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.