Debates of Dec. 6th, 1995

Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We just had a very important vote in the House of Commons. I do not know where the member for Sherbrooke is. I wonder if possibly we could-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous agreement for the following motion. I move:

That, on Thursday, December 7, 1995, if any division is demanded with regard to any business pursuant to Standing Order 81, the said division shall be deferred until 6.30 p.m. on Monday, December 11, 1995; and

On Friday, December 8, 1995, notwithstanding the Order made Thursday, November 30, 1995, the putting of the question on any motion relating to the Business of Supply pursuant to Standing Order 81 shall be deferred until 6.30 p.m. on Monday, December 11, 1995.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent to agree to the following motion. I move:

That, during the debate on Government Business No 26 today, there shall be no quorum calls nor dilatory motions accepted by the Chair, and that at the expiry of the debate, the question then before the House shall be deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and accordingly deferred to 6.30 p.m. Monday, December 11, 1995.

. (Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the motion.

Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Mr. Manning moves the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word "accordingly" the following:

"5. Nothing in this resolution shall:

(i) confer or be interpreted as conferring upon 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 province;

(ii) diminish or be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and freedoms of any resident of Quebec;

(iii) deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation".

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I wish to invoke Standing Order 43(2). Liberal members will be sharing their time 10 minutes and 10 minutes for the rest of this debate.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had prepared a speech, but I am going to have to leave half of it out, because something happened during question period which I find extremely important. But first, I would like to let you know that all Bloc members will speak for 10 minutes only.

Last Wednesday, when he tabled his motion, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:

-Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. As a Quebecer and a francophone, I understand and share the desire of my fellow Quebecers to have our difference recognized.

He was talking to the motion he had tabled in the House. The motion reads as follows:

That

Whereas the people of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of Quebec's distinct society;

(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

This afternoon, during question period, I asked the Prime Minister if he was in agreement with his colleagues on the heritage committee who, for the past two weeks, have been coming strongly against the distinct society and Quebec culture. I asked the Prime minister if he believed that his colleagues had the right to state that there was only one culture in Canada, and that, from now

on, Telefilm Canada should fund artists on the basis of their political obedience.

The Prime Minister rose in this House and said that in Canada, there was only one culture, a Canadian one, whether French or English. It would appear that, two weeks after tabling in the House a motion saying that we are distinct because of our unique culture, the Prime Minister has not understood his own motion, probably because it was written by a member of his staff. If our culture is unique, it is the Quebec culture since we are in Quebec, and that is what we are requesting.

Our culture is unique because it is French, because among other things our majority is French-speaking. But, today, the Prime Minister said: "No. There is only one culture and it is Canadian." You cannot have it both ways, either the Prime Minister does not understand the meaning of the motion or he understands very well and, for the first time this afternoon, when he rose in the House, he recognized that Quebec is not a people, that there is only one people and it is Canadian, English Canadian preferably. However, he allows us the privilege of expressing the English culture in French. This is the gist of what he said this afternoon.

Yet, when we passed the bill which created the Department of Canadian Heritage we asked that the government be responsible and acknowledge that there was a distinct society in Quebec. We repeated our request, we proposed amendments to recognize Quebec culture, but the Liberal government trivialized Quebec. It made its culture part of the Canadian melting pot, excluding it from its bill on culture and denying Quebec its very distinct existence, its fundamental right to express its difference.

During the last two weeks, the Liberal Party's representatives on the Heritage Standing Committee practically had allergic reactions every time they heard or met witnesses who financed artists or films.

Today, the Quebec people want to be recognized as a people and want the powers which go with it. On October 30, 49.5 per cent of Quebecers voted for a country of their own; the federal government is offering us an empty shell, which has only some value as a symbol, and we realized today that it is not even worth the paper it was written on two weeks ago.

Quebecers are a people. As early as 1766, the English government of Murray said that Quebecers, who were then called Canadians, were a brave and courageous people.

In 1791, the Constitutional Act divided Canada's territory into two colonies, in order to recognize the existence of two peoples on its territory. At that time, these two peoples were called the Canadian people, but they lived in Quebec, hence today's Quebecers, and the British people.

In 1839, Lord Durham, whom we cannot suspect of being a Quebec nationalist or of having a separatist frame of mind, came to the following conclusion in his report on the state of the colony, and I quote: "Problems in Lower Canada are not political or administrative in nature, but are the result of the forced co-existence of two distinct nations in the same state."

In 1905, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, an inveterate Liberal, said and I quote: "Every time I go back to my province, I am sad to see there is a feeling that Canada is not for all Canadians. We must come to the conclusion that Quebec is our only homeland."

In 1965, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, whose work Prime Minister Trudeau hastened to wreck, released a preliminary report in which it noted that Canada was going through the most serious crisis in its history. The commission exposed in these terms the misunderstanding on which the Canadian crisis was based and is still based, and I quote: "[-] English people, many of whom were showing good will [-]did not understand [-]the profound leanings of so many Quebecers towards an increased autonomy and their growing belief that Quebec would become a distinct nation ruling its economic and social institutions."

