Mr. Speaker, it is with great conviction that I support the Prime Minister's motion to officially recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada, because of its language, culture, tradition and French speaking majority.
I am deeply attached to Canada. But I also freely chose to live in Quebec. I chose to do my best to promote Quebec's society and quality of life. I chose to raise my children in Quebec and make them benefit from what is truly the heart of Canada's history, culture, heritage and duality.
I live in Montreal, the urban gem of Canada. In spite of all the obstacles, constitutional and others, in spite of all the attempts to divide its French and English speaking communities, Montreal remains a city where the Canadian duality is felt daily, but in great harmony. It is a place where francophones and anglophones live and work in peace and real harmony.
Montreal is unique because of its cultural and linguistic duality, but also because of the contribution made by so many other communities which have given Montreal its unique character as a cosmopolitan, friendly, warm and extraordinary city.
I had the privilege, after a business career, to enter politics and begin my political life in Quebec's National Assembly. I wanted to do my best to make a contribution and help Quebec fulfil its goals.
While an MNA, I worked with two persons who are now members of this House, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, and the hon. member for Roberval. We did not agree and we did not see things the same way, but we all worked to promote the well-being of Quebecers, because we felt that it was our common objective.
It was during my term as a member of the Quebec National Assembly that I had the opportunity to defend the Meech Lake Accord, to vote for the Meech Lake Accord which was supposed to include for the first time in the Canadian Constitution the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, which would make Quebec a part of the Constitution of 1982.
I listened to the leader of the Opposition with a great deal of respect, with all the respect he is due, as he explained to us how and why he and the Parti québécois had not supported the Meech Lake Accord, why they had voted against the Meech Lake Accord and, after that, against the Charlottetown Accord.
Despite all these explanations, I am convinced that the fundamental reason is that, whatever the accord, whatever the proposal that is made to either party, the Parti québécois or the Bloc, which are fundamentally dedicated to Quebec's independence, will reject it. Whatever the proposal that is put to the sovereignists in order to make Canada work better, to rebuild Canada, to renew Canada, it is logical that these parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti québécois, will reject it because, fundamentally, as the leader of the Opposition himself emphasized before the media, he is not interested in receiving proposals because, he said: "I am a sovereignist."
That is fair enough, but they should not try to delude us into believing that they considered these proposals objectively because, fundamentally, they do not believe in them, they do not want them.
I found it quite ironic that the Leader of the Opposition should give lessons to the Prime Minister telling him: "While you will take care of the Constitution, I will be doing something else, I will be putting Quebec's financial house in order". How ironical. We all know very well that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois' purpose when he created this party involved the constitutional issue of separating Quebec from Canada.
Since his election, before his election, every day in the House of Commons, the constitutional issue has been the principal subject of debate. The Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois' ally in Quebec City, naturally spoke about the constitutional issue and the separation of Quebec throughout the electoral campaign. That is what happened before and during the election of the Parti Quebecois and throughout its life in government up until the referendum.
All they talked about was the Constitution, separation and independence.
Today, the Leader of the Opposition has the gall to tell us: "We will set the Constitution aside and we will deal with public affairs". Yet, it was the Parti Quebecois government that said, during the election campaign, it would choose another way of governing, of managing public affairs more efficiently. All that has happened in Quebec, all that the Bloc Quebecois has done since its election, has been to talk about the independence of Quebec. According to them, nothing is working in the federal government or in Canada, naturally.
Every day in the House, it is the same thing.
Montreal, the economic motor of Quebec and 50 per cent of its population, is severely sick. In many quarters of Montreal the economy is dying. Investment is drying up. Leases are being curtailed or cancelled. Anybody who knows and follows what is going on in Montreal today will say that it is a sick city. The economy of Montreal is in desperate straits.
Meanwhile, what have we done? We have spent time and money on commissions, studies and propaganda instead of looking after the well-being of the citizens of Quebec. Today we are told that at last this is what they are going to be doing.
I will vote with conviction for this motion because I firmly believe that the place of Quebec, which is the heart and soul of Canada, is within Canada and that its destiny and that of Canada are intertwined forever. That is why, on the day the vote is taken, I will proudly stand and vote with conviction in favour of the prime minister's motion. I invite all hon. members to give it strong support.