Debates of Dec. 6th, 1995

Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's motion about distinct society takes me back to 1992, the year of the Charlottetown accord. It was also at that time that I decided to pursue my career standing up for Quebec's interests here in Ottawa, as eight other Bloc members were already doing, seated at the back of the House, isolated, but undeniably efficient.

I usually examine offers made to me. I never dismiss anything out of hand, without giving it at least some thought.

Of course, Quebecers have the same attitude. Thus, after having heard and read the Prime Minister's motion, I can say that it is the nicest turnaround that I have seen since going into politics. The Prime Minister botched his work. The referendum results made him panic.

During the week preceding the referendum, he felt that he had to promise some changes, and this is what we have now: an empty shell, a black hole, a total blank. Distinct society my foot. This carbon copy of the Charlottetown proposals, which Quebec and Canada rejected, as we recall, does not recognize the people of Quebec in any way. Where on earth does the Prime Minister live to think that Quebec is now prepared to accept less than Meech 1 and 2, less than Charlottetown, if you can imagine?

The motion says that we speak French in Quebec and that we have a civil law tradition. How nice. This resolution is nothing but wishful thinking. The 1982 patriation of the Constitution was a denial of the existence of the Quebec nation. Since then, there has been only one nation: the Canadian nation. Thankfully, no Quebec government, not even the Liberals, put up with that rebuff. Meech 1 was entrenched in the Constitution. Some legal and political aspects in that accord allowed Quebec to keep its head high.

The current Prime Minister, along with his friends, managed to render that agreement meaningless. Quebec rejected a proposal, as did English Canada, but not for the same reasons, of course. How can the leader of the government dare take a step backward and seriously think that his resolution meets Quebec's historical and legitimate aspirations?

His ally in the no camp during the last referendum, the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, Daniel Johnson, demanded that Quebec's distinct nature be entrenched in the Constitution. The Prime Minister knows full well that his motion is meaningless. He only introduced it to be able to say that he is fulfilling the promises for change he made at the last minute, when the yes side seemed dangerously close to winning.

As we saw in 1992, with the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, it is no longer enough to say, affirm, or wish that Quebec be recognized as a distinct society. At the time, the distinct society clause only had a symbolic value, so much so that most French-speaking observers in Quebec were convinced that this concept no longer had the same meaning as it did in the Meech Lake accord. It was so watered down that even Clyde Wells felt there was no risk that this clause could serve as a stepping stone towards the affirmation of a special status for Quebec. Yet, this is what the Prime Minister is proposing.

As a member representing a Quebec riding, I cannot support a motion which proposes much less than even the minimal claims made by Quebec over the years. The Quebec members who support that resolution will show that, as far as they are concerned, there is no nation in Quebec. There are only people who speak French, in a given region of Canada, period.

We all know that this resolution is just that: a mere resolution. With all due respect to this House, this resolution has no legal effect, even if it is supported by a majority of elected representatives. It merely reflects the will expressed by parliamentarians, and it would not be binding on any court in Canada. It is meaningless.

In his attempt to propose changes to Quebecers, the Prime Minister also included manpower training, as well as a veto power. Let me briefly say that, as regards manpower training, I am still looking for the change. Actually, there is one change. We now know that, when the Prime Minister talks about decentralization, it means that the federal government keeps control over the distribution of money.

The federal government prevents Quebec from implementing a true manpower training policy. Yet, everyone in Quebec agrees that all powers related to that sector should be delegated to the province.

It seldom happens that everybody agrees on one thing, in Quebec or elsewhere. As for the veto, let us not delude ourselves, what is being proposed amounts to allowing regional referendums with terms and questions developed in Ottawa, where Quebec representatives are in minority as you know. Flexible federalism means Ottawa making the decisions and the provinces living with them.

Three weeks ago, I heard the Prime Minister say that he was a Prime Minister from a Quebec riding, a francophone and a Quebecer, and that his government should be trusted.

For my part, I was willing to trust him a little. I said to myself: "Listen, mistakes have been made, he made mistakes in 1982. But sometimes, a guy who made a mistake can get back on his feet. I will therefore go half way and trust him".

In the motion he put forward, Motion No. 26, I thought I would find a recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, and that this recognition would also be enshrined in the Constitution. That was not the case. A few moments ago, I heard a member opposite say that we wanted separation and this and that. I will tell you that my father is a well known businessman in Quebec and in Canada. He has traded in all ten provinces of Canada. When my father returned from the west, the first question I used to ask him was: "Dad, how did it go out west?" And he would answer: "Jean, it has been very hard, very difficult. I have the feeling that the west will separate before Quebec does".

When we look around in this House, we see that Quebec has rejected this proposal from the Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, who represents the constituents from Saint-Maurice, and that even the English Canadians who make up the third party, the Reform Party, said no to this proposal. There must be a problem when both French speaking and English speaking Canadians agree to reject a proposal.

So, we have to recognize what Quebecers have been asking for for the last 25 years. It is not asking too much to want to be recognized as a distinct society. The federal government has done it for the Indians, why can it not do it for Quebecers? They gave the Indians some land. We are not asking for land, we already have some. We only want to be recognized.

Frankly, I must say that, after fighting for 25 years, Quebecers, the French speaking citizens of Quebec, really thought this time would be it. However, the Prime Minister told us: "Dear friends, wait until 1997, wait until April of 1997, when we will reopen the Constitution". I have to tell you in all honesty that, as a politician, when I decided to come to Ottawa, I told myself: "The only way to succeed is to be on the spot, to go to Ottawa and mingle with my English speaking friends". Because I must say in all honesty that the people from western Canada are my friends.

It is not because we have a different point of view that we cannot get along with people from western Canada or the maritimes. Of course not. What is important is to be on the same wavelength and to get support for a society, for people-the men and women of Quebec who want to be recognized some day.

I trusted the Prime Minister. I am a bit disappointed, because I would have liked for the resolution to say that our distinct society will be enshrined in the Constitution. It was not asking too much, as I said earlier, but it was not done.

This was his last chance. I remind the House that three days before the referendum thousands of English speaking Canadians came to Montreal. I was proud, because these people came to visit our region. To say they love us is one thing, but to prove it is another matter.

So, as far as I am concerned, I would like all this to be enshrined in the Constitution and I will continue to reflect on this issue.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in what can only be regarded as a historic debate.

I would like to talk about a couple of things that are important with respect to the national unity of our country. These are things members opposite perhaps failed to mention when they talked about what they perceived to be the wrongs or the injustices suffered by their fellow citizens in various parts of the country. I say various parts of the country because this is not a case of complaints only from one province. We hear it from many provinces. We hear it from the provincial premiers when they complain about some of the changes the government is proposing in the amending formula. I know that bill is not before the House tonight, but it is part of the package of reforms the government has introduced, which I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss.

Although members do not mention it often, always in back of their speeches is the famous battle that occurred in Canada on the Plains of Abraham. I am not going to go through that. But there was a second battle, which I think is virtually of equal importance for the future of the country and which is never mentioned. I want to remind hon. members about this story because it is of tremendous significance for Canada.

The battle happened 220 years ago this year. There was a revolution that started in the United States. The American revolutionary Continental Congress decided to send a force to invade Canada and take over the colony of Quebec, which was then part of the British Empire, having been captured 15 years previously in the famous battle I mentioned earlier.

The Americans dispatched General Montgomery to capture the province of Quebec, or what was then the colony of Quebec. Starting in September he moved up the Richelieu River and captured Fort Saint-Jean and Fort Chambly on the Richelieu River before October 18, 1775. He subsequently attacked Montreal, where the British governor, Sir Guy Carleton, was stationed.

Governor Carleton realized that the defence of Montreal was hopeless, given the fact that he was outnumbered substantially by the American force. He had only 800 British regulars with him to defend the entire colony. He left Montreal by ship and sailed for Quebec on November 11, 1775, and immediately began fortifications of the city of Quebec.

General Montgomery took Montreal on November 13, stationed 500 of his troops there, and then moved on to Quebec City with about 300 men. He gathered with him various people from the countryside, des habitants pour l'aider avec son attaque sur la ville de Québec.

It is estimated that he had between 1,600 and 1,800 men outside Quebec when he started his siege on December 5, 1775. The governor, Sir Guy Carleton, was in a heavily fortified position with apparently adequate food, but of course the city of Quebec was

pounded by a bombardment launched by Montgomery and his forces as they besieged the city.

As winter continued to move into the area and made things colder and more difficult for Montgomery's troops, he realized that in order to maintain his position he had to take the city and get the battle over with reasonably quickly. So he launched an attack on the city of Quebec on December 31, 1775 in the early hours of the morning. It was dark. There were a lot of shots exchanged and ultimately Montgomery was killed in the streets of Quebec. The battle was lost for the Americans. The siege continued until the spring, but a British ship arrived, lifted the siege, and the Americans had to retreat.

