Debates of Nov. 30th, 1995

Constitutional Amendments Act

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vegreville.

As I speak to this unity debate I am very mindful that I represent all of the people of Edmonton Southwest. I represent everyone whether they voted for me or for someone else. It is absolutely essential that members of Parliament remember the fact that we represent every one of our constituents and that all 295 of us in combination represent all of the people of Canada, whether they voted for us or not.

When I go home tonight I will be seeing my brand new granddaughter who I have not seen a lot of because I have spent so much time in the nation's capital in Parliament. Everything I do is directed toward my children and grandchildren. It seems reasonable that we in the House should have our eyes firmly fixed on the future.

The tragedy is that so many people of Canada are represented by members in the House who have their eyes firmly fixed on the past. While we all recognize that the foundation of the future is the past, we cannot live in the past. There is nowhere to go. The past is dead. There is nothing in it for us. If we as a nation continue to live in the past, we are never going to spring into the future which belongs to our children.

Our generation and preceding generations have managed to somehow magically saddle our children and grandchildren with a debt which has been built up over a number of years. In addition to that we have saddled them with a relationship of our constituent parts which has been fractious and has not worked smoothly for all of my adult life.

The rest of the country has tried at various times to coerce or to buy the affection of Quebec through constitutional changes, quasi-constitutional changes, outright money or outright advantage. For instance, to satisfy the people of Quebec the now infamous CF-18 maintenance contract went to Quebec. None of this has worked. Constitutionally, we are still at exactly the same place today as we were 30 years ago.

All the primary protagonists of this debate are from Quebec. Every damned one of them is from Quebec. The Prime Minister is from Quebec. His primary advisers are from Quebec. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois is from Quebec. Obviously all of the Bloc is from Quebec. We have to ask ourselves why the rest of Canadians are being dragged along as helpless spectators as these people go through their never ending Gordian knot they got themselves into. It is almost as if the leader of the Bloc and the Prime Minister both represent the past. They are bound so tightly to the past that they are unable to see the future. They are unable to see how Canada has grown and how Quebec has grown since the silent revolution.

I ask myself, why in the name of God are we trying to satisfy the separatists? Why are we trying to satisfy people who would break up the country at the expense of federalists? What is it in the nature of this debate that causes us to be so shortsighted that we would risk the future of the country, that we would risk the west of the country in order to satisfy separatists in Quebec who will never be satisfied?

It is our responsibility to build for the future, not for the past. Our responsibility is to our children and our grandchildren and to their children, not to our grandparents and our parents. It is to the future, not to the past.

On the record I would like to quote from a book entitled Rights of Man , written by Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was one of the architects of the American constitution. The American constitution has lived for all these hundreds of years because it is flexible, because it is living, because it has room for everybody in its constituent parts to grow. He states in his book:

It is the living and not the dead that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organized, or how administered.

Members would recognize the corollary of that in which he states: "The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies". What he is saying is that each generation has the right and the responsibility to govern for its time and should no more bind the hands of future generations than our generation should be bound by the past. This then brings into play the whole notion of whether or not a veto is reasonable in a democratic federal state for anyone under any circumstances based on the notion of tying the hands of future generations.

Everybody had a reason to vote against the Charlottetown accord. This was mine: I did not think it was responsible for our generation to tie future generations into a Constitution that would be so inflexible it could not be changed. Is that any legacy to leave to future generations? Do we have that little trust in our children and our grandchildren that we would bind them to a Constitution in cement?

This then brings us to part two of the Prime Minister's new amending formula. If we saw our country from outer space or if we came to this country and we saw this as a blank canvas, how would we and what would we do to make it work? Surely in this country which extends over 5,000 miles from one coast to the other with just 30 million people in it, there is elbow room for everyone. Surely we can figure out a way that we can live together in peace and harmony and with mutual respect. Surely this is not an impossible situation.

The suggestions we have brought to the table concerning the amending formula or veto keep in mind that all of us, every single human being in this country and in this world, are equal by virtue of the fact that we are human beings. When we gather under an apple tree or when we gather in a room and we determine what rights we are going to have, we do not do so based on whether we are male or female, whether we speak French or English, or whether we are black or white. We gather together and through commonality we have governance because we are human beings, because it is in our best interests and our common interests.

