Debates of Nov. 29th, 1995

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 1995 I put a notice of motion on the Order Paper that the government produce all business plans and outlook documents prepared by departments and other agencies. These are the documents that the government intended to publish under the new policy of outlook documents that were supposed to be tabled in the spring. By the end of the summer recess we were still waiting for some of these documents and therefore, I put a motion on the Order Paper.

As of this date we are still waiting for the government to produce these documents. These are not new documents. They are ones that the government proposed be tabled as part of the new procedures in examining the spending of this government.

When can we expect to receive the documents we should have had months ago?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the outlook documents have been placed before the various standing committees of the

House. Certainly all the ones for any of the standing committees which I serve on and have any responsibility for have received their documents. I am surprised to hear this from the hon. member, but I will undertake to look into the matter and get back to him as soon as possible.

Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

moved:

That

Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of Quebec's distinct society;

(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House of Commons to launch the debate on the motion presented by the government to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.

I made three commitments during the Quebec referendum campaign: first, to recognize that Quebec forms a distinct society within Canada; second, not to make any constitutional change that affects Quebec without Quebecers' consent; and third, to undertake changes to bring services and the decision making process closer to citizens.

Less than a month after the referendum, the government is keeping its word and fulfilling its commitments. I would like to remind everyone that a majority of Quebecers said on October 30 that they want Quebec to continue to be a part of Canada and that they want changes to be made within Canada. The Government of Canada has understood that message, and the resolution we are debating today, as well as the bills on a veto and unemployment insurance reform, are testimony to the Government of Canada's respect for the choice of Quebecers.

By rejecting the option of separation promoted by the Parti Quebecois and members of the official opposition, Quebecers have called on their provincial government to act like a full-fledged partner and to work with us for the evolution of the Canadian federation. It is unfortunate for Quebecers that their government and the official opposition have not remembered that message. They refuse to respect the will of the majority and to represent all Quebecers, not just those who say the same things they do.

In fact, a few minutes ago, in the Quebec National Assembly, the Parti Quebecois refused to recognize the results of the referendum in a motion put forward by the opposition asking the National Assembly to recognize them. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition, who is likely to be the next premier of Quebec, is still talking as if the referendum campaign were still under way. The referendum is over. Quebecers have voted for Canada, for change within Canada. It is about time certain members of this House realized that.

Our government understands the lessons that had to be learned. The result of the referendum on October 30 has shown us we cannot take Canada for granted. The Canada we have built deserves to be defended against its detractors. Canada deserves to have its evolution safeguarded. That is what we intend to do.

The measures we initiated on Monday move in that direction. All our actions have just one goal: to ensure the unity and evolution of Canada in order to respond to the aspirations of all Canadians.

The purpose of the motion we are debating today is to have the elected representatives of Canada recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. As a Quebecer and a francophone, I understand and share the desire of my fellow Quebecers to have our difference recognized.

The motion put forward by our government goes to the very heart of what makes Quebec different. The motion specifies that this distinct society includes, and I quote: "-its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition".

That definition of what makes Quebec different is just, true to reality and unrestrictive. I am certain that most Quebecers will recognize themselves in that definition of distinct society. It includes our traditions, our culture, our legal system and our French soul.

The debate we are having today on this motion is an opportunity for the members of the official opposition to show solidarity with and good faith in their fellow citizens. It is an opportunity for them to act positively to support the recognition of the distinct society of Quebec by the House.

I would not want to miss this opportunity to speak directly to Quebecers who, since October 30, since the distressing statements by Mr. Parizeau, since the unacceptable actions by Mr. Landry, have been feeling nervous and unwelcome.

Quebec is made up of a francophone majority. That is what makes it different. However, Quebec is also made up of Quebecers who have come from every part of the world. They are full fledged Quebecers and Canadians. On behalf of the Government of Canada I want to tell them today that we have not forgotten them. I assure them of our full support. They can count on us.

