Debates of Nov. 29th, 1995

Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society

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

Pardon me?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Your pal, your buddy.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

They have no class.

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

Mr. Speaker, they say that Mr. Mulroney was my friend, as though that was a bad thing. Yes, we were friends for 30 years.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

What did you deliver?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

What do you have to say against Mr. Mulroney? What does she have to say against Mr. Mulroney? Let us hear it. What does she have to say?

[One hon. member]

Stand up.

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

This is not the place to discuss personal issues. The Deputy Prime Minister should not express any animosity she may have towards a person during this debate.

Here are the facts: at the time, that man, Brian Mulroney, was Prime Minister. He had succeeded in having the Meech Lake accord signed on June 3. No one had ever managed to do something like that in Canada. Never. Obviously, the Prime Minister is not on his way to achieve that either.

If I am not mistaken, the opposition organized by the current Prime Minister, then a possible candidate, and later an official one, for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, convinced Mr. Mulroney and his entourage, of which I was no longer a member, that he had to negotiate with him. So, without many people knowing about it, I certainly was not awareof it, people decided to move closer to the views held by the future Prime Minister, so that he, since he controlled the leaders of the provincial Liberal parties who were blocking the Meech Lake accord, could remove the obstacles and ensure that the accord would be signed, albeit with a revised content.

That agreement was reached by the so-called Charest commission. They agreed on diluting the content of Meech. The Quebec caucus of the Conservative party, which was under my responsibility, had pledged that the substantive provisions of Meech would never be changed. I believe it was in the last days of May that we learned there would be a Charest report which had the support of the Conservative and Liberal parties, and which diluted the recognition of Quebec's distinct nature to such an extent that the charter of rights would apply to it, thus having the effect of making it sterile.

That is when I resigned. I resigned, as did others, as a matter of principle. I had not come to Ottawa to support the views of the current Prime Minister. I had come here to fight them.

So that led in June 1990 to Meech II, son of Meech, watered down Meech, wishy-washy Meech, the Prime Minister's Meech which was even then rejected by English Canadians for still going too far. In Newfoundland, Manitoba and among English Canadians in general, two out of three surveys showed that it was still giving too much to Quebec, whereas it had become unacceptable for Quebec, even for those who had supported it until then.

Then came Charlottetown, where it was diluted still further. This is where they started to define recognition of the distinctive nature of Quebec; by defining it, of course, they restricted it. They started to put it on the same footing as equality between the provinces; distinct, equality for all. Everybody was distinct. Something for everyone, everyone on the same footing. It no longer had any meaning. The people rejected it. Not me, not the wicked separat-

ists, but all of the people of Quebec, all of the people in English Canada.

So, bye bye Charlottetown.

What is this week's incarnation? What are they proposing to us now? I have to admit that I have a compliment for the Prime Minister: this last attempt to water down distinct character is the best yet. This time we do not need a lawyer's opinion appended to the resolution to know that it means nothing.

Remember, in the somewhat comic episodes involving Meech II, there was still some doubt, still some people who were wondering "maybe it does still mean something". Some lawyers signed a legal opinion that it meant nothing, which was appended to the Meech Lake accord.

This time, there is no need to pay any lawyers. There is nothing that needs to be appended; all one needs to do is read it to realize it means nothing. They took no chances this time.

Why? First of all because it leaves untouched the concept of a single Canadian people according to the 1982 Constitution. In other words, the Prime Minister saved his Constitution, the one that is not Quebec's, the one we did not sign but he signed on the steps in front of Parliament. His Constitution is intact.

There is only one Canadian nation; Quebec is part of all that and should live with it and blend in. The identity of the Quebec people? Sorry, some other time.

Furthermore, what we have here is just a simple resolution. Just that. So what does this mean in legal terms, a resolution by Parliament, by the House of Commons? It is a wish formally expressed by a group of parliamentarians but without any legal effect. The courts are not bound by this resolution. A lawyer could not even put it before a court, which would refuse to acknowledge its existence because legally, a resolution does not exist. It is nothing.