Because English Canada still does not understand Quebec, the constitutional future is doomed and we will never be recognized as a people. According to the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, an essential requirement for Canada's survival is a real association that can only exist between equal partners.

In fact, this motion is totally in line with what Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon told the Toronto Star on April 27, and I quote:

"Quebec has to make its decision based on what I believe is the greatest country in the world and not look for us to change our country in order to make it more acceptable for them".

In fact, the Premier of Manitoba is telling us to either take Canada as it is or leave. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is fundamentally opposed to the motion before us today, and our voting against it will surprise no one in Quebec. Quebec is no longer content with crumbs. Quebecers have risen, they are standing up with their heads held high. They are asserting themselves as a people who want to be recognized as such and they want to negotiate as equals.

In the wake of the Meech failure, Robert Bourassa said, and I quote: "Quebec is, today and forever, a distinct society that is free and capable of controlling its own destiny and development".

At his party's March 1991 convention, he convinced his colleagues to adopt the Allaire resolution, which read as follows: "The failure of the Meech Lake accord is a historic event. This failure has made it imperative for Canada to change. Above all, the Meech Lake accord failure occurred at a time in history when Quebec society has reached a level of maturity, openness and development allowing it to feel fully in control of its future. Undoubtedly, Quebec now has the means and resources needed to exercise its choices".

Quebecers know that the Prime Minister's proposal is empty. Today, they understand that the Prime Minister is incapable of quoting a single Quebec author. His references are strictly Canadian. Quebec will accept nothing less than to be recognized as a people with all the powers that this entails.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois are once more forgetting that the people of Quebec have reaffirmed their sense of belonging to this country.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but the table advises me that there will be no questions and comments since we are debating a special motion. The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe will be sharing the member's speaking time.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on the Prime Minister's motion to outline Quebec's traditional demands and show that this motion of the Liberal Party of Canada is nothing more than a charade to water down the aspirations of the people of Quebec.

My remarks will be broken down into three parts, covering the last three decades. What happened during each of these three decades?

Thirty years ago, during the quiet revolution, there developed in Quebec a clear movement in favour of Quebec becoming a sovereign state and assuming sole responsibility over its social and economic policies. This prompted the Quebec government to undertake discussions on the patriation of the Constitution, that is to say on a new division of powers and on an amending formula that would be acceptable to Quebec.

In 1964, the Fulton-Favreau formula restricted the federal government's capability to act unilaterally, by requiring a majority of two thirds of the provinces to make substantive changes to federal institutions. This gave rise to widespread protest in Quebec.

In fact, the Fulton-Favreau formula was putting off negotiations on the substantive issue, namely the division of powers, to deal only with the technical aspect of the matter, namely the patriation of the Constitution.

The Quebec government then specified that any agreement concerning the patriation of the Constitution would be subject to a positive and satisfactory redistribution of powers. From then on, this will become a traditional demand. A new Constitution was to give the Government of Quebec the broadest powers possible on the basis of affirming the two-nation status of Canada in the country's social, political and economic structures.

But Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada did not agree. Trudeau objected to policies based on Quebec as a nation. As part of the patriation process, they were intent on doing away with the Quebec rhetoric based on the concept of collective rights and with the fact that the French Canadian nation was becoming identified with the Quebec government.

At this stage of the negotiations to patriate the Canadian Constitution, the political thinking of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is clear: Canadian federalism cannot, without jeopardizing its integrity, tolerate any constitutional asymmetry in the distribution and use of legislative powers.

Moreover, in Mr. Trudeau's mind, there are essentially only citizens and their individual freedoms vis-à-vis the state. Consequently, the Quebec society must blend with the rest of Canada.

The Victoria charter marks the beginning of a second decade of negotiations and discussions to patriate the Constitution. The charter recognizes Quebec's jurisdiction over social policies, but seeks to impose national standards. In a letter to the Prime Minister, in which he states his refusal to accept the Victoria charter, then Quebec premier Robert Bourassa writes: "Canadian federalism must be decentralized to reflect the diversity of the regions, and to allow the Quebec government to preserve the cultural future of its majority".

In March 1976, Pierre Trudeau, who was still Prime Minister, writes in a letter addressed to all provincial premiers that if there is no unanimity, the federal government will have no choice but to decide whether or not to recommend to Parliament the patriation of the 1867 Constitutional Act.

