Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's sense of humour. However, I do not think it is very funny when we look at what is really in this paper.
First she criticized my remarks in regard to the power the federal government is trying to exercise over the provinces. If she had read this green paper she would realize the federal government is trying to take away control from the provinces in areas the Constitution of Canada has given them, such as training and education. Those are provincial responsibilities and this government is trying to get more and more involved in those areas.
I would also like to point out to the hon. member how incorrect she is when she says the government is trying to get the co-operation of the provinces. That is pure talk and no action. The government is giving the provinces less and less funding, but is continuing to maintain control. That is co-operation? Obviously not. You cannot expect the provinces to co-operate if you do not give them more control. I think that is a very serious accusation the hon. member has made. I think the Bloc members over here have some very legitimate concerns about this federal government taking over provincial jurisdiction. We ought to listen once in a while at least.
The hon. member also said that I did not see anything good in the paper. Obviously she was not listening very well to my speech because there are some options in here which we commend. For example, in unemployment insurance the reduction in the duration of benefits is a good thing. I have mentioned that. To reduce the level of benefits, to have income testing, to have all of these things I said are very good.
However, I also said that not all of the options were included. She said I am not getting involved in the debate. She has not been in this House very much if she does not know that we have made many suggestions to this government in previous speeches which it has not read and not included in these options.
That is what I was saying again today. Why are these options not included? Why are these options so narrow? Why is the government trying to have more control over the lives of Canadians rather than letting them have more jurisdiction over programs like unemployment insurance?