How then would we go about doing this? How would we make our country work if we had a clean slate and we could start from scratch? It seems to me that if one group in our country feels threatened and feels that the only way the group can protect its future is through a constitutional veto that gives it the authority to ensure that nothing in the future without its consent can have impact on the group's language, culture, civil code or the way in which it has evolved as a society, what is wrong with that? It is a recognition of the obvious: Quebec is a distinct society. Of course Quebec is a distinct society.

How do we go about recognizing that without at the same time suggesting to other Canadians that they are less distinct or somehow not favoured? We do this with an amending formula based on the regions of the country, but most important the ratification is done by the people through referenda, not by the Parliament and not by the legislatures.

The reason for this is very important. Most Parliaments and most legislatures can have a decided majority yet that majority may only have received a minority of the votes cast. This Parliament is one such example. The Liberals have a huge majority of seats with a minority, 43 per cent, of the votes cast.

The only way we can possibly ensure that changes to the Constitution will bear the imprimatur of the people is to ensure that these changes are ratified through a referendum. That is one exceptionally important reason.

The regions are important because they are and have always been homogeneous groups. The region for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba has always been referred to as the prairies. Everybody knows that. No one has ever described British Columbia as the prairies. British Columbia is growing at a great rate and in one generation will equal the population of Quebec. Alberta is growing more quickly but is balanced by Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It works, and if it works why should we be tied to an amending formula which came from people who woke up from a Rip Van Winkle sleep and said: "Let us just drop the Victoria amending formula on top of this today". That is not the kind of flexibility we require.

The final comments I would like to put on the table today have to do with how we got into this mess in the first place. How did we go about giving legitimacy to this notion of two nations? How did that come to pass?

We have been blessed with some very fine Canadians over the years. One such very fine Canadian was Eugene Forsey. Eugene Forsey was a constitutional scholar. He was recognized by friends and foes alike as one of the paramount constitutional scholars in our country. All his living life he supported the New Democratic Party. In 1961 he left the party because of the notion of two founding nations which it never was; it was one nation from the very beginning.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in a hastily planned and executed press conference, the Prime Minister announced the Liberal government's agenda for change.

The package the Prime Minister has put forward is both negative and divisive. He offers Quebec distinct society status which Meech Lake and Charlottetown have demonstrated to be divisive. He is offering the regions of Canada a veto power, which means the ability to stop change instead of the ability to offer change, change which is so badly needed in this country.

The Prime Minister gives the provinces control over manpower training. While this might be a step in the right direction, he chose not to go all the way. He offered the provinces the responsibility but the federal government still controls the purse strings.

Bill C-110 proposes to divide Canada into four regions, the western provinces of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; Ontario; Quebec; and Atlantic Canada. The bill gives the four regions a veto over any constitutional amendment which includes changes to national institutions and the creation of new provinces and amendments regarding the distribution of powers. Currently only the House of Commons holds a veto over most constitutional amendments.

The bill is not a constitutional amendment or even an amending formula. It is simply an unenforceable code of conduct for the federal government. The bill promises the federal government will oppose any constitutional amendment, even one Ottawa puts forward, unless the amendment is consented to by the four regions.

The four regions proposal is a slap in the face to western Canada. If all the west, the netherlands as the Liberal government seems to consider the west, is allocated as one region, obvious problems come forth. If sometime in the future B.C. has a population which exceeds the combination of the population of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, and that seems very likely, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan will lose all real power in terms of constitutional change.

First, they lose it to B.C. because if B.C. becomes more populous than the other three provinces together it will have a majority which will carry under Bill C-110.

Second, under the provincial government ratification procedure now in place a change will be able to get the required support of seven provinces without getting the consent of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Clearly the three prairie provinces lose out under this proposal.

Under the legislation if a region refuses consent it vetoes constitutional change. Because the bill is vague Quebec would be able to veto constitutional change through a written statement from the premier, a resolution from the National Assembly of Quebec or a province-wide referendum.

Therefore the bill would provide a veto of any constitutional change the province of Quebec or Ontario did not want. This change gives the current separatist premier of Quebec a veto over any constitutional change. How much sense does that make? I will touch on that subject a little later in my speech.

