[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 4, 1996
.1535 
[Translation]
The Chair: I believe that we have the required quorum to begin. I hereby call this meeting to order.
Today, we have the privilege of welcoming the Honourable Stéphane Dion.
[English]
I'd like to welcome the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the President of the Queen's Privy Council, the operational nerve centre of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Dion has the historic challenge of keeping the best country in the world intact and of putting it on the right path as we head into the next century. Welcome, Mr. Dion.
The Honourable Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First let me introduce the PCO officials who are appearing as witnesses before this committee: Ronald Bilodeau, Deputy Minister and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Intergovernmental Relations; George Anderson, Deputy Secretary, Intergovernmental Policy and Communications; Marc Lafrenière, Acting Deputy Secretary, Intergovernmental Operations; Elizabeth Nadeau, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services; Eileen Boyd, Acting Director, Financial Services; and Ms. Janet Smith, Canadian Centre for Management Development.
This is my first opportunity to speak to the Standing Committee on Government Operations, so I'll try to outline as briefly as possible my vision of the changes we must consider to keep Canada united and make it stronger.
I will thus summarize my vision in terms of two priorities: first, to awaken the Canadian identity that is dormant not only among many Quebeckers, but also among many other Canadians. Second, to rebalance the federation and make it more effective and more harmonious.
Let's start with Canadian identity. We have built a country that recognizes and celebrates linguistic duality, a country that recognizes the virtues of multiculturalism and the power of diversity, a country that recognizes the supremacy of individual rights and the importance of protecting minorities. From coast to coast to coast, respect for democracy and freedom, tolerance of others, generosity and sharing are values that unite us all and reflect what we are. We should be proud of Canada's history and prouder still of the destiny toward which we are moving. We must celebrate the great values of solidarity and pride that we are working to disseminate throughout the world.
[English]
Now let's look at rebalancing the federation. Today, in this time of difficult testing for national unity, we must draw on our experience of properly balancing solidarity and autonomy to adapt our federation to the global challenges that make such a balance more necessary than ever before. This balance between solidarity and autonomy means as citizens and as regions within Canada we are both independent and interdependent.
Our federalism in Canada has given concrete practical expression to these ideals of solidarity and autonomy. On the one hand we have created a network of social programs and a system of equalization payments to ensure all citizens enjoy a comparable level of well-being. We have even expressed this in section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which commits the Government of Canada and the provincial governments to promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians and to providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
It also commits Parliament and the Government of Canada to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. This is the strongest commitment to social solidarity that can be found anywhere in the world.
On the other hand, our constitutional divisions of power express our commitment to an extensive local autonomy that it would be very difficult to match in any other federation.
.1540
[Translation]
In the Speech from the Throne, the Government announced a number of major initiatives that would make it possible to strengthen Canadian solidarity and thus give the provinces even greater autonomy than they have now.
First, the federal government has limited its spending power. It is the first time that the federal government has offered such a limit on its powers outside the context of formal constitutional negotiations.
Second, in terms of existing programs, we will be exploring with the provinces new and cooperative mechanisms for maintaining national standards.
Third, we will work with the provinces to establish clearer lines of responsibility between different levels of government. For example, the federal government has undertaken to withdraw from fields of activity that are more appropriately the responsibility of provinces, such as forestry and mining development, recreation and, above all, labour-market training.
Fourth, the federal government will continue promoting Canada's economic union by taking measures toward greater interprovincial free trade and labour mobility. We propose to establish a Canadian securities commission in cooperation with interested provinces, which will facilitate capital flow. The government has also proposed to create a national revenue collection agency in order to improve cooperation with all provinces in that area.
Fifth, we are also committed to entrenching in the Canadian Constitution regional vetoes and recognition of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.
Fairness and justice are the two fundamental principles guiding the Canadian social solidarity. Our country has traditions of social solidarity that we will always have to preserve, no matter what changes we make.
[English]
The Canada Health Act, for example, is there to give all Canadians access to a comparable level and quality of health care. The new Canada health and social transfer will guarantee at least$11 billion in funding transfers each year and will give the provinces better protection. It will re-establish stability and predictability for the provinces and will give them financial support that is comparable from one province to the other. Above all, it will preserve health insurance and social programs.
Social solidarity does not end there, however. Canadians benefit from a wealth distribution program that is unique in the world. I am talking, of course, about equalization, which enables all provinces to offer public services of comparable quality. That program is entrenched in the Constitution and is one of the major unifying elements of the Canadian federation.
By strengthening the balance between solidarity and autonomy, we will make the federation more harmonious and reduce the number of existing or potential disputes between the provincial and federal governments. There is work to be done in that respect to improve the productivity and complementarity of the federal and provincial governments. We are determined to eliminate unnecessary overlap and duplication by dividing more clearly the responsibilities between the different levels of government.
The government already accomplished a great deal in recent years. The program review, the initiative of improving the efficiency of the federation, and the budget measures have put the government on the path of streamlining and frugality.
[Translation]
We are thus off to a good start in modernizing the federation, but we still have a long way to go. The first objective is and must continue to be the delivery of top quality, more effective services to citizens, by the most appropriate level of government, the private sector, or a combination of the two.
A clearer division of the roles of the two orders of government and more effective cooperation that is better tailored to citizens' needs, will help us to get back on track with regard to unity.
The upcoming first ministers conference is an integral part of that process of modernizing the federation.
The meeting will give the first ministers an opportunity to talk about how governments can work together better to create jobs in Canada, guarantee the social safety net and develop a common agenda for change to renew the country.
That is why I intend to devote my efforts to rekindling Canadians' will to be together.
.1545
I will be very pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Bellehumeur.
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): Since the Main Estimates for 1996-97 is on the agenda, my first question will deal with this matter.
Your presentation raises many questions to which I will refer later. In comparing the Main Estimates for 1996-97 with those of previous years, we can see, on page 10 of the document, that during the course of fiscal year 1994-95, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs received an increase in resources to the tune of $5.9 million.
The following year, in 1995-96, which was the referendum year, no budget was allocated to Intergovernmental Affairs for Canadian unity per se. In 1996-97, a year in which, to my knowledge, all activities associated with the referendum had come to an end, the Privy Council was given$5 million for the management of issues pertaining to national unity and federal-provincial relations.
