Mr. Speaker, this is a very ill-conceived move on the part of the government. As a matter of fact I believe it is politically motivated solely. The Prime Minister, having totally botched the matter of the referendum and the move on the part of some people from one province to separate from the country is now desperate to show he is doing something. If this was such a good idea he should have done it two years ago and not hastily thrown it into the breach when he was in desperate difficulty.
Members on the other side are telling us over and over that this is going to unify the country. In fact, this distinct society proposal will do nothing but intensify Canada's divisions. In my few minutes I am going to put on the record why I believe this is so.
First, once we concede that Quebec is distinct we have provided an enormous justification for it to be separate. Second, formal recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness in the Constitution is meaningless unless that special recognition also becomes a principle used to interpret the Constitution with respect to this distinct society. The rules by which our country functions would then always be interpreted so as to treat one province as distinct and special.
As a result, that province would have special status and constitutional powers, for if we state that in spite of its being a distinct society, Quebec has no more power than the other provinces, in the end it would be no more distinct than the others. The whole exercise would only be window dressing because Quebec's interests would not be better served by it. Separatists would be able to denounce it as yet another empty gesture and cause disaffection with the federal government to increase, not decrease.
The greatest danger is that giving Quebec distinct society status in the Constitution would almost certainly be interpreted as also giving Quebec special status and constitutional powers. Former Prime Minister Trudeau in 1987 pointed out that Quebec politicians will take the position "that if the Constitution says something it is because a meaning was intended". It is an old principle in lawmaking that legislators usually do not talk without saying something. It can happen, but not when they write laws. Thus we have to suppose that distinct society means something.
Trudeau was also quoted as commenting that if anyone thinks recognizing Quebec as a distinct society means nothing, "you are in for a superb surprise".
Anyone who has studied the courts' interpretations over the last several years of existing constitutional provisions will have no trouble understanding this. Canadians were astonished, for exam-
ple, when our courts told us the Constitution says that if you are extremely intoxicated when you kill someone, you are not guilty of a crime.
While we may intend only to recognize a sociological and historical fact when we amend the Canadian Constitution to designate Quebec as a distinct society, down the road it is clearly open to the courts to affirm that the provision really confers special status and powers on one of the ten provinces, whether it is in the Constitution or in any other legislation, such as the motion which is before us today.
Why would it matter if Quebec was given special status and powers? The simple answer is that it would only intensify Canada's divisions.
First, it would violate the principle of equality. This principle is foundational to the whole characterization of Canada as a democracy, where every citizen has the same rights and the same value. It would be completely unacceptable for some Canadians to be designated as having different or greater rights, different or greater value, than others. In the past we have condemned societies that sought to operate on that tenet. We have declared the very idea repugnant. Would we now find special status for some acceptable in our country? Never.
Second, far from bringing Canadians together, such a move would segregate them and emphasize the differences between them even further. The Prime Minister will attempt to characterize the move to confer distinct society status and a constitutional veto on Quebec as an act of generosity and reconciliation.
Tolerance and kindness have long been praised as traits of the Canadian people. We would not wish to be accused of acting otherwise. However, I believe that Canadians must place reasonable limits on any exercise of generosity. Therefore, we must ask whether it is reasonable to give a separatist government, committed to breaking up the country, a veto over the Constitution of Canada. It will truly result in fundamentally redesigning Canada to give some citizens more say and a greater degree of control than all other citizens.
If a unified Canada is our goal, the only sound course of action is to pursue those issues on which Canadians agree and not those issues on which they are divided. The Reform Party's vision for a new and better Canada is guided by the founding principle of equality of provinces and citizens. It is the only sound basis on which to go forward as a confident and unified people.