Canada is a country where diversity is respected, where we can recognize and affirm our differences. We reject the idea that a country must require its citizens to have a single, uniform identity.

The reality of Canada accommodates recognition of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. The reality of Canada includes the reality of Quebec.

We are calling today on the members of this House to recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada.

During the referendum campaign the legislatures of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland passed resolutions recognizing the uniqueness of Quebec within Canada by virtue of its language, culture and legal systems.

Canadians throughout the country also showed their attachment to Quebec during the referendum campaign. All across the country spontaneous demonstrations were organized in support of Quebec.

Today I call on Canadians who demonstrated their attachment to Quebec during the referendum campaign to support our government's initiative to recognize Quebec explicitly as a distinct society.

With the support of Canadians, with the support of governments in the other provinces, and with the support of members of this House, I am certain that, if the Government of Quebec so wishes, we will be able to entrench that recognition of Quebec's distinct society within the Canadian Constitution.

But now is not the time for constitutional discussions, because the Government of Quebec and the Leader of the Opposition himself have indicated that they refuse to participate in such discussions. That is why the government has decided to show Quebecers that it is possible to recognize their society for what it is, by calling on the House to vote in favour of this motion.

Once it is passed, this resolution will have an impact on how legislation is passed in the House of Commons. I remind Canadians that the legislative branch will be bound by this resolution, as will the executive branch. This is a real, dynamic recognition, recorded in the very heart of our country's government.

I believe that this is the type of assurance and guarantee that the majority of Quebecers are looking for. And the Leader of the Opposition need do only one thing to indicate to them that he respects their vote in favour of change within Canada. Unfortunately, he has already indicated that he does not intend to do that.

Moreover, the Leader of the Opposition often likes to remind us of those who did not support Meech. And each time, memory fails him. Well, I would like to remind him that his colleague sitting right beside him, the member for Roberval, was a member of the National Assembly in 1987 and he voted against Meech.

The party which he intends to lead voted against Meech and against Charlottetown, and is about to reject for a third time in a row the recognition of the fact that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada.

The party he still leads today is about to do the same. History will remember that.

As it concerns the aboriginal people of Canada, my government is clearly on record as respecting their aspirations. We recognize the unique legal position of aboriginal people, including the protection of aboriginal and treaty rights in the Canadian Constitution and the inherent right of self-government.

This resolution, through which the House is being called upon to confirm the reality that Quebec is a distinct society, is not intended in any way to infringe upon or derogate from those aboriginal or treaty rights. This position includes the inherent right of self-government.

Quebec has long claimed a veto over amendments to the Canadian Constitution to ensure that it is a full participant in the evolution of the Constitution and to have protection against amendments that could diminish the powers, rights and privileges of the National Assembly and the Government of Quebec.

The Government of Canada recognizes the legitimacy of those demands. Indeed, we are where we are today because, in 1981, the PQ government of the time abandoned its traditional demand of a veto in favour of the current amending formula. As far as we are concerned, our party has always, always supported a veto for Quebec.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada also recognizes that a constitutional amendment is a serious measure. It should be based on a broad consensus. No region of Canada should be excluded.

That is why the bill requires that the Government of Canada first obtain the consent of Quebec, Ontario and two provinces from both the western and Atlantic regions representing 50 per cent of the population of each of those two regions before proposing a constitutional amendment to Parliament.

Some people will say that this proposal does not respect the principle of equality of the provinces. I will answer that equality of the provinces means that all provinces have the same rights to make laws, to make decisions and to set policies to serve the interests of their citizens.

Our proposal does not change that reality. As the Minister of Justice indicated during question period, to change the Constitution today with the amending formula that exists it requires four small provinces to block an amendment but only two big provinces to achieve the same goal. It is a sign that the weight of the population is already incorporated in the Constitution that serves the country today.