The bill is not part of the Constitution and therefore the existing amending formula still applies. If the existing formula still applies and we add the new formula, it would not only give central Canada a veto but it might require unanimity.

Bill C-110 would create a system where there are two rounds of provincial ratification with little federal say in constitutional amendments. Under the current system each province has its say. The federal government, presumably acting on behalf of a united Canada, the country as a whole, is a necessary and vital part of the process.

Under the legislation the government proposes to delegate the important responsibility of constitutional change not to Canadians but to provincial legislatures. The provinces will be consulted twice: once under the old amending formula and once by the federal government in determining whether to apply its veto in support of provincial concerns.

The provinces will look after provincial interests and the federal government will ensure that provincial interests are respected. With the federal veto delegated to the provinces, no one will be looking out for a united Canada, Canada as one country, which is what Canada is.

Can the government not see that Canadians deserve more? They deserve carefully thought out proposals made in the open and not behind closed doors and not by a top down centralist government. They deserve forward thinking proposals, not the reheated leftovers of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

In contrast to this negative and certainly divisive approach by the government the Reform Party has offered Canadians a new and better Canada through our new confederation proposal. The proposal includes a plan to modernize and decentralize the federal government by transferring certain powers to the provinces and the people while strengthening other federal powers.

The proposal also includes a plan to renew certain federal institutions. Among the 20 proposals Reform would guarantee provincial control over natural resources, language and culture. Reform would change the federal role with regard to provincially administered social services such as welfare, education and health care. Reform would foster co-operative agreements rather than impose unilateral standards which are enforced by threats to withhold federal funding.

In addition, the proposals would provide for a further decentralization of powers through an overhaul of federal institutions, for example Parliament, the Senate, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Bank of Canada.

These measures would give the power to the people and to the provinces where it is needed. In turn, it would reduce duplication and interference from Ottawa in areas where it is not needed or desired. Canadians have long been concerned about the concentration of too much power in the hands of the federal executive and the cabinet. The proposals give Canadians a new and more accountable system of government for which they have been asking for some time. I believe Canadians want change. They do not want more constitutional wrangling. The proposals can be realized without reopening old constitutional wounds.

The proposals that have been presented demonstrate once again the lack of a democratic approach on the part of the government. We have seen in the past the lack of democracy in legislation, for example Bill C-41 and Bill C-68, the gun control bill, where MPs who dared to vote against the government-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out regardless, and particularly to bring it to the attention of our viewers today, that this is a historic day for Canadians and for all Quebecers as well, of course.

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. Of course, we spoke about a resolution. Today it was decided that we would speak of a veto right for Quebec, as well as for three other regions of the country, of course.

Quebec has also experienced in recent months, in recent years in fact, a debate which has forced the population to make a choice. And the choice Quebecers made in the referendum on October 30 showed that they want to remain within the Canadian federation.

I count myself among those who acknowledge that discussions were stressful at times and that, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition did not hesitate to divide Quebecers.

Several conclusions may be drawn, I believe. What people want is change. But some, Quebecers in particular, want change without a break-up. This is undeniably the conclusion reached from the referendum, its results and the interpretation we have made of them after consulting the pollsters. Very nearly two thirds of Quebecers want the Government of Quebec to reach agreement with the Government of Canada in order to move ahead with change, not only changing the Constitution but also, and above all, addressing economic and job creation issues.

I listened with a great deal of attention and interest to the speech the Leader of the Opposition gave yesterday afternoon in this House. I found it regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition, who has always claimed to be a spokesman of sorts for some of the people of Quebec, does not wish to acknowledge that Quebec is a distinct society and is not prepared to support us, the Government of Canada and the people of Canada, in finally recognizing Quebec as a society that is distinct by virtue of its language, laws and culture. I find it unacceptable that a leader, a member from Quebec like the Leader of the Opposition, will not line up on our side to defend the true interests of the province and of those whom we represent.

For some time now, and today in particular, I have had the impression that a number of opposition members will again put federalism on trial, but will unfortunately not take into consideration the progress Quebec has made within the Canadian federation in the last 130 years.

We are well aware that there are only seven million French speakers in Quebec. I have also learned that there are nearly 800,000 or a million allophones, anglophones and so on, who are, of course full fledged members of Quebec society.