That battle was won because the residents of the city of Quebec helped the British governor. They sided with the British governor, the recent conqueror, in order to preserve what they thought was a better way of life under the British crown as an independent part of North America and not as part of the United States. In a way, they were the first United Empire Loyalists, because they made that very significant decision. If they had not made that decision and had sided with the Americans and rebelled against the British force, as they could easily have done, no doubt Quebec would have fallen and no doubt we would have been part of the United States as a result of the revolutionary war.

The men and women who made that decision were residents of the city and of the surrounding countryside. In my view they were the first great nation builders of Canada. We never hear mention of them whenever a member of the Bloc Quebecois or any separatist is busy talking about Canadian unity.

It is a battle that holds tremendous significance. In my visit to Quebec I saw the place in the street where Montgomery was killed. I believe there is a plaque in the street where this happened.

Some of ancient buildings in Quebec bore marks for a long time of the bombardment they suffered from the Americans in that war 220 years ago at the end of this month, the anniversary date of the attack on Quebec led by Montgomery.

This was a very significant event in Canada's history which saved Quebec, basically the only part of Canada that was then of any significance as a British possession that operated as part of a group of colonies that began to grow and prosper, all of them not prospering quite so well but at least growing in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and ultimately in Upper Canada, in Ontario.

By 1840 we had the Union Act of 1840 that put the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada together under a single administration, at least legislatively.

Subsequent to that the debates took place in respect of the union of the Canadian provinces. It is to those debates that I want to turn because I want to quote some nation builders. That is what we are engaged in here in a very modest way today.

It is important to bear in mind some of the words some of these people spoke. I turn first to the remarks of the hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. He was not a knight at that time. He was the attorney general for the western part of the province of Canada and at that time the member for Kingston.

He was one of the senior Fathers of Confederation. I quote what he said in respect of Confederation at that time. This is in the Confederation debates in 1865, talking about the union of Upper and Lower Canada:

It was felt that a dissolution of the union would have destroyed all the credit that we had gained by being a united province, and would have left us two weak and ineffective governments, instead of one powerful and united people.

Those words apply precisely to the situation we faced in pre-referendum Canada a few weeks ago. I submit those words are of importance now just as they were then. He went on to say:

The Lower Canadians would not have worked cheerfully under such a change of system-

He was talking about a different system than the one I was reading about before-

-but would have ceased to be what they are now-a nationality, with representatives in Parliament, governed by general principles, and dividing according to their political opinions-and would have been in great danger of becoming a faction, forgetful of national obligations, and only actuated by a desire to defend their own sectional interests, their own laws, and their own institutions.

He was speaking of having a unitary government where there would not be a federal division of powers as we now have where different parts of the country have the right to decide certain things.

We have a situation in which both the opposition parties are claiming the federal government should give up powers and where the federal government has acknowledged that is so and has chosen to do that.

I refer to Sir John's conclusion:

In conclusion, I would again implore the House not to let this opportunity to pass. It is an opportunity that may never recur. At the risk of repeating myself, I would say, it was only by a happy concurrence of circumstances, that we were enabled to bring this great question to its present position. If we do not take advantage of the time, if we show ourselves unequal to the occasion, it may never return, and we shall hereafter bitterly and unavailingly regret having failed to embrace the happy opportunity now offered of founding a great nation.

I quote another one, Sir George-Étienne Cartier, Macdonald's great partner in putting Canada together. He said, and these words apply today as much as they did then, in the same debates in 1865:

The question for us to ask ourselves is this: Shall we be content to remain separate-shall we be content to maintain a mere provincial existence, when, by combining together, we could become a great nation? It had never yet been the good fortune of any group of communities to secure national greatness with such facility. In past ages, warriors have struggled for years for the addition to their country of a single province.

Here we had the great willingness on the part of all these people to unite and form this great country we now enjoy.

I quote another great nation builder, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the great prime ministers of our country. He said, from page 1842 of Hansard , on March 13, 1900:

If there is anything to which I have given my political life, it is to try to promote unity, harmony and amity between the diverse elements of this country. My friends can desert me, they can remove their confidence from me, they can withdraw the trust which they have placed in my hands; but never shall I deviate from that line of policy. Whatever may be the consequences, whether loss of prestige, loss of popularity, or loss of power, I feel that I am in the right, and I know that a time will come when every man, my hon. friend himself included, will render me full justice on that score.

As our forebearers did, we can do no less but to engage in the nation building which they did in this great and vast country of ours.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Canadian and I am proud to be part of a country that includes the province of Quebec. I am proud to be part of a country that not only recognizes diversity but respects and cherishes it.

What a boring country it would be if we were all the same. Our differences keep us vital and dynamic, and our ability to respect our differences while working together has made us the envy of the world.

The United Nations said Canada is the greatest country in the world. We owe this honour in large part to those who built Canada, to the men and women who came here searching for a better life and for hope.

The fabric of our country is woven from the threads brought here by people from around the world. These threads of hope, tolerance and compassion unite us as Canadians and will provide the strength to see us through the challenges that lie ahead.

Countries are not rigid like the stone and rock they are carved from. They must be fluid and adaptable if we are to survive.

Since Confederation, Canada has successfully adapted to a rapidly changing world. Our boundaries have changed and it was less than 50 years ago that we acquired a new province, Newfoundland. We are now in the process of creating the new territory Nunavut.

Our economic base has expanded and diversified to the point at which Canada has a highly integrated economy and is a competitor in world markets. A century ago the people of a country that was largely based on farming and trapping could never have dreamed that the Canada of today would be a leader in telecommunications, aerospace and finance, and that its agricultural products would be marketed around the world.

Canadian society has also changed dramatically. Our population has grown tremendously and shifted from largely rural to mostly urban. An influx of people immigrating from around the world has made Canada a unique cultural mosaic.

Canada has grown and prospered because of its ability to read the signals for change and to adapt for the well-being of our country. The referendum vote on October 30 was a vote for Canada. It was a signal for change.

As the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism noted during the debate on Friday, the Prime Minister, the government and Parliament have a duty to preserve the unity of Canada as a nation indivisible.

Quebecers and Canadians have asked the government to keep Canada together. The Prime Minister has responded quickly to the signals for change. It is a response to keep the country united. That is what Canadians and the people of my riding of Dauphin-Swan River want.

When the Bloc members refer to the rest of Canada as English Canada they do a great disservice to the hundreds of French Canadians who live in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River; French Canadians who have kept their language, culture and traditions alive in rural Manitoba.

I am pleased and proud to represent predominantly French communities such as Ste. Rose du Lac, Laurier, St. Lazare and San Clara where people of many ethnic origins, including English, French, Ukrainian, Polish and First Nations people, work together toward their common goal of building strong communities and contributing to a strong and united Canada.

I have been overwhelmed by the response of the people of Dauphin-Swan River about the future of Canada. The people of my riding tell me that for the good of Canada, for our present and for our future, we need to remain united.

As the Prime Minister has so eloquently stated, a Canada without Quebec is no Canada, and a Quebec without Canada is no Quebec.

I also bring to the House a message from the youth of Canada. They too want and deserve a voice in the debate about the Canada they will inherit from us.

In November I travelled to a number of schools in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River to listen to young people about their vision of Canada. The students told me their Canada includes Quebec. It is important to them that we make every effort to keep our country united, from sea to sea to sea. That is the Canada they know. That is the Canada they want. That is the Canada they deserve.

This was also the message three young people from Russell, Manitoba brought to me in Ottawa on their way to the Montreal rally. These young people spent their hard earned dollars to travel to Montreal to be part of the chorus of voices ringing across Canada, telling Quebecers they are important to Canada. The courage and the commitment of these young people is a shining example of the belief western Canada has that a strong Canada is a united Canada.

We must lead by example. We must show our young people that differences can be overcome and that compromise is preferable to conflict. As a member of Parliament and as a member of the Liberal government I am committed to ensuring a strong and united Canada for the benefit of the people of Dauphin-Swan River and for all Canadians. As a mother and a grandmother, the Canada I want to give to my children and my grandchildren is a Canada which includes Quebec.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 26 this evening.

It is a pleasure to speak to any government legislation of significance these days because the Liberal government has developed a habit of invoking closure on important controversial bills. It is beyond comprehension. This is one of the most important issues before the House and the government is limiting debate. What is the government afraid of, that people may actually find out what it is doing?

It is difficult for me to find parliamentary language to accurately describe my outrage at how the government rams through legislation by denying members of Parliament the opportunity to bring the concerns of their constituents into the debate. However, I digress. I am here to talk about the motion before the House today. I had better take advantage of the opportunity to speak before the Liberals decide they want to invoke closure in the middle of my speech.

The motion is rather simple but leaves many questions unanswered. Motion No. 26 calls on the House to recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. Before I give my opinion on the issue of whether Quebec is distinct, I will address the issue of what this means to the rest of Canada.