The third decade of discussions and negotiations on the patriation of the BNA Act starts with the failure of the Quebec government to obtain a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association with the rest of Canada, a concept which implies the national

recognition of Quebecers, as well as a major redistribution of constitutional powers, in favour of Quebec. As early as 1981, and in spite of having been re-elected, the Parti Quebecois finds itself in an extremely vulnerable position vis-à-vis the federal government. A scathing answer came from the Liberal Party then in power in Ottawa. The Canadian Prime Minister took advantage of Quebec's vulnerability and proceeded with unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

On December 1, 1981, Quebec's legislature adopted a resolution opposing unilateral patriation of the Constitution. Thus, Quebec reaffirmed its will to entrench in the new Constitution the fundamental equality of the two founding peoples as well as, as a natural consequence of its distinct society status, its extended and exclusive jurisdictions.

The "Canada Act", or the Constitution Act of 1982, was the temporary conclusion of a process which had been going on for over 20 years. The charter of rights and freedoms, enshrined in the new Constitution, is the very basis of the principle of a Canadian nation. It gives the central power unprecedented political influence, an unparalleled power of centralization.

We all know what happened next: the day Pierre Trudeau decided to unilaterally patriate the Constitution, the Liberal Party of Canada lost Quebec; since the 1984 election, it never could obtain more than a third of Quebecer's votes. From then on, it spoke mainly for Canada. The Conservative Party came to power in Ottawa and undertook to have the newly patriated Constitution signed by Quebec. More consultations were held between the premiers, which led to the Meech Lake accord in June 1987. A strong basis for negotiation was then laid out between Canada and Quebec since that accord has forced the courts, from the Supreme Court on down, to interpret the whole Constitution, including the charter of rights and freedoms, in light of the traditional claims of Quebec.

Once again, however, the Liberal Party of Canada was not prepared to accept that and did everything in its power to scuttle the 1987 accord. The current Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party made every effort, with the assistance of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, to water down the recognition of the distinct nature of Quebec. In English Canada, where the Meech Lake accord gave rise to much opposition, his voice was heard as being extremely effective in ruining any political basis needed for the accord to succeed.

The current Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party then reiterated his party's position: Canadian federalism cannot accept constitutional asymmetry without being substantially weakened, Quebec cannot be regarded as a nation and only individual rights are recognized by the charter of rights and freedoms, which is the only instrument for interpreting the Constitution and the status of the Quebec state.

Last week in the House, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois described the rapprochement that was made in the late 80s between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of Canada, a rapprochement which led to the Charest report, where the interpretative clause granted to Quebec in view of its distinct nature, as a state representing a nation, was formally denied.

The beginning of the third decade of talks and negotiations about the status of the province of Quebec in the Canadian Confederation, pursuant to a Constitution which Quebec never agreed on, is marked again by a toughening of Quebec's position. Since it obviously could not expect anything from English Canada, the Quebec government, largely supported by the voters, now favoured a clearly sovereignist option, as shown, first, by the emergence of the Bloc Quebecois and the mass election of its members in Ottawa; second, by the almost total disappearance of the Conservative Party; third, by the failure of the Charlottetown accord; and lastly, by the election of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec.

From then on Quebec would no longer get involved in endless and useless rounds of negotiations. The results of the second referendum on the sovereignty issue held in the province of Quebec occurred half-way through this third decade, recognizing the dazzling progress made by the sovereignty option in Quebec since the failure of Meech. Quebec is now heading towards its political sovereignty and nothing can make it go backwards. Certainly not this silly resolution which the Prime Minister of Canada introduced last week to urge the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. This is only a token recognition.

This very day, in the House of Commons, during question period, the Prime Minister himself denied the existence of a Quebec culture although his own resolution aims at recognizing it. He stated that there is only one culture in Canada, and that is the Canadian culture. We will vote against this resolution, which is as hypocritical as it can get.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the members of the House of Commons in the debate on the motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. In order to properly understand the true scope of what the Government of Canada is doing by proposing this resolution, it must be interpreted in the light of the vote this past October 30.

Quebecers had two very clear things to tell us: they want to be recognized within Canada for what they are: a people with a French-speaking majority and a different and distinct culture. They also want to see profound changes made to the way the Canadian federation operates.

Of course, our government needs to respond to economic imperatives and to the necessity of ensuring the continuation of our social programs, and this requires new partnerships with the provinces. We must, however, also acknowledge the reality of Quebec's malaise, a malaise directly linked to the wounds of the past, the most severe of these being the failure of the Meech Lake Accord.

The Leader of the Opposition, in his reply to the Prime Minister's speech, has given us his version of the recent history of our country and the path it took through the constitutional to-ing and fro-ing. Allow me then to give you my version, that of a Quebecer with a totally different perspective. I was there when the Meech Lake Accord failed.

Unlike the Parti Québecois and a number of the Bloc members who voted against Meech, what I wanted along with most of my fellow citizens was for there to be recognition that Quebec is distinct, different, and it was my impression at that time that this country did not accept me for who and what I was.

However, I understood that it was not the country that was refusing to recognize me. It was not my fellow citizens who were not willing to recognize me. It was rather the very process of constitutional negotiations and of agreement ratification that led us to this dead end. This is why I wondered, is it necessary to break up my country just because we have difficulty agreeing on the process to be used?