Even though you had not yet been appointed to your current position, I know that you will be able to answer my questions. How is it that, during the course of fiscal year 1995-96, when Canadian unity was in the greatest jeopardy, as your presentation points out, no budget was allotted to deal with this issue? At first glance, it would appear that the Privy Council spent less money during that year. Why?
Mr. Dion: You are asking me why the budget is increasing, when Canadian unity is no longer threatened.
Mr. Bellehumeur: How do you explain the fact that, in 1994-95, at a time when nothing was going on, $5.9 million was allocated for additional resources? This was before the referendum. During the referendum year, no budget was allocated to this item. The following year, the budget was once again set at $5 million. Even though you were not a minister at that time, you were around and, between you and me, we know that the federal government spent money on national unity. Where did this money come from if it is not shown in the budget?
Mr. Dion: An increase was given during the year because of the referendum which was scheduled for spring but which took place in the fall. So, there was ultimately an increase in expenditures last year.
Mr. Bellehumeur: That is not what the figures are telling us.
Mr. Dion: Which page are you referring to?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Program Outline, on pages 9, 10 and 11.
Mr. Dion: At the start, we anticipated allocating $2.5 million to this portion of the budget in 1995-96. Ultimately, there was an increase of $3.8 million which was taken out of the entire budget, because of the delay in the referendum. Expenditures were therefore transferred. We made some savings elsewhere, which allowed us to abide by the budget.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Which was less than the 1994-95 and 1996-97 budgets.
Mr. Dion: We had a program review and we asked all the departments...
Mr. Bellehumeur: Even with the review, less money was spent during the referendum year than was spent during the previous year and the year following the referendum.
Mr. Dion: It's just about the same thing as this year, at any rate.
.1550
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Dion, since we know that the federal government has been spending a great deal of money on Canadian unity since 1992, would it be possible for you to provide us with the names and the amounts of the contracts awarded, from 1992 to the present time, to private industry and to individuals? We know, for instance, that you yourself, Mr. Dion, were given a private contract from the Privy Council. Would it be possible to obtain the amounts of these contracts and the names of the persons called upon to provide these services?
Mr. Dion: It would be very simple for you to request this information from the Access to Information Commission.
Mr. Bellehumeur: But I'm addressing this question to you, Mr. Dion. You are here before me, you are an open minister, a Quebecker and you want to cooperate and demonstrate some transparency. Would you, as a minister, make a commitment to provide us with this information, namely, the names of the individuals awarded contracts and the amounts of these contracts?
Mr. Dion: The contracts are made public on a regular basis, at any rate.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Could you submit this list to me?
Mr. Dion: We could send it to the committee.
Mr. Bellehumeur: From 1992 to the present time.
As for your presentation, Mr. Dion, you made two affirmations at the beginning. First, you said that you had to awaken the Canadian identity that is dormant not only among many Quebeckers but also among many other Canadians. I paid close attention to what followed and I never heard you mention certain aspects that you can read about in the newspapers, for instance. I would like to ask you whether or not this infamous Plan B, which you refer to on a regular basis, is part of the strategy to awaken the Canadian identity that is dormant not only among many Quebeckers, but also among many other Canadians.
Mr. Dion: Could you be more specific? What do I refer to on such a regular basis?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Plan B, partition, Mr. Dion.
Mr. Dion: I have never used this word.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Ah, no?
Mr. Dion: Find one occasion where I used this word.
Mr. Bellehumeur: You are therefore against the entire strategy of Plan B?
Mr. Dion: Could you be more specific in your question?
Mr. Bellehumeur: You do not support partition neither?
Mr. Dion: I am against separation and therefore against partition.
Mr. Bellehumeur: You are against partition then. And this whole strategy which involves taking a hard line with Quebec and, to be more specific, going before the courts, is this all part of the plan to awaken the Canadian identity among many Canadians and Quebeckers?
Mr. Dion: Are we being hard on a people by going to court?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes. You want to appeal to the courts, Mr. Dion, to prevent Quebeckers from expressing their views on their political future. Do you feel that such action will enable you to awaken, among Quebeckers and others, the feeling of belonging to Canada?
Mr. Dion: May I ask you when I said that? You're making things up.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Are you against all of that, Mr. Dion?
Mr. Dion: Quebeckers obviously will be entitled to state their views.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I would remind you, Mr. Dion, that on the day that you were sworn in, you had quite a lot to say about certain issues.
Mr. Dion: If you would quote me exactly what I said, perhaps I could answer, but you are twisting my words.
Mr. Bellehumeur: As I understand it, Mr. Dion, you are opposed to partition.
Mr. Dion: Yes, since I am against separation.
Mr. Bellehumeur: You are opposed to it because the federal government is going before the courts.
Mr. Dion: I'm in favour of this type of action. In a democracy, the courts are used to resolve conflicts and disagreements. What are you saying!
Mr. Bellehumeur: So, you agree with part of Plan B.
Mr. Dion: Be precise in your questions.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I'm referring to the hard line, Mr. Dion.
The Chair: You have one minute left.
Mr. Dion: Your questions are too vague. I would ask that you be more precise.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Dion, I remember a quote and I would like you to give your comments on it.
Mr. Dion: Bravo!
Mr. Bellehumeur: When you were working for the federal government, particularly during the time of the 1992 referendum, you said that we had to be tough: The harder you hit the Quebeckers - this is not a word-for-word quote, but you will no doubt recognize your words - , the tougher you were with Quebeckers, the more successful we would be in eliminating the sovereignist movement. Do you still see things this way, Mr. Dion?
Mr. Dion: You are twisting my words. I never said such a thing.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, the time is up.
Mr. Dion: From the start, Mr. Bellehumeur, all of your questions have been about what you would have liked me to have said and not what I said.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dion. Your time is up for this round.
[English]
Mr. Harper, you have ten minutes.
.1555
[Translation]
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): First of all, Mr. Minister, because of my absence in April, I have not had an opportunity to congratulate you on your election in Saint-Laurent - Cartierville and on your appointment to the Cabinet.
[English]
In your remarks today you said you would summarize your vision in two priorities, the first being to awaken the Canadian identity that is dormant not only among many Quebeckers but also among many other Canadians. I will be honest - I frankly haven't seen a problem with identity and unity on a major scale outside of Quebec, but I'll get to that in a second. The second is to rebalance the federation and make it more effective and more harmonious.