[An hon. member]

Wishful thinking.

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

Just wishful thinking. And even the House is not bound by this resolution. If the House passed the resolution, with the Bloc voting against it, of course, if the House, on the strength of its majority, were to impose adoption of the resolution, the very next morning the resolution would not be binding. The House could do anything at all. Imagine if the government were to change. What would our Reform Party friends do with the resolution and the so-called veto? We will talk about that one tomorrow.

It is just a mirage. This resolution is a mirage. Not smoke and mirrors, that would be too strong a term, because it implies there is more than meets the eye, and in this case, when you read the resolution, it is all there. So this is not a case of smoke and mirrors but a mirage.

It demonstrates a complete failure to appreciate what Quebecers want. I think that when people have been in Ottawa for a few years, and it might happen to me because I have been here for some time-they tend to become a little isolated from what is happening in Quebec. It is almost inevitable. Being on the Hill is like living under a glass dome, and because we always breath the same oxygen, see the same faces, listen to the same voices, read the same newspapers and talk to the same reporters who are listening to us, we finally lose touch to some extent-not altogether, of course not-with what is going on out there.

Remember what it was like in the House the night the Charlottetown resolution was adopted. I remember. It was a very solemn occasion, of course. The whole House rose to adopt Charlottetown, all parties, all members. There were only six or seven members- The member for Beaver River was with us, members of the Bloc, in the corner, along the curtain, and we voted against the resolution. We almost felt embarrassed to do so. I told myself that evening: Could it be that the Bloc, having been in Ottawa for too long, has lost touch with reality, that it has failed to understand that Canadians and Quebecers want the Charlottetown accord? Could I be wrong? Could we, the dissident minority, the outcasts along the curtain, be wrong? Could we be wrong or could all these intelligent people who fly to their ridings every day, who meet everybody, who know the issues, who are advised by people who are extremely bright, people from the Privy Council, be wrong?

They were wrong indeed. The people proved them wrong. So I was saying that there is something in Ottawa that makes people lose touch with reality, at least with Quebec's reality. How can the Prime Minister think that Quebecers will be pleased to hear him say that he recognizes the fact that they are a distinct society? How can he think that this will make us, Quebecers, happy? We certainly know that we are a distinct society and we have known it for quite some time.

What we want is the means to make our own decisions, to plan Quebec's future based on our differences. That is what we want, but we are not getting it. There is nothing to that effect in the resolution.

What I am saying basically is that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are burying their heads in the sand. By constantly refusing to face reality, they eventually sink into some kind of surrealism. This is evident from the fact that, from Meech 1 to Meech 2 and from Meech 2 to Charlottetown, Quebec was always

offered less and less. Maybe they offered a little less each time because they were tired by their previous effort.

They tried Meech 1, it did not work. They offered Quebec a little less in Meech 2 and, of course, it did not work either. They offered even less in Charlottetown, which was rejected by the people in a referendum. So what are they doing now? They are trying again, offering less than in Charlottetown this time. And they think that Quebec will go for it. They even think that Quebecers are fascinated by this debate. Well, they are not. I am sure they will not be listening to us today or tomorrow. I am convinced that they have now moved on to other things that are of greater concern to them.

It has now become the debate of the Prime Minister, who is just discovering the distinct society clause, who wakes up at night thinking about Quebec's distinct nature. Too late, Mr. Prime Minister, it is over. You can sleep at night and dream of other things that Quebec's distinct nature. It is a thing from the past, from the political past.

When I said that the government's approach borders on surrealism, let the people be the judge. On the one hand, as I have just shown, the federal government's offers are less and less meaningful, ever shrinking.

