Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today refers to three issues between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec. Indeed, the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian intergovernmental affairs raised them earlier this week with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in Ottawa.
This motion suggests that the government of Canada is using delaying tactics in its relationship with the Quebec government. That is not the case. In fact, what is going on here is totally appropriate. It is a normal and constructive process of relationship between two levels of government. And the Quebec case is no different from any other.
Since he became Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs 18 months ago, my colleague has met with his provincial counterparts more than 20 times. Eighteen months in government, more than 20 meetings. He met with his counterparts in Western Canada, in the territories, in the Atlantic area, in Ontario and in Quebec.
At these meetings, it is perfectly normal for provincial ministers to raise issues with the government of Canada that need to be solved. As usual, the government of Canada examines them and, with the co-operation of the province concerned, takes steps to find solutions agreeable to both parties.
Also, the government of Canada sometimes identifies issues that it considers important. It then consults with the provincial governments and, together, they agree on measures, once again to reach fair and equitable agreements.
This process is not peculiar to the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. In the Canadian federation, this approach is successful because all first ministers, ministers and officials work closely together to achieve concrete and practical results.
Our pragmatic federalism is based on a series of mechanisms and intergovernmental meetings that allow our governments to consult regularly and to solve their problems. These mechanisms come under various forms: we have first ministers' conferences, ministers' conferences, interprovincial meetings as well as a lot of meetings at the level of the deputy ministers. That is what makes our federation flexible.
These various mechanisms and our flexible federation, as well as the co-operation we were able to get from the provinces and the territories, led to the following achievements. We were able to sign agreements with all the provinces under the infrastructure program; to reach an agreement to reduce interprovincial barriers to trade and free movement of individuals so as to reinforce our economic union; to sign action plans with eight provinces and two territories to reduce duplication and overlap; and to create Team Canada, led by the Prime Minister of Canada, to strengthen our position on promising new markets.
The object of the national infrastructure program was to promote economic recovery by creating short term and long term jobs through local investments, while meeting the obvious need to renew and improve local infrastructures throughout Canada.
Under this flexible program, municipalities, provinces and territories can take into account their own priorities. The completed projects for the most part have met the priorities set by the local authorities, in accordance with the national and provincial objectives and criteria and pursuant to the federal-provincial agreements underlying the program.
The Agreement on Internal Trade provides for concrete changes, implementation schedules and a complete process that will help Canada become a real economic union characterized by freer movement of people, capital, goods and services.
With the agreement on the reduction of duplication and overlap, we are seeking to rationalize operations in areas ranging from environment to small business support to tax collection. The final result will be a streamlined government, less regulation and bureaucracy and more efficient services delivered directly and at a lower cost.
As for Team Canada's mission, it is an excellent example of what modern federalism can accomplish. It showed us that we can co-operate very effectively as a country to create jobs here and open up new horizons for all Canadians. Team Canada had quite an impact in the countries that we visited.
Everybody was impressed by the co-operation between the private and public sectors and by the way the various levels of government work together in the national interest.
These results are proof of our commitment to create jobs and to stimulate economic growth in our country, to build together a federation capable of facing international competition. That is what a good government is all about.
But such results are possible only if governments negotiate openly and in good faith. However, that does not mean that federalism excludes any dispute. We know that.
In Canada, we must continually find a balance between regional, provincial, cultural and language interests on one hand and national interests on the other hand in what we can call a state of constructive tension. I say it is constructive because it forces the parties to try and meet local needs while taking national priorities into account.
The government of Canada does not favour any region or any sector of our society to the detriment of another. If a region is hard hit by desertification, by a crisis in the fishing industry, by difficult economic conditions or whatever, the federation can come to the rescue thanks to our collective resources.
The name of the game is interdependence, and federalism makes the necessary compromises between the various groups and regions.
