If my hon. friend from Esquimalt cannot see the clock, I can understand it at this hour. I am sure he and I would be happy to share our time.
In spite of the remarks that were made by some of the predecessors from his party who suggested that those of us on this side of the House were speaking because we felt we had to vote a certain way with the government, let me assure the other members in the House that when we rise to speak on this question we are speaking from the profound desire of Canadians to speak for our country, to speak of how we understand our country and what we are trying to achieve. We may have our differences, but we must understand that together we must try to resolve what is right about our country.
As the great prime minister of this country, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, said many years ago, elections decide everything and answer nothing. The referendum is somewhat like that. It made a decision. It decided that Quebec was to stay in Canada, but it did not answer the question as to under what conditions it is to stay in Canada. It did not answer many of the fundamental questions we are obliged as parliamentarians to review.
I believe profoundly and seriously that the Prime Minister's initiative is not a constitutional initiative but is a realistic initiative. It corresponds to the aspirations of Quebecers. It is a solemn undertaking by this federal House and our executive to be guided in its decisions by a recognition of Quebec's unique culture, linguistic characteristics, and civil law traditions.
When we come to this House, we all come with our various experiences as individuals and Canadians. I was born in Montreal but grew up in British Columbia, in Vancouver. Most of my family still lives in Vancouver.
I am there regularly. I consider myself a westerner, to some extent, but I now live in Toronto. I had the opportunity and the privilege of teaching at the University of Montreal and McGill University, so I also consider myself a Quebecer.
When I look at the history of Quebec since 1774, since the Quebec Act, since our colleagues rejected Lord Durham's proposal to submerge Quebecers in an English ocean, if I may use that expression, when I look at the history of my country, at great French Canadians like Cartier, Laurier, Saint-Laurent, Trudeau and Chrétien, federalist Quebecers faithful to their people and convinced that federalism is the best way to protect their people's existence. Why can we say that?
Because the province of Quebec has a distinct identity. There is a distinctiveness that makes it different from the rest of Canada. There is Bill 101 which protects the French language in Quebec. Quebec controls immigration to the province, which is not the case in other provinces. Internationally, and I have a particular interest as chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Quebec with its membership in the francophonie and its privileged relationship with France is seen as different from the other provinces.
We can say that in terms of protecting French culture and the French language in North America, for reasons already mentioned by the previous speaker, Quebec already has a different identity, a kind of distinct society. It is a very important asset for us in the rest of Canada. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made an emotional speech the other day about protecting the French language outside Quebec and he really convinced me that I as an Ontarian had a duty to protect the distinct identity and distinct society of Quebec.
I speak as an Ontarian. Can we say as Ontarians and as British Columbians that we have an interest in protecting a distinct society
in Quebec? Does the existence of a francophone majority within a province in Canada enrich the cultural and political life of the country in a way that enables us to be distinct and different?
This is an extraordinary and complex subject. We can say that our colleagues who have spoken earlier in the House are right when they say that British Columbians are distinct. Of course this is true. We are all distinct.
However speaking as I do, coming from Toronto, we recognize that our culture in North America will only survive in the face of North American television and the enormous pressures in which we live on the north-south pole, whether they are economic, environmental or cultural, if we live beside Quebec which is part of us, enriches us and gives us a specificity that is different. We as Ontarians are different because we have Quebec as a distinct society beside us. We as Ontarians live in a country that is bilingual, bicultural and bi-juridical.
I have had experience as a young lawyer travelling outside the country. One of my great privileges was to work as a Canadian in international conferences. People were able to say to me: "You represent a country that represents the civil law and common law traditions. You represent a country which has the Gaelic traditions and the Anglo-Saxon traditions. You are able to act as a bridge in this new world, this interdependent world in which we live. You are able to participate in this world in a way that is different from Americans, British, French and anyone else in the world", precisely because we are Canadians and precisely because we are enriched by the presence of the distinct society of Quebec which forms a part of ourselves. We do not need to reject it. It enriches our experience. We are able to be what we are because we have Quebec as a part of us. We would be poorer if we did not. We would be poorer if we did not have Quebec as a distinct society.
If we look into the 21st century we must recognize that we will be challenged as a people. Whether we come from British Columbia, Alberta, the maritimes, Ontario or Quebec, we will be challenged to adapt to enormously changing conditions. In the course of those changes our adaptation, our flexibility and our ability to be something different will be precisely because we have been able to shoulder together, to partner together with our colleagues in Quebec a linguistic and cultural experience that means we can live and make something work in the country that is different from anything else.
That is why I argue with my colleagues in favour of the distinct society. I respect their difference of opinion. I ask them to respect ours. This is not some political vote. This is a strong belief of people.