At the same time, and moving in the opposite direction, Quebec's demands are growing and are more attuned to the reality of the people of Quebec. Why? We have only to look at events in recent years. In May 1980: 40 per cent of Quebecers give their support to a soft question on something that ended up simply being a mandate to negotiate, to try to negotiate sovereignty-association. Charlottetown, 1992: the Accord reached by all parties and governments, including the Government of Quebec under Mr. Bourassa, is rejected. In 1995: sovereignty on a hard question, that is, the legal and political ability to proclaim sovereignty following a yes vote, 49.4 per cent vote in favour.

While Quebec, on the move toward sovereignty, is ever increasingly achieving its status as a people and wanting to assume this status with means that are rightfully its own, the federal government offers less and is surprised when the offer is refused. Is this surprising? Not to the people in Quebec, at least.

What I am saying in fact is that the whole debate on Quebec's distinct nature has largely lost its immediate relevance.

Why? First, because, in Quebec, everyone knows that it is impossible for English Canada to get its act together enough to propose something acceptable to Quebec on this point. This House is an example of English Canada, for once. I was talking about the other House, which is disconnected from the people of Quebec and Canada. At least this House shows us that, in English Canada, there are a lot of differences in opinion on the Prime Minister's vision.

Therefore, Quebecers who see all this, know what happens in English Canada and have lived through 30 years of useless efforts know full well that nothing positive will come in response to their basic expectations about the recognition of Quebec's distinct nature. It is also out of date, because it must be understood that the phrase "Quebec's distinctiveness" was a compromise right from the start. It is a phrase that Mr. Bourassa used out of political courtesy, out of political correctness, I would say, to avoid using the actual phrase "the people of Quebec".

He knew that to recognize the people of Quebec would scare the federal government and English Canada and that it would never go over. So Mr. Bourassa, who has a way with words, who must have read the old reports of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, found this phrase, included it in his speech, and ended up making it one of the conditions for Quebec's joining the 1982 Constitution.

But English Canada saw right through it. People have great instincts. I think that people in both Quebec and English Canada have very sound political instincts. English Canada realized, perhaps more or less consciously, that behind the phrase "Quebec's distinct society" lurked the phrase "the people of Quebec", and that is why they rejected the agreement. That is why they will always refuse to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness, as they have done so far. If we ask them, and if Quebec does not act to secure this recognition, they will always refuse. They will never let a Prime Minister of Canada turn this recognition into a legal reality.

I just said that I urge the Prime Minister to be realistic. I would also like to tell him that I want to preach by example and that we in Quebec now intend to face reality. First of all, everyone in Quebec is tired of talking about the Constitution. Everyone is sick and tired of hearing these phrases that keep changing year after year and month after month: special status, asymmetrical federalism-that one was quite a find; we never found out what it meant but it will probably be explained to us some day-, equitable federalism, cultural sovereignty, distinct society, and also "equality or independence" and then "masters in our own home", all this to go around in circles.

The people of Quebec know that we have tried everything, that we have gone through the dictionary, and that all these efforts have led nowhere. It is time for a reality check; the people have had enough of these debates. Second, we in Quebec have more pressing priorities like government finances. In Quebec, the integrity of our public finances-which, incidentally, are in better shape that the federal government's, but that is none of my concern since I am not

responsible for managing federal affairs, while the Parti Quebecois may entrust me with the public finances of Quebec-is a basic requirement, not only as a matter of correctness or sound management practice.

No, in Quebec-and it is the same in Ottawa, I am sure-putting our fiscal house in order is a matter of restoring our ability to choose. Unless the government's financial base is restored, no one will have any choice any more. There is no point in holding debates on the environment, the Constitution, the future of political systems, export policy, social assistance or any other issue, if steps are not taken to ensure that the government will be able to make choices.

Any government that is in a financial squeeze has no room to breathe and can no longer carry out its basic function. That is why we in Quebec, if the Parti Quebecois puts its trust in me, will address this problem. I will not waste any time reading constitutional proposals made by the Prime Minister if they look anything like this. There are other priorities, but these will be dealt with in greater detail in Quebec City. We may participate in discussions. After all, we are still part of the federal system. I can see where the Prime Minister is coming from. I heard his plea the other day, when he said he was prepared to discuss in the interest of the people of Quebec and Canada. But in the meantime, anything that may be in the interest of Quebec will not fall on deaf ears if the Parti Quebecois puts its trust in me.