As Alain Gagnon, a political science expert at McGill University, noted, federalism is considered to be the expression of democratic practices favourable to innovative policies and political choices at the territorial level. As Canada faces the future, it enjoys the clear advantage of being a federation.
We know that both Quebecers and other Canadians fervently hope that their governments will work to resolve the pressing problems facing us. The time has come to turn the page and set aside our political differences so that we can invest all our energy in a common cause: to build a strong and united country for the present and future generations.
It is in this spirit that the Canadian government is negotiating with the Government of Quebec. We would like our opposition colleagues to understand that the Canadian government cares about Quebecers' interests as much as the Quebec government does. With regard to the three items included in the motion tabled by the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, the Canadian government has acted in good faith. In every case, the process used was proper and consistent with normal intergovernmental relations within a federation such as ours.
I will certainly vote against the motion being debated today, because it goes against the principles underlying good federal-provincial relations in Canada. I know that every day since the 1993 election, every time they ask a question during Question Period, every time they make a speech in the House or ask a question during debate, my colleagues always come back to the issue of separation.
Yet, after listening to Bloc members for 18 months, Quebecers have not changed their minds. Quite the contrary. If we do an analysis over a given period, we see that Quebecers have realized that they are better off staying in the Canadian federation. Earlier, the hon. member for Longueuil asked his Reform colleague a question about health care. He spoke about the various original commitments and what we are now paying.
I am sure that the hon. member did not do it on purpose, but he failed to mention that how much the federal government invested in previous agreements, which were always negotiated with and agreed to by the various provincial governments, is not the only reference point. The federal government transferred to the provinces, in exchange for that money, a portion of the tax points it used to collect. Thus our responsibility has not changed.
He is forgetting that, when this federation was born in 1867, the federal authority was responsible for 60 per cent of taxes. Yet today, it is the opposite. This federal system is constantly changing to fit the circumstances. Indeed, every country of the world recognizes that the federal system is one of the most flexible government systems ever to be devised and experimented. In fact, Europe has been trying to imitate it since 1950 but is still far from having achieved anything like what we have. Of course there is room for improvement, but this is no reason to want to destroy the system and throw it away.
I think that the past can vouch for it: thing always improve and will continue to improve. I am convinced that, try as they may, day after day, every chance they get in this House to convince the people of Quebec that Canada does not work, my hon. colleagues from the official opposition will fail and the people of Quebec will remain in Canada because this country belongs to them and that is a fact. That is one thing that my hon. colleague and I agree on. Canada belongs to the people of Quebec, the same way that Quebec belongs to Canada. We built this country together. It should not be destroyed and we will do our best to prevent its destruction.
We hear people say that things are bad, that the federal government is not paying its bills and is acting in bad faith. We are talking about matters between two governments. Even in the private sector, there are explanations to be given, questions to be answered, before payment is made, and that is normal.
In fact, as my colleague, the minister of Intergovernmental Affairs mentioned this morning, in one case, we made partial payment and then said: "Look, there is a problem here. We will refer the matter to the auditor general. He will check into it and report to us. We will do as he recommends". We are still waiting. We hope to receive his report in the near future and we will abide by his decision.
We have already paid $450 million for education in northern Quebec. We have nothing more to pay, but because the Quebec government wants more, we would like to know why it cost so much. No answer.
This kind of interaction is normal. Instead of making an effort to discuss and find a way of creating jobs together, we gather here for an opposition day. And the opposition comes and tells us how we can go on wrangling and tearing one another apart to show Quebecers and drive in their heads that this system just is not working, that we do not pay our bills and so on. As the hon. member for Longueuil said: "The only option we have left is to separate". Not so, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that, with 128 years of experience, this system is a model for the whole world.
There are thousands and thousands of people in the world who would give anything to become Canadian citizens, to come and live in this country, in spite of this so-called hardship our colleagues opposite are taking about. This is a valid experience. Our country is regarded as a model around the world and will remain a model because the people of Quebec and Canada have faith in this system that we built together and will maintain.