Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate with mixed emotions, emotions of sadness and gladness at the same time. I am reminded of the novel A Tale of Two Cities . The opening sentence goes something like this: ``It was the best of times; it was the worst of times''. Today we find ourselves with that ambivalence in Canada.
In the last three weeks and the weeks preceding the October 30 referendum we have seen some of the most terrible things happen. We have also seen some of the most wonderful things happen. People have been divided and people have come together on this issue. The Montreal rally was a coming together that we have probably not witnessed ever before in this country, yet the occasion was a negative one. It was one of tearing people apart.
Our country is a democracy. Unlike the words that were used only a moment ago about the mutual respect that we need from one another, the unfortunate part of it is that too often we impute motives to people. People impute motives to members of the Reform Party and say we want to tear Canada apart. Nothing could be further from the truth than that.
I stand here today as a proud Canadian, as someone who was born in this country, as someone who can look back to a grandfather and father who left a country that was being taken over by a
government that was not democratic. The Bolshevik revolution brought about my family's emigration from Russia.
My grandfather came to Canada with his children and they became citizens. They were buried here. Now I stand here and say I am proud to be able to be in Canada. It is a privilege to be able to speak one's mind and not be afraid that one might be stricken down or killed because of opinions that one might hold.
While there are a lot of differences and variations in this country, the real reason we are here is that this nation is free. It is here where we can express our religious beliefs, where we can express our political beliefs, where we can move forward and build a country that is strong, a country that is united.
We saw a few days ago how fragile that peace can be. It reminds me so much of a conversation I had with one of my constituents. He is a person who came to this country seeking freedom, seeking a domicile that would allow his children to grow up in peace and harmony. This person has family in the old Yugoslavia.
My constituent said to me: "I want you to know that I am not so much concerned about what is happening in Bosnia right now where my people are suffering the ravages of so-called ethnic cleansing. I was very concerned. Two years ago when you were elected all I could talk about was the way in which my forefathers' country and the things they built were being taken apart. Now, I want you to pay attention to what is happening in Canada. The very things that are happening in Canada today, in October 1995, are the very things that brought about the division and the terror we now see as the Bosnian conflict in the former Yugoslavia".
That is so serious. Why do we not listen to those people? Why do we think that we must somehow create differences and create a distinct society based on where people live because of a particular language, culture or race? It is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it carries within it the seeds of disintegration of what is a nice country. We should do everything we can to make sure that those seeds do not sprout. We must make sure that we can continue to develop a mutual respect for one another without fear and at times perhaps even express love for one another. I wish we could do that all the time.
I also want to draw attention to the west. The west is a very interesting part of the country. I was born in Alberta and moved across the mountains into British Columbia. Those of us who were born in Alberta can detect the difference. Something happens to all of us in western Canada. We are fiercely independent but we are also very, very patient. We know how difficult it is to eke out a living on the prairies. Quebec and Ontario think they know everything and that they can tell the westerners how to live. They cannot. They do not know how but Ontarians say: "We will tell you how".
Mr. Harris wrote an article in one of our local newspapers which I think covers it very well. With respect to the unity question he said: "But the sleeping giant in all this may well turn out to be Manning's west". Why it is Manning's west I do not know. I think it is just as much Schmidt's west as it is any other person's west. Nevertheless, that is how it was said.
He went on:
This great and insanely loyal part of Canada has waited for more than 100 years to take its proper place in the Confederation; it is still waiting.
The PC Party died on the prairies because it sold out the notion of a strong and equal Canada in the name of winning in Quebec, just as the Liberals have for generations.
If Ottawa continues to fail the west while it woos Quebec with special status, the country may still fall apart like a soggy jigsaw puzzle starting with the Rocky Mountains rather than the Laurentians.
That is the opinion of one columnist.
If members had been in my riding in the last four days and listened to the comments that were made, particularly when the Prime Minister presented the motion we voted on last night and the bill we are now facing closure on today, they would have heard people ask: "How much longer do we have to put up with this?" They do not want to put up with it at all. Do they want to be part of Canada? Absolutely. They want desperately to be part of Canada, but they want to be part of a united Canada, a part of Canada that says people are equal, the provinces are equal and that no one deserves any special status regardless of language or geography. That is what they want and it is what I want.
I do not think there is one person in the House who is any better than anyone else. I do not think anyone on this side of the House is any better than anyone on that side of the House and vice versa.
We are trying to build a united country. There are those of my colleagues who would say: "Well, those guys over there cannot possibly be as good as we are". In reality and in our hearts we really are trying to do the best we can for our constituents, but we certainly disagree on certain things. In particular we disagree with what happened yesterday.
Yesterday the government had a chance to recognize that special status does not mean unique powers, and what did it do? It refused to accept certain amendments which stated that if we were to recognize special status it should not be conferred or interpreted as conferring upon the Government of Quebec any new legislative or executive powers, priority rights, status or any other rights or privileges not conferred on the legislature or government of any other province.
That was a good step forward and it was rejected. It would have brought about unity. Instead the government did the opposite. It said: "You have special powers and you may indeed have unique powers that other provinces do not have". That was completely unacceptable to me and to my constituents. They have told me 100 times, if they have told me once, that it is not acceptable to them.
The government had another chance. It could have said that it was not to be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and freedoms of any citizen of Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by virtue of province of residence. This second chance was turned down. It would have helped. It would have brought about unity but it was rejected.
The final chance was to deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation. This too was rejected. I went home sad last night because an opportunity to bring about a direction that could have healed the nation was denied. It was a sad day.
Today we are not approached with recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. We are told that society is distinct and shall now have a veto. It is totally contrary to democracy that any one group would have the power of veto when the group cannot constitute a majority. It is wrong in principle.
We are in danger of committing one of the worst possible actions we have seen in a long time. This is where a positive comment can also be made. If the Prime Minister wants to bring about the unification of the country, he would come to the House and withdraw Bill C-110. If the Prime Minister would do that he would recover some of the losses he has experienced in the last little while. We could then respect him as a leader.