What Quebec wants, when all is said and done, with respect to the Constitution-a discussion that may continue tomorrow again, for the Prime Minister has yet another proposal to make to us tomorrow; the Prime Minister is suddenly becoming very active, hyperactive even, in connection with the Constitution-let us be clear right from the start, what Quebec wants, what we need, with respect to the Constitution, we know we cannot expect from either the federal government or English Canada. We know that we are the only ones who can give it to ourselves, take it for ourselves, and to the extent that our future as a people, the remedy for our present problems, the flowering of our economic, social and cultural identity, is linked to our status as a people. We now know, from the message we are receiving from English Canada, particularly after today's inadequate resolution, that it is up to us to give ourselves the status of a people.

We have nothing to ask for, nothing to beg for from the federal government and English Canada. We do not mean this arrogantly; we are merely speaking as adults. We have attained a sort of political maturity which comes from all of the conclusions we have drawn from all of those years of empty discussions, of going around in circles. English Canadians are also familiar with this; they are just as tired and disillusioned as we are. So Quebec knows that its rendezvous with the future is a rendezvous with itself, that it will involve a referendum, that it will address Quebec's sovereignty so that Quebec may come into its own as a people.

I would like to say to the Prime Minister that it might happen, perhaps not here in this House but one day-whether I take over the responsibilities I shall be seeking shortly or someone else does-that whoever becomes the Premier of Quebec might face him across the table. I hope that this will come to pass. My personal wish, in the interests of Quebec and of Canada, although I am aware that it is harder to convince Canada of this than Quebec, is that one day a premier of Quebec will find himself across the table from his federal counterpart, precisely for the purpose of discussing political systems.

But I would not want this Premier to stand alone like his predecessors, those who failed, who paid a high personal price and sometimes made Quebec pay a high price as well and caused strong tensions in relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Not that we did not send good negotiators. Not that the people who came here to negotiate on behalf of Quebec, as Premiers, were not competent. I would say we sent our best people. No one could be better than René Lévesque to negotiate for Quebec.

But from now on, the situation will be different, because the Premiers who will come to talk about the Constitution and political arrangements will come with a mandate from the people of Quebec. They will not be out to retaliate, to be aggressive, to be negative. No. They will come with respect but confident, with the confidence of a prime minister, a head of state, who has received a mandate for sovereignty from the people. In other words, we will negotiate as equals, and then we will be able to agree, and only then. As long as Quebec comes here as a province like the others, we will never be able to agree, because those who came here and failed when they represented Quebec were not always separatists, as the Prime Minister said. Very often, and I would say in most cases, they were federalists. But success escaped them as well.

Why? Because Quebec federalists are Quebec nationalists, first and foremost. They realize that Quebecers cannot develop their potential unless they do so as a group, and as such they must have the resources and the capability to define their own policies.

I am not saying we will no longer speak to each other. We will have to, all the time. We are neighbours and partners through our history and all kinds of connections. We are practically doomed to talk to each other. That being the case, and I offer this advice in all modesty to the Prime Minister, he will have to be careful not to waste the capital of good will that is left. If we keep tossing resolutions back and forth and discussing the kind of futilities we have before us today, it will create more false hopes and perhaps fuel feelings of resentment. Let us be careful.

Let us call some kind of truce where we can address our primary concerns. I just mentioned what we have to do in Quebec. I do not know when we will be able to come back to this discussion. It may be sooner than the Prime Minister thinks. Who knows? This time we will not let him know one year in advance. Let us create the climate that will have to prevail when we have this real meeting, this real discussion, where we will have to and, for the first time, be able to look realistically and lucidly, but with a chance at succeeding, at defining a new partnership between Canada and Quebec.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Every day, the Prime Minister has to face our questions, including questions on this motion. Could we have a question period for each member who addresses the House? I ask for the unanimous consent of the House and for the consent of the Bloc Quebecois to ask questions following this important speech by the leader of that party, maybe the longest speech of the century. I hope that the Bloc Quebecois will have the courage to accept our questions.