Others will say, and we have already heard them, that the bill does not do justice to British Columbia. At this point I directly address the people of British Columbia. With the constitutional veto ascribed to western Canada in the bill, British Columbia will have a larger say on the Constitution than it has ever had in Canadian history. With almost half the population of the west, British Columbia will wield unprecedented weight. Some people are trying to characterize this tremendous progress as a setback. We should not believe them. It is the opposite. It is the start of a new era of British Columbia's strength in Canada.

In extending its veto to Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic and western regions, our government is directly inspired by the major principles of our democracy. It is a solid, tangible measure that reconfirms the government's willingness to use practical, essential means to protect all regions of Canada with regard to future constitutional changes.

At a time when all modern societies must deal with an ever-changing world and environment, a world in which borders are disappearing, Canada must adapt. Accordingly, the third initiative put forward by our government at the beginning of the week is a response to the desire expressed by all Canadians for their governments to become closer to citizens.

The reform that the Minister of Human Resources Development will table in the House on Friday is an example of the pragmatic approach we want to take to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Government of Canada.

Let us be clear. We will not abandon our constitutional responsibilities to help unemployed Canadians re-enter the labour market, a constitutional obligation we have had since 1941. We will continue to act to get Canadians back to work in partnership with all those who share that objective.

It is important to recognize and respect the responsibility of the provinces in the areas of education and labour market training.

We appreciate that workers need training to keep their job or find a better one, and we are prepared to help them. But we will do so only with the consent of the provinces, respecting the priorities of each. We are putting forward a proposal for partnership, and our main partners in this area are the provinces. In Canada, we overcome our difficulties through a spirit of compromise and mutual respect.

The spirit of cooperation and partnership that inspires us should motivate us to continue building this country in an atmosphere of generosity and respect. The measures we are taking today mean change without revolution, progress without break-up.

In the final days of the Quebec referendum people across Canada demonstrated an outpouring of love for their country the likes of which I have never seen in my 32 years in public life. They spoke out in one loud voice of their deep, deep attachment to Quebec and of their yearning to keep Canada together.

I said to them then that I would not let them down. Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you, before the eyes of the whole nation, and say proudly that I have not let them down and I know that they will not let Canada down.

I want to say to my fellow Quebecers: You have demonstrated your commitment to Canada. I am telling you that we, in the House of Commons and across Canada, will show that we warranted your faith. You were right in believing that Canada can and will change to meet your aspirations and those of all Canadians, that Quebec can stand proud and tall inside Canada.

In the coming days we will hear from those who defend only their own interests. We know the agenda of the separatists. They want to destroy Canada.

And there are others in other parts of Canada who think that the way to win popularity and power is to divide, to attack, to pit Canadians against one another.

That is not the Canadian way. It has never been. The Canadian people are stronger, more open and more understanding than that. When the chips are down they stand up for Canada. That is what I ask them to do in the days and weeks ahead.

It is easier to attack than to work together. It is easier to shout than to listen. It is easier to destroy than to build. It is easier, yes, but it is wrong for ourselves, for our children and for our country. The shouters, the attackers, the destroyers have had their say. Now Canadians want to get on with building Canada. The initiatives we have tabled today and will table in the next few days will help us to get on with that job. I know Canadians across the country from B.C. to Quebec to Newfoundland and the north will support us.

That is why I call on all members of the House to support the motion of the government, which wants the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, before recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, I will hear the hon. member for Sherbrooke on a point of order.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the order in which the speakers will be recognized this afternoon. You will understand that the resolution before this House today is exceptional in nature and that, under similar circumstances, the House usually shows some flexibility.

Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for consent, this afternoon-and I think that my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party plans to do the same-to be allowed to speak immediately after the leader of the Reform Party and, should the time normally provided be expired, to disregard the clock, so that each of us has an opportunity to speak on the resolution just tabled by the Prime Minister.

[The Speaker]

I will go directly to the whip of the government and will take the other two points of order.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I consulted with my colleagues about this issue earlier this day. I am pleased to report that we would consent to such a proposal and that we are willing to make the same offer to the hon. member for Yukon if she were to seek it.

