Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the supplementary question. It is not simply that provincial players change. It is that attitudes within provinces change.
At this time, for example, we are getting strong representations from the third level of government on issues of this sort and they are obviously part of the general negotiation. If what is involved may eventually be a constitutional amendment, it is part of the process of incorporating those views, seeing whether they are accepted or rejected.
As I say again, the federal government could develop an ideal type of what we think should be the social union, but we want to be sure the consensus is there. This debate has made very clear that as between even the parties in opposition there is no consensus as to what they mean by the social union. I will not say it is a chameleon word, but it is a word, as Dewey said, whose truth is determined operationally. When they finally get together and say we agree on this, this is the give and take. Then we can move.