If Quebec is distinct, does that mean that the rest of Canada is indistinct? Does it mean there is no difference between the outports of the Newfoundland coast and downtown Toronto? Does it mean there is no distinction between the isolated native communities of the north and downtown Vancouver? Does it mean the rural grain farming communities of the prairies are indistinct from downtown Ottawa?

The answer to these questions is obvious: No. Not only are the other nine provinces distinct from each other but there are significant distinctions within the provinces themselves.

My first administrative assistant on the Hill was a francophone from Campbellton, New Brunswick. I can accept the fact that she and her fellow francophone New Brunswickers consider themselves to be distinct from the Quebecers who live just on the other side of the Restigouche River.

This motion also recognizes the distinction between francophones in Quebec and New Brunswick but it does not recognize the distinction between New Brunswick's Acadians and New Brunswickers of British origin. Does that mean that there is no distinction between the two groups? That is the biggest flaw of M-26. It demands that this House recognize only one distinction.

Let us look at the three largest metropolitan cities in Canada. I have enjoyed my visits to Montreal and could have spent days wandering in the old town, but like Toronto and Vancouver, Montreal is a city whose population is a blend of old stock Canadians and larger, newer immigrant communities. Immigrants come to these cities from countries that span the globe. What is different is the percentage of the various ethnic groups that make up the population of each of these three cities.

Despite this difference, they are still all large cosmopolitan cities with tall skyscrapers in the central business district surrounded by a mix of industrial and residential communities.

However, the government wants us to recognize that Montreal is distinct but Vancouver and Toronto are not. Why? Because as is stated in part (2) of the motion, the government wants the House to recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition.

Now we know why Montreal is to be considered distinct and Vancouver and Toronto are not. Montreal is distinct because of its French speaking majority but where does this leave Montreal's anglophones and allophones? According to this motion, they must

be indistinct. Let us flash back to the aftermath of the referendum and Premier Parizeau's comments about the ethnic vote. His comments were roundly and rightfully condemned.

Members opposite were especially vocal in their condemnation of Premier Parizeau's attack on the ethnic vote. What does the government do in response? It put forward this motion that states that Quebec is distinct because of its French speaking majority. It wants to legislate a distinct status for Quebec's francophones, separating them from the ethnic minority, the very fact Liberals condemned Premier Parizeau for stating.

Once again, the government deals in a logic that can only be understood by that side of the House. It must be something in the drinking water in the government lobby.

Let us return to the question: Is Quebec distinct? Yes, Quebec is distinct. But Quebec is a diversified province with one area distinct from another within its own provincial borders, the same as all the other provinces.

The northern parts of British Columbia and Alberta are very different from the southern parts. I recall the comments that the separatists were all spouting after the referendum loss that the results showed division in Canada. No, the referendum result showed the division that there is in the province of Quebec. Although Quebec is no longer a homogeneous province, the federal government wants it to be treated as one.

Points (2) and (3) of the motion state that:

(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

and that:

(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

What this means is extremely unclear. The Prime Minister is telling Quebecers that these sections will provide Quebec with a great deal of power, yet at the same time he is telling Canadians outside Quebec that it does not. Which is it? Let us not leave this motion undefined. Reform Party members have attempted to clarify the meaning of distinct society with our amendment, that this motion does not confer any powers, rights, status or privileges to Quebec that are not provided to any other province. Our amendment will ensure that all Quebecers will be treated equally.

Our amendment also makes it clear that there is nothing in this motion that denies the fact that Canada constitutes one nation. That is the danger of passing the government's motion without the Reform amendment. By identifying Quebec as a distinct society, the government is agreeing with the basic tenet of the separatist mantra that the Quebec people are different from the rest of Canadians. Do the Liberals honestly believe that once they acknowledge this difference they can counter the second part of the separatist argument that because of this difference Quebecers need their own nation?

In dealing with this issue I have tried to do what this government refuses to do: ask the opinions of average Canadians. In my latest householder that has just started to arrive in the homes of my constituents I included my regular 10-question survey. I have two questions in that survey. First, do you believe that Quebec should be granted distinct society status if it confers special privileges or powers to Quebec? Second, do you believe that Quebec should be granted distinct society status if it confers no special privileges or powers to Quebec?

Unfortunately with the government's rush to stifle debate, I will not have enough time to have a truly representative response to these questions. However, as of this moment the answer to the first question is overwhelmingly no. The answer to the second question is still too close to see a trend. My greatest objection to this motion is that the government believes it is ordained to make these serious decisions on its own without any consultation with Canadians.

It would have been more appropriate if the government had stayed to its original plan and had us voting on this motion tomorrow, December 7. What could have been more fitting than having the government ram through a motion in this manner, and by having it do so on a day that already has a reputation of being a day that shall live in infamy. I guess we will have to come up with our own day of infamy, but then the government is providing us with so many.

The people of Surrey-White Rock-South Langley should have had an opportunity to express their opinions on this motion and the veto issue directly through a national referendum. However, they will have to be content with their MP having a chance to contribute in this debate. It is very unfortunate that there are many Canadians who have lost the opportunity to have their member of Parliament speak to this issue.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the distinct society motion presented by the Prime Minister and his government with respect to the province of Quebec.

The reason we are debating this motion late tonight is because of the Prime Minister's last minute Hail Mary promise to Quebecers during the dying moments of the referendum campaign. With this motion, combined with a constitutional veto and a transfer of manpower training to Quebec, the Prime Minister feels that he has now made the best and most significant contribution to national unity. We are all going to live happily ever after.

I am afraid I cannot agree with his logic, his proposals and the timing of them. He has resurrected the constitutional ghosts of Christmas past and will witness the same results as was had with Meech and Charlottetown: failure.

First, in analysing the components of the distinct society motion I have to ask the question: Does the Prime Minister truly feel this really satisfies Quebecers' desires, hopes and needs? The Prime Minister is a Quebecer himself. If anybody should know what Quebecers want, it is he.

However, during the referendum campaign he misread, he misunderstood and he misrepresented to the rest of Canada what should be done. He said: "Thank you very much for staying quiet. Don't worry, they won't leave. Just don't say anything to upset them and everything will be fine". He almost blew it and he knew it.

He got the minister of fisheries, Captain Tobin, to use his turbot popularity and throw together a unity rally in Montreal asking everybody from sea to sea to get to Montreal. He then turned around and made promises to the separatists, promises to the sovereignists, promises to the nationalists, promises to the federalists. Aside from the fact that keeping promises is not one of the Prime Minister's strong points-he promised to renegotiate NAFTA, but did not; he promised to eliminate the GST, but has not; he promised to eliminate patronage appointments, but will not; he promised free votes, which maybe is something he is not allowed to deliver on-now we have him promising to recognize Quebec as a distinct society in Canada.

As a Quebecer he should know what Quebecers want when they say distinct society. He knows what they want is for the rest of Canada to recognize Quebec as one of two founding nations. He knows that Quebecers who want distinct society do not feel there is any cost in acknowledging the fact that they are one of two founding nations. They want a distinct society clause that will protect their rights over language, culture and civil law while keeping the province French.

I personally do not disagree with some of these aspirations. What I do worry about are the consequences if the definition of distinct society is not spelled out. If distinct society means that Quebecers are different because of their language, culture and civil law, I recognize that. That means they are unique and distinct from other provinces and people, just as other provinces and people are unique and distinct from them.

However, if Quebecers want this distinct society clause to mean that not only are they different but they also get special legislative powers above and beyond the rest of Canada, then I am against that. I am sorry but the answer is no to one province getting special treatment over another.

While Reformers can agree to recognizing differences, we cannot agree to giving Quebecers some form of special status over and above other Canadians. That is fundamentally unacceptable and I truly feel that most Quebecers understand that point.

All Quebecers want is something that gives them satisfaction that they will not be tromped on, stamped on, kicked on as is currently being done by the Minister of Human Resources Development with his new employment insurance program.

The frustration in Quebec is based on the fact that we have too much federal interference in matters of provincial jurisdiction. Quebecers want the federal government to get out of their lives in a lot of areas. That is where the solution to national unity lies. Give the powers to the provinces that they want and need, regulated by the federal government and let us make government the right size doing the right thing. Let us have a smaller and more open government than what we have.

Simply put, all provinces want control over their purse strings on programs closest to the people, delivered at a lesser cost than is currently the case with the bureaucratic nightmare in Ottawa.

I am not against the distinct society motion which recognizes Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, provided it is fully defined and does not make them the biggest kid in the playground. That is why I would ask the Prime Minister and the government to support Reform amendments to this distinct society motion so that he can get more support from all across Canada, including from those people in Quebec who look on this motion very suspiciously. It would give the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada what they want: recognition with powers, but not special status.

I ask the government to support our amendments because what we are trying to do is please the majority of Quebecers, not the minority. If we keep trying to come up with programs and with definitions to please the separatists it will never work. It has not worked for 25 years and it will not work for the next 25 years. The separatists act like spoiled children, not all Quebecers, just the separatists.

