Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that we have just received the document on this proposal. Obviously, then, I cannot react to something I have just had for a couple of hours, but I will react to the minister's statement.
I must say that there is no assurance in the minister's statement that the Quebec consensus will find a response in the proposal. There is no assurance, because the key intentions it expresses are, first of all, to withdraw from manpower training but with no mention whatsoever of compensation and, second, to share the administration of active measures, whereas all of the major Quebec stakeholders have been unanimous in demanding total control over these active measures, their administration, planning and delivery, via other organizations if necessary, as has often been done in Quebec in the past.
The reason Quebec is demanding total control is rooted in its own experience. Some of the measures contained in this legislation-need we call it the Employment Insurance Act when it is not yet in effect?-have already been tried in Quebec over a number of years by one government after another. Quebec's assessment of the experiment certainly does not match the federal government's opinion; otherwise it would not have made a proposal calling for this to be the approach used.
The Quebec government's proposal of January 18 was therefore based on the input of all of the stakeholders, institutions and groups in Quebec constituting the Société québecoise de la main-
d'oeuvre, and reflects their experience, consensus, and concern for efficiency and the best use of workers' and employers' funds.
I must point out that this consensus in Quebec has been expressed long before today, even before the election of the Liberal Party, I would say. Since that party has been in power, we have repeatedly asked when, given the urgency of the situation, given the high unemployment levels, given the poverty levels, Quebec could finally have control over all of the means to help its ordinary citizens.
In the statement, the fact that there is no mention at any time of compensation for the withdrawal from manpower training is a source of great concern. We must, however, accept and acknowledge that finally there seems to be some openness to negotiation. It will be looked into, but I must again repeat that there is great concern. Our concern is great because, this time, there is no pretence of any transfer arrangement relating to the active measures as a whole. Yet the consensus in Quebec demands this, and strongly.
I would point out that much time was needed, that this is not a response to Quebec's demands, that there is nothing in this proposal which points to any recognition of the distinct character of Quebec, but we take note of the proposal nevertheless. I personally am most anxious to read it.