ontario MP, I know that the manufacturing sector alone has bled more than 300,000 jobs since the premiers last met six years ago.

Middle-class families are in trouble, and they are looking to government for leadership and help. Imagine what could have been done to stem the tide if the first ministers, including and led by the Prime Minister , had set their collective minds to stabilizing the manufacturing sector instead of ignoring it for nine years. Instead, the Premier of Ontario was forced to deal with this crisis and many more. Only recently did the Prime Minister squeeze in a brief meeting on the way to a hockey game. It shows how much respect there is for the Province of Ontario.

It is no secret that the Prime Minister does not play well with others. He prefers the bully pulpit over the conference table. However, after six long years of locking the doors of 24 Sussex to the rest of Canada, surely it is time to plan for the collective and long-term success of the nation. I understand that the Prime Minister detests these meetings because he cannot control conferences or those sitting around the table. One never knows what is going to come out of them, although usually they are very positive things.

I understand the preference for absolute and total control over a situation, environment, and message, but that is not the way to move a country as big as Canada forward. It cannot continue in this way without serious harm being caused. There has been a regrettable inclination on the part of the government and the Prime Minister to rely on reference cases and the Supreme Court of Canada to resolve federal-provincial disagreements, but this is hardly an optimal way of dealing with these disputes and it is hardly the way to manage a country.

As we speak, there are several pressing policy issues on the table that demand a more collective approach. Pension security is one of them. Others include infrastructure spending, the environment, changes to employment insurance, health care funding, and many more, not to mention that the premiers should have the right to speak to the Prime Minister directly on issues such as the status of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, the CETA, with the European Union, which they will all presumably have to ratify at some point.

Clearly Newfoundland and Labrador has some very serious concerns that are going to have to be listened to, one way or the other. The Prime Minister needs to take a leadership role and start working with his provincial and territorial counterparts. By hiding in his office in the Langevin Block or on the Hill, he is undermining the proper functioning of a federal state and weakening the federal government's central role in the process. He is also forcing the premiers to move collectively to fill the gap and to move ahead with their own policy initiatives.

For example, on the pension front, Ontario is relegating the national voice to a whisper on the sidelines. Perhaps this is all part of a well-known firewall strategy. As the Conservatives move deeper and deeper into their bunker, who will speak for Canada as a whole? Why would any political leader not take advantage of the impending first ministers meeting to re-establish the federal government's role and the desire to be part of the process, unless there is no desire to be part of it? The Prime Minister assumed office by promising open federalism.

It is long past due for him to sit down and meet with the premiers and territorial leaders. Refusing to do so is an admission of his own failures and shortcomings and is no way to run a country.

(1155) Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in saying the Prime Minister is basically hiding in his office, my colleague lays the issue out fairly well. That is what we are seeing. However, would the member not agree that what is worse than hiding in his office, where he maybe could not do too much damage, is that the Prime Minister 's Office has a message machine fully staffed by the bureaucracy of Canada in every department to put out messages that are really deceptions in many ways? I will use one example that the member talked about, and that is infrastructure.

The government announced the biggest infrastructure spending program in Canadian history. It was to take place over 10 years. The problem is the spending really does not start to take place until 2019. What a first ministers' meeting would do is give premiers the opportunity to lay out before Canadians some of the deception that the current first minister is involved in. I wonder what the member's thoughts might be on that aspect. Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, I really find it quite astonishing that taxpayers' dollars are being used to present messages in the public media that for the most part are 90% false.

I do not recollect exactly what amount of taxpayers' money has been used for advertising programs that have yet to be approved by Parliament. There have been countless times when these programs being used to tell people about all kinds of different issues were close to being complete lies, and taxpayers' money is being used to do it. What we are asking is why the government is not meeting with the premiers and coming up with some positive results. I think that would be a much better way to win the next election, but clearly the government has its own ideology about what is or is not required.

I very much look forward to the next election, because Canadians are getting tired of being told the outright lies that are being fed to them with their own money by this government. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my Liberal colleague's speech. This motion is a relevant one, especially at a time when the Conservative government continues to make cuts to provincial transfers. The people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles are worried about the $36 billion in cuts to health that will be made in the coming years.