The answer is clear to me. I believe it is possible to pursue the discussion and continue to build this prosperous country in an atmosphere of respect and generosity.

It is my firm belief, with the majority of Quebecers, that it is possible for us to reconcile two realities: our identity as Quebecers, of which we are extremely proud, and our identity as part of Canada.

I have always believed that these two realities are in no way mutually exclusive, and that they do not in any way justify the destruction of a country built up by the generations before us with such effort and determination. That is what I defended then as a member of the Liberal Government in Quebec, and that is what I defend now as a member of this Liberal Government in Ottawa.

During the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada made commitments he is meeting today by recognizing that Quebec is a distinct society. To do so is to recognize history, our common history. To do so is to remember the origins of the Canada of 1867 which opted for a federal system designed to reconcile Quebec's right to be a distinct and provincial autonomy with the need to work together to build this vast country of ours that is Canada.

In a speech to the Quebec Legislative Assembly on November 24, 1871, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, and I quote: "It is a historical fact that the federal system was adopted only to maintain the exceptional and unique position of the province of Quebec on the American continent".

Do not get me wrong. I am simply stressing that unlike those who believe that separation is the only way for Quebec to take its place within Canada, I am convinced we can deal with this matter in a different way, without breaking up the country.

The Leader of the Opposition may argue that distinct society is no longer an issue in Quebec but the fact remains that Quebecers earnestly want their distinctiveness to be recognized. This government understands that. Of course, some people would have preferred to see this recognition immediately entrenched in the Constitution, because the logical corollary of this recognition is its inclusion in the basic law of our country.

We would have preferred to do so now. However, the PQ government and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois have already closed the door on any discussion. Nevertheless, by rejecting the proposal for Quebec's separation on October 30, Quebecers clearly gave their provincial government a mandate to work together with the Canadian government to find practical solutions and help Quebec develop its potential within the Canadian federation.

The government of Canada understood the message and presented, in an initial gesture of openness, the motion we are debating today in the House of Commons. We have met our commitment. The ball is now in the court of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. By their stubborn refusal to consider any options for change, they are saying no to Quebecers. Make no mistake: whether the option selected to describe distinct society is Meech 1, Meech 2, Meech 3, Charlottetown 1, Charlottetown 2 or Charlottetown 3, the response of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was very clear: "I am a sovereigntist and I will never sign an agreement with the Canadian government".

The Leader of the Opposition often says Quebecers look to the past to justify their choice. I say to him today that Quebecers will also remember that the Bloc Quebecois and its leader refused to vote for the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society in this House.

To recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada is a step in the right direction, as our federalist partners from Quebec acknowledged. It will provide the foundation for new, constructive relations with all our fellow Canadians. For once, the Parliament of Canada will be united. And when we have passed this motion,

Parliament will have to consider the distinct identity of Quebec. For the first time, elected representatives of all Canadians will make a solemn and meaningful gesture towards the people of Quebec. As a Quebecer, I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes the distinct identity of the people of Quebec, and I am proud to be a member of this government which will continue to work towards including this recognition of the Canadian Constitution.

Because the interests of Quebec and the interests of Canada as a whole are involved, I will vote in favour of this motion.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this historic debate on the Prime Minister's motion which recognizes Quebec as a distinct society by its language, its culture and its civil law tradition.

The motion we are now debating is one of three initiatives for change announced by the Prime Minister last week and which act on the commitments made during the referendum campaign in Quebec. In addition to recognizing Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, the federal government will henceforth grant a regional veto on all constitutional changes and pull out of manpower training.

These initiatives result from promises that the Prime Minister made to his fellow Quebecers during the referendum campaign and, particularly, the great Montreal rally which brought together more than 150,000 people, including 500 from my riding of Simcoe-North and the neighbouring riding.

It is important to note that these initiatives are not the only measures the government has taken in response to Quebec's referendum, but they surely are an important step. Moreover, they are further proof that when the Prime Minister makes a promise to Canadians, he keeps his word.

During the referendum campaign, everybody was talking about the need for change, everybody said that, from then on, things should be done differently if our country were to remain united. However, I have the impression that the change the vast majority of politicians were referring to did not reflect what Quebecers want.

Indeed, when I was going from door to door during the referendum campaign, people were constantly telling me that they wanted jobs, economic stability, a better future for their children, a good social climate, and so on. I can assure the House that the numerous Quebecers I met gave little importance to constitutional changes and the squabbles that go with it.

In this regard, Quebecers are not very different from all other citizens of Canada. People from my riding of Simcoe-North express the same concerns. That is why I say that the commitment to change to which we should give a lot of importance is the one the Canadian people, including Quebecers, want. This is why I am proud to be part of a government which, for two years now, has been tackling with the real problems of the Canadian people, which are job creation and economic growth.