However, within the Canadian federation, despite our constitutional differences over the years-which I have had nothing to do with-we are well aware that the average Quebecer has made incredible gains in contrast with individuals in other societies and other countries, which are less well off than Canada and the people of Quebec.

I believe the Canadian federation has, nevertheless, helped build the bases of our distinct society. We have created a telecommunications network, through all sorts of federal offices, Radio-Canada in the 1930s and the National Film Board. We nevertheless allowed Quebec to look after cultural matters and especially to sign agreements not only with other provinces, but even with foreign countries in order to strengthen and guarantee French where I come from, that is, in Quebec. With the close co-operation of the Canadian government, we have assured the influence of the francophone culture not only within Quebec, but elsewhere in the country as well.

We must not forget that francophones may be found in other regions of the country. I am back from a business trip to western Canada. I met francophones in Alberta and in Manitoba. The communities there are dynamic. They depend a lot on the presence of the federal government and on good relations with other communities, including the anglophone community.

I find it unfortunate that, during the referendum, there was an effort to exclude and isolate the French fact outside Quebec.

You know, there is close to one million francophones outside Quebec. Close to 450,000 young anglophones are in French immersion. I believe that this presence was intentionally minimized by the opposition for purely symbolic reasons, but mostly for political expediency.

I believe it is important to tell Quebecers that we are not the only ones, that there are other francophones in Canada. As a matter of fact, we had the privilege to hear one of those, a member from Manitoba, speak in this House, in both official languages, of course. I often have the opportunity to listen to members either from Ontario or New Brunswick. I find it remarkable that, in this country, and especially in this House, there is an increasing number of members, not only anglophones but people of Italian descent or of other ancestries-we have members from all over the world, I believe-who speak French fluently.

If we look at Canada today, especially the make-up of this House of Commons, particularly on this side, it is obvious that bilingualism has allowed French to gain ground across Canada, which is an important breakthrough. I got a note telling me not to hesitate to speak about francophones, indeed, encouraging me to do so.

I noticed, during the referendum campaign and increasingly in the media, that Quebecers have come to one important conclusion. Increasingly, they have come to recognize the presence of francophones outside Quebec, who have a very significant role to play. I admit that I am digressing, but I wanted to show that Quebecers are not the only francophones in Canada. We must support and work in close co-operation with those who are promoting French throughout the country.

I truly believe that, with the help not only of the people of Quebec, but also of people outside Quebec, we are finally going to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. With this in mind, we are inviting the Leader of the Opposition to support us. It is very important, not only for Quebecers, but for francophones outside Quebec, who, from now on, can rely-and why should they

not-on the Quebec government taking an active part in the Canadian federation. This is what we are seeking.

I believe that Quebecers, and Canadians as a whole, are sick and tired of constitutional debates, but I believe that we must seize this opportunity to recognize Quebec for what it is and, of course, Mr. Speaker, before you rise-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately, dear colleague, your time has expired.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine the opportunity to finish his speech, since I realized from his reaction that he wished to have a few more minutes. So, the fact that we are now moving into comments will certainly allow him to continue.

However, I would like to make a few remarks concerning his speech because, as he rightly mentioned, what the member tried to do during the few minutes that he spoke was to tell us how English Canada-even though our colleague from St. Boniface does not want us to use that expression-loves us and how it recognizes the importance of the French fact, since he emphasized that several Canadians are now taking French courses, which is a fact and a good thing.

It is also well known that Quebec is where we find the greatest number of people who can speak both languages, French and English. On an individual basis, everybody recognizes the importance of speaking both French and English. I will add that, in Europe, it is not two languages that most people speak, but three, four and even more, and sometimes very complicated languages, much more complicated than French and English.

Having said that, and with all due respect for our colleagues opposite, that does not solve in any way the political situation in Canada. That does not solve the political and constitutional problem that that federalists have been struggling with for many decades, and trying to solve in all kinds of ways. It is important to point this out because, every time government members stand up in this House, they tell us that it is the separatists who are preventing constitutional changes. At the present time, that is the only argument that they are using to say that, unfortunately, they cannot change the Constitution. The Prime Minister, almost with tears in his eyes, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, with her crocodile tears, tell us: we cannot bring about constitutional changes. The Leader of the Opposition, who will become Quebec's Premier, said right away that he did not want any changes.