Most Quebecers want what is in their best interests and that is no different than myself as a distinct and different person from the province of Alberta. I want the best for my province just as people in Quebec want the best for their province.

Let us design a motion that appeals to the majority of Quebecers, that appeals to the majority of Canadians. That is how we can build on national unity. For the sake of national unity I ask the Prime Minister to please consider the input and information that has been coming to him through the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on the constitutional veto. I hope the government listens. There has been some valuable input there.

We can debate sharing the federal government veto with four regions or five regions. That is not really the issue. I believe there are five regions because British Columbia is more like the Atlantic provinces than it is like the prairies.

That is not the point. The point is that this veto should be for the people of Canada and not their legislative assemblies. We already have the seven provinces out of ten representing 50 per cent within the constitutional amendment clause. The separatist Parti Quebecois will now have veto power over changes to the Canadian Constitution. This is ridiculous. The veto should be given to the people of Quebec and not to the politicians.

We should be and I think we are a country of 10 equal provinces committed to similar goals and objectives, each with the same rights, privileges and powers. If we want to change those rights, privileges and powers, it should be one one way or another through a national referendum from the bottom up, not necessarily by elected officials from the top down.

We have to look at the situation very seriously. We have to conclude that a lot of people in Canada want change, not just the province of Quebec or the people who had the referendum. People across the country want change for the good. They do not want change to justify the status quo.

We have to look at issues like changes to the Constitution or granting one province recognition in a way that the rest of the country worries might give it special powers. We have to address those issue. What is wrong with addressing them? We all have to work together to bring the country together from sea to sea to sea.

We have to make amendments to the Constitution to give it the ability to live and the ability to be changed. It should be difficult. It should not be easy to change the Constitution once we define the powers, the levels of responsibility and the way we will work together as 10 provinces. We should think about how we can make changes to it. We cannot give a veto to every province, or there will never be change. We cannot put that Constitution in a vault, let it die and gather dust. We have to give it life. It has to be a breathing document. It has to be tough to make change but we have to allow change to happen.

We have to look at different provinces and different regions and try to recognize their specific needs and wants. There is no reason we cannot accommodate them. There is no reason we cannot come up with a mechanism to give Quebec what it wants and recognize it as a distinct society. It is different. It is unique. It has made a valuable contribution to the building and the nurturing of this great country called Canada.

If that means that Quebec should also get special powers over and above being recognized as distinct, that is not right and we have to tell Quebecers that. The separatists really want this. It is not all Quebecers. Those who want it want to protect their French language. We should be able to help them protect their French language and their French culture.

They in turn should protect minority rights within their province, the English and any other immigrant, and how they can interface with their provincial problems. They do that. What I am saying is that we have ways and means of producing a collective agreement if we just identify the right problem.

This is a panic effort by the Prime Minister and the government to fulfil a promise that he made in the dying moments of a game that he thought he would lose. The game is called unity and he was afraid he would lose the country. He did not want to go down in history as the Prime Minister who lost the country after having told all of us: "I am from that region. Don't worry. They won't vote to go", and they almost did.

It is sad. Now that it is all over they almost look at us and ask: "What did the Reform Party do?" We kept telling them all along to tell Quebecers the consequences of separation, the price of separation. They did not do it then. We will do it now and never in the future will any province look at itself and say it will separate and everything will be perfect. We will tell them the cost of separation.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address the House today on the motion put forward by the government to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

I remind members of the most recent referendum in which a majority of Quebecers voted to stay in Canada. With this motion we are trying to make sure we build on that commitment by Quebecers.

With all the rhetoric it is difficult for Canadians to understand what is going on. The Bloc is telling Quebecers there is nothing in this package, that it is a bunch of platitudes, that it means nothing, that we in so-called English Canada really do not want them to stay. The Reform is telling us that we are giving Quebec everything, that we are giving it something that other provinces do not have, and that somehow it will be able to do other things within Canada to get special powers because of the motion.

No wonder Canadians are having a hard time understanding. Quite frankly it is not only rhetoric but lies are being told to Canadians on the issue. It is disturbing, especially given the fact of how important the issue is to Canada and to the future of the country.

The opposition is telling truths but it is only telling half truths. The Bloc says it does not want to talk about the Constitution. Then it says that somehow the motion does not give Quebec any special constitutional power. How can it argue on the one hand that it does not want to talk about the Constitution and on the other hand argue that the motion somehow is not constitutionally significant?

Frankly it is no surprise that Canadians do not want to talk about the Constitution. They want to deal with other issues. They want to deal with jobs. They want to make sure that their families have opportunities for education and proper health care. These are issues of concern to Canadians.

The Prime Minister gave a commitment at the Montreal rally, which I am proud to say a number of my constituents attended, to address some of the concerns of Quebecers. I know the Reform Party blames us for the outcome being so close, and it was. I agree that it was Canadians who came together in that last week, drew the referendum together and showed Quebecers what they thought.

On behalf of not only the constituents of Haldimand-Norfolk but of all people of Canada I want to say how proud I was of those great Canadians who went from the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk on their own volition to Montreal to express their deep desire for the country to stay together.

All Canadians inside and outside Quebec understand there is nothing we could propose right now to the Government of Quebec and to the Bloc Quebecois that would make them happy. There is nothing we could propose right that would make them all of a sudden jump up and say that they want to stay in Canada. They are not prepared to do that.

What the Prime Minister has done, and I think he has done it very well, is drafted it in a way that he is giving exactly what he committed to. He is opening the door for future commitments and future negotiations in 1997 or 1998. He is allowing Canadians the time to sit down and work on some of the problems we have as a country.

I call on all Canadians to take up the challenge of the Prime Minister to go to Quebec, to Alberta or British Columbia and tell them we need to keep the country together and that the fact the United Nations considers us the number one country in the world is no mistake.

It is because we have been able to draw together, to work together, to bring the diversity of Canadians together and to focus attention on working for the betterment of not only Canadians but the country as a whole. We have stayed together all these years because of that desire of Canadians.

There are those who ask: "What is Canadian? What is Canada?" Some people say Canada is something that is not American. I believe we saw in Montreal what Canada really stands for: for sharing, caring and working together. The motion tries to build on that. I ask Canadians to challenge the naysayers and those in Quebec who say that English Canada does not want them based on history and on fact.

Recently we observed Remembrance Day with ceremonies in which we remembered the strong dedication that many Canadians gave to their country. We recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe. Those Canadians died for their country, believing in their country. I wonder what they would think today about the ongoing debate in the House, what they would think about the silliness of some of what is being said. They fought and gave their all for their country. They deserve our giving them something back. We should sit down, talk, throw away politics, throw away the rhetoric and let their memory guide us in terms of our deliberations.

On behalf of my constituents of Haldimand-Norfolk, I want to tell Quebecers there is a desire on our part to make things right. I think Quebecers are being told lies about the position of English speaking Canadians in rural areas. My constituents would like a chance to sit down and talk with their French speaking compatriots.

People in Haldimand-Norfolk are proud of Canada, and they think we have accomplished great things together over the last few years. We would like you Quebecers to try to understand how we feel. Do not believe all the talk about English speaking Canadians being willing to let you go and not being ready to compromise. We are ready. Let us get together and talk about it.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether you understood what I said. Perhaps you can read the translation afterward. I say on behalf of the people of Haldimand-Norfolk that we need to sit down, to throw away the rhetoric, to put politics behind us and to share our common values of what is Canadian. We can do that and at the same time we can work on what Canadians really want.

We can work on making the economy work. We can work on a health care system that is envied the world over. We can work on saving the environment. These are all very important issues that we need to address. We do not need to be talking about the Constitution at this time.

In our three-point plan we are trying to make sure that as Canadians and as legislators responsible for all of Canada and not just one region or one province, we make it very well known to Quebecers that we love the country, that we need them as a part of the country for it to be strong and that we recognize their distinctiveness. We recognize they have a distinct and different language from that of a lot of Canadians. We recognize they have a

different culture and a different legal system. I only wish the opposition party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, would recognize it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I assure the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk that I understood every word and I take the liberty to compliment him on his effort to speak in the other official language.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in tonight's debate on the Prime Minister's motion concerning the recognition of Quebec's distinct society within Canada. In supporting this motion, I would like to talk, first of all, as an Acadian from Nova Scotia. As you know, Acadians were among the first people to settle in Canada after the First Nations, and, since the founding of the first settlement at Port-Royal, four centuries ago, we have had our share of upheavals, struggles and turmoil.

Protecting our language and culture has never been easy. We have had to fight, and we still do, to get our share of recognition. But we realized a long time ago that our chances of survival as a cultural community were much better if we joined forces with the francophones of Quebec, Manitoba and elsewhere in Canada.

We know that the preservation and blossoming of our language and culture inevitably depend on our being part of a larger country which has been able to include our concerns as well as those of other cultural communities in a larger entity and a broader vision. This is Canada.