That being said, the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister are not without sound basis and legitimacy. The motion on distinct society is important because it recognizes an obvious historic fact and reassures Quebecers as to their place in our country. In fact, the concept of distinct society is not new, neither historically, nor constitutionally.

According to Professor Ramsay Cook, francophones in British North America and Canada developed early on a consciousness of their distinctiveness, both individually and collectively. The most obvious badge of that distinctiveness was language, while the civil code provided a legal foundation for difference.

The idea of distinctiveness is even recognized implicitly in the British North America Act of 1867. The mere fact of creating the province of Quebec was the beginning of acknowledging a distinct society within Canada. There are also explicit recognitions of this fact in the Constitution. For example, section 94 recognizes the civil law of Quebec as distinct. Section 133 made Quebec, alone among the original provinces, bilingual, and by doing so made French for the first time an official language of Canada.

The motion put forth by the Prime Minister is yet another explicit means to acknowledge Quebec's distinctiveness. Even though the distinct society resolution we are debating is not a constitutional resolution, it is important that it is a solemn commitment that sets out how the federal government, the only government in Canada that speaks for all Canadians, will conduct its affairs. In effect, it will indicate to all citizens and all federal government authorities that it is the will of the House of Commons that the distinct character of Quebec society be recognized once again within the Canadian federation.

I also want to assure all Canadians that the expression "distinct society" is not exhaustive by any means. Even though the motion simply notes that the distinct society includes some specific elements of Quebec, it does not exclude others. It does not exclude the fact that Quebec is a pluralistic and democratic society, that all its citizens are equal before the law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the Canadian Constitution.

This motion and the other measures announced by the Prime Minister are a significant first step in delivering on the promises he made during the referendum campaign. They are also an important bridge to the first ministers conference on the amending formula that is scheduled to take place in April 1997. Once these negoti-

ations start we will have benefited from the practical application of the distinct society motion and the veto bill.

The Prime Minister made it quite clear that these measures can some day be entrenched in the Constitution if it is the desire of the province of Quebec and other provinces to do so. However, the Government of Quebec has stated categorically that it does not want to participate in any constitutional discussions. Until this unreasonable position of the Parti Quebecois government changes, we will not be able to incorporate these measures into the Constitution.

I am convinced that the vast majority of Quebecers will view these initiatives in a favourable light. They will see that the Prime Minister is serious about making the changes they want.

Obviously, members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois will oppose these changes. The reason is simple: they are separatists. They have no intention of improving Confederation. Their only goal is to destroy Canada. As Jacques Parizeau said during the referendum campaign: "We do not want a distinct society, we want a country."

In spite of the intransigence of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois, we will not let them prevent the adoption of these changes that are not of a constitutional nature, changes that the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada want.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Simcoe Centre.

I am pleased and I am also saddened to rise today and speak to government motion M-26, which seeks to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. It also gives me great pleasure to stand before my colleagues in the House today as a loyal Canadian and state why I am opposed to this motion.

Speaking here today, I hope to make clear my opposition to this motion from a historical, legal, and personal point of view. Along with Bill C-110, this motion constitutes the other half of the Liberal initiative to appease Quebec separatists in the wake of the disastrous handling of the October 30 referendum by the Liberal government. From a historical perspective, I must again note the saying, which has often been quoted in the House, that those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them. It would appear that history is not a subject the framers of this motion are even remotely acquainted with.

For the benefit of those Liberal members who were not present in the Chamber last week for the debate on Bill C-110, I will say it again. If this motion were some grade B horror movie it would be dubbed "Son of Meech". This motion, or is it a rerun of a motion picture, is a doomed rehash of the Meech and Charlottetown packages which were ultimately rejected by Canadians. If they could be given a say on this motion it would be rejected outright as well.

I was not present during the Meech and Charlottetown debates, so I have waited several years to speak on this issue, but my remarks are as relevant now as they would have been in 1987 or 1992. This is when attempts similar to the one before us were made by the former Tory government.

Yes, Madam Speaker, and members on both sides of the House, "je me souviens". I remember the failures of those initiatives, even though the members across the way clearly do not. I also remember that a former prime minister and a government bloated with arrogance yet painfully thin on solution proposed essentially the same thing. I also remember what became of that government just one year later.

It is because people remember and have learned from history that I say confidently that this motion is unacceptable to Canadians.

From a legal point of view, this motion raises more questions than it answers. That would not necessarily be such a problem except that the Prime Minister will not answer any questions in regard to the meaning of that phrase "distinct society". What does that mean?

This lack of openness by the Prime Minister only adds to the confusion. For example, does the motion confer additional powers on Quebec or not? If, as I suspect, it does or will with the passage of time give powers to Quebec that are not given to the other provinces, then clearly it must be opposed.

Also, is this motion the precursor for an attempt by the Prime Minister to entrench the notion of distinct society in the Constitution? If it is, as I suspect is the case, and the Prime Minister wishes to do so at the scheduled review of the Constitution in 1997, should Canadians not know this now? Let us have the government be forthright.