That is the whole debate in a nutshell. Even though I recognize the facts raised by the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine concerning the importance of the French aspect, I wish that he would speak a little more substantively about the bill itself.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for his openness and his generosity and I hope other members will follow suit.

There is no doubt that, in all this, Canada has been able to follow a peaceful approach where other countries resorted to violence. What I find extraordinary in our country is the fact that it is because we have a flexible system that we are always in the middle of some negotiations.

Unfortunately, things are different in France and even in the United States. When it is time to make changes, to move on as a society, these countries are unfortunately stuck with constitutions which often are inflexible and very difficult to change, especially if the changes are to reflect the reality we face at the turn of the century.

The previous speaker just said again what all Quebecers know already, which is that the Leader of the Opposition, once he becomes Premier of Quebec, will reject every constitutional agreement with Canada. One thing is clear: his only objective is the separation of Quebec, the end of Canada.

One of the highlights of the last century has been, of course, a true political and economic feat, which will endure only if we can rely on the support of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition and next Premier of Quebec, in order to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and to recognize its veto within the Canadian federation.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on a subject that is near and dear to my heart. However, I would like to take it in a slightly different direction and speak of my own riding.

My riding is at the head of Lake Ontario, near Hamilton. It is probably as anglophone a part of the country as we could possibly hope to get. Yet the first European who set foot in my riding was René Robert Cavelier de La Salle. He came there in 1682. He came by canoe through Hamilton harbour, climbed the escarpment by a stream and visited an Indian village near the present town of Waterdown.

Around my riding there are signs everywhere, vestiges of French explorers. Just two miles from my village there is a creek called Fairchild Creek. This is a reflection of the coureurs de bois who explored the Grand River and its tributaries in the 17th century.

La Salle was exceptional. I do not wonder that my Bloc colleagues are very proud of their heritage when we think of this man who in 1682 came to the Hamilton area and then for the next 10 years explored everywhere around southern Ontario. He was searching for the Ohio River, which he believed would lead to the orient. In doing so, he was the first man to build a ship for the fur trade on Lake Erie at Niagara Falls. He also became a great entrepreneur in the fur trade at Kingston, which at that time was Fort Frontenac.

I say this to point out that the early people of New France represented the most fantastic spirit of adventure we could wish to find anywhere in the world.

What of myself as an anglophone? I can parallel that. On my mother's side of the family there were United Empire Loyalists. They settled in the United States in the 17th century and after the American revolution came to my area, the same area La Salle explored, to settle when they fled the Americans. Here we have a situation of my ancestors, like the ancestors of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and my Quebec colleagues, who have this wonderful spirit of adventure.

I could look at my own father. My father came over to the country in 1924, leaving England at the age of 17. Again we have this sense that we share. Whether we are French or English speaking, we share this very Canadian sense of adventure, the sense of reaching out and trying brave new things to do.

When I was a young man I tried to cross the Sahara Desert to visit Timbuktu. I have to say that as I crossed the Mediterranean I met another young man. We recognized one another because of our passports. He was another young Canadian from Quebec who was on the same type of adventure I was. There we were, doing what I think is one of the things that unite us as a people, whether we speak English or French, a people who have a true spirit of adventure.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you travelled the world now you would find young Canadians, both French and English speaking, in every corner of the globe on similar missions of adventure.

I mention this because separatism, the movement we see today to withdraw Quebec from Confederation, is not in the best tradition of our ancestors. It is a defensive reaction. It is building walls. Separatism today is fear rather than bravery. That is a great shame. What has made this country the richest nation in the world and the greatest trading nation in the world, whether we speak English or French, is our spirit of adventure we have inherited from all our ancestors.

To return to my history lesson, La Salle did not find the Ohio River. A decade later, after running around in southern Ontario and making a killing on the fur trade, he crossed over to the Mississippi River and explored the entire length of the Mississippi. He arrived there in 1682 and claimed the entire territory for France. Thus, Louisiana was born.