[The Speaker]

I will recognize the hon. House leader of the Reform Party on the same point of order.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, we have considered the matter and feel that we should use the regular order of speaking with regard to the resolution. If the government wishes to give up two of its slots as time goes on that is its business. We believe we should follow the regular order of speaking and not change the order of business.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the hon. member's request is concerned, I would just remind him that, not so long ago, my colleagues asked for consent in debates of great importance to Quebec, and he consistently denied consent. Let him now abide by a narrow interpretation of the Standing Orders and have a taste of his own medicine.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke and the hon. member for Yukon have both asked for unanimous consent. The House, as I understand it, has refused this consent. We will now proceed to the hon. leader of the opposition.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that you have ruled on this, but I would like to register within the House a point of order on the fact that at a time when we are trying to look at the future of this country it is regrettable that the Bloc and the Reform Party do not accept the proposal of the member for Sherbrooke.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Prime Minister's speech. I think we should point out that this speech is a distinct departure from the approach the Prime Minister has taken in the past two years. During the 1993 election campaign and the subsequent two years in this House, the Prime Minister's approach was extremely hard, rigid and, I must admit, consistent, in other words, he did not mention the Constitution, did not feel it was appropriate to suggest any changes and was quite satisfied with Canada as it is.

He took a similar approach during the initial weeks of the referendum campaign, so much so that he put his feet up and relaxed until the last week of the campaign, when he woke up to the fact that the yes side was surging ahead and had become a very real threat to the no side. His reaction was very nervous, very improvised and came on very short notice.

He quickly arranged for a very large meeting in Verdun on October 24, where he said the following-this was the new Prime Minister-and I quote: "We will keep open all the other roads to

change, including administrative and constitutional means. Any changes in constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of Quebecers".

Back in the House, after a very narrow win by the no side, improvisation has been the name of the game in the federal government. First, it set up two committees-we still do not know what they are doing-which were short-circuited by the debate we are having today. One of the committees, chaired by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is supposed to come up with and propose ways to resolve the current constitutional mess and deadlock. Second, we have the announcement the Prime Minister rushed to make on Monday about a resolution that would include a symbolic recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, a so-called veto and a vague delegation of activities in the area of manpower training.

The question is: What is behind this complete about-face by the Prime Minister, who has consistently fought the concept of a distinct identity for Quebec?

First of all, there were the circumstances. The Prime Minister was very surprised and even distressed by the almost irresistible advance of the yes side during the latter part of the referendum campaign. And it was fear, and fear is a very healthy reaction and also, according to the gospel, the father of wisdom, that inspired the sudden statements he made on October 24 and during the last days of the referendum campaign.

This surprising about-face is neither surprising nor an about-face, since the proposal is meaningless and a worthy successor to all the political positions taken so far by the Prime Minister since the beginning of his career with the federal government and on the federal scene. Words can be made to say what we want them to say, and the phrase "distinct society of Quebec" is no exception. Distortion is always possible.

The expression "distinct identity of Quebec" is a case in point. It may be useful to recall that its initial appearance in our constitutional vocabulary and on the political scene in Canada and Quebec actually dates back to February 1965 and the preliminary report of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, where the expression was used in a rather descriptive way, devoid of any political or legal content. It surfaced again, this time with a more formal meaning, in September 1970, when Mr. Bourassa, the newly elected Premier of Quebec who was attending a constitutional conference, actually used the expression in the meaning it has had more or less since that time.

However, starting in 1985, the term was to develop some very specific overtones, as in the Quebec Liberal Party platform in June 1985, before the election that would be held several months later, and this recognition of the distinct identity of Quebec was to become a precondition for any decision by Quebec to become part of the Constitution of 1982.

We must therefore examine the context. In 1982, Quebec sustained a blow, a blow with which everyone is familiar, and which was felt very strongly by everyone including the Quebec Liberal Party, which had always refused to endorse the Constitution, even condemning it in a vote in the National Assembly in November 1981. And in 1985 the Quebec Liberal Party, in an attempt to unravel the knot, to bring things out into the open, proposed that Quebec set a precondition to signing the 1982 Constitution-the Prime Minister's Constitution, the one that still has a blank at the bottom of its last page next to the name of Quebec-as a precondition to any negotiation the unconditional recognition by the federal government and all of the provinces of Canada of the distinct character of Quebec.