[The Speaker]

It is not a matter of courage. We have rules in this House. The member has asked for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

There is no unanimous consent.

We will continue with the debate. I say this only so that we all understand. The hon. leader of the Reform Party because of the rules will have 20 minutes and then there will be questions and answers.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I address the motion of the Prime Minister calling on the House to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.

Let me begin by reminding the House why we are even considering such a motion at this time. As hon. members know, last month the Prime Minister came very close to losing the Quebec referendum on secession. It is now generally agreed that there are two principal reasons for this.

First, there was no sustained effort made by the federalist forces to make clear in advance of the referendum the terms and conditions Canada would demand in the event of a secession attempt. Thus the separatists were allowed to perpetuate the fiction that a separate Quebec would simply enter into a new and better economic union with Canada. Over 30 per cent of the people who voted yes on October 30 thought they could do so and still retain all the benefits of being Canadian.

The second was the demand for change in Quebec. The demand for real systemic change was grossly underestimated by the Prime Minister and the no side. Rather than countering the separatist dream with a federalist vision of a new and better Canada, the federalists offered the status quo plus administrative tinkering.

It was only in the last week of the campaign that the Prime Minister felt compelled by events to offer something to Quebec which could be construed as change. What he offered was not a new vision of the federalism of the 21st century, nor a realignment of federal and provincial powers, which has been demanded by large numbers of people inside and outside of Quebec.

What the Prime Minister offered were Mulroney leftovers, two items resurrected from the discredited Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. These were the concept of a constitutional veto for the government of Quebec and a distinct society clause, the subject of the motion before us.

I remind the House that Reform favours a fundamentally different approach to confronting the separatist threat and preserving the federal union. Our approach is two-tracked. On the one hand, we offer a package of 20 changes in the federal system which can be accomplished without constitutional negotiation, changes which strengthen the power of the federal government to preserve the economic union, which strengthen the position of the provinces with respect to the natural resources, social services, culture and language, and which reform federal institutions to make them more representative and accountable.

At the same time, we insist on the development of a Canadian position on terms and conditions of separation, terms and conditions which Canada would insist on if any province actually attempts to secede.

I have vowed as a federal political leader that as long as I have anything to do with it, federalists will never go into another contest with Quebec separatists as ill prepared, as ill equipped and as ill led as they were the last time.

The next time, and it will be the last time, we will fight separatist dreams with a federalist vision of the future and we will fight separatist illusions with the naked truth about what separation from Canada really means.

Therefore I speak as one who fundamentally disagrees with the Prime Minister's strategy or lack of strategy on national unity and who feels that this motion and the other elements of the Prime Minister's Quebec package are backward steps.

Having said this, my colleagues and I have applied ourselves to the Prime Minister's motion to see if there is any way it could be amended to permit the statutory recognition of the historical, linguistic and cultural distinctiveness of Quebec without the negative consequences that have led to the rejection of previous attempts to accomplish the same end.

I have three proposals to make embodied in three amendments. I urge the government to consider these amendments carefully because in our judgment they are essential to giving the Prime Minister's motion even a 50:50 chance of gaining acceptance outside of Quebec.

Our first proposal pertains to safeguarding the equality of the provinces. During the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accord discussions, as many members will remember, the biggest single objection to the inclusion of any distinct society clause for Quebec was that it would confer on the Government of Quebec powers not conferred on the other provinces. In other words, the concern was and is that the distinct society clause would violate the concept of equality of the provinces.