Louisiana became a far richer colony of France than Quebec. It was on the edge of the Caribbean. In those days the resources were much richer in that region than they were in the frozen north. What happened to Louisiana? In 1803 Napoleon sold it to the Americans. The Americans did not move in and change Louisiana into an English speaking state. They were totally laissez-faire about the situation. Louisiana was left alone with its language and culture. However then, as today, there was an enormous economic boom in North America. The west was opening up, the Mississippi was opening up and there were entrepreneurs everywhere.

The net effect of the freedom that Louisiana had as a state of the United States, rather than the protection it had when it was a French colony, was that within a century it lost most of its French culture. The French language was replaced by English. Now this former French colony, which was bigger than Quebec, is merely a shadow of its French self.

I submit that is the kind of danger that is presented by the prospect of Quebec's separation today. The reason why Quebec still exists, perhaps some of my Bloc colleagues will not agree with this vision of history, is that there were accommodations reached between Britain and Quebec right at the beginning, right after the conquest. This spirit of accommodation has been a characteristic of Canadian society ever since.

The other thing that makes all of us Canadian is the fact that for centuries we have had to accommodate our differences. Our most fundamental difference was language, and not just in Quebec, but in northern Ontario and Acadia. Nevertheless, that is what has sustained Quebec all those years.

We now come to Bill C-110 and the distinct society resolution. I feel these two things are very important moves. There is the spirit for separation in Quebec which has always been with us and will always be with us. There is nothing wrong with that but right now there has been a resurgence. There are more people in Quebec now than ever before who are afraid of losing their language and culture. We in the rest of Canada cannot afford to see that happen because so long as Quebec retains its language, its culture and its traditions, then the rest of Canada has to accommodate and make room for something that is an essential difference.

It makes us a society that is truly tolerant and truly generous. That is why the rest of the world sees us as the best country in the world in which to live. It is not because we speak English, not because we speak French, but because we tolerate one another and we have a spirit of generosity that goes back through the centuries.

I hope the people in Quebec are listening to this and understand that the movement toward separation is a movement that will hurt us all. It will hurt those who speak English as well as those who speak French.

Debate is good. It is always good for us to come to Parliament or anywhere in this country, examine our differences and come to understand one another once again. However, separation is not the answer. The movement with respect to Bill C-110 and the distinct society resolution are a form of reassurance from all the people of Canada that we need to stay together and respect one another.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech made by my colleague opposite.

First, I would like to tell him that for us, Quebecers, sovereignty does not mean establishing borders or putting up walls between us and the rest of the world. Quite the contrary. I think Quebec sovereignists have shown, through the kind of partnership they have proposed to the rest of Canada, that they are open, that they want to sit down and talk, that they want a change at this point in their history.

So I hope the member has understood that also. In his speech, he talked about other places in the world where there are francophones. Louisiana in one of them. We know that Napoleon sold Louisiana to the Americans and that the small community living there at that time decided to let itself be assimilated.

Today, the French culture in Louisiana is nothing but folklore. There are still some people who speak French, but they are very few. It must be understood that these people were assimilated because they were in the United States of America, where English is the only official language. We do not want this to happen to Quebecers.

What we want is to control the economic and political instruments that will allow Quebec to grow and to secure its future. We will have to start all over again, to explain, as the member said, that sovereignty is something that will not die. But I want to tell the member that the sovereignty of Quebecers and of Quebec is something positive, something dynamic.

It is a movement that is leading us into the third millennium in a positive way. A people who decides to take control of its own destiny, that is just fantastic. I remember the night of the referendum when Claude Ryan, former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, said: "The rest of Canada will have to recognize Quebec as a distinct people in the Canadian Constitution". Today, what we are being offered is a motion of the House that is valid only if it is supported by the majority. So I think what we are discussing today is entirely different from the offer Quebec would like to see.

We are not afraid of losing our language and our culture, and sovereignty which, as I said earlier, is a positive thing, is the reason why we are not afraid. However, we must go about this intelligently. We must have the means to ensure our survival, and we will have them in a sovereign Quebec. As I said yesterday here in the House, when the Canadian Confederation was established, an understanding was reached. Today, more than 125 years later, it is time the rest of Canada realized that we are talking about the future and the very survival of this Canadian territory.

