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.