By extension, any entrenchment of distinct society as an interpretive clause in the Constitution will be unacceptable to Canadians for the same reasons it was back in 1992. Also, does the notion of distinct society in any way detract from the principle that all Canadians are equal? Here again the government will give us nothing but vagaries.

By way of personal remarks I would like to share with members on both sides of the House the contents of a very insightful letter I recently received. The letter is from François Labrecque, a longtime resident of Quebec. I had the honour of meeting him while I was in Quebec City recently, and he wrote to me with his thoughts on this distinct society issue. He writes quite intuitively: "I am not sure the concept of distinct society should be presented as is. Instead of thinking of powers and rights with regard to distinct society, we should think in terms of responsibilities of individuals, groups, responsibilities of the people themselves and of their provinces to ensure that the distinct character is preserved".

He concludes in part that the Liberal Party approach is to provide distinct society status for Quebec and nothing for the other regions and provinces, which provokes negative sentiment in the rest of Canada and is clearly a divisive element.

This is a Quebecer I am quoting, who clearly understands the shortcomings of any distinct society proposal. Reformers would agree with his position.

For the benefit of those Liberal members who require further insight, no Canadian doubts that the language and culture of Quebec make it distinct. The language is dynamic, the culture is vibrant. These two characteristics alone will ensure its survival. That is why attempts to legalize or enshrine the concept in the Constitution are so insulting and offensive to many Quebecois.

The Liberals are asking Quebecers to adopt some siege mentality that claims their language and culture is weak and dying. Fortunately, Quebecers themselves know the exact opposite to be true and realize that assuming responsibilities in key areas will allow Quebec's distinctiveness to be maintained.

From a personal point of view, I watched as the Prime Minister tabled this motion in the House last week on November 27. At the time I could not help but feel that my birthright as a Canadian was being sold for the sake of a deal. I cannot understand how a government that professes to be so dedicated to the concept of equality can advocate something that so detracts from this principle. Then again after seeing Bill C-64, the government's racial quota bill, I should not really be all that surprised.

I ask members of the House to contemplate the concept of equality as they consider the consequences the motion will have on the equality rights of all Canadians.

I cannot support the government's motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. There is no safeguard to ensure that the motion will not be used to further the goal of Quebec nationalists. There is no assurance the motion will not be used to confer additional powers on the legislature of Quebec. It offers no guarantee that individual rights will not be made subservient to collective rights. It affords no protection to the minority population of the province.

The leader of the Reform Party has put forward an amendment that would address many of the concerns I have raised. It is my hope that when it is put to a vote members opposite will support it. To do otherwise and to adopt the government's motion as is would be to characterize some Canadians as distinct and some as second class citizens.

In conclusion, unless the amended motion is adopted by the House I serve notice of my intent to vote against the motion as put forward by the government.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak against the motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. We are talking about a promise or a commitment and I will talk about some promises and commitments that have been made.

I will start with a promise that was made in the eleventh hour. It is a reluctant promise. It is a promise that was made in panic and desperation. It is a promise that had to be made because the government was out of touch with the people of Quebec. It is a promise that was made with no reflection on the past or no vision of the future. It is a promise that is out of touch with Canadians as a whole. As a matter of fact 55 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec oppose the recognition of a distinct society.

We are trying to bring in a promise the Canadian people already rejected at the front door. I am talking about Meech Lake and Charlottetown. The Canadian people had a say and they rejected the concept of a distinct society. Yet here we are trying to bring it in through the back door, top down, with no consultation. The government has imposed closure to push it through. The attitude is that it knows best what the people of Canada want. This is a Quebec promise, not a Canada promise.

In October 1993 there was a cry for change in the country from both inside and outside Quebec. The message I heard in October 1993 was that Canadians were worried. They were concerned. The response of the government since the election has been don't worry, be happy. After two years of blissful ignorance and a do nothing approach we almost lost the country on Monday night, October 30.

It is interesting that during the referendum the separatists had 30 days to spread their unchallenged version. The destroyers of Canada were given 30 days to get their message out. The government brings in closure so that we who want to speak for Canada, to get the Canada agenda out, are given 30 hours. We have 30 hours to debate what is probably one of the most significant motions before the House in the two years we have been here.

So much for open government. So much for government responding to the voters. We should not be surprised. This is the government that actually had to appoint candidates because it did not have confidence in the Canadian voters to select the right candidates. This is the government that shows its so-called true concern for the democratic process. This is the government that has shown its arrogance time and time again in the two years we have been here, with the rebuke of government members who stood to speak against gun control.