The Conservatives also cut disaster assistance to the provinces, without consultation or warning. This Conservative government has a habit of secretly offloading costs onto the provinces, as the Liberals did when they were in power. My colleagues have already mentioned the Liberal Party's poor record when it was in power. Between 2000 and 2006, Liberal prime ministers only held two meetings with the premiers. It is clear that we cannot really have faith in a Liberal government either. The NDP is committed to holding at least two meetings a year with the provincial premiers.

Would my colleague support such a measure? (1200) [ English ] Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, there was a period of time when I had the good fortune to be a minister in the Paul Martin government. Let me tell the members how beneficial those meetings were. We sat down with the premiers and the bureaucracy to hear about some of the issues. In advance of that meeting, officials in the bureaucracy, who knew there was a meeting coming up, would be in contact with each other all across the country.

When the meeting actually started, the bureaucracy already knew some of the issues that would be raised and had already started working toward finding solutions. At the end of the meetings, we were always able to come up with recommendations to deal with the pressures that the different premiers or territorial leaders were experiencing, rather than just coming forward with a press release that said there was a meeting and that was it.

We were always able to find solutions to problems, and if we could not find solutions for everything, we could at least commit to working more closely with the premiers of those different provinces to find those solutions. I am very proud of the record of both the Chrétien government and the Paul Martin government. The relationship we have with the municipalities is the result of the Liberal government. That is how we build a country: by building on a continuous basis, talking to each other, and understanding the pressures that our cities and municipalities and communities are facing.

That is how to build a country. It is not by ignoring them, staying in the office, and not meeting with people Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I recall a comment that was made yesterday when people were having trouble following the debate. The thumping and the knocking they thought was from construction might have been the nervous hearts of some Conservative ministers, in particular the finance minister , as they try to contemplate a way forward in very troubled times.

It was either that, or the door of the Prime Minister's Office was continuously being knocked on by vets, by cities, by provinces, by the medical community, and by universities. The knocking continues, but no one is answering the door. That is why today's motion is so critically important. It is not thumping we are hearing; it is people knocking on the door trying to get in, trying to build a consensus, and trying to move this country forward.

The reason it is so critically important to bring the first ministers of this country together is that it is only when those who have the capacity to move forward together meet together and agree on a common agenda that we can achieve more than simply unilateral action. I find this passing strange as someone who has watched members of the government in other jurisdictions in provincial capitals unilaterally download, unilaterally amalgamate, unilaterally act without consensus, and seeing the disasters that flow from that. The city of Toronto is a perfect example.

One member talked about the dithering by Conservatives' over transit. The irony is that it is exactly this lack of consensus that has been driven by someone who refused to meet, at times, even with his own council, that led to the very crisis of which he spoke. Meetings are important. When we have significant trade issues with a buy American policy causing havoc in the manufacturing sector right across this country, pursuing a meeting with the U.S. president and our NAFTA partner Mexico is a good thing to do. What does the Conservative government do? It walks away from yet another meeting.

That is how we now resolve international trade issues. We do not resolve international issues by refusing to meet; they are resolved by meeting. It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not understand that. It is a wonder that he even meets with his cabinet sometimes. The hallmark of Prime Minister Paul Martin's behaviour in the Prime Minister's Office was meeting with others. I know that because I covered Parliament Hill at that time. I was here for the health accord in Ottawa when it was negotiated. When an agreement could not be reached in the set time, the meeting continued.

They sat around the table until they achieved consensus. However, it was not just consensus, but a policy that the NDP has already said it would like to renew without even meeting with the premiers. That is how good a consensus and how strong a legacy was built up by meeting with the premiers. After that meeting Prime Minister Martin sat down with the media for over half an hour to explain exactly what had been achieved and exactly how the health ministers were going to meet afterward to continue the progress.

Again, that was such a strong policy that the Conservatives now try to claim it as their own investment in health care when it in fact was the premiers and the Government of Canada that created that agreement. That is why meeting with the premiers is not simply about holding a meeting. It is not searching for things to do or searching for policies to pursue. The premiers have agendas. For example, the Premier of Newfoundland would love to see the Conservative government honour its commitment on the CETA agreement and processing in fisheries.

Instead what we get is a minister and a parliamentary secretary standing in the House and claiming that the other provinces are bitter about this, that they are upset that Newfoundland is getting special treatment. It is not getting special treatment: Newfoundland is asking for agreements to be lived up to, agreements that the government had negotiated in good faith and now is walking away from. It moves way beyond just the premiers. The government does not meet with the big city mayors.