The Prime Minister in his remarks a few minutes ago hastened to assure us this is not the intention of the federal government; it is not its intention to grant Quebec special powers or status by virtue of this motion. If the government really means that, it will have no hesitancy in supporting our first amendment to the motion, the inclusion of a clear statement that nothing in this resolution shall confer on or be interpreted as conferring on the legislature or Government of Quebec any new legislative or executive powers, proprietary rights, status or any other rights or privileges not conferred on the legislature or government of any other province.

This amendment is essential to reconcile the motion before us with the principle of equality of the provinces. This is necessary to get similar types of motions through most of the provincial legislatures.

Our second proposal pertains to safeguarding minority rights in Quebec. One of the legitimate concerns of minorities within Quebec, the English speaking minority, the aboriginal minority and other ethnic minorities, and the Prime Minister made reference to this, is that recognition of Quebec as a distinct society could be used by an overzealous separatist government to diminish their rights, in particular their educational rights and rights to freedom of speech.

The fears of such minorities were aroused on the night of the referendum when the premier of Quebec blamed ethnic voters for defeating the referendum, implying those voters were not part of Quebec's distinct society. The fears of such minorities will be heightened, not allayed, by clause 2 of the Prime Minister's motion because it says Quebec's distinct society includes its French speaking majority but says nothing about the distinct society's including Quebec's minorities.

A few minutes ago the Prime Minister said: "Quebecers who come from other parts of the world are full-fledged Quebecers. We have not forgotten them". The reality is that he has forgotten to include them in the definition of distinct society included in clause 2 of his motion.

The Prime Minister will hasten to assure these Quebecers that it is not the intention of the federal government to allow the Quebec government to use any designation of Quebec as a distinct society to circumscribe the rights of minorities. Surely no federalist in this House and surely no Liberal would ever want this distinct society clause to be harnessed to the cause of ethnic nationalism by any Quebec government.

Again, if that is the case, and if the government is sincere in its claim, then it will welcome the second amendment to its motion, namely the inclusion of a clear statement that nothing in this resolution shall diminish or be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and freedoms of any resident of Quebec.

This amendment is essential to safeguarding minority rights in Quebec.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

It was in Charlottetown.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

It is not in here.

A third proposal is to safeguard the integrity of Canada. There is one further change required to the Prime Minister's motion to ensure that it does not reinforce and assist the separatists in the next referendum on separation. The Prime Minister is well aware that for 20 years or more the separatists have been telling Quebecers that because Quebec is a distinct society, therefore it should be a sovereign state. We heard that again today. By affirming the first part of that sentence, which is what the Prime Minister's motion does, the federal government runs the risk of legitimizing the second part of the sentence.

Again, I assume the goodwill and good intentions on the part of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will hasten to assure us that it is not the intention of the federal government to allow the separatist Government of Quebec to use the distinct society clause to legitimize the division of Canada. If the government is sincere in that claim, then it will welcome and endorse our third amendment to the motion, namely the inclusion of a clear statement that nothing in this resolution shall deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation.

In conclusion, I urge the Prime Minister to not follow in the footsteps of the former Conservative Prime Minister, who ensured Quebecers that these proposals were acceptable to the rest of Canada, when in fact they were not.

I ask the Prime Minister to tell Quebecers that his motion will not get the support of a majority of Canadians outside Quebec, nor will it get the support of the provinces. Only by amending it will that motion stand a better chance of being approved.

If the government will amend the motion as proposed, Reformers will support the amended motion, notwithstanding our belief that it will contribute little or nothing to the unification of the federation. However, if the government votes down these amendments, if it puts its commitment to distinct society ahead of the equality of the provinces, if it puts its commitment to distinct society ahead of minority rights in Quebec, if it puts its commitment to distinct society ahead of the unity and the integrity of Canada as one nation, then we will vote against the motion and we will encourage every citizen loyal to Canada to oppose the motion as well.