We were dealing with a promise of desperation. Let us now deal with some promises or commitments that have been made to the Canadian people. What about the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs? Two years ago we heard about jobs, jobs, jobs, and today we have an unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent. In the month of November, 44,000 jobs were lost in Canada. Where are those jobs? What happened to the much heralded infrastructure program that was to kickstart the economy and create jobs? It was another failure. All it did was put us $6 billion deeper in debt with no jobs. Now we have a cabinet committee looking at the job creation problem.

It is also interesting that the only jobs we have right now are because of free trade. This is a government that opposed free trade, but it is a pleasure to stand today and recognize the jobs that free trade created.

What about the promises of dealing with the deficit? Nothing has been done in two years in spite of warnings from Moody's and the IMF. Government members were shooting the messenger when Moody's warned the finance minister that he was not going far enough in dealing with the deficit. We have since learned that the IMF has issued the same warning to the government, that it has not been serious in attacking the deficit and that Canada is in great jeopardy.

What about tax relief? Smokers are the only ones I know that received any tax relief from the government because it gave in to the smugglers. Canadians as a whole have not had any tax relief. In fact Canadians who drive cars are paying additional taxes which they can ill afford, although there was a commitment to tax relief.

The statement in the red book on criminal justice was that fighting crime and violence required tough measures. We have not seen tough measures. Tough measures are lacking. We still have section 745 of the Criminal Code that allows those convicted of first degree murder back on the streets after 15 years and we still have no victims' rights.

The government has not addressed the issue of political reform. We all experienced the level of cynicism and mistrust out there between the voters and the politicians. It still has not addressed the problem. It has done nothing about recall. As a matter of fact a private member's bill on recall was defeated in the House. The government does not believe in referenda, in letting Canadians have a say on major issues that affect their lives.

The GST was to be replaced. In two years it has done nothing about the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister was to resign if the issue was not dealt with in two years. The last time I looked she was still in the House of Commons.

I am highlighting these promises because they were made to all Canadians. If these promises had been kept, they would have gone a long way to addressing the unity crisis we face in the country. The people of Quebec are just as concerned as the people of Ontario and the people of B.C. about the fact that we have a government that is not getting its spending under control, that is not dealing with the criminal justice system, that does not respond to victims and that is not responding to elected politicians who represent the people in their ridings.

We could see the people of Quebec during the referendum looking at Ottawa and asking: "Could it be any worse if we went on our own?" They were looking at a federal government that is failing to deal with the major problems of the country. It is conceivable some of them could very well have said to themselves: "Why not leave? What we are looking at in Ottawa is a situation that is taking us deeper and deeper into debt. There is no indication they have learned from the past and will do anything about it".

It is evident we have not learned anything from the past. I recall the b and b commission that originated back in 1965. It was to deal with the greatest crisis in the country. I supported that in 1965 because I thought it would address the unity problems we were having and would bring the country together.

After 30 years it has been an utter and complete failure. All the government has to do now is look across the aisle and staring it in the face are 53 members of Parliament elected from Quebec to tear the country apart, living testimonial to the failed policies of the past, the status quo.

There is no question we must change. That was the message in October 1993. I am proud to say Reformers put forward 20 positive proposals for change that had strong support both inside and outside Quebec.

The 20 proposals for change did not require opening up the Constitution. They could have been done by a willing government. We saw it as a win-win situation. It was to go a long way to keeping our country united. It was to go a long way to addressing our overspending because many of the changes dealt with a realignment of powers, decentralization, eliminating duplication and bringing governments closer to the people they were serving.

We also missed the message in the Spicer commission report. The Spicer commission criss-crossed Canada and spoke to over 400,000 Canadians, 300,000 elementary and secondary school students. In the report there was strong support for equality of provinces and of people. There was also strong support for the recognition of Quebec's differences, but there was little support for two-tier citizenship. That is what the bill is dealing with.

During our break in November I held a series of town hall meetings across my riding. I wanted to get the feel of the people about the situation we would be dealing with, the possibility of another referendum or the possibility of recognizing Quebec as a distinct society.

I supplied the people at the meetings with a questionnaire. At the end of the meeting I asked them to answer this question: Would you support distinct society status for the province of Quebec if it meant granting special powers not available to the other provinces? Ninety-eight per cent of those who responded to the questionnaire said no to any special status in recognizing the province of Quebec.

It is time the government stood up to the separatists and called their bluff. It is time to stand up for Canada and speak for Canada as a whole.

This country is a great country. It can only continue to be a great country if it is based on equal provinces and equal citizens. I call on all members of the government to oppose recognition of one province. Otherwise they are destroying our great country, the country our children and grandchildren are looking forward to.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent to call it 5.30 p.m. and proceed to Private Members' Business?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Political Party Fundraising

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau—La Lièvre, QC]

moves:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties.

Madam Speaker, the present system of financial contributions to political parties contains deficiencies that must be dealt with. All too often, we hear people say that large companies run the country and that they are the ones who can benefit the most from their financial support for political parties. We hear that constantly.

As we know, such a perception is very harmful to democracy and this is why I believe it is necessary to look into certain changes that need to be made.