The Official Languages Act and the bilingualism policy have provided a concrete example of this broader vision of Canada.

I consider myself lucky to have had a chance to personally experience the distinct nature of Quebec. For four years, in the early 1980s, I was a student at Laval University, where I made a lot of close friends among Quebecers. I had a chance to have lengthy discussions with them about their vision and their place both within Quebec and within Canada.

I found that, in general, the distinct nature of Quebec and of Quebecers is not based on a separation from the rest of Canada, but rather on an affirmation of oneself and a feeling of solidarity that finds its expression and its soul in the vitality of the French language, as the singer-songwriter Michel Rivard says so beautifully: "The language of my heart is the heart of my life".

But despite all the political rhetoric and the sovereignist movement, the Quebecers that I know have a profound attachment to Canada. And I think that if all cultural communities across Canada can work together, we can contribute to the growth and prosperity of our wonderful country.

I have no trouble with the notion of Quebec being seen as a distinct society within the context of this motion. Nor do I see any contradiction in the notion that while not conferring special powers to the Government of Quebec, this motion is by no means symbolic, although it carries some important and powerful symbolism.

By recognizing the distinctive character of Quebec in its policies, its laws, its regulations and its programs, this motion provides one more prism among many others through which the Government of Canada commits itself to be guided in the development of its laws, its regulations, its policies and programs before they are enacted and as they are implemented.

The members of the Reform Party have a hard time understanding this because they do not really understand how modern government functions. When government policy is developed and presented before cabinet for consideration or when a change is made to a body of regulation or when a new law or program is adopted and advanced and presented before Parliament, it must be evaluated according to many different angles or dimensions. One of these is the balance of impacts of the program across gender lines, socio-economic lines, and regions and provinces so that the balance of these impacts is fair and equitable.

A good example of this is the legislation that was tabled last week by the Minister of Human Resources Development. In the package of information that accompanied the legislation creating the employment insurance program, one of the first tables presented is a table describing the financial impacts of employment insurance by province. No government would contemplate a major change in a program such as employment insurance without considering the impacts across provincial lines.

Another example of a prism through which government policy has to be evaluated is provided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which since 1982 has been enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that laws and regulations and programs introduced by the federal government respect the basic freedoms and rights of Canadian citizens that we have enshrined in the Constitution through the charter.

A third example is provided to us by the official languages legislation enforced by the official languages commission for Canada and the whole policy and infrastructure promoting official bilingualism in Canada, which ensure that linguistic minorities in Canada, including Acadians and other francophone groups throughout the country, as well as anglophones in Quebec, receive

the recognition of their language and receive services in the language of their choice.

These are commitments the federal government has made for itself and for its programs. They are part of the prism through which all laws, regulations, and programs must be evaluated by the Government of Canada.

The distinct society motion the Prime Minister has brought forward this week will in a different way act as a prism and a guide and an opportunity for the federal government to commit and ensure that the programs and its policies reflect this particular cultural aspect of Canada, which is the distinctive character of Quebec in those very important categories of unique language, culture, and civil law tradition. That in a sense is the genius of the Prime Minister's approach to recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and putting into practical effect the application of that respect as far as the Government of Canada is concerned.

One of the reasons Canadians continue to be so supportive and have such great confidence in the Prime Minister of Canada is because largely through his great experience in government he has found a way to give concrete effect to the commitments and undertakings he made to the people of Quebec and to the people of Canada for change and for recognition of their particular place in Confederation in a way that does not violate the rights of other Canadians and the rights of provinces but acts as a positive discipline on the Government of Canada.

If other Canadians and provinces through the constitutional discussions choose and can agree on the enshrinement of such a principle in the Canadian Constitution, that would strengthen the notion of the distinct society we have adopted and will adopt through this Parliament.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that I know this initiative will never satisfy the separatist members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry but the member's time has expired. I now give the floor to the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke may rest assured that will never satisfy us.

"Whatever they say or do, Quebec is today and always will be a distinct society". Those words were spoken used by Quebec's federalist Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa, the day after the demise of Meech Lake. "From now on, no more negotiations involving ten or eleven parties. From now on, there will be bilateral discussions only".

This proves that the motion before the House today, presented by the federal Liberal government, is nothing new. The concept of a distinct society was developed by the Quebec Liberal Party. Actually, it goes back to 1965 and the preliminary reports of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, where we find the term distinct society in a marginal note to the paragraph that defines Quebec society on page 103.

In a speech on May 9, 1986, Quebec Intergovernmental Relations Minister Gil Rémillard stated five minimum conditions which, if they were met, might lead Quebec to ratify the Constitution Act, 1982. Meanwhile, the Parti Quebecois was talking about a distinct people.

According to the Meech Lake Accord in 1990, the Quebec National Assembly would be responsible for protecting the duality and promoting the distinct identity of Quebec. We supported Meech Lake because it was supposed to recognize the distinct identity of Quebec. This provision would not have the effect of lessening the existing powers of the federal government.

Basically, including this in the Constitution would be a way to make up for the affront we suffered in 1982. In 1980, Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said in a speech on May 14, before the referendum on May 20: "We are putting our seats on the line, and if you vote no, this no will mean yes to a new Canada". The result was the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982, with the help of the present Prime Minister.

To take a leaf from the book of the hon. member from Nova Scotia, how can we trust these people? Basically, what did we ask? We asked the judges to consider both concepts, the Canadian duality and distinct society, in their interpretations of the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, the latter including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Prime Minister's baby, as he keeps reminding us in this House.

At the time, the distinct society clause would have limited the centralist and standardizing tendencies of the Charter. When the Supreme Court ruled that certain sections of Bill 101 were unconstitutional, the Quebec National Assembly would have been able to adopt them again, if the distinct society clause had been accepted.

Another important event, with a player we saw during the referendum campaign last October, was initiated by the Charest report named after the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who is often conspicuous by his absence from this House, and the Charest report goes back to-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, if I have heard him correctly, the hon. member is not allowed to comment on a colleague's absence from this House. I would ask

the hon. member not to comment on any member's presence or absence.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, you have been vigilant and I withdraw my comment.

In the Charest report, in May 1990, the desire was to lessen the scope of the distinct society concept, particularly by stating that the distinct society clause did not in any way diminish the effectiveness of the charter.

Right from the start, in May 1990, it was obvious that certain provincial premiers were uncomfortable with the idea of a distinct society. From then on, the Meech Lake accord began to experience some difficulty.

According to certain premiers, the semi-official nature of the distinct society concept could have led to the Canadian courts' not using that clause in interpreting the Canadian Constitution. Then came the Charlottetown accord in which the constitutional importance of the distinct society was watered down into a set of eight fundamental characteristics defining Canada. How could the courts have seen their way clear in all of that?

We were led to believe that the notion of a distinct society ranked higher than the other fundamental characteristics. But the overall sparseness of the Charlottetown accord shows that the notion of a distinct society would not have had any real effect. This was already an indication that it was an empty shell. And that is why Quebecers voted no in the October 26 1992 referendum on Charlottetown, because they considered that it did not give enough to Quebec. The other provinces voted against it as well, but because they considered that it gave too much to Quebec. Imagine!

I have just given a brief overview of Meech 1, Meech 2, the Charest report, Charlottetown. I have never seen a box wrapped in Christmas paper without something inside, but such is the case with the propositions of the Prime Minister, his Liberal team, and the "learned committees" he has set up to show Quebecers how much he loves them.

Nothing in this motion recognizes Quebecers as a distinct people. As we know, a motion of the House of commons has no legal value, let alone a constitutional one. The motion introduced by the Liberal government is an empty shell and will no legal or political impact. It is an act of panic aimed basically at deceiving those who want real changes to Quebec's status.

Fortunately, Quebecers can see through all this and can pick out what is truly good for them. The Prime Minister's reaction in introducing this motion tells us there is a terrible threat. He kept the phrase "distinct society" because it would have been difficult to do otherwise, but he did all he could to strip it of its meaning. Just imagine. The Liberal government's proposal was considered unacceptable even by Quebec Liberals, whose leader, Daniel Johnson, recently asked that the distinctive character of Quebec be entrenched in the Constitution.

The definition of distinct society proposed by the Prime Minister is identical to the one contained in the Charlottetown accord, which was rejected by a majority of Canadians and Quebecers alike. Furthermore, the definition proposed by the Prime Minister does not go as far as the one initially proposed in the Meech Lake accord. How could anyone in this House believe that we could not oppose such a motion? Come on. We are not idiots.

The government's motion to recognize the distinct nature of Quebec cannot, in any way, be considered an adequate response to the changes demanded by Quebecers during the October 30 referendum. We have to remember that last October Quebecers voted in favour of sovereignty in a very large proportion and that a majority of Quebecers, including some who voted no, were in favour of a comprehensive renewal of Canadian federalism.