Then, of course, on June 3,1987, came the signing of the Meech Lake accord. The real one, the real Meech Lake; not the one to which the Prime Minister refers all the time, which is his accord, the one he had watered down later on, and the one I shall speak about later, but the true Meech Lake accord. On June 3, 1987, all of the first ministers of Canada, provincial and federal, reached agreement for the first time in history on the signing of a constitutional accord which would have allowed Quebec to preserve its honour, to return to the constitutional family, and then to come on board with enthusiasm. The words "honour" and "enthusiasm" correspond to two separate phases. First of all, the return to the family with head held high, because our distinct character has been recognized, and second, enthusiasm in redefining the division of powers between Canada and Quebec.

I am recalling a context which I see as extremely important since it offers a very good explanation of the degree to which today's proposal, which is totally unacceptable and does not hold up, will not fly. It will not even make it into the history books, except perhaps as a footnote somewhere. It is a truly minimalist effort, nothing in comparison to previous efforts to attempt to settle the Canada and Quebec problem.

What was there in the Meech Lake accord of June 1987? Let us review this. First of all, there was entrenchment of the accord in the Constitution. Entrenching a formal agreement as part of the Constitution is by no means a trifle. This means there are consequences. This means the courts are obliged to take it into consideration, to apply it. They are bound by the clauses introduced into the Constitution.

You will note as well that the wording is extremely strong. So strong, in fact, that it greatly displeased the Prime Minister who has fought it ever since with all of his might. The formulation is that, henceforth-I shall describe it now. I will quote it verbatim in a few minutes-

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Oh, oh.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I would appreciate the Deputy Prime Minister allowing me to speak. This is perhaps one of the last speeches she will have the pleasure of hearing me give in this House. Would she let me speak?

Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake accord of June 1987-and it is important to keep this in mind-required the courts, from the Supreme Court on down, to interpret all of the Constitution, including the Charter, "in a manner consistent with the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society". There was nothing to qualify this, no definition of content which would thereafter represent a limitation, simply the strong and clear statement of the principle to be recognized.

This, therefore, constrained the courts in future to recognize and implement a principle which imbued the Constitution with a new spirit. Each and every provision of the Constitution, with the amendments and everything that dates back to 1867, was tinged with something new: the recognition of Quebec's distinct nature. It also introduced, formally, in terms of a legal instrument, a new criterion for interpreting all the provisions.

When I say all the provisions, I also mean the provisions of the Prime Minister's Constitution, the 1982 one. It, let us remember, did a lot of things. One of the things the 1982 Constitution effectively introduced into Canada and Quebec's legal and political landscape was the notion of a single country, a Canadian nation-this was a first.

This was the first time constitutional and legal texts talked about Canada as a single nation, the nation of Canada. The corollary, needless to say, was that Quebecers found their existence as a people being denied, implicitly, if not explicitly. Up to this point, there had been lots of discussion, but, under the Constitution of our forebears, the one we Quebecers agreed to, not the other one, the Prime Minister's, the prevailing spirit was that there were two founding peoples.

It was not expressed this way in so many words, but this is what our forebears had in mind when they agreed to sign the 1867 confederation agreement. Otherwise, Lower Canada would never never have agreed to sign the Constitution. This is what convinced Quebec parliamentarians of the time to enter into confederation, because they thought that French Canadians, as they were then called, could move about freely within Canada, could feel at home wherever they were and could be the equal of the other founding people everywhere.

What happened in 1982? A principle was introduced, which basically knocked the stuffing out of the concept many Quebecers had of Canada, including Quebecers who were still federalists.