According to data obtained for the four last years including the election campaign of 1993, the existing system costs the state some 30 millions dollars annually. Of course, I have all this information at hand.

Since taxpayers have to pay for the system in one way or another, we propose the following solution: the state should contribute one dollar for every individual. In this way, democracy would be better served.

This solution has many advantages. I will give you a few examples. Such a system would be the most democratic form of funding for political parties. Of course, every one would be equal. Members of Parliament would no longer have to collect funds for general elections. As we all know, this requires a lot of time and effort, and political parties themselves have to spend money to organize public fundraising.

The cost to the state would actually be lower, because the figures I quoted were very conservative. I have indeed demonstrated that the government would pay less in such a system.

This will put to rest the public perception that this is a slush fund, because it is not good for the public to believe such a thing. Politicians or parliamentarians would not owe anyone anything.

Time has come to review the system to ensure the proper functioning of democracy, so that we can, once and for all, be free to do our job without having our hands tied.

The democratic principle demands that every citizen be accorded complete equality by the process which selects the people's representatives. Canada's present electoral system violates this principle in a fundamental way, for it is privately financed.

When private interests are involved in party financing the political process deteriorates into a mere approximation of democracy. The participation of corporations, unions and private individuals in the political process obviously is inevitable and indispensable in many ways but should in no way include the financing of political parties.

In my view the repair of this structural failure is of paramount importance. Any country which claims serious adherence to democratic ideals should publicly finance its political parties by a mechanism which directly relates their financial support to their political support.

After looking at this present system and then at individual financing options I present an inexpensive and flexible public financing mechanism. Here are at least three objectives. The present financing of political parties makes a mockery of the

cornerstone of our democracy that every citizen should be accorded complete equality by the process which selects the people's representatives. It allows private organizations which have no right to vote at all to indirectly cast hundreds of ballots by financial support to a particular political party.

It restricts flexibility on policy issues since political parties must give greater consideration to the largest supporters. This is incompatible with the concept of a truly representative democracy. Political parties should be solely responsible to their members and obviously to the public.

Shareholders of corporations and members of unions do not necessarily support donations made on their behalf. Party financing by private organizations is a clear distortion of the democratic process. However, in a free and democratic society private individuals should have the right to contribute their own personal funds to the party of their choice.

That sounds logical. Nevertheless there are at least three fundamental objections to this option. It would require political parties to spend a greatly increased and inordinate amount of their time in fundraising. This is an inappropriate role for the people's representatives and also is inefficient.

The proper function of a political party is to structure policy, not fundraising. It does not address the primary inequity. Any privately financed democracy, whether financed by private organizations or by private individuals, will have its fundamentally democratic factor distorted. This situation is abnormal and unacceptable in our system. It simply cannot be protected from abuse.

In the United States it is common practice for every member of a corporation's top management to simultaneously contribute to a party or candidate the maximum donation allowed by an individual, thereby in effect making a corporate donation.

The argument for individual financing is an incorrect generalization of the principle that in a free and democratic society each individual should have the right to support the party of his or her choice. This right is inalienable but should not extend to the use of personal wealth. The right to support the party of our choice includes the right to vote for the party of our choice and to work for the party of our choice. However, merely signing a cheque seems too easy and unfair to those who do not have any great amount of money to contribute.

The mechanism is very simple. I will outline a simple, flexible and inexpensive democratic public financing mechanism that will certainly make the system much more fair and equitable.

We would eliminate all private financing of political parties; establish a party financing fund by an annual allocation of $1 per voter from general revenues; distribute a portion of the fund among the registered political parties proportional to popular vote; distribute the other portion of the fund among the registered political parties in existence.

The cost is negligible. One dollar per voter per year is a small amount for the support of a democratic election. Furthermore, the annual cost to the treasury would actually be less than what it is today, less than the $30 million that it costs. The method of the distribution is flexible and democratic.

The distribution of the first part of the fund by proportional vote directly ties financial support to political support, ensuring that parties with greater political support receive greater financial support.

The distribution of the second part of the fund equally provides a counterbalance that moderates the effect of large majorities, ensuring that parties with less support receive sufficient funds to effectively communicate the policies to the citizenry.

To conclude, some obvious conclusions come to mind. Public funding is the only truly democratic way of financing political parties. At present, political party financing is a mix of personal tax credits, corporate tax deductions and contributions made by the government to each candidate who gets at least 15 per cent of the vote in an election.

Public funding will force political parties to account for the use made of their funds. Political party funding will spare the political parties the need to raise funds, which is very time and energy consuming. This way, political parties can devote their time to developing policies. Finally, it will greatly improve the way the public perceives politicians, political parties and politics.

This is basically what I had to say about the need to make changes in our political system with respect to funding of political parties. If any other member wishes to comment on this, I will welcome their comments, and if they have questions to put to me, I will gladly answer them.