Given that my time is almost up, I would like to tell you that we are in favour of sovereignty for the people of Quebec and that it is out of the question for Quebecers to negotiate agreements that even Daniel Johnson called, when referring to manpower training, cut-rate agreements.

Clearly, the federal government's proposals give nothing to Quebec.

To conclude, like many I think that we have to be careful not to undermine whatever good faith remains between the various parties. On the contrary we should create links which will bring us to a partnership-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but the member's time is up. The hon. member for Chicoutimi has the floor.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true, we are all taking part in a historical moment in this debate, because this moment marks federalism's inability to renew itself.

I never thought I would rise in this House to speak on anything so empty as this debate on Quebec's recognition as a distinct society. This motion by the government is essentially an exercise in futility. It is a complete and utter void.

Since October 30, improvisation has reigned supreme in this House, so much so that it is giving the Quebec Ligue nationale d'improvisation pretty stiff competition.

Before October 30, constitutional matters were systematically off topic. We kept being told that Canadians wanted to hear about

the economy, work, jobs and job creation. But, surprise, the day after October 30, the sovereignist project was within a hair's breadth of becoming a reality.

A few days later, the federalist camp reacted hastily in the face of a potential victory by the yes side. In Verdun, we had the pleasure of a speech by the Prime Minister, which brought back memories. In 1980, on the eve of another referendum, another Prime Minister came to Quebec to make promises. The current Prime Minister was on the dais with him.

On October 30, the federalist camp heaved a sigh of relief. The reality of the matter is something else, however. With their slim victory, the federalists no doubt consulted each other and decided to act. And what a reaction! I said before that this smacks of improvisation. Two committees were created here. But, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister himself announced the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. To hell with the committees, he sidestepped his own creations and everybody else.

The distinct society motion, as it stands, is nothing more than meaningless words. It is a smoke screen. In fact, it is only a motion of the House of Commons, which could be easily overturned at the whim of any federal government. There is nothing in the Constitution that recognizes Quebec as a distinct society. All this motion means is that, in the future, it will be possible to tell Quebecers you are distinct. Are you not happy? You are distinct. But giving Quebecers the means to act distinctly is out of the question. And it is even more unlikely that the Liberal government would try its hardest to have this distinctiveness recognized in the Constitution. Again, this would be too much to ask.

But, to think of it, what else could we expect from a Prime Minister who himself said last September, in this House, that everybody knew that Quebec was distinct and, consequently, that it did not have to be enshrined in the Constitution. If this is how he reads last week's motion, then it is justified. If that is how he understands the motion he tabled last week, this motion is justified.

The Prime Minister would certainly need a history lesson. History shows that every time the federal government wants to do something for Quebecers, it waters down its promises. This is akin to using the same coffee grounds to make five or six pots; what remains at the end of this process is like dishwater. That is what the government is doing with this resolution. First Meech, then Charlottetown, and now the 1995 resolution. There is nothing left. Indeed, there is not much left. This merely encourages the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of the recognition that Quebec is a distinct society.

Unlike some Liberal members, we see the past as important. There is a famous saying that what goes around, comes around. Quebecers know their history. They also know what they want. The Prime Minister's motion will go down in history mostly as another insult to Quebecers' intelligence, as an attempt to convince them that a simple resolution would finally settle the issue.

This government is forgetting something else. Quebec's motto is "Je me souviens". On October 30, some Quebecers decided to give Canada a last chance. It was the last chance. Once again, they thought that Canada would recognize them as a people and give them the powers that go along with being a people. Unfortunately, they were once again in for a disappointment when they saw what was really being proposed: a resolution that sets us back even further.

This resolution was put together in a mad rush because the Prime Minister knows full well that he will be questioned by the official opposition. While, in 1980, Quebecers were represented by 74 Liberal members in the House of Commons, in 1995, it is quite a different story, since 53 Bloc members have been given the mandate by the people of Quebec to look after their interests. The Prime Minister knows full well that if he tries to delude Quebecers into believing that he is delivering the goods, we will be there to condemn him for it. The mandate we have been given by the people of Quebec was clear and it has become even clearer since October 30.

Where I come from, we have a saying that goes: "Rude awakenings are to be expected on the morning after". Never has the saying ever been so true as in the case of the aftermath of the October 30 referendum. At the beginning of my remarks, I indicated that I never expected to have to speak on such a meaningless thing, and I am sure that the people of my region agree.

This is another history lesson that Quebecers are not about to forget. It is also a lesson for those who thought they would give a last chance to Canada. But by dint of remembering, the people of Quebec will take action. I have no doubt about that. One day soon we will start writing the history of the people of Quebec.

The resolution put forward by the Prime Minister is tasteless, colourless and odourless. Anyone who believes that Quebecers are a people must reject it.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell you that I am splitting my time with the member for Ottawa-Vanier.

I have been torn as I thought through what I might say tonight on this resolution. I am profoundly saddened that I am standing here and talking on this issue at this time in our history. We have so many issues to deal with in this country. However we are once more drawn back into a debate that at its roots is not going to put

bread on the table, is not going to do anything to alleviate poverty, is not going to create a job, is not going to enhance the capacity of people to work, to learn or to earn. It is a debate that if I understand what the members of the Bloc have been saying tonight is based on a constant bringing forward of a history that has not served them or the rest of Canada particularly well.

What confuses me as I think about it is that shortly after I was elected to this Chamber I had several opportunities to travel into Quebec; one as a student in Jonquière. I spent some time there at the CEGEP studying French and meeting with the Bloc member for Jonquière who most hospitable. He took me around, showed me his constituency and introduced me to people there. We had wonderful discussions about what Canada needed to do to deal with the debt, with social programs and with all of the kinds of things that we talk about all across the country.

Some time after that I had an opportunity as a member of the HRD committee to go into Montreal, Quebec City, Lévis and Rivière-du-Loup to talk to people and receive submissions, in particular, about unemployment insurance but really all of the social programs that were encompassed in that rather large review.

Three members of the Bloc toured with us across Canada as part of that committee. We started in Vancouver and travelled right across the country. What struck me about that experience is that when we got away from the opening moments of the hearings, when the organized groups would come in and demonstrate, wave and shout and scream in Vancouver, in Toronto and in Montreal, and sat down with people to talk about what they were concerned about and what did they wanted to see the government do and what were the issues they wanted us to confront, I did not hear the word "Constitution", I did not hear the word "embarrassment", I did not hear the word "insulted".

I heard people talking about how we can help our kids get an education, how we can build skills, how can we find jobs. I heard people in Lévis and Rivière-du-Loup talking about being very concerned about their future and about the fact that their children were having to move out of town to find work. I heard unilingual French people saying the same things in those communities as unilingual English people were saying in Saskatchewan, Alberta and in my own province of Manitoba.

I do not mean to make light of what occurred. Any time 50 per cent of any area votes to leave a country that is as strong and wonderful as Canada, there is a problem.

I have talked about this with members of the Bloc. Lots of conversations go on in this House, some of them across the floor like tonight. I have a conversation two or three times a week in the gymnasium with the member for Quebec-Est. We talk about what is at the root of the concerns that is driving people in Quebec to want to leave Canada. I have had many long talks with the member for Mercier about her views of social programs in Canada or in Quebec. Frankly they are very consistent with my views of social programs in Quebec. To try to understand what is driving this desire to break up this country is something that has been very difficult for me.

I want to share with the members of the Bloc something that I hope will help their understanding of the feelings in other parts of Canada about this issue. When the Meech Lake accord failed to pass the Manitoba legislature, I was the House leader for the opposition. When the constitutional amendment was brought to Manitoba, there was a very detailed and thorough public examination of the proposals.

A committee was struck, with representatives from all three parties in the legislature. That committee travelled all over Manitoba. Committee members went to Indian reserves in the northern part of the province. They went to small rural communities in the north, the south, the east and the west and they spent many days in the city of Winnipeg, allowing Manitobans to come forward and speak to them about their feelings on the Meech Lake accord.

As a result, Manitoba put forward some amendments to the accord as it was then struck. When I hear the language used by previous speakers here about how people did not respect Quebec and how that was an insult to Quebec, I want to tell them that subject never came up in these hearings.

The Meech Lake accord says in subsection (2)(i):

The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with

(b) The recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.

(3) The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec-

That was what the Meech Lake accord said if I understood the members opposite correctly.

After holding hearings all over the province, after researching it, considering it, debating it, this is how the three parties in the Manitoba legislature said the clause should read:

The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that the following constitute fundamental characteristics of Canada:

(d) Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society;

In the Meech Lake accord the recognition is that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society. The recommendation of all parties of the province of Manitoba was that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.

My province has recognized and supported that fact since 1990. This resolution, which calls on the House to recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada, is simply consistent and affirms the very statements that the member holds up as an example of the things that Quebec wanted. It is the very thing that the three parties in the legislature and the people of Manitoba were prepared to support and the very thing that the Prime Minister asks us to support now.