So I would like the hon. member to comment and try to understand the position of Quebecers, which is very positive.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I would like to point out to him that sovereignty, as he describes it, and separatism look inward. He has to admit that the separatist movement is building walls around Quebec.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

It is not true.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Yes it is.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

No.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

It is walls to protect-

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You see the walls. We do not see them.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That is the problem.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

There are walls and the rest of the world sees them as walls. I tell the hon. member that those walls will be broken down without the protection of Canada.

That is what happened in Louisiana. Economic forces, business forces and global forces destroyed the French culture in Louisiana. The same will happen to Quebec unless Quebec has the rest of Canada and the faith of anglophones like me who believe we share a tradition. We are generous with one another.

If Quebec rejects the rest of Canada, including other people in Canada who speak French-

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That is not true.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Oh yes, it will be the end.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

C'est complètement faux ce qu'il dit là.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

The lesson my hon. colleague should appreciate is the lesson of Louisiana.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Ça, c'est au siècle passé.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

It happened in Louisiana in about 60 years and Louisiana had state rights. It was a loose federation, far looser in the United States at that time than Canada today. Louisiana's

culture disappeared under the pressure of economic and business forces within about 60 years.

I suggest that were Quebec to separate and not have the genuine partnership that exists in the Canadian Confederation today, especially with the Americans just south of the border, there would not be anyone speaking French anywhere in the business community of Quebec. That would be a shame because it would be the end of a culture.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate, since I feel it is important to establish the government's intentions in tabling Bill C-110. It is not my intention in the next few minutes to react to the interpretation of history given by the Liberal member who just spoke. I would simply advise him to do some sorting out of his historical reference books. Drawing a comparison between Louisiana and Quebec is not only nonsensical but an insult to the reality of Quebec.

What I would like to do instead is talk about Bill C-110 and the veto.

To begin with, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out this morning, when reference is made to the right of veto, this generally means a procedure or rule that is a key element in a constitution. With such a rule, changes of a constitutional nature cannot be made without the agreement of one part. In the case of concern to us here, the case of Canada, what is involved is a part of Canada without the agreement of a certain number of provinces plus the federal government.

This is, therefore, an important measure. So important that, over the past 20 or 25 years, the federalists have discussed among themselves on a number of occasions the necessity of arriving at a formula for amending the Constitution which would include this famous right of veto. Naturally, there was the Victoria charter, which referred to a regional veto, a bit like Bill C-110. The Pepin-Roberts Commission referred to a regional veto as well, but one supported by a Canada-wide referendum in which a majority would be required in each of the four or five regions of Canada.

The 1982 Constitutional Act, the one that governs us at present, assigns to each Canadian province the right of veto in several areas for amending the Constitution and the institutions, among other things. The Meech Lake accord also contains the same right of veto. The Beaudoin-Edwards committee spoke of a regional veto. So did the Charlottetown accord.

What I would like to point out with this reminder is that the right of veto has always figured prominently in Canadian political discussion, in the political speeches of federalists, sincere ones, who wanted to improve Canada and Quebec's situation. Never, however, have we been able to reach an agreement that would respect the rights of both Quebecers and Canadians. Never.

That is why the Trudeau government accorded the right of veto to all provinces in 1982, in desperation, and this is how the situation stands now.

So, if we want this right of veto to mean anything, there must be constitutional changes. Because he could not do so-and not because the Leader of the Opposition may eventually go to Quebec City, but because he could not convince the anglophone provinces to agree-the Prime Minister, reacting to the results of the referendum on October 30, decided to table a bill in the House that has no constitutional significance, a bill that will force the present government to take certain criteria into account before it proposes constitutional change, if it really wants to, because it can amend its bill at any time.

However, as the Prime Minister has already said he does not intend to make any proposals so long as the nasty separatists are in power in Quebec, the bill will never be implemented in any case.

This is where I want to point out the intention of the government and, particularly, of the Prime Minister. This bill is nothing more than a hoax. I would even describe it as skulduggery, because it is misleading Quebecers by implying that the right of veto is a guarantee of Quebec's future constitutional rights.

This is wrong, absolutely wrong, because, in the same breath, most of the speakers on the government side have made a point of saying in their speeches-the Prime Minister first and then the Minister of Justice this morning in tabling his bill-that the bill changes nothing in the existing formula, in other words, it is the constitutional status quo.