I therefore move:

That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word "accordingly", the following:

"5. Nothing in this resolution shall:

(i) confer or be interpreted as conferring upon the legislature or government of Quebec, any new legislative or executive powers, proprietary rights, status, or any other rights or privileges not conferred on the legislature or government of any province;

(ii) diminish or be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and freedoms of any resident of Quebec;

(iii) deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation".

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, of course we are going to entertain questions and comments for 10 minutes. I will take these amendments under advisement and I will return to the House no later than tomorrow's sitting, after I have had a look at them.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat intrigued by the hon. member's sudden concern for the minorities in Quebec. When we look at the platform of the Reform Party, one of its principal proposals is to repeal the Official Languages Act. As a matter of fact, it is not only to repeal the Official Languages Act but to replace it with a policy whereby Quebec would be for the most part French speaking and the rest of the provinces would be English speaking.

I can recall debating in the official languages committee time after time with the Reform representative on that committee, what I consider to be a very hostile proposal to the minorities in Quebec. It is a geographical type of bilingualism where Reform would recognize, maybe in the city of Montreal, bilingual rights, or in some other small part of Quebec, but for the rest of Quebec it would be entirely French speaking. By the way, it would sell out the French speaking minorities in the other provinces as well.

I am intrigued but not totally surprised by the approach of the leader of the Reform Party today. He seems to jump on any opportunity for political gain.

Does this mean that he is withdrawing his platform proposals to repeal the Official Languages Act and his proposals for geographic linguistic rights to now adopt a policy for all of Canada whereby we will recognize bilingualism?

The Official Languages Act has a balance within it whereby we recognize the rights of anglophones in Quebec and we recognize the rights of francophones outside Quebec, including Ontario, the west and the Atlantic provinces. Is that what he is now proposing or is he simply proposing this provision today for Quebec minorities but tomorrow for something else?

I also want to remind him that this is not an amendment to the Constitution or to the legislation; it is put forward as a formal resolution of this House and a commitment to the Quebec people, but it is not a constitutional amendment or legislation. Consequently, his proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act would be more harmful to the minorities in Quebec than what he is proposing as an amendment to this resolution.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the hon. member's remarks there were about three questions.

First, we recognize that this motion is not a constitutional motion. We also recognize that senior members of the government have implied that if this is passed by the House it may be imported into the Constitution at a later date. That is why we gave it the scrutiny which we did.

Second, with respect to minority rights, in the area of language the Reform Party advocates more jurisdiction over language being given to the provinces and private associations. That will be more popular in Quebec than the current policy of the current government. The second thing we say however is that the sole role of the federal government should be the protection of the rights of minorities from discrimination on the basis of race, language and culture.

Our argument is that under our language policy the federal government is no longer both a player and a referee in the language area. It is just a referee and it can provide more protection by playing that role.

The third point I would make is if the hon. member is sincere, which I think he is, in wanting protection for the rights of minorities in Quebec, that would surely lead him to urge his colleagues to support at least the second of these amendments we have put forward.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear the hon. member say he supports minority rights. However, people should be judged not by what they say but by what they do.

The member's party has held a position which has now been proven to be against the charter of rights, which is not to allow turbanned Sikhs in the RCMP. His party stood against that group to say they should not be allowed in the RCMP. Recently in the courts it was ruled that to keep them out would be against the charter of rights.

I would like to ask the leader of the third party whether he would support that ruling in the courts and whether he supports turbanned Sikhs in the RCMP.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question has nothing to do with this debate here today. Our point is the Reform Party is committed to the defence of human rights and the use of the power of the federal government to do that.

We argue that when the government gets to be both a player and a referee in a policy area, whether it is multiculturalism or linguistic policy, what suffers is its capacity to be the referee. Again I would say to the member if he wants to not just talk but to act, if he is really concerned about minority rights, he will support the second of these amendments we have put forward.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today the third party and the leader of the third party talked about our proposal on the regions of Canada. We proposed four. He has said there should be five.

My question to the leader is: Is the fifth region B.C. or Alberta?