Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had not been sitting in this place for such a short time, he would know that I am allowed to say whatever I want in my speech. I am sorry if that bothers him, but I will say it anyway.
What I wanted to tell the hon. member is that neither he nor his party represent the position of Quebec. As far as I know, they are not the Government of Quebec. Quebec has, as far as I know, a government which still has the right, a right that it exercises very freely, to remain in Canada.
As far as I know, Quebecers will have to make a choice, but there are some, including myself and my colleague here, who hold views on Canadian federalism which are necessarily those of the member opposite. For example, it is certainly not right to assume that everyone in Quebec is an indépendantiste. That is defeinitely not what the outcome of the referendum held in 1980 leads us to conclude, and it is certainly not what Quebec will say if there is another referendum.
To take for granted that all Quebecers want to leave the Canadian federation is to fool oneself, as some did in 1980.
Those of us on this side of the House also like to think that we represent Quebec. I spent nine years as a member of Quebec's national assembly and I have always worked hard to help my fellow citizens from Quebec, regardless of where they live, of their religion, or of their language, and I refuse to accept this notion that Bloc Quebecois members are the only ones who speak for Quebecers.
I am aware that federalism, and especially the Canadian federal system, is responsible for everything that is wrong in this world, at least according to the Bloc Quebecois members. It is always the federal government's fault. I have heard this old tune time and again. Of course we can look at the Auditor General's reports and find things which we would all like to see changed.
I remember those Auditor General's reports when I was a member of the opposition in Quebec. I remember the investment of several hundred millions in asbestos mines. Asbestos was a mineral which nobody in the world wanted and the United States were going to ban its use. I remember that. I also remember that millions of dollars were invested in Quebecair. I remember as well the investments made in that sugar refinery on the south shore. I could give you all kinds of examples where the Auditor General said to the government: "Look, a lot of bad decisions were made". This happened under Conservative and Liberal governments in Ottawa, as well as under the Parti Québécois and the Liberal governments in Quebec.
It is unfortunate that such things happen. However, we want to look forward and try to correct these mistakes. We accept criticisms, and in fact the ministers who answered questions the other day said to the Auditor General: "We accept those criticisms. We know that these things happened but we are not going to blame our government because another government was in office then. However, we recognize that things must change".
In our red book, we undertook to change things and to ensure that government administration would be a tighter and more efficient management exercise. I know that the federal system is complex. In fact, any government structure is complex. We recognize that but, at the same time, it is a system whose value has been proven. After all, our country has so far enjoyed 126 years of peace, freedom and kinship, this because French and English speaking Canadians understand each other. The problem is a political one. It is a problem which we created ourselves.
The Canadian federation is, in many ways, a model. I know that we are going through a recession. I also know that a lot of stupid decisions were made over the years, both at the federal and provincial levels. Today, all the provinces, including Ontario, which was formerly the engine of our economy, Alberta, Quebec, and all the others, are experiencing very serious economic difficulties.
We want to try to make things more practical. In fact, we want to use this recession as an opportunity to think about what we are and what we have to do to be more effective.
That is what we want to do. We do not want to look back and say it is the fault of the federal government, it is the fault of the Alberta government, or the Quebec government, or the Newfoundland government. We want to say: Is there a way of making this federation work better?
The whole principle and thrust of the red book is: Let us put the parochial quarrels of the past aside and behind. Let us look above and beyond. Let us find a way to work together to solve these problems rather than fighting these silly quarrels.
This hon. gentleman cites the mounted police as an example of Quebec paying more than it receives. In turn we could say in the milk industry Quebec has 48 per cent of the share of all milk distribution in Canada, much more than the share of its population. We could say in unemployment insurance Quebec receives $1.5 billion more than its proportional share because of course its unemployment rate is proportionately higher than that of comparable provinces. We could say Quebec receives three times more from the federal treasury through the manpower training program than it invests itself: $900 million versus $300 million.
We can quote these figures to prove our points one way or the other. What does it prove in the end? That in a federation there has to be a system of checks and balances. Sometimes a province pays a little more here, sometimes it gains a little more there.
What would Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario say, the provinces which contribute the total share of the transfer of moneys to provinces that are in a less favourable state? What should they say?
What Canadians in general say, and in Canadians I include Quebecers because they are also Canadians and would prove that they want to be. I know they will stay in Canada. However, all Canadians say that the system is not perfect. It was not invented to be perfect. Surely we can make it more responsible, make it fairer, make it work better.
For nine years I served at the provincial level. For nine years I know there were a lot of frustrations among us because of overlap, because of duplication, because of federal legislation or rules that impeded our work. I concede this. One can say: "Fine, there is duplication, there is overlap. I am going to turn my back on it. I am going to make sure the federation works
worse. I am going to walk out and destroy what we have created together". But there is another solution. Address it.
I was environment minister for three years. I had all kinds of discussions and debates with my federal counterpart and other provincial counterparts. Within the council of environment ministers of Canada we tried to look for solutions to delete the overlaps, to address the duplications. Duplications are still there, but it is possible to find examples in Canada where we can work together.