Given that the sovereignty movement has had 50% or better of francophone support in Quebec for twenty years now, what's your explanation of that phenomenon? How do you see your plan to rebalance the federation and make it more effective as addressing the things that have led to that phenomenon?
Mr. Dion: Was your question, Mr. Harper, why the support for the yes vote was so high during the last referendum?
Mr. Harper: No, I am asking a broader question. Why in your view has the sovereignty movement been so strong since the mid-1970s?
Mr. Dion: Oh, it's a long answer. I wrote a lot of things about that.
I think the first point is that since the 1960s this movement has been growing up. It came at a time when the identity of French Canadians very clearly shifted from religion to language. Before, it was both. You see an increase of secessionist support in other multilingual countries too, when religion stops competing with language as a factor of identity. We have the same kind of phenomenon in India now, this big federation with various ethnic, religious and language groups.
So language is something we must deal with. It's not a distinction like other differences in a country. When a country has different languages, the country must be ready to address them in order to be sure that different language communities will feel comfortable together and willing to stay together. Belgium has the same problem too.
What is special in Canada and in Quebec is that the francophones are not in a multilingual continent like in Europe. They are in an anglophone continent, except for the Hispanic groups in the south. In an anglophone continent, when English is the international language, when immigrants come they think they are in anglophone North America.
Most of the francophone community in Quebec obviously feel Canadian, but at the same time they want to hear from other Canadians that they will support them in their admirable effort to keep a strong francophone society in North America. If they hear this support, the support for secession will decrease strongly.
Ten years ago, Mr. Harper, it was below 30%. After the Meech rejection it peaked at 70%. Why? It was because then Quebeckers did not recognize the Canada they knew. They thought they had the support of other Canadians, but wrongly or rightly, with the Meech rejection many of them thought that in this country there might be a danger for their Quebecker identity.
You and I, because we believe in Canada, have the duty to convince them that the Quebecker and the Canadian identity are a wonderful combination, not a contradiction, and to convince other Canadians that because they believe in Canada, they must show that Quebec is indeed a strong characteristic of their country.
Mr. Harper: Let's leave perception aside. Do you think, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that Canada or its institutional arrangements in any way endanger the survival of the French fact in Quebec?
Mr. Dion: Your question is whether the federation endangers the survival of French language in Quebec?
Mr. Harper: Yes.
.1600
Mr. Dion: As you may know, during the referendum campaign I was one of the commentators who never hid their belief that Canada deserves to survive even though we don't have any constitutional change as a federation as it is. But this being said, I may say that this federation may be improved. We may work to improve this federation by clarifying roles between governments; by recognizing this fundamental characteristic of Canada that is Quebec within Canada; by finding a better amending formula, because many people in this country are not very happy with the current situation. So we have a lot of things to do to improve Canada; and this is my second priority, as I just explained in my speech. I am confident that if we succeed with all this, at the end most Quebeckers, a great majority of Quebeckers, will say, we want to stay in the country we have so strongly contributed towards building.
Mr. Harper: Can you give me a specific example of how you feel rebalancing powers within the federation would reverse the forces you've described, the sociological forces shifting communal identity from religion to language?
Mr. Dion: Yes. You see, as long as it was religion, nationalism in Quebec was not so much connected with the state, with the public sector, because what people wanted so much was more a strong church than a strong state. When it comes to language, it means you need to have policies addressing the situation of language and also the feeling that you need to have institutions where your own language community is in the majority.
That's why you saw this shift. The importance of the public sector came with the Quiet Revolution. What we have to say to all Canadians, and to Quebeckers, is first that this federation is already very decentralized. If they think we are in a centralized, iron collar system, then they are mistaken, because other than Switzerland - and I would advocate that Switzerland is less decentralized than us in many, many fields - Canada is the most decentralized federation in the world.
Instead of seeing this decentralization as a threat to our unity, I think we must see it as a strength, because federations are better shaped to compete than unitary countries, where the central government has so many responsibilities to deal with. So what we have to do is build on our strengths a strong bilingual and decentralized federation.
Mr. Harper: Let me just switch for a second to what's sometimes called plan B - from plan A to plan B. As you know, in our party we've been very supportive of the federal government intervening in the Bertrand decision to clarify the rule of law. You yourself stated on the weekend, I believe, that without adherence to the rule of law, and in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence, there would be anarchy. Can I ask you to describe what precisely you mean by ``anarchy''?
Mr. Dion: It's the legal definition of anarchist behaviour or acts. In legal terms, that means outside the law. But what I have always said about that is once you try to do something outside the law and you are the government, you are taking a great risk for your population, because it is difficult for you to ask them to respect the law when you don't respect it yourself. So it's always much better to act by mutual consent within the law, and that's what we want to secure for all Canadians.
Mr. Harper: Let me ask a quick question following up on what I asked in the House today. A first ministers conference is coming up to discuss some of these items, we presume. We don't know the agenda yet. When might we have some idea what the agenda will be?
Mr. Dion: Mr. Harper, read the throne speech. This is what we suggested to the provinces, and on this basis we discussed with them which topic may be on the agenda, and other topics too. But with the throne speech you have a good aperçu of what we will speak about.
Mr. Harper: When might I get a more definitive idea than what's in the throne speech?
Mr. Dion: Ask me a more specific question about the throne speech and then we will discuss that.
The Chair: Mr. McTeague.
.1605
[Translation]
Mr. McTeague (Ontario): I would like to welcome you to the committee, not simply because you are a member of our side, but also because it is always interesting, even for Franco-Ontarians, who do not live in Quebec but who are francophones all the same, to discuss the problems that exist in our country.
We are talking about Canada in contrast to Quebec and about Quebec's interests as opposed to those of Canada. As far as I'm concerned, Canada is a whole. I am very concerned about the fate of Franco-Ontarians, francophones outside Quebec. What is your real purpose? Do you want to preserve the francophone identity which exists outside Quebec, amongst millions of people who are French, francophones or francophiles like me?
