I am pleased to speak this afternoon on this three part initiative of the Prime Minister.
The first is to provide a regional veto to the four regions of the country, which is of course in addition to the veto the provinces already have. This initiative will also acknowledge Quebec as a distinct society and will, of course, be in line with the government's indication of its intent to step up efforts to reduce duplication. Today we have seen the Minister of Human Resources Development take the first step in that direction since the Prime Minister's announcement.
Of course, long before the Prime Minister's announcement, our government had already begun these initiatives and, since we became the government, a number of administrative agreements have been signed with all of the provinces, Quebec included, but of course there have been very few of those since the separatists came into power in Quebec.
I would like to start by stating my position for you within this debate at this time. As a number of hon. members are aware, I am a Quebecer by birth who represents an Ontario riding. I have served at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, and have been in office at one level or another for over 19 years now. I am one of those who voted for the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. I will vote for Bill C-110 and the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, which is fully justified.
We heard certain separatist members complain that the Meech Lake accord had not been adopted and denounce the fact. Yet, some of them-in particular their House leader-had voted against the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. Other separatists say they have resigned themselves to making do without it, often forgetting that they had campaigned and voted against the Charlottetown accord.
In a few days, if I may make a prediction, if these people do not understand more than they do today, they will vote against Bill C-110, against distinct society, confirming in so doing they are not interested in progress and do not want Quebecers to improve their situation. They want no such thing, they simply want to build up an empire for themselves and act as emperors, but they will never succeed in doing so.
Members opposite, the Bloc members and to some extent, I am sad to say, certain Reform members-I repeat to some extent
because they do all think like this-seem to be wanting to put an end to our country as we know it.
Why is that? We live in a country that, four years out of five, was described as the best in the world by the United Nations. Members opposite are shaking their head, saying it is not enough. I personally heard the opposition leader saying Canada was a kind of experiment which had failed from his point of view. According to whom? While even the United Nations cannot find a better place in the world, members opposite want us to emulate another country. Which country will we imitate? Even the UN has not been able to find it yet. But the members opposite claim that this is all worthless. They say they have a better solution.
As I said, I live in Ontario, I am a Franco-Ontarian by adoption, even though I was born in Quebec. I am still a French Canadian. I must tell you that the way the members opposite refer to the rest of Canada which they call "English Canada"-I heard the member for Maisonneuve use this phrase today in his speech-is a real insult to my constituents. I have told you repeatedly, this expression is insulting.
When francophones outside Quebec showed up for a demonstration they had dubbed "Poof, the francophones!", mimicking the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, it was in part to denounce the fact that we, the one million francophones, such as the member for Nickel-Belt, myself and all the others who live elsewhere in Canada, were called English Canadians.
This is the way the members opposite want to portray Canada: an entirely francophone Quebec and the rest of Canada completely anglophone. This is the way they look at it and its is wrong.
The member for Argenteuil-Papineau, who is in front of me, knows full well that when we go to the shopping centre in Hawkesbury, the people we can hear speaking English probably come from his riding. In our area, anglophones are by definition Quebecers from the Harrington and Lost River areas who come to shop, and francophones are Ontarians.
That is our reality. Does the Bloc tell us about that million of Quebecers whose first language is not French? Does it tell us about Franco-Ontarians and francophones outside Quebec? Bloc members say that we have disappeared. They said: "Poof, the francophones outside Quebec!" No, the Bloc members will not make us disappear. They will not.
The worst insult I heard in all my career in this House was the day when the leader of the Bloc Quebecois went to Acadia to tell Acadians that he would build schools for them when Quebec would be a different country. What an insult for Acadians who have survived and grown for 200 years in this country. And how pretentious of the Leader of the Opposition, who thought he could go to Acadia to tell Acadians a thing or two. Well, they fixed him. They told him to go back home. That is what some Acadians said, rightly so, and the members opposite know it. And Franco-Ontarians told the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata and the others: You do not want to have anything to do with us francophones outside Quebec and your dialogue proves it.
Why is it that the United States has twice as many people of francophone origin than Canada and virtually none of them speak it any more? Why is that?
Could it be that Canada has been a country where the French language has been able to develop quite well and that the reverse was true in the United States? Could it be as well that we as francophones living outside Quebec, and I am one of them, have been able to have our language develop because there is a critical mass of francophones in my country known as Quebec? Yes, that is the reason.
And today, if we were in Louisiana and we were 60 years old and more, we would be speaking French to each other. If we were in Louisiana and we were 40 years old, we would say a few words in French. And if we were 20 years old and someone would talk to us in French, we would say: "What?"
That is what happened in Louisiana; the French language survived for 200 years only to disappear with the television era. But that did not happen in Canada. I still speak French to my children and they will speak French to their children. Why? Because we stayed in a tolerant country, a country where both languages and both cultures were able to develop and a country-