Recently we created an infrastructure program. Somehow all provinces without exception have joined in voluntarily. Agreements have been signed. It is an example of the three levels of government working not only efficiently but in harmony to create a system that works.
Recently the Minister of Finance met with Quebec and the other provinces regarding transfers from the federal government to the provinces. Again they worked in harmony to arrive at a common solution.
It is not always going to be harmonious. The other day the ministers of health met and certain of them had objections regarding the latest move on tobacco taxes.
At the same time we have to look into the overall pattern and make sure that within our system we meet, we talk and we dialogue.
The minister for whom I work is sitting next to me. In May she is going to meet for the second time with other environment ministers. I know my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois was citing the environment ministry and the 18 problems. Sure, there might be 18 problems. There might be 28. But the idea is that when we sit together we can harmonize our laws, our regulations and our objectives. Today we are in a recession together and we either sink or swim together. That realization is coming to pass more and more.
We have all come to the realization-be it the Government of Quebec, of Alberta, of British Columbia or the Liberal federal government-that unless we work together to reduce duplication and overlap, unless we get together and act like people who have a common goal of resolving problems, we will never get anywhere. This realization seems to have sunk in today.
Let me give at little example to my friends from the Bloc Quebecois who think that nothing is working in Canada. In my region, back in the days when I was sitting at the National Assembly-14 years ago already-we had instituted quarterly meetings where all the provincial and federal members of Parliament and all the mayors of the region regularly got together to address the common problem of duplication and overlap. There were no distinctions based on political affiliation. Well, these people have been sitting together for 14 years. We have looked into public transportation, public health and environmental problems. We look for solutions together.
Today, in that region and Sault-au-Saint-Louis, the neighbouring region, instead of waiting for a quick fix concerning manpower training programs, they have decided to work together: the federal government, the provincial government, the municipalities and the target communities.
In fact, by assuming responsibility for ourselves and coming up with practical solutions that work in the real world, we will demonstrate to our fellow citizens, wherever they live, that the federal system can work. But if anyone creates difficulties along the way or tries to throw a monkey wrench into the works, as you are trying to do, it will not work.
You are saying that the public accounts committee's mandate is not broad enough to examine all that you want to examine. The public accounts committee is under your control. The chairmanship will be yours. Just the other day, the Solicitor General stated in this House that the autonomy of House committees will be significantly enhanced. You have here a committee that you will chair, where you can examine all the public accounts of the federal government and you are arguing that it will not deal with separate departmental accounts. Look, the standard practice is that all departments are represented to defend their account statements.
I was in the opposition for four years, so I know what I am talking about. I have examined the accounts of the ministries of International Affairs, the Environment and many others in Quebec. You have full latitude to ask questions. In fact, by making all the figures available to you, the Auditor General is helping you. And your work will be transparent because we all want to be transparent. You have control over this committee. You will be quite free to examine all cases of overlap. You say that we must cut spending but you now want to create a kind of ceremonial committee in addition to the one that already exists. Use the committee you already have. Make it work. Find constructive solutions to its problems. Do not use it to make your little speeches on Canadian federalism that never lies, but rather to help make it more effective, more real, more equitable if you think it is not equitable enough.
Our respective positions do meet in the end. What we are all pursuing is a better quality of life for ourselves and for our children. We want to become full-time citizens who can enjoy their complete freedom. My philosophy is different from yours because I think I can attain these objectives within the Canadian federation, while you think that it must be destroyed so that something new can be built. All the tools are in your hands. You have all the House committees. You have the public accounts
committee to prove, while waiting for tomorrow's dream, that your ideas count.
In conclusion, as I was saying the other day during the throne speech debate, I know that we are talking about expenditures, about public efficiency. The government I am a member of today is committed to changing things for the better. And if it does not do so, it is your job to show us the right way. At the same time, I think there is a fundamental issue underlying all this. What you are trying to do is emphasize what my colleague from Ontario pointed out earlier; you are trying to prove that Quebecers and Canadians are completely different, and never the twain shall meet.
On this side of the House, we will work honestly and most vigorously but without enmity. We may be opponents but we will never be unfriendly. The greatest tribute that you can pay to Canada is, as I stated the other day, your mere presence in this House, which all parties have graciously accepted, including the representatives of British Columbia and Alberta. However, if the situation were reversed, I wonder whether you would have been as obliging. In my view, your presence here is the best possible proof we could have of the fundamental freedoms we enjoy in Canada, of the spirit of warmth and generosity embodied in the Canadian federation.
I hope that as you go about your work, scrutinize the public accounts, examine the work of the Auditor General and take a close look at everything that does not work in the federation, you will be able to work with us to improve things, not merely for the sake of some ideology, but for the welfare of citizens who, far from worrying about ideology, want a better standard of living, a job, opportunities for young people who today are looking for work. That is the message I am getting, in both francophone and anglophone areas of my riding. Constituents are not concerned about Quebec's independence. They are worried more by the fact that if Quebec independence soon becomes the focus of discussions in a referendum, the issue will divide us, just as it divided us in 1980. It will divide families and create economic instability, something that you yourselves wanted to avoid. It will create instability-