Mr. Dion: That is one of my priorities. I have entered political life because, in my opinion, having anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec is part of the definition of Canada. Anglophones living in Quebec do have an advantage, however, even if things aren't always easy for them. They speak the language spoken on the continent, which is also the international language, unlike the case of francophones outside Quebec who are in a situation that is twice as difficult. Accordingly, they need some support.
The government of Canada has never denied that it was its responsibility to ensure, even as it decentralizes, as in the case of manpower training, that one of the criteria is that the province inheriting the responsibility maintain access to services in French outside Quebec, wherever possible. I am monitoring these things very carefully. I have already met with representatives from communities outside Quebec. My senior officials are quite aware of the importance that I give to this issue.
Mr. McTeague: Support to francophone communities outside Quebec is important. There's also the matter of managing the next referendum, if ever there is one in Quebec. Do you foresee francophones becoming involved in some way during the referendum debate?
Mr. Dion: If we do our job properly, there won't be another referendum. We will convince enough Quebeckers and Canadians to reconcile. To do this, everyone has to feel involved. It is a matter that concerns all Canadians, because it is their country. They have to talk to each other and see what they can do to strengthen the unity of this country which so strongly deserves to survive.
[English]
Mr. McTeague: Madam Chair, how much time do I have?
The Chair: There are seven minutes remaining.
Mr. McTeague: Okay. I won't take all the time, Minister, but again, I am somewhat confused at the changes that have taken place over the past, say, fifteen years with respect to the stronger presence of the national government in all regions of the country.
I'm not just talking about the symbolic flag-waving. I think there's a far more interesting point to where the federal government can best apply its presence to continue to raise the importance of the values we share in general as Canadians. That's not just our multicultural nature but also our regional nature and the things we talk about as a country, which are obviously important not only to our sense of who we are but also to being able to reflect that abroad.
With the kinds of budgetary considerations you have, do you find that at some points your ministry risks not having the kind of money it needs to discharge its obligation or do the things it wants to do?
Mr. Dion: The question is are we too decentralized now?
Mr. McTeague: Good question.
Mr. Dion: And this may endanger the unity of the country? Is that your point?
Mr. McTeague: Yes.
Mr. Dion: Okay.
A few years ago the separatist leaders in Quebec were advocating that we must get out of this federation because Canada is almost in bankruptcy, so to try to have a strong federal presence when we don't have the money any more would be a mistake.
.1610
Now the separatist leaders don't say that any more, because they see that the sole province that has not addressed the problem yet is Quebec. Almost all of the other provinces now balance their budgets, and the Government of Canada has one of the smallest annual deficits among the OECD countries now, thanks to Mr. Martin's budget. So I don't want to see this false argument back again.
It's important to be very responsible with the money that taxpayers give to us. It's why, instead of trying to be everywhere and to be very visible, we must work in strong partnership with the provinces with clear lines of responsibilities and accountabilities in order to have a strong federation.
Let me add something. Today we, the Liberals, are in Ottawa, and you have some Conservative governments in the provinces. I hope that we will stay in power forever, but I cannot guarantee that for you. Maybe one day Mr. Harper will be in Ottawa and we will be strong in the provinces. So the Liberal values will be protected by the provinces then, if the provinces are strong.
Do you see why it is important to have a good, balanced federation? It is to be sure that in any circumstances Liberal values will be strong somewhere in the federation.
Mr. McTeague: My final question will deal with the matter of efficiencies versus equalities. It's always been a more sophomoric debate among university students, in terms of preserving the federation.
This is a more hypothetical question. At which point do we extend the argument of efficiency and try to justify everything being based on being able to make costs justify any action we take as a government? Are there things that you believe we could do that sort of put aside the monetary consideration, to the point where we say that we believe that minority rights, for example, shouldn't be subjected to the simple question of the equation of costs? How much of an impact do you think that kind of an argument will have on keeping the country together?
Mr. Dion: I am new in this government, but I would say that the Martin budgets are tough and fair. We will have to explain that to Canadians.
Today, for instance, during Question Period, the Bloc Québécois came saying that it's not fair for Quebec, and the Reform Party came and said it's too much for Quebec. But we know that the Martin budgets are tough and fair, and we will have to explain that to the population as clearly as possible.
Mr. McTeague: As clearly as Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Harris have had to explain it to people of late.
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): Madam Chair, through you to the minister, one of the things we have between Canada and Quebec is communications. For some reason there is a wall, and there have been a lot of what we call myths and lies. You referred to the idea that Canada is bankrupt.
What kind of communication strategy are you having to have that debate and have it ironed out and to get the truth out?
Mr. Dion: I'm very impressed by the number of grassroots groups that exist now in Canada that want to save the country, that want to come with ideas, that want to discuss among themselves. With an Internet system, we are helping them to be in touch.
It's certainly a priority for us that this time we will try to avoid a formal process of consultation, at least for now. It's better to go from the bottom up than in the reverse way. Maybe it would be possible to have seven premiers and the Prime Minister agreeing on something and to put this in the Constitution and say it's done, although it would be tough. But if the Canadian population does not support it, maybe we will go nowhere.
So it's very important first to have an active communication with Canadians, encouraging them to speak about the future of their country, before rushing to something imposed by governments.
Mr. Jackson: I come from a rural riding. I suspect that because the country's so large and so diverse, we pick up nuances, that farmers from out west think they're cowboys and belong to Texas and people out east maybe have a different nuance. How are we getting to those rural people and people on the fringes? I think the rural people, in Quebec in particular, somehow are not being reached by the communication.
.1615
Mr. Dion: Yes, I agree. I found it terrible that during the referendum campaign the argument for solidarity was better presented by Mr. Bouchard than by anyone else. When Mr. Bouchard is speaking about solidarity among Quebeckers, as a Quebecker and now as a minister of the Crown, I want to support him because it's a nice value.
But the same Lucien Bouchard said that we must have only a relationship on the grounds of economic interest with other Canadians of Atlantic Canada, Ontario, and western Canada. If it's good, we will have a relationship and if it's not, we will stop. I think it's a shame. I think I want to fight this Lucien Bouchard, because Canadian solidarity is a great thing for cities as well as for rural Quebec and throughout ruralities in other provinces.
I want to bring Mr. Goodale, who is such a good minister of agriculture, into Quebec. Even though he is not able to speak the language of the inhabitants in our rural areas in Quebec, they know he is a good minister for agriculture. It's the kind of thing we must do, as I said, in order to wake up the sense that Québécois solidarity plus Canadian solidarity is something very great that we must do.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dion. Before moving on to the Bloc I would like to ask you a quick question.
