Mr. Speaker, my speech this evening is entitled An open letter to my Quebec kissing cousins . They know who they are.
First, I want to thank these cousins for the discussions we had during the referendum campaign. One of them was in charge of the yes side in her community, in the lower St. Lawrence region. We had a brief conversation, two days before the referendum, in a very serene and pleasant atmosphere.
The other two cousins had me over for dinner, in a Montreal suburb, on a stormy fall evening. Inside, there was also a storm raging. It was a storm of ideas, concepts, rebuttals and assertions. In short, it was a very nice evening, and I thank them.
That evening, we discussed the Constitutional Act of 1982, the Meech Lake accord, as well as issues such as overlap, duplication, immigration, and French in North America, Canada and Quebec. Of course, we also talked about the distinct society.
Today, I find myself participating in a debate revived last Wednesday by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. That day, I listened very carefully to the speech made by the opposition leader. If I do not call him by name, dear cousins, it is not out of disrespect, but because the rules and the tradition of this House prevent me from doing so.
As I said, I listened carefully to what he had to say. Several of his statements are so skilfully crafted that you have to stop and think for a minute or two to find out what he means, especially when he is talking about the Constitutional Act of 1982. Here are some quotes from the speech he made. "One of the things the 1982 Constitution effectively introduced into Canada and Quebec's legal and political landscape was the notion of a single country, a Canadian nation-this was a first."
Later on, he added: "This was the first time constitutional and legal texts talked about Canada as a single nation, the nation of Canada. The corollary, needless to say, was that Quebecers found their existence as a people being denied, implicitly, if not explicitly."
Finally, he said, and I am still quoting: "-but it never occurred to me that, someday, a democratic Canada, English Canada, a nation that is open, tolerant and respectful of individual rights, could actually rely on its weight to crush Quebec's wish, tear up the Constitution agreed upon by our forefathers in 1867 and replace it with another constitution that was not recognized by Quebec but imposed on Quebec, a constitution repudiated-" I could go on and on.
I could spend hours proving that the Constitution was not replaced or torn up, that not all Quebecers repudiated this Constitutional Act, as the Leader of the Opposition would have you believe. But by doing this, I would be entering into an argument with some politicians. For now, I would rather talk to my cousins.
In the face of such a condemnation of what happened in 1982, I thought it was time for me to reread the Constitution Act, 1982, which I did. I looked everywhere to find some hint of the crushing he talked about-which is something some people would like to make a part of the historical bagage of Quebecers-but I could not find it.
I looked everywhere to find where the existence of Quebecers as a people was denied implicitly or explicitly, with the same result. It was nowhere to be found.
I looked everywhere to find the quote that says that English Canada-and I will come back to this irritating expression a little later on-relied on its weight to crush Quebec's wish. Again, I could not find it.
So we have every reason to wonder, Mr. Speaker and dear cousins, if the intent of these remarks was not to perpetuate and to reinforce a myth that has been created and spread by separatist forces.
Dear cousins, I have a question for you. What bothers you in the Constitution Act, 1982? Is it the entrenchment in the Constitution of your fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other communications media? I do not think so.
Is it freedom of peaceful assembly? I do not think so either. Freedom of association? I doubt it. Is it the entrenchment of your democratic rights, your mobility rights or your legal rights? I do not think so. To this day, I have not met one Canadian, or one Quebecer for that matter, who is against these rights.
Is it then the entrenchment in the Constitution of French and English as the official languages of our country? Does it bother you so much? Or is it the inclusion in the Constitution of the concepts of equalization and regional disparity, two typically Canadian concepts that continue to serve Quebec well?
I still fail to see what is the cause of this national humiliation the advocates of independence have talked so much about. Referring to the points that I just mentioned, how has Quebec's wish been crushed?
Dear cousins, on the autumn evening when we met, I really appreciated our ability to talk frankly, directly and with mutual respect. So I ask you to think carefully and as objectively as possible about the following question: what bothers you personally about the Constitution Act, 1982?
There is something else I would like to say, and I referred to this earlier. The term English Canada, which Bloc members and their leader keep using these days in a poorly disguised attempt to keep erecting walls between Canadians, crops up at least a dozen times in the speech made last Wednesday by the Leader of the Opposition.
Well, I want to ask you people in the Bloc who are constantly complaining, loud and clear, about the general lack of understanding for Quebec society, to please stop ignoring a million French Canadians who do not live in Quebec. We would appreciate some respect.
In fact, the term is not accurate since New Brunswick is officially bilingual, probably another humiliating result of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Bloc likes to speak in separatist terms, and it is pretty obvious why. I hope you, my cousins, are not fooled. You know, in northern and eastern Ontario, there are a lot of French Canadians, including your own cousins. Some day, we should discuss how certain expressions evolved and why, hardly a generation ago, we were all French Canadians, and today, we are Franco-Ontarians, Québécois, Acadians, Fransasquois and so forth.
Maybe we should invent new hyphens, new links, with all due respect for the late John Diefenbaker. I agree, we are all Canadians. But as such, we all have one or more links elsewhere. Some are new Canadians, others are English or French Canadians. In this great country with a strong tradition of tolerance and openness, there is room for everyone, even communities that form a distinct society.
When you think about it, the hyphen is a symbol that seems tailor-made for Canada. Are we not one of the hyphens or links between France and the United Kingdom, between Europe and the United States of America? We see those links throughout our history, between Lower Canada and Upper Canada and even in the Act of Union.
The beauty of the hyphen is that it manages to link two entities that are sometimes entirely distinct. Is this not the very essence of Canada? Squaring the circle, duality in unity? My dear cousins, you will agree this would be an interesting subject for our next meeting. Meanwhile, let this House recognize the distinct identity of Quebec society by voting for the motion presented by the Prime Minister, a motion which, at the very least, is a step in the right direction. That being said, my dear cousins, I remain, yours sincerely.