Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can deal with both issues.
The member in his remarks made a point of talking about the arrogance of the federal government simply ordering things around in the union in a top down fashion. This government for quite some time now has been working very hard in co-operation with the provinces on a whole range of problems.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Justice in the social union discussions have been working very diligently with all of the provinces to bring about a consensus on needed changes to the social union framework. That is what is going on.
For the federal government to order—actually not the federal government in this case but the House—by passage of this motion, whether it is December 31 or before the first budget, is setting a setting a condition around these negotiations that we have no authority to set. The provinces are partners in this so how can we presume to tell them when they are going to conclude this agreement? I would also suggest it introduces an item into the negotiation that mitigates against the kind of consensus we are all trying to achieve. These are extremely important services that affect all Canadians in all parts of the country.
The member is absolutely right when he makes the case that they should be conducted in an atmosphere of co-operation and consultation. We should work toward a consensus, all partners to the agreement, all the provinces, the territories and the federal government. That is the final part of the comment. The federal government is not a passive bystander in this. It has a role to play.
The question I have for the member is, in supporting so fervently the consensus arrived at by the provinces, is he saying that this position is the position of the Reform Party?