I was happy to see you say in your brief:
- We must celebrate the great values of solidarity and pride that we are working to disseminate
throughout the world.
Mr. Dion: Absolutely, Madam Chair. Ever since I have been minister, that has been the thrust of what I have been saying.
We have a country that is not ordinary nor normal; it is celebrated throughout the world as a model where people from different origins, with various languages and cultures can prosper together within one country.
I could tell you about our economic achievements, I could tell you why both the World Bank and the United Nations Organization have stated that we are one of the most prosperous and fortunate countries in the world. But that is not all. We are also celebrated as the country of harmony between peoples.
Is this country, that is perceived as the model to use in the next century, going to break up because the people living here cannot reach an agreement? What a negative message that would send out to the rest of the world. We do not have the right to do that, as human beings, and that is why we are all going to become reconciled.
The Chair: Thank you. I see the reporters smiling. I hope that they will report good news.
Mr. Fillion.
Mr. Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Minister, in your answers, you have referred from time to time to question period. You will have noticed since your arrival here that when the Bloc Québécois makes a statement on an issue, the Reform Party takes a different position. You saw that again this afternoon and you mentioned it. Are these not obvious signs that today's federalism is not renewable?
Mr. Dion: Why would federalism today not be renewable?
Mr. Fillion: I put the question to you because there are all kinds of clashes currently occurring between the rest of Canada, and the Bloc Québécois, and so on. Does that not indicate to you that we should be working on federalism in a different way?
Mr. Dion: Mr. Fillion, we are renewing federalism. For the first time in this country's history federal spending power is being restricted. I was told that we would never be able to solve the issue of job training; we have taken a big step forward. The Ministers of the Environment have just met to discuss environmental management.
.1620
The Quebec minister, Mr. David Cliche, who is probably first and foremost an environmentalist before being a separatist, acknowledges honestly that there has been a nice breakthrough. Our federation has international achievements and also has achievements that make it one of the most prosperous countries in the world. We can improve it by using the strength of our federation.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Minister, you say that the federal government has restricted its spending authority. It has done that because of its deficit and debt. When you have no more money you have to limit your spending.
Mr. Dion: Mr. Fillion, Canada is already the most decentralized federation. Go and see what is happening in the United States. The federal government of the United States spends in all sectors, the distribution of powers is based on the authority to legislate and not on the spending power. That is how federations work, for example, in Australia and the United States.
We will go further. We will make these things clearer so that we have a more harmonious federation with stronger partnerships between the provinces and the government of Canada. We will also develop more flexible approaches, as we are doing in the area of labour. If a province requests more autonomy, as is often the case with Quebec or Alberta, or if a province requests more assistance from the federal government because it wants that arrangement, why would we not do what we can to make that possible? That is what we are doing. That is what was done in the past, and we will strengthen this policy in the future. There are many things to do, Mr. Fillion, and Quebeckers and other Canadians must help each other rather than be divided.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Minister, in your answers you have said: ``If we work well''; supporting the Bertrand case and speaking of partition is this working well? When you say «we» who do you mean? Are you talking about members of your government?
Mr. Dion: When I say ``if we work well'', I'm including Canadians all over Canada who believe in Canada. Whether we are Liberal or Conservative, whether we are of one language or origin or another, we must work together to be reconciled within Canada.
Mr. Fillion: To achieve that there has to be leadership. Is the current government providing that leadership in order to help people work well?
Mr. Dion: The Prime Minister of Canada is popular throughout Canada, with a few exceptions besides Quebec. He is also popular with non francophones in Quebec. The Prime Minister of Canada was popular with francophone Quebeckers ten years ago. He is one of the most popular politicians.
The Constitutional arguments have tarnished his image amongst francophone Quebeckers. We are going to work to improve that because francophone Quebeckers, deep down, know why other Canadians like the Prime Minister and feel that themselves. We just need to strengthen their conviction that the Prime Minister has good qualities as a statesman. He is an honest man who in all his years in politics has never been accused of one personal conflict of interest. He is a man who listens to people, who is close to them, who makes difficult decisions, Mr. Fillion, that other countries also have to make, and he does this with humanity. Canadians see that clearly. When we show people that these are the Prime Minister's qualities, you will see that he will become popular in Quebec too.
Mr. Fillion: You have visited the majority of provinces in an attempt to draft an agenda for the next First Ministers' Conference. At the end of your brief you say that First Ministers will have to focus especially on job creation. Will that be the only topic you will discuss at the conference? In other words, are you going to tell the committee what the meeting's agenda will be? The 21st of June is almost here; there are only a couple of weeks left. I think that everyone should know exactly by now what the First Ministers will be discussing.
Mr. Dion: I cannot give you the agenda today because we are still consulting the provinces about that. I said publicly, and I can repeat it, that we are working with the provinces to draft an agenda that will help us make progress in those areas that we feel progress can be made as of June. Obviously job creation will be on the agenda. How could job creation not be on the agenda?
.1625
Mr. Bellehumeur: On that topic, Mr. Dion, you said that you consulted the provinces to draft a constitutional agenda. Can you tell me if Quebec was consulted?
Mr. Dion: I never mentioned an agenda in French - that is an anglicism - but rather the constitutional order of the day.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Can you tell me if you consulted Quebec on your agenda?
Mr. Dion: We consult all the provinces. We have already consulted them. I have met my counterpart, Mr. Brassard.
Mr. Bellehumeur: When did you meet him to discuss the agenda?
Mr. Dion: I met him three weeks ago and our senior officials are in touch with each other.
Mr. Bellehumeur: What would you say I were to tell you that we were told around last week-end that you had not discussed the agenda with anyone from Quebec; would you say that it is not true?
Mr. Dion: I am told that discussions are taking place between officials and that there will soon be more at the political level.
Mr. Bellehumeur: We will check that today, Mr. Dion.
On the 15th of March 1995, at the symposium organized by the C.D. Howe Institute in Toronto, you said, according to reporters who wrote down your words and who, I assume, have done their work well as they usually do: ``If the economic situation deteriorates, Quebeckers will change their minds. The more it hurts, the more support for sovereignty will decrease.''