When I look at the role we have as legislators, there are six practical things we do. We pass, amend or rescind legislation. We deal with expenditure or the withholding of expenditure, the cutting of expenditure. We regulate. However, there is an intangible thing we are called on to do in this Chamber and that is provide leadership.

It is time we began to talk about not how we drive this country apart, but how we pull it together, how we collectively provide some leadership that will improve the lives of people in this country, not harm them.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

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.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Motion No. 26, which is the motion put forward in the House by the Prime Minister. I will oppose the motion unless it is amended, as was suggested by my leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

I am concerned that the federal government has used closure to limit debate on something as important as how Canada functions, how we respect and treat one another, and whether or not the principle of distinct society is a worthwhile course for us to follow as a nation.

The whole idea of using closure, or time allocation, has been addressed many times in the House. I will not condemn it at length. I will just repeat that I believe it is wrong. I know that members opposite, when they sat in opposition, declared that it was wrong. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands called it morally wicked if the Mulroney government introduced time allocation and closure. Yet the Liberal government has introduced this procedure far more often than the Conservatives did under Mulroney. The Liberals do not even bat an eye. They think there is nothing wrong with limiting debate on important issues that do not need to be dealt with in an emergency when the national good is at stake.

When we talk about distinct society it brings back memories. I first remember hearing this phrase discussed in the debate on the Meech Lake accord. Perhaps it was coined before that, but I was not aware of the phrase until the Meech Lake debate. Subsequently, it was a bone of contention when the Charlottetown accord was put forward and voted on in a national referendum in Canada and defeated.

It is interesting that the reason the Meech Lake accord never did pass is because of a member who sits in our midst. While there was opposition to the Meech Lake accord in the province of Newfoundland with its premier and there was resistance in the province of Manitoba with the government there, the one member at that time in the Manitoba legislature who probably had more impact on bringing down the Meech Lake accord than any other Canadian was the hon. member for Churchill, who now sits in this House.

It is interesting that the member for Churchill, in recognizing other problems the aboriginal people of Canada face, has called a sacred assembly. As a people they are doing some soul searching. They are even looking for inspiration from higher powers than themselves to solve problems facing the aboriginal people.

Maybe if we as a nation started to reflect on the one we recognize in our Constitution as the supreme authority, perhaps we would be better off than spending all this time trying to confer special privileges, rights, or distinct society, whatever that may mean, on a group of individuals. The Constitution calls upon us to recognize the supremacy of God. If we have the correct interpretation of how this almighty person looks upon the world, he looks upon us with the same eyes regardless of our language, our race, or our culture. I believe we are all equal before him. We are all special, but certainly I do not expect he would suggest that any of us are distinct or in some way deserve privileges the rest of us do not.

I want to talk a little about why I am concerned about the phrase distinct society. I am a little concerned about how it may be interpreted in the future. Quite frankly, I do not trust the Liberal government when they propose that this really does not mean anything.

I am reminded of a Liberal politician in the past who when he spoke in western Canada would not speak in glowing terms of the national energy program. This subject seldom came up because this Liberal, being a fairly knowledgeable and experienced politician, realized that western Canadians were aware that the national energy program had siphoned billions of dollars out of the western Canadian economy and into the federal treasury and the same proportional benefits were not returned to the people who owned the natural resource. Natural resources of course are a provincial jurisdiction.

This same experienced Liberal politician would go into Atlantic Canada, far away from the west, and expound on the virtues of the national energy program. I saw this on television one day. The wonderful thing about television is that sometimes it captures the things you say and it is recorded and broadcast in other parts of the country.

I realize that we have to be careful that we are consistent with our message in all parts of Canada when we are dealing with an issue, whether it be the national energy program or whether it be distinct society.

I have the uncanny feeling that when we are talking about distinct society the message being conveyed to the province of Quebec is not the same message that is being conveyed to other parts of Canada. The message to Quebec is that this will meet their aspirations. This somehow will confer on them some feeling of being a nation, meet demands that have been made by the separatists. Somehow these demands will be met and their feelings of nationalism will be appeased by recognizing them as a distinct society.

Then in the rest of the country the message is a bit different: Distinct society does not really mean anything, it is just an acknowledgement of something that already exists; it is no big deal, nothing to be worried about, and it might keep the country together.

I doubt that very much. It does not seem to make sense to me that you can convey one message to Canadian citizens in the province of Quebec and another message outside of the province. Something does not fit. Rather than question the message, we have to question the messenger. I do not think they are dealing a fair hand to Canadians when they describe the distinct society.

We really have to be concerned about how this term distinct society will be interpreted in the future. We can sit in this House and the government and the Prime Minister can say distinct society means this or that. But we know this term will be interpreted in the future by the courts and by future governments, so we have to be concerned about how distinct society is defined.

Actually I cannot find any place in Motion No. 26 or in any other information that tells us exactly what distinct society means in this case. We are told it includes the French-speaking majority. It does not say anything about any other Quebecers. We are told the House will be guided by this distinct society phrase. We are told the House will encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

To me that sounds like a blank cheque. That is saying let us adopt the phrase "distinct society", hang it over the door of Quebec, and then we will try to pursue it with diligence and all our effort without knowing really what it means. We will interpret that in the future. We will let future politicians and future governments, perhaps even separatist governments, define the phrase distinct society for us. Just trust us, it will work out all right, that is what they are saying.

That concerns me very much as a Canadian, because I realize that when we are talking about the future of our country we are not talking about today only. We are not even talking about the people who make the decisions in this House and in the legislative assemblies of the provinces across the land. We are talking about the decisions that will be made in the future by parliamentarians and by people in the various legislatures, including possibly a separatist government in the province of Quebec.

In conclusion, I want to deal with this whole idea of conferring special status or rights on any group of society. Why would we do that? There are three reasons we might do that. The first reason is because these people are inferior to us and they need some kind of assistance. I do not accept that for the province of Quebec. I see them as my equals. Secondly, we can say that they are superior and they deserve some special status. I do not accept that either. I see them as my equals. Thirdly, we could say that because some of their ancestors were here before some of our ancestors they deserve a higher rung on the ladder. I do not accept that. Wherever we come from, we should all be treated equally. None of us should have any special status conferred upon us. Therefore, unless we accept the Reform amendments I cannot support the motion.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 26 today, as it will have a profound impact on the future of our country if it is adopted.

Let me state my position quite clearly. As a Reformer, as an Albertan, as a Canadian, and as someone who considers Canada as home, I cannot support distinct society for any province. I cannot support elevating one province over another, and I am not prepared to separate the haves from the have nots. I believe in equality and fairness for every man, woman, and child in this country regardless of their race, colour, creed, origin, or abilities.

To say that this motion is ill-conceived is a euphemism of the first order. This motion is an unmitigated disaster, an affront to the House, a disgrace to the country, and misrepresents all Canada stands for.

It is our duty today to govern this country with democracy, freedom, and equality as our guiding lights as we build on the past and lay the groundwork for the future generations. We have to be accountable for our actions today, just as those in the past have been judged by history for their actions.

There have been defining moments in history that were hailed as great achievements, yet history found them to be shallow and empty gestures that in hindsight would have best been left undone. I think of 1938, when Mr. Chamberlain promised us peace in our time as he waved a document that was, as I called it, a one-sided agreement. One year later, his proclamation for peace was trampled under the jackboots of an army that marched across Europe.

In 1982 prime minister of the day proclaimed a new Constitution for this country that he said would last for 1,000 years. But that Constitution did not have the signature of Quebec, and like Mr. Chamberlain's declaration for peace in 1938, this Constitution was a one sided agreement.

I hear the historians of tomorrow calling this motion a one sided agreement that will not stand 1,000 years and will not even buy peace in our time. Today we are debating a motion which the government promises will bring peace and harmony to the country. As in 1938, the motivation for this motion is appeasement, not resolution. This is an offer to Quebec, not an agreement with Quebec.

Let us look at the proposed motion. The government wants the House to affirm a distinct society in the province of Quebec. Distinct society is not defined. Those who have demanded recognition as a distinct society in these last few years have not demanded recognition as a medal to be worn with pride but as a lever to exert more power, more advantage and to receive preferential treatment at the expense of the rest of Canada. Let us not lose sight of that fact.

The government mistakenly believes that talking about an issue, making statements about an issue, is equivalent to resolving the issue. Our debate today is a prefect example of that hypocrisy. In passing this motion the Prime Minister believes he will have achieved peace in our time. We know today Quebec is not satisfied. We know today the leaders of the separatist movement in Quebec will brush this gesture aside and march on.

What faith do we have today that this agreement will buy peace within Canada, harmony within Canada and build the structure for a united Canada while the forces of separation organize and marshal their resources for another assault on the unity of the country? We have none.

