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.