Do you acknowledge having said that?
Mr. Dion: You read the correction that appeared two days later.
Mr. Bellehumeur: So today, you no longer agree with that? That is the kind of politics you practise now that you are a Minister.
Mr. Dion: It is incredible to see the extent to which the ideology that blinds you makes you paranoid.
Mr. Bellehumeur: And not you?
Mr. Dion: No. The substance of what you just read, if it had been properly reported, should have been quite obvious, that is, if, after a yes vote, social and economic problems develop, support for sovereignty will go down.
Mr. Bellehumeur: The headlines on the 2nd of February 1996 were:
- If sovereignty should happen, Quebec's partition will have to be negotiated, says Dion.
- ``If, for example, someone says that there is more than one people in Canada, then they should
expect that someone else will say: ``There is also more than one people in Quebec and you must
treat those other peoples in the same way that you want to be treated yourself.''
Mr. Dion: Mr. Bellehumeur, partition is the creation of different countries where there is only one country. According to that definition, you are a partitionist. I am referring to the guarantee for all Quebec citizens, if ever there was a secession, to have the protection of the law, so that everyone is treated fairly.
Mr. Bellehumeur: You say that you never spoke of partition. That is not true. You spoke about the dividing up of Quebec.
Mr. Dion: I am against the partition of Canada from the outset.
Mr. Bellehumeur: In Quebec, Mr. Dion, the dividing up of Quebec will have to be negotiated.
Mr. Dion: The reporter said that. Let us say that you are the Premier of Quebec and that you declare independence. That is your problem. It's up to you to enforce law and order. As Mr. Parizeau intended on saying in his victory speech, which fortunately he never made: After the vote, the Canadian rule will remain, do not worry. Everything is in place.
It would be up to him to throw out the Canadian rule at that time. I wonder how he could do that if whole populations in Quebec wanted to remain Canadian. Surely you would not send them the Quebec Police.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Depending on what you mean by whole populations...
Mr. Dion: Let me finish. Whole populations could insist on remaining within Canada.Mr. Parizeau would then have the problem of figuring out how he could take away the Canadian rule from whole populations insisting on its enforcement. He couldn't send in the Quebec Police despite what some of his ministers have said. He would have to negotiate with those populations.
Let me tell you that those negotiations would be painful, difficult, extremely uncertain and the best way to ensure that this will never happen is for anyone within Canada to become reconciled. That is what I have always said.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Dion, if you can enter Canada with a majority of 53 odd per cent, as Newfoundland did in 1948, do you think that you can leave Canada with 53 odd per cent?
Mr. Dion: I have time to explain the parallel to be drawn between Newfoundland and Quebec, because it is very interesting.
The Chair: This is your last answer.
Mr. Dion: Fine.
.1630
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Dion, I would just like to point out that the Avalon Peninsula had refused to enter Canada with 67 odd per cent and that there was no question of partition at that time.
Mr. Dion: May I respond?
The Chair: You may respond but that will be your last answer.
Mr. Dion: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond...
Mr. Bellehumeur: It's because we like you.
Mr. Dion: ... to an argument that I've always thought to be convoluted. Let's start.
Newfoundland at the time was... ``Convoluted'' is in the dictionary, dear colleagues.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Go ahead, Professor.
Mr. Dion: May we please have some silence in the room. Newfoundland was an almost bankrupt dominion and the protecting power, London, had made it known that the situation, perceived at the time to be temporary, could no longer go on. A decision had to be made and the decision that Newfoundlanders made was painful for them. The government of Canada decided freely to welcome Newfoundland as a province of Canada. That was a bilateral and not a unilateral decision. So, you see the parallel does not hold.
A parallel can however be made which is very useful for Quebeckers and Canadians. Historians tell us - and the Newfoundlanders who sit in the House of Commons could testify to this - that that decision was heartbreaking for Newfoundland and that it took more than one generation of Newfoundlanders to regain their strong cohesion. And yet they were leaving an almost bankrupt dominion - the decision had to be made in a way - and the federal government came in with its welfare State and its pension plan which significantly increased Newfoundlanders' standard of living. But it was difficult for them. They were even traumatised by this.
Imagine Quebec deciding to leave not an almost bankrupt dominion but one of the most celebrated countries throughout the world. In this case, the standard of living of Quebeckers, in the opinion of the large majority of economists, would not increase but would decrease, and no doubt substantially.
Imagine the harm that would do to Quebec society! And how long would that harm last? It is crucial that Quebeckers and Canadians become reconciled and that they decide to stay together within Canada.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bryden, you have the floor.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I'd like to follow up on some of the questions of Mr. Bellehumeur, if I may. He made a comment to the effect that Mr. Dion made a statement that after Quebeckers voted for something like separation, they would regret it. I think that's probably the context in which his remarks were derived.
Isn't it true that even before that, historically and worldwide, when you look at separatist movements in federated states, separatism usually is born in the fertile ground of economic and financial want, in countries where prosperity has diminished? I'm thinking here of the former Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. In your experience, isn't it true that this is a problem?
Separatism comes from there, and consequently the federal government's mandate right now is quite contrary to what Mr. Bellehumeur was suggesting. It's not to starve Quebec. It is to try, despite the separatist movement, to bring as much prosperity to Quebec as possible. Is that not the strategy of the federal government?
Mr. Dion: No. You cannot buy a population. It's not what we have to do. It's certainly to show that Canada is a success.
Mr. Bryden: No, I haven't explained myself. Our obligation as a federal government is to try whatever we can do to bring business to Quebec, to help Quebec financially in being a viable entity. Is that not what we're doing, even though it's perhaps difficult?
Mr. Dion: Yes, in being fair to taxpayers in the other provinces. It must be fair for everybody. We have a federation that is very fair, I think. We help provinces that have less capacity than others, and as long as Quebec is in this situation, we will have to help Quebec.
Montreal now is very hard hit by the political uncertainty. Mr. Cauchon and Mr. Martin are working with the Government of Quebec and the municipality of Montreal in order to address this difficult situation.