The Meech Lake accord came back to this very point. It provided, in addition to the initial interpretation criterion-recognition of Quebec's distinct nature-for a second criterion, which was recognition-I will read the text, it is very short-that: "the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec, but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec, but also present in Quebec-"constituted a fundamental characteristic of Canada.

This extremely important principle is enshrined in the text of the Meech Lake accord. This means there is a duality. I am sure that many lawyers, with a little bit of imagination, could have argued before the courts that this implied the recognition of two peoples and not a single Canadian people with the existence and the identity of Quebec mixed in with the lot and therefore annihilated. That was in the Meech Lake accord.

So when they say the accord did have teeth, it is true that it was an important document. Furthermore, it recognized something very important. It was the fact that Quebec's distinct nature was not subject to the charter of rights and freedoms. This is a very significant principle and it convinced many Quebecers to accept the Meech Lake accord, despite the fact that many sovereignists opposed it. My colleague here, the member for Roberval, opposed it. I approved it. A lot of sovereignists like myself decided at the time to give federalists a chance-this has been referred to as the "beau risque"-and support Mr. Mulroney in this, which was leading to the recognition of something that had never yet been accepted.

This should be recognized as very important for it marked the beginning of the crisis that deeply divided the country and the Tory cabinet and led to my resignation and the resignation of several Tory MPs to form the Bloc Quebecois. It is important to note that the original Meech not only recognized Quebec's distinctiveness without limiting it, but also ensured that this recognition was not subordinate to the pre-eminent charter of rights and freedoms, which, as we know, is the Prime Minister's baby.

If someone should know that the first Meech Lake accord protected the principle of recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness against the application of the charter of rights, it is the Prime Minister. That is the reason why he was so vehemently opposed to it. As many people must remember, a milestone in the Prime Minister's philosophy and political journey was the very important speech he delivered on January 16, 1990, here at a university, in Ottawa, in which he sounded the death knell of Meech.

You may wonder why, since he was not even a member of Parliament at the time. He may not have been an MP, but he was a candidate-still undeclared, I think-for his party's leadership. He had not yet declared his candidacy, but everyone knows that the intention comes before the formal declaration. Everyone knew that this former MP and minister, who spoke before Ottawa university students on January 16, 1990, had every chance of becoming the

next Prime Minister of Canada and that his words therefore had weight.

What he said at the time is very important, because it marked the fatal attack against the Meech Lake accord. The Prime Minister had a lot of credibility, and he still does, I think, with all Canadians, and perhaps to an even greater degree in English Canada. I am not criticizing him but at the time-at least in English Canada, where there was a great deal of muted, latent opposition to the Meech Lake accord-his voice was heard as being extremely effective in destroying any political chance of success for the Meech Lake accord.

What he did was to invoke basic rights and the need to preserve the effectiveness of the charter of rights. He said this, and I quote: "By proposing that the distinctiveness of Quebec society be affirmed in a constitutional interpretation clause", an effective interpretation criterion, as I said, "they are in fact splitting the country in two, with Quebec on one side and the other nine provinces on the other". In his speech, the Prime Minister was desperately trying to demonstrate that recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness should not be an interpretation principle, because it is too broad, because it would undermine the effectiveness of court rulings under the charter of rights, and that the substance of the Meech Lake agreement should therefore be drastically altered.

What the Prime Minister said in January 1990 throws an almost blinding light on his subsequent behaviour and successive positions, which are all in line with his efforts to water down recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness.

Why did the Prime Minister, who is an honest man, a responsible public figure who wants what is best for Canada-and no doubt for Quebec as well-throw such a monkey wrench in works that were bringing hope, at the time, for a moment of grace, harmony and agreement? Why did he do that? I respectfully submit-I could be mistaken, but this is a possible explanation-that he did it first because, in his opinion, and I respect his opinion, Canada is a nation. In his view, there is only one people in Canada, the Canadian people, comprised of a number of components, including one called Quebec.

The bottom line for him, and this is another principle of his, Quebec is like any other province. Quebec is one of the good little chicks around the federal hen.

