Mr. Speaker, I too will share my time with a colleague. I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Speaker.
I am also happy to participate in this debate, even though we are speaking about the throne speech that was delivered on February 27, 1996.
The very fact that we are still discussing the throne speech eight months later shows the importance of this document. I see the throne speech as a kind of business plan for the government. The fact that we are still debating this business plan shows how important it is.
With your permission, I will not go over the whole plan but, as my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, pointed out, I will address the part of the throne speech dealing with national unity.
Notwithstanding the actions we took in the weeks following the referendum, there remains some confusion, especially in Quebec, on the various measures our government took to try to settle the basic issue of Canadian unity.
There are obstacles, but I listened with interest to the comments made about the throne speech by members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, who, I must point out, were nowhere to be seen during the referendum debate. Today, they claim to be concerned about Canadian unity. That is not true. If they were really concerned about Canadian unity, instead of criticizing our government day in and day out and making no proposals to advance the debate on Canadian unity, they would have expended their energy on settling the matter and especially on trying to convince our colleagues and fellow citizens in western Canada to make an effort to understand a little better what Quebec has been seeking for so long.
It was clearly specified in the throne speech.
We were very clear in the speech from the throne what this government wanted to do. The Reform Party member who spoke prior to me stated that we have no vision of Canada, that we have no plan for Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. I question, based on his intervention, whether he even took the time to read the speech from the throne.
As I said in French, the speech from the throne is a blueprint of where our government wants to take this country. In the speech from the throne we talk about modernizing the federation. More important, we talk about the different areas of responsibilities that our government is willing to withdraw from.
I want to quote from the speech from the throne concerning the areas which have been a sore point for most provinces. The throne speech states: "The government will not use its spending power to create new shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces, and any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated provided they establish similar programs in their province".
In the province of Quebec this has been a very sore point for many years. Traditional past governments, in order to penetrate or impede on some provincial jurisdiction, would through their spending powers introduce their own programs and thereby bypass the province totally.
Our government was clear. We wrote it down. We stated that we will no longer do that. Why? We feel we have to work with the provinces because they are our partners. We cannot always look at the other levels of government as our enemies. If we are going to get Canada back on track, as we have done over the past two or three years, of which I am very proud, we are going to have to take new initiatives and work with the provinces.
We also stated in the speech from the throne that the government will work the provinces and Canadians to develop agreed upon values and principles to underlie the social union and to explore new approaches to decision making in social policies. That is very clear.
The Reform Party says we do not want to do anything and that we are not working with the provinces. The newly appointed Minister of Human Resources Development has spent a considerable amount of time, as did his predecessors, in negotiating manpower training with the provinces. It is a long process, but we made the ground rules and the blueprints in our speech from the throne which lay out very clearly where we are headed.
In essence, what we are saying is: "Hey, provinces, we are willing to work with you. Let us sit down and define which level of government is best able to deliver the services". After all, there is only one taxpayer in this country. Whether it is a municipal government, a provincial government, a federal government or even a school board, there is still only one taxpayer. Quite often these levels ignore that fact.
What we are saying is that we should look at the powers. We are looking at the responsibilities. We said it again in the speech from the throne. The government is prepared to withdraw totally from some sectors.
The government is going to withdraw from manpower training. That is well under way and in the province of Quebec it has been accepted with open arms. The government is also willing to withdraw from areas such as social housing, mining, sports and recreation.
The government has worked with the provinces on these matters, but there are probably some jurisdictions that it needs to retain, such as the environment. Obviously, pollution does not stop at a provincial border. The rivers which are polluted do not stop at a provincial border. The federal government still has to be responsible to a certain degree.
Tourism and food inspection are two others areas in which the federal government is willing to work with the provinces.
What we said in the speech from the throne is that we are prepared to renew the federation. It is incumbent-and the proof is in the longevity of our beautiful country-on every generation to look at Canada and to mould it for its needs and for the needs of future generations. That is what our blueprint states.
I would like to touch on the different things that we have done to respond to the commitments made by our Prime Minister in the weeks preceding the referendum. Again, most people seem to have forgotten them rather quickly.
During the referendum we promised that we would transfer manpower training to the provinces. We have done that. We delivered on that promise.
We promised to recognize regional vetoes. I recall very vividly that debate. I was out west at that point in time. I remember that British Columbians felt they were a separate area and that they should be recognized as a region. Our government listened. Instead of creating four regional vetoes, we went ahead and recognized five regional vetoes. We gave all the regions a veto. Quebec, after all, is the only province that had constitutional change imposed on it against its will.
I have one minute left. I will take that very important minute to appeal to my western colleagues to work with our government. They can use whatever phrase they want. The Liberal Party chose to use distinct society. Let us try to work together to recognize the distinct reality of Quebec. One has to be blind not to recognize that
Quebec has a different language and a different culture. Let us work together to enshrine that in the Constitution.
Yes, we did make exceptions for provinces. British Columbia, for example, in order to join Confederation, required that the national railway be built. In 1892 that dream was realized. Where would British Columbia be today if that dream had never been fulfilled?
If there were only eight residents on Prince Edward Island, all eight would either be senators or members of Parliament. We recognize that even a small province can contribute to Canada.
I make an appeal to the premiers of the provinces to work with our government. I make an appeal for all parties to work with our government to solve the Canadian unity problem once and for all.
[Translation]