.1635
To go back to your first comment about when separatism comes, historically secession has come after the break-up of an empire or after the break-up of a colonial situation. But never has it happened in a well-established democracy that has enjoyed at least ten consecutive years of universal suffrage. Why? I think it's because secession is a breach of solidarity, une brisure de solidarité, and this is something very difficult to match with democratic values. I hope it will not be in Canada that we will see a thing like that happening for the first time.
Mr. Bryden: Isn't that precisely our dilemma as federalists, though, that because of the separatist movement in Quebec there is a flight of businesses? You've said yourself that Montreal is failing. Do we not assume the worse the economy gets in Quebec the more likely separatism is going to advance, and the more we as Canadians in the rest of the country can encourage Quebec's prosperity, its businesses and all the rest of it, the more we can hope they will elect to stay in Canada? Is that not the strategy?
Mr. Dion: Part of the solution is certainly to explain - it's only part of the solution, but it's an important one - what the Canadian economic union is; why you cannot reinvent it once you have a secession; why it's necessary to keep a strong monetary union, a strong legal system, a strong federal government in its own jurisdiction and so on, in order to have a strong economic union. For instance, colleagues of mine, economists, have.... I will say it in French, if you will allow me.
[Translation]
Economists have shown that when you neutralize the effects of distance and size, there are 20 to 25 more exchanges between Canadian provinces than between Canadian provinces and American States. That shows how important it is to have a strong economic union, to have one country and not several countries that would then have to rebuild bridges as best they could.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Isn't it true that international trade, free trade among nations, is a cyclic phenomenon? That is, as we look down through history, even going back to the ancient Greeks, you'll find sometimes there's free trade, then there's isolationism, then free trade, isolationism. Isn't it true that the sovereigntists, particularly the separatists, are counting on free trade existing indefinitely with the United States and their not having to rely on their economic union with Canada? They think they will be able to rely indefinitely on free trade with the United States, when in fact probably in the short term, and you probably have analyses in your own department that deal with this, even in the next decade, we can look forward to a possibility where the Americans might reject free trade and return to isolationism. Wouldn't this have disastrous consequences for an isolated province, or shall we say even an isolated country, one isolated by language?
Mr. Dion: I think to negotiate a NAFTA after the break-up of Canada would be very difficult with this protectionist Congress we have in the United States. It would put the free trade we have with the United States at risk.
Also, we must remember that free trade, NAFTA, is a level of economic union much less high than the situation among the provinces within Canada, even though we have to complain about interprovincial barriers that are still far too many and we'll work with the provinces to have an even stronger economic union in the future.
Mr. Bryden: But there's more safety in looking to economic union among provinces than economic union with the United States.
Mr. Dion: Or economic union between Quebec and a Canada that would not be any more.
Mr. Bryden: Not in same country.
Another point is it does seem to me we do try very hard, or you do try very hard as a federal government, the prime minister, yourself, and the ministers, to encourage businesses in Quebec and to help the Quebec economy, because we know it's in the interest of all of us, but isn't it sometimes an uphill battle?
I take this as an example. In Question Period today I was amazed to hear the Bloc questioning the finance minister and suggesting the Montreal Stock Exchange should not be part of the proposed Canadian securities commission. Surely your department has done a study that would suggest this would be very disadvantageous to the Montreal Stock Exchange. I remind you that forty years ago the Montreal Stock Exchange was larger than the Toronto Stock Exchange. At present Toronto has 80% of the activity, and I guess with Vancouver and Alberta involved you're looking at 85%.
.1640
Wouldn't it be disastrous to reject this type of Canadian securities commission, as proposed by the Bloc?
Mr. Dion: ``Disastrous'' may be too strong a word, but if you look at other federations, usually they have one security commission.
Mr. Bryden: Exactly.
Mr. Dion: In fact I may quote Mr. Parizeau. Before he became a separatist he supported one security commission on the ground that it's better from a rational economic point of view.
And it's not against the Constitution. We may claim this is completely in our responsibility regarding economic union or interprovincial trade.
It makes a lot of sense to do it, but we will do it only with the provinces that want to do it. We think after a while all the provinces will be pushed by their business community and union workers telling them it's good and asking why they don't jump into it in order to have a better economy.
I would like to add another thing. You said political insecurity is very costly for Quebec and for all of Canada. Yesterday Mr. Bouchard said the same thing, in a way. He said ``Don't be nervous. There will not be any referendum in the next years. I will take time. You have time to come to reinvest, because the referendum will be pushed to later years.''
So why not say they will not have any more referenda at all? It would be much better for the economy.
The Chair: This will have to be your last question.
Mr. Bryden: Okay.
Mr. Minister, Mr. Bellehumeur also directed a line of questioning at you that suggested there was something.... He wanted to know how much your office had been spending on the unity issue.
In your experience of international affairs in other countries, other federated states, is it not normal for a government of a federation to want to spend money, taxpayers' money, on promoting the unity of a country? Indeed is it not rather bizarre to have any country question the propriety of the government spending money on national unity?
Have you any experience or can you submit any examples that would suggest there are other countries that regard this as bizarre, or that regard it as appropriate, as Mr. Bellehumeur suggested, that a government shouldn't be spending money on national unity?
Mr. Dion: In fact if you compare with other countries, obviously if you add the military service to all the spending they do in order to be sure their population feels part of one country, the spending we have in Canada is certainly much below the average. Regarding my own department, the increase for this year is from $10.4 million to $14.2 million. I challenge anyone to say this is not reasonable in view of the fact that we are the sole well-established democracy facing the danger of a breakup.
The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Dion.
Mr. Epp, you have the last set of questions.
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): Thank you.
I would like to begin by debating a little bit with you on the political, but not for very long, because I have some other questions.
I think you have a very difficult chore. I read the statement you gave to this committee today, and it seems to me you are always balancing opposites. You have supremacy of individual rights, yet you have this question of trying to have everybody together as a social unit.
We have autonomy as citizens and yet we want our regions in Canada to feel important. We have this question of dependence, independence and interdependence - so many different things. I guess you have a challenge that probably exceeds what most people face when they get elected into this Parliament, and I wish you well in that sense.
What I'd like to talk to you about, though, is the question of how you spend our money. That's what I thought this was about and that's what I came prepared to do. I was starting to feel sorry for all your officials, who came here to answer questions and aren't being involved.
The Chair: You're a kind soul.
Mr. Epp: Yes.