Alberta and British Columbia have been vocal over the years in their demand for change within this united federation, but they have voiced their concerns in a true and democratic way of working in a positive manner to achieve change. Both of these provinces are designated as have provinces within the equalization formula. Both of these provinces have contributed billions over the last few decades to the promotion and protection of this Confederation while they continue to live up to their commitments without demands that they receive the benefits equal to their contribution to the country.

If we are to have peace we need goodwill and commitment by the parties involved, not a simple, frivolous motion debated in the House produced at the whim of the government, all in the false hope that one single motion is a panacea to several decades of dissent.

The Reform Party has proposed three simple amendments to this motion to give it strength and focus. First, the government is asking that we recognize Quebec as a distinct society. We as Reformers say that is fine provided we recognize this is not to be used as a lever for more power and privilege at the expense of other provinces. Surely our amendment confirms the very heart of any federation, any family and any society that wants to survive today: equality for all.

Second, we recognize the French speaking majority, culture and legal traditions in Quebec. They are a fact of life which exist each day. However, we also recognize the great promise of the new

world which guarantees equality for all regardless of who we are, what we are and where we came from.

Third, while we undertake to be guided by the reality of a distinct society and recognize that fact, we also undertake to be guided by the reality and recognize that this nation is one nation, from sea to shining sea.

Changes to the Constitution and the devolution of federal powers is a manageable process, but it is being managed in a most disgraceful manner by the Liberal government. The Reform Party knows that Canada can work together, will work together and, with real leadership in the country, will stay together. Leadership requires vision and a clear statement of the way to the promised land.

In the face of the challenge to break up the country the Reform Party has responded with a call to action with a plan and a program. A strong and proud Canada will move forward only when the leadership of this great nation articulates a clear vision for the country which is created by, endorsed by and supported by the large majority of Canadians and provinces.

This motion, in the way it is presented, is not the answer.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to enter the debate on Motion No. 26, which would recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

As we listen to the opposition parties we are wondering just what we are doing here. A distinct society will not cause the price of gasoline to go up. It will not affect our paycheques. It will have little or no effect on the lives of Canadians.

I have taken the opportunity to do a mailing to the constituents of Durham. I am happy to say that a good many of them are responding on how they feel about this issue. Their main concern is they want to keep the country united and strong. However, they have limitations. They do not think it should be done at any price. They are concerned that we respect the civil rights of all people in Canada. This motion will not inhibit the civil rights of individuals within the province of Quebec.

People are prepared to recognize each other as being distinct. However, it is an unusual concept for a society to recognize one element as being distinct. Clearly that means the other elements must also be distinct. There is a polarization of understanding. I believe that is healthy. It is useful within our system.

As I was coming to the House tonight I thought about all the debates and arguments caused by these two words in the last two or three decades. I wondered what would happen if we all collectively went to bed tonight and got amnesia. We would forget about our past. We would forget about our history. We would forget about we were doing when we lived together.

What would happen when we woke up tomorrow morning? We would find that we still have this huge country, the second largest nation in the world. We would discover that within that nation there were different linguistic groups: some French, some English, some others.

We would find that over a certain period of time they had entered into agreements with each other, individuals. That is all government is about, contracts and agreements between people.

We would discover that we had built a caring society, that we had developed medicare systems, unemployment insurance systems, pensions for our elderly. We had built all of these things, a social fabric, and we called it Canada.

We also did some other things. We also borrowed a lot of money to pay for some of these social programs in periods when our revenues could not sustain them. We would discover as we opened the books that we had huge debts; some of them federal, many of them provincial, but all culminated in a huge bill we all had to pay.

Having looked at these aspects, we would also see we had inherited tremendous resources. We had inherited the forests, the mines, the rivers. We had inherited a country of mountains, of lakes, from sea to sea to sea, and that we all together shared this great nation.

It seems to me we would be hard pressed to discover what we did not like about each other. We would be quite respectful with each other and humble to live in such a country. We would discover we were willing to respect the cultural integrity of the numerous groups that live within that country; that our objectives were not to overpower or overwhelm another culture but to co-exist.

I am sure we would look at the calendar and would see we were approaching the 21st century. We would look at our debts and we would look at our resources and we would try to see how we can live together and work together as we approach the 21st century. I am sure we would find a solution for that.

The other side of the coin is we do not have amnesia and so what have we forgot? We probably forgot the negative parts of our history. We forgot about the Plains of Abraham. We forgot many other aspects about the existence of Canada today. We probably forgot about some of the symbols we display so proudly, which are really symbols of a bygone day. They are symbols of our heritage, and not something we want to get rid of; we want to evolve as a nation.

It is clear to me as I travel throughout the country that people no longer understand what the governor general stands for or represents. Ever since being elected to this place, one of the things I enjoy doing, at least initially, is going around to our high schools and presenting the governor general's award. The governor general's award is presented to the highest scholastic student in a

secondary school each year. I have many high schools in riding and I do many of these events.

When I am handing out that award I ask those people to name the governor general. In two years none of these academics has been able to name the governor general. If our institutions of government have become so irrelevant maybe they should be changed.

If we want to enter into and renew our partnership links, both of these cultures have to adjust for each other. I question some of my brethren in other parts of the country who want to cling to the status quo, our symbols of the past.

Two days ago I was surprised to hear my Reform colleagues arguing about changing the coat of arms of Canada in such a way that it states we want to work toward a better country. Can we imagine wanting to stick to the status quo to the point where we could not see that simple change as being useful? I would like to change a lot of other things in the country. I know many people respect the monarchy. Indeed that is part of our past and is something we cannot erase.

It is time to change some of the symbols of Canada. I have no problem with our currency reflecting distinctly Canadian symbols.

It was interesting to watch the referendum in Quebec. It was my privilege to be at the Montreal rally and see the oui signs which showed that side of the loonie depicting the Canadian loon. I ask some of my colleagues in the House whether that tells us something. Does it not tell us that if we want to evolve as a country we clearly we have to evolve together?

It would be very good if we could all get collective amnesia, put to one side some of the things in our past that we are not happy with and recognize the true strength and wealth of the country. Basically we should get along together. We have many problems. Our deficit is a tremendous burden. It is much like having a huge mortgage in a marriage and not being able to afford a divorce.

The people out there should remember that we are not talking about giving away the farm. There is very little expense, but the bottom line is that it is time to change our nation.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to the resolution which recognizes that Quebec is a distinct society because of its majority French language, its culture and its civil code legal system.

A month or so ago our country was brought to a precipice by the referendum in Quebec. As I campaigned in Quebec during the referendum, as I talked to people in Quebec and thought about what was happening there, it was frightening that we had failed to understand each other. People outside Quebec did not have a good understanding of the concerns of Quebecers, how sincere they were in their concerns about the preservation of their language and culture within this huge sea of English that is North America. With the huge English area surrounding Quebec, including the U.S. and the rest of Canada, Quebecers have a very real concern about it.

I found a lack of understanding among some francophone Quebecers of the point of view of people outside Quebec and of their love for Quebec. There was a misunderstanding among them of how the rest of Canada would react to a yes vote in Quebec. The consequences would have been severe for all of us. Certainly there was a failure among Bloc members to recognize that.

This reminds me of the fact that we almost lost a great country.

We must remember that Canada's position in the world is a very important one. It is one that is widely respected. Why is that? We are respected as a peacemaker and a peacekeeper around the world. We are respected because we provide an example to the world of living peacefully with differences. It is a great example. We are respected widely for our exercise of the art of Canadian compromise.

A few weeks ago I was watching a CBC television program during which Allison Smith was interviewing Israeli prize winning author Amos Oz. It was interesting to hear him talk about his work. His novels have always tried to bring together the two sides, the Palestinians and the Israelis.

He was talking about the need for compromise and the need to work out solutions in that country. He talked about the example of the Israelis and the Palestinians. He pointed out that on the one hand the Israelis had always looked upon the land in the area of the West Bank as being very important to their nation and a very important part of themselves. It is essential to them to have that land for their country. On the other hand the Palestinians look at that land as being essential to their nation, an essential part of themselves.

As he pointed out often, we feel we have a misunderstanding but if we talk enough we can work out the problem. However there was not a lack of understanding on the two sides. There was an understanding but the problem was that they both wanted the same thing. There was an impasse and a conflict.

As he also pointed out, when people realize there is that kind of conflict eventually they come to the realization that the only

logical, rational response is a compromise. His phrase was that compromise is life and life is compromise.

Surely any of us who is married will understand that is true. Life is full of compromises. Certainly a marriage is made up of compromises. How can we have one without compromise? It is a very important part of a healthy marriage. Compromise is an important part of living with differences, as is all of life.

We have to recognize that we have different points of view in the country and that we have to find compromise between those points of view.

Some people have the idea that the country is made up of two founding linguistic groups. We also have the point of view on the other side that suggests that we are 10 equal founding provinces. These are two different points of view. Somewhere in the middle we have to find some common ground.

We have the history of the Maritimes. In 1867, the two big provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, joined with Quebec and Ontario in the Confederation. At that time, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had very powerful economies, stronger