Mr. Speaker, I wish to join you in welcoming the new staff member to the House.
I am pleased to participate in the debate, at second reading, on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.
This bill is meant to embody the commitments made by the Prime Minister during the Quebec referendum campaign, particularly in a speech made in Verdun, on October 27.
The Prime Minister's answer to the results of the referendum is clearly less than what was proposed in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
As for the motion tabled by the government to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, it merely provides a symbolic and meaningless recognition, with no real substance. The motion passed yesterday merely describes Quebec's reality: its French-speaking majority, its unique culture and its civil law tradition.
However, a few days after tabling that motion, the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge the existence of a Quebec culture. This is quite the contradiction.
Bill C-110 on an so-called veto for Quebec does not go any farther in terms of meeting Quebecers' expectations. This is a bad piece of legislation, done in a hurry and without any substance. Even some Quebec Liberals are starting to criticize that bill. It is not an acceptable proposal for Quebecers. The referendum results clearly show that people want real change.
It was the government's intention with this bill to put us into an awkward position by forcing us to say no to the veto and to the distinct society. But we have the people of Quebec behind us.
I have met many voters from my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North, in recent days and I have asked what they think. The vast majority do not approve of the federal government's proposals. They ask: "Why would we accept something that contains less than the Charlottetown accord turned down by 56 per cent of Quebecers in the 1992 referendum?"
As I have said, the concept of a distinct society is even less than what was in Meech.
First of all, neither the concept of a distinct society nor the right of veto will be entrenched in the Constitution. Recognition of the distinct society will be nothing more than a simple statement by the House of Commons.
If Bill C-110 become law, it can easily be amended or repealed by the present government or any other in the future. The Reform Party has come out clearly against this bill. If they were to win the elections-not that I would wish it-this law would most definitely disappear.
Certain provinces, such as British Columbia and Alberta, have already expressed their opposition to the concept of Quebec as a distinct society.
As I was saying, this bill on the right to a regional veto was poorly drafted. Initially, the federal government was committed to not proposing any constitutional amendments without setting itself the obligation of obtaining the consent of the four major regions of Canada: Quebec, Ontario, two eastern provinces and two western provinces, provided that in each case those two provinces accounted for more than 50 per cent of the population in their region.
However, 24 hours after excluding such a possibility, the federal government has now included a veto for British Columbia. Ottawa seems to be improvising its policy as it goes along. Practically speaking, this decision also gives Alberta a veto, since two provinces in the new Prairies region with at least 50 per cent of the population will have to give their approval for an amendment to the Constitution.
According to the 1991 census, Alberta has 54.6 per cent of the population of the Prairies. Because of this double veto, from now on any amendment to the Constitution becomes virtually impossible. Tomorrow the federal government will give a veto to all the provinces including Prince Edward Island. I wonder what the criteria are, demographic or otherwise, for obtaining a veto. Does this bill have any serious purpose?
In 35 years, successive governments in Quebec have requested the patriation of legislative powers essential to the economic, social and cultural development of the province. Since I arrived in Montreal in 1974, I have found that all governments, the Parti Quebecois as well as the Liberal Party, have demanded a real constitutional veto for Quebec and not a mere legislative measure that can be easily changed or abrogated later on.
We can assume that in the case of a major conflict between English Canada and Quebec, the federal Parliament will override the veto given Quebec in this bill. That is why this insignificant veto was even rejected by many people who voted no in the referendum on October 30.
Furthermore, Bill C-110 does not guarantee that the Quebec National Assembly will be the sole possessor of this veto, as demanded by all Quebec governments. The federal government reserves the right to seek the consent of the provinces by means of a national or regional referendum, as required. It will be able to consult citizens directly, without going through the provinces.
The main weakness in this bill is its failure to recognize the Quebec people and the status and powers that would accompany this recognition. The bill refuses to recognize one of the founding peoples of Confederation.
This bill has raised a ground swell of opposition from almost all parties, the Bloc Quebecois, of course, the Reform Party and even the Conservative Party, which was a meek ally of the federal government during the referendum campaign.
The government hurriedly changed its mind to give a veto to British Columbia and, indirectly, to Alberta. By doing so it is trying to please everybody, but the effect is exactly the opposite.
A recent poll shows that a majority of Quebecers consider Ottawa's proposals inadequate. The constitutional amending formula providing for the agreement of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population was already considered particularly restrictive. With this bill, we will need the initial consent of seven provinces with 92 per cent of the population.
For all these reasons, all the members of the Bloc Quebecois and I will vote against Bill C-110.