I have quite a few. The first one is with respect to what we call vote 5. Vote 5 has gone up from about $10.8 million to around $17.6 million. If I've done my arithmetic correctly, that's around 62%, and you're trying to tell us that's just an accounting quirk.
I'd like to know exactly why the Canadian Centre for Management Development should have that kind of increase when we're all trying to save the taxpayers some money and maybe keep this country together because people aren't taxed to death.
.1645
Mr. Dion: Dear colleague, before I give the possibility to Madam Smith to answer your question, you talked about having to balance different values and different ideals. This is democracy. I don't know one democracy that is shaped on one value. We must always find the good balance between equality and liberty, between individual rights and a sense of identity. It's what Canada is, and if we build on these trends we will save Canada.
Now we will speak about CCMD. Madam Smith.
Ms Janet Smith (Principal, Canadian Centre for Management Development): CCMD is a departmental corporation. In each department there are appropriations for training. When departments undertake training, they transfer money from their departmental budget to us to undertake that training.
In the early days when CCMD was started, it had an appropriation of its own, which was around $10 million, plus this ability to cost-recover from departments. The cost recovery from departments was small and the appropriation was large. As the centre grew, more and more of its revenues came from moneys transferred from other departments.
Since last year, in the interest of being more transparent and giving you a better picture of what CCMD does, we are now showing in the tables the revenues from other departments. They were always shown before in part III of the estimates, in the text, but they were never put in the tables.
So you are asked to approve appropriations, which is the taxpayers' amount, the $10 million. The appropriation part in 1995-96 was $9.5 million. The $8.3 million, which is the revenues from other departments, you've already approved in approving the other departments' estimates.
Mr. Epp: Why are they in these estimates then?
Ms Smith: They are transfers from one department to another. To give you a more complete picture of what is being spent on training, we felt we should show them to you again.
Mr. Epp: I have some serious questions here. Your business is training people who work in government departments.
Ms Smith: That's correct.
Mr. Epp: Why don't we simply hire people who know what they're supposed to do when we hire them? When I got my job in my profession, I had to go to university and get the training and present a degree before they'd even consider hiring me. When they hired me, there was a minimum spent on further training because I learned a lot on the job. It was all free to my employer. To me$17 million a year is an awful lot of money to spend on training people who are supposed to know what they're doing in the first place.
Ms Smith: This is executive development, not university training. Like you and your employer, we expect people to have certain qualifications when we hire them. Most workplaces, ours included, are fast changing with things like business plans, more measurement, things we do to make the public service work better, and all that requires training. If the training that CCMD gave was not useful to the departments, they would take the money they give us to train and give it to someone else. That's a free choice.
Mr. Epp: Could this be outsourced to universities?
Ms Smith: Some of it is.
Mr. Epp: Can't it all be?
Ms Smith: Universities tend to offer courses in three- or four-month semesters. Many of the things we offer are one- or two-day programs. Also, 50% of our business is working with departments, training work groups to work together, and it tends to be different. It's more executive development.
.1650
Mr. Epp: It's more in-house.
Ms Smith: It's a different kind of executive development from what universities offer. It's not theoretical.
Mr. Epp: Sometime, if I have time, I would like to visit this place, Madam Chair. I'd like to see what happens there.
Ms Smith: We would welcome you.
Mr. Epp: Maybe someone can get an invitation to whoever is interested from this committee.
I have another question. This is very interesting to me. The Privy Council Office includes in its role strengthening partnerships with the provinces. I've sometimes said facetiously what we need is a CANIPTA, a Canadian Interprovincial Trade Agreement based on something like NAFTA, so we can get this country working and get provinces helping each other. It is sometimes, although maybe not always, easier for us to trade with the United States than it is to trade with our neighbouring provinces.
Here we have things like food inspection, environmental management, social housing, tourism, freshwater fish habitat. You go on to health care, improvements in child support, seniors' benefits, CPP and labour market training.
How do I put this diplomatically? When I read the list of all these things you are responsible for, why don't we just let the provinces do this? Why don't we get this closer to the people?
As an Albertan, I live a long way from Ottawa. As some have said, it is 3,000 miles to Ottawa, but from Ottawa to Alberta it is like 50,000 miles. We send all this money to Ottawa with the hopes maybe some of our own money will get back to us if we can persuade those bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa we somehow deserve it.
I know there is a valid component for sharing with other provinces. But, very frankly, I have a question. This question is not only for individuals who perpetually stay on the welfare rolls. I have the same problem with provinces who can never get beyond their need to have subsidies from others who are doing better. I think this should always be a transition to help them out of a problem. It should not entrench the need so they're in there forever.
My plea to you is this. How exactly is your office going to work effectively to decentralize this country so it works together, so we don't have these so-called unity problems, with one province even now threatening to leave because it works so badly?
The Chair: Mr. Dion, this answer will conclude the meeting.
Mr. Dion: Thank you.
First, Mr. Epp, Canada works formidably. I think Canada is a success. It is not a failure. This federation works better than other federations. With Germany, Australia and Sweden we are able to say we have one of the best and already the most decentralized federations. So we may improve things. But I think it is wrong to say we are a centralist state.
We may identify fields of activities where we need to clarify roles between governments. You listed, for instance, environment. I don't know one country where the central government or the federal government has no responsibility in environment. In Europe you have the localities. You have the central government. You have Brussels, which more and more has responsibilities in environment. They have difficulty clarifying roles between levels of government. In Canada, we too have to clarify roles, and Minister Marchi is working very effectively with the provinces in order to do this.
Another example is what you have done in manpower training. I think now the provinces will have, after the negotiations with Minister Young, all the room they need and the Government of Canada will be able to concentrate, to focus its responsibilities where pan-Canadian responsibilities are obvious. For instance, in a situation where the fish disappear and you have five provinces in crisis, it is obvious the Government of Canada will have a responsibility to help the provinces.
So what we are working toward is having a strong federal government within its own responsibilities, strong provincial governments within their own responsibilities, and a strong partnership between them.
.1655
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dion. As Mr. Epp so aptly stated, today's meeting is testimony to the challenges you face every day. I'd like to thank you on behalf of the majority of the members for your candour and your time. We wish you well in your deliberations. They are important for the future of this country.
Mr. Dion: Merci beaucoup.
The Chair: Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.