When the big city mayors met in Winnipeg and sat down with Paul Martin and the federal leadership, they created two policies that the Conservative government continues to claim as its own. I am speaking of the gas tax and infrastructure funding. Both of those policies were not unilaterally delivered to cities, were not dictated on high by the Prime Minister's Office. Conferences were called, negotiations were held, policy was developed, and accords were reached. The grievance that led to cities being given a more stable funding formula was addressed. That is what happens when people work in consensus.

It is not a question of always having your own policy lead the conversation. Sometimes we have to do something the current Conservative government has become incapable of doing, and that is listening. That is a problem. It hurts cities, it hurts provinces, it hurts Canadians wherever they live, and no group knows this more fundamentally than the first nations and aboriginal communities of this country.

(1205) Yes, we can have encounters. We can stage a meeting here, there, and everywhere, but if we do not bring the decision-makers together around the table, long-term, permanent resolutions to long-standing issues fail to materialize. That is what the problem is. Without a first ministers' meeting, progress on critical issues where provincial and federal jurisdiction overlap is next to impossible, and playing the premiers off against each other is not what this country is built upon.

In fact, if we read the first three words of the constitution, “Whereas the provinces...”, the provinces govern all of us, and we have to govern with them if Confederation is going to work. At the end of the day, the Liberal Party is asking for a commitment by the House and the government of the day, regardless of which party holds power, to meet annually with the first ministers so that the agenda of this country can move forward on a consistent basis, on a consensual basis, and in a collective way. That is not too much to ask of a confederated government, but apparently it is too much to ask of this government.

That is a shame. Instead of standing here and exploring the opportunities, instead of sitting in concert with the premiers and listening and building a stronger country, it is the Conservatives' way or the highway. The irony, because it is their way or the highway on infrastructure in particular, is that no highways are getting built in this country. The Conservatives talk about what their consensus builds. Their infrastructure funding does not arrive for two to three years.

We are in the middle of a crisis right now, and instead of sitting down and trying to figure out how we could fast-track that and get critical infrastructure built, what we get are five-minute meetings next to an airport in front of a hockey game, which have nothing to do with solving problems and are not much more productive than simply telling people no.

As I said at the start of my remarks, the knocking we hear in the halls of this building is Canadians and premiers; it is provinces and cities; it is cities, manufacturers, and universities; it is groups of Canadians and individual Canadians looking for more than a cold shoulder. That has got to fundamentally change if we are to change the way this country operates. Unfortunately, what we have heard today is the Conservatives saying, “We have met enough. We have done enough”, and Canadians are saying that it is not good enough. (1210) [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his speech and for the motion before us. I will support the initiative because I believe that the Prime Minister of Canada should meet the other first ministers at least once a year. We think twice a year would be better, but we know that, as the Liberals see it, once is an improvement. I would like to ask my Liberal colleague a question. Naturally, these meetings are about respect. The goal is for people to get along, show mutual respect and help each other.

However, I find it a bit hypocritical of the Liberals to try to restore their image by setting up this kind of annual meeting because, in the past, they themselves cut provincial health and social transfers, and that is what got them in trouble. We are still dealing with the negative consequences of that. I would like my Liberal colleague to comment on that inconsistency: pushing for greater respect for the premiers even though they themselves cut health and social transfers in the past. [ English ] Mr.

Adam Vaughan : I apologize for not having the motion in French in front of me, but the motion in English is plural. It is not defined as “a meeting”, but says “conferences”. Rather than prescribe a set number of meetings per year, because I think that may vary from time to time, it talks about meetings. I assume that means more than one is possible, but not necessarily prescribed and set out in that regard. Elections and other issues sometimes take precedence. On this notion of unilateral behaviour, as I said, I represent a riding in downtown Toronto that has a significant amount of transit in it.