[Some hon. members]

Ha, ha.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

But he is a logical man, Mr. Speaker. I would never challenge his logic, since his logic leads him to conclude, and this is a characteristic of his position, if he does not recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec in its true sense, it is because he came to the logical conclusion that there is only one, real national government, namely Ottawa, to represent Canadian values, make major decisions, decide the basic trust of anything and everything happening in Canada and that the provinces are just that, provinces. They exist under the Constitution. There is not much that can be done about that. There they are.

Since they are part of the Constitution, the provinces have to be tolerated, but nothing keeps this government from cutting funding and putting the squeeze on them. The federal government is in trouble? It is experiencing financial difficulties? They just cut funding to the provinces, while keeping the tax money and points and without cutting taxes.

The provinces are actually viewed as some kind of arrangement, and they are respected as such, entities, administrative entities, perhaps huge municipalities in the eyes of the Prime Minister and other like-minded individuals, including his mentor, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who tried relentlessly to impose as a reality a fiction of Canada.

These people are living with a fantasy of what Canada should be. Their vision of Canada is quite simple. Imagine a circle, the federal system; all around this circle, you have little squares, dots or what not called provinces and, in the middle, you have the basic national state. Very often, their speeches and attitudes have reflected some sort of weariness about the presence of the provinces, whether Quebec or the other provinces, provinces that have identities and aspirations. I know for a fact that the Reform Party has legitimate concerns about this.

So, you can understand now why this reasonable and responsible man did what he did in 1982. I do not think it is justifiable but, in 1982, this man, who had this vision of Canada, went as far as to impose it on Quebec.

Never in the history of this country-and I know a thing or two about history from my studies, and many-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Indeed, I studied history and I am being modest in saying that I know a thing or two on the subject. And I am not alone in Quebec to have studied history. Bear in mind that Quebec's motto is "Je me souviens", which means I remember. If Quebec's identity survived this long, it is because of its long memory.

Like many other Quebecers, as a student, I was not a sovereignist, but this did not prevent me from being critical of the confederation. And my criticism is on record. I might have put in writing as the editor of the student newspaper and all, but it never occurred to me that, someday, a democratic Canada, English Canada, a nation that is open, tolerant and respectful of individual rights, could actually rely on its weight to crush Quebec's wish, tear up the Constitution agreed upon by our forefathers in 1867 and replace it with another constitution that was not recognized by Quebec but

imposed on Quebec, a constitution repudiated by every democratic entity and political party in Quebec, including federalist parties.

I would never have thought that this kind of thing could happen in my country. I would like to tell the Prime Minister, who feels that I refer to 1982 too often, that I can understand why that makes him uncomfortable. I can understand that, but I want to remind him of that sunny day when, along with Her Majesty the Queen of England, as Queen in right of Canada, and Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Ouellet, he signed, on the lawn of Parliament, the patriation of the 1982 Constitution. That day, which was a great day for the rest of Canada, is the day that Quebecers' desire to achieve sovereignty was exacerbated.

We can now see that, for someone coming back to lead the country, the original version of the Meech lake accord, that is the one signed by the then Prime Minister and by all the premiers of Canada, was a threat. He perceived that agreement as a terrible threat, as something which could undermine what he had accomplished, even by encroaching on the collective rights of Quebecers.

So, what did he do? He did a controlled skid. He realized that he should not oppose the recognition of Quebec's very distinct nature, that he could not deny that-indeed, it would have been somewhat preposterous to say that Quebec is not distinct, given all that distinguishes us, and at such a deep level too. So, he kept the expression, but did everything possible to make it meaningless.

It is at that level that his political work paid off. Make no mistake about it: he is a capable and formidable politician. I am among those who have the deepest respect for his political know-how, as demonstrated by his succeeding in diluting the concept of Quebec's distinct nature. What did he do after his January speech? He made sure that it would become obvious to Mr. Mulroney, who was then Prime Minister, that-

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Your friend.