Quebecers must understand that the government and the Prime Minister are simply trying to waste time in this House with this hasty bill that has no effect.

Some will say I am being hard on the Prime Minister. With your permission, I would like to turn to what the Prime Minister has said in the past.

Let us look first at his speech in 1990 as he was preparing to enter the Liberal Party leadership race. The current Prime Minister, who was then a leadership candidate, said, right here in Ottawa, to University of Ottawa students, that, as a candidate to the Liberal Party leadership and future head of the Canadian government, he was opposed to any form of veto, for any province. He basically said that a province wishing to oppose constitutional changes could do it if it had a veto. He did not specifically mentioned Quebec, but he was certainly thinking about that province, since Quebec has always been the one asking for such changes.

In addition to a veto power, the concept of distinct society is supposedly recognized in the motion tabled in this House.

Again, this is a big joke. The Prime Minister is trying to make Quebecers, but particularly Canadians, believe that he recognizes the principle of distinct society. Yet, during the referendum campaign, he ridiculed that principle by making an analogy to his own linguistic skills. He said: "There is no need to put the distinct society principle in the Constitution. Everyone knows that I am distinct. Just listen to me speak English".

At the time, the leader of the Action démocratique condemned the Prime Minister's comments, saying that it was contemptuous of Quebecers to make such an analogy between the notion of distinct society and one's ability, or lack of, to speak English, in this case the Prime Minister himself.

This is what the Prime Minister thinks of the distinct society and the right of veto. Today, because it tabled a bill and a motion on the concept of distinct society, the government would like Quebec members to applaud and say: "Mr. Speaker, the issue is finally settled. Quebec is now recognized as a distinct society and it has a veto power. Let us move on to other matters".

No. Quebecers are not fooled by all this. They are fully aware of the federal government's deceit in tabling this bill and this motion, and they will react strongly. In that sense, the Leader of the Opposition who, in a few months, will lead the Quebec government, was right, is right and will be right to say no to such trickery and deceit.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is at it again with his emotional blackmail.

A debate at least two-months long has already been held on the referendum. At times, it was quite intense, very emotional. We heard from both sides, supporters of the yes camp and supporters of the no camp, those who were for Canada and those who were against Canada, those who wanted to give Canada a chance and those who did not.

Those who wanted to give Canada a chance won. The democratic result of the referendum was a yes to giving Canada a chance. On the evening when the results were announced, I was out of the country, unfortunately, but I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television. It was a very emotional moment. I stayed up all night and watched the Leader of the Opposition on CNN International as he said: "The democratic result of the referendum must be respected".

Interestingly that what the opposite of what Mr. Parizeau had said when he chose not to respect the results. At the time, the Leader of the Opposition and leader of the yes camp in Quebec said that the referendum results were to be respected. But what is happening today? Just the opposite. No respect for the Quebec referendum results; total disregard for the basic principle of democracy in Quebec, in Canada and in every international standard.

Nowhere else in the world do you have a group like the one we have here in our federal Parliament, a Parliament representing the people of Canada, Canadians from coast to coast.

In no other country in the world do you see people like the members across the way, rise on their feet and announce with great pride their plans to tear apart the best country in the world. They want to tear apart and break up a great country, a fantastic country.

The Prime Minister said, and my colleagues on this side also said so time and time again: this is not going to happen, because the best country in the world just cannot be broken up. What the government decided to do and managed to do is to present concrete proposals, and we expect opposition members to act with common sense, to respond with common sense, to respect the democratic result of the referendum, to sit down at the table and to negotiate honestly, without any hypocrisy, and to stop using the words "sovereignism" and "independance". They should talk in a positive way, saying that Quebecers voted to give Canada a chance.

Then we would have a real debate. Then we would really be able to talk face to face. So, I ask my colleague if it would not be better for him and for his colleagues of the Bloc to sit down with the federal government and to tell us what they really want. They are not satisfied with that, but what do they want exactly? They want to put that in the Constitution, but they do not say so. They do not dare say what makes sense.

What I have heard today is nothing but blackmail, a history lesson, another explanation of what happened 20 years ago. Several members of that party voted against the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. I want to ask the member-