I would note that an NDP government at Queen's Park, when it held power, unilaterally and without notice cut operating funds for transit in Ontario. It was the beginning of the end of operational subsidies for the Toronto Transit Commission, so no party has a stranglehold on poor behaviour in its history. What we are talking about is fixing the future. If members want to debate the budgets and the behaviour of the 1990s, they should go on all they want about it. We are talking about the next decade and the next century in this country and how we will behave as a government. Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member comes from Trinity—Spadina . I am surprised that he does not realize there is a $622 million federal investment in the subway in Trinity—Spadina, which will connect the people of York region to the subway system going through his area. I guess he forgot about that. He also must have forgotten about the more than $300 million investment in the York region Viva system, which connects the subway through York region and down Highway 7.

It is another investment that this government has made in the city of Toronto. There are also expansions in roads and infrastructure happening through that area. Highway 27 and the 407 are being extended. We have made a number of investments by working with our provincial partners, uploading some of those investments that give the provincial government more room. In fact, in the current round of the Building Canada fund, like the previous round, the priorities are actually set by the provincial Liberal government. That is how we are working with it.

I wonder if the member might reflect on the investments being made in transit in his own riding and if the example he talks about with respect to meeting people is similar, for instance, to his nomination, which actually did not occur because he was appointed by his leader, as opposed to meeting with people in his own riding and his own party. Mr. Adam Vaughan : Once again, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has never met a fact he cannot mangle. There was a contested nomination and I defeated someone in that nomination race, but he should not allow the facts to get in the way of a good argument.

The transit funding that he speaks of is so profoundly insufficient that it boggles the mind. We have yet to get a 30-year commitment on transit. The reality is that the transit funding that was secured came after the fact. The provincial Liberal government at Queen's Park is the government that actually drove this agenda. If it had not had the ability, together with the City of Toronto, to force Ottawa into this conversation, it would have gotten nothing, just as when the stimulus package was unveiled.

We had asked for money to expand our streetcar and light rapid transit lines and were turned down by the government. Instead, we had to build tiny parks everywhere in the city, in particular in the ridings held by Conservatives. I will take no lectures from a government that has no national transit policy, which sporadically invests in transit, has never provided an operating subsidy, and only funds projects when Rob Ford asks.

(1215) Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise to speak about the very great partnerships that our federal government has developed and how they have contributed, and continue to contribute, to making our country, Canada, one of the best countries in which to live. Infrastructure is the backbone of our communities.

It supports economic growth and a better quality of life because it provides Canadians with the essentials they need, transportation, clean water, recreation and cultural facilities, to carry out a safe, healthy and productive life. Public infrastructure has always been, and will continue to be, a key driver of Canada's success as a nation. Whether it is investments in highways, water treatment technology or airports, these investments help our industries reach global markets, protect our environment and support our cities and our communities.

Investment in quality public infrastructure builds strong communities, but it cannot be done by one single order of government. I remind members of Helen Keller's words of wisdom. She said, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” This, I believe, is how progress is achieved, meeting challenges through co-operation across all levels of government. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, I am very proud of the achievements that have been made possible through the steady collaboration with our provincial, territorial and municipal partners.

In Canada, the vast majority of core public infrastructure is in fact owned by municipalities, provinces and territories, with the balance, less than one-tenth, owned by the federal government. This means that provinces, territories and municipalities are ultimately responsible for building, expanding, maintaining, rehabilitating and operating almost all of Canada's public infrastructure. As a result, provinces, territories and municipalities are also best positioned to identify local and regional needs and priorities.

In order to provide a better quality of life for Canadians, to maintain a competitive edge over other G7 countries and to keep our economy on track, we are making record investments in public infrastructure. We are doing so through the $53 billion new Building Canada plan, which provides the necessary funding to other levels of government for their critical projects and initiatives. While these funds are used to fund priorities identified by provinces, territories and municipalities, these projects could not proceed without federal collaboration and contributions.

In recent years, Canadians have seen the benefits of partnership and the historic infrastructure investments that the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments have been making under the leadership of our great Prime Minister . When the original Building Canada plan was launched in 2007, it marked a new era for infrastructure partnership funding, and a new relationship among all orders of government. The plan was the result of engagement and discussions with provinces and territories, as well as the municipal sector.

The intent was to identify an approach to provide federal funding for provincial, territorial and municipal public infrastructure in a way that was more predictable and long term in nature. In fact, the development of the plan itself, in 2006, clearly set the tone for a new approach to public infrastructure, a much better approach. Our Conservative government consulted with all provinces and territories and a number of municipal associations with the purpose of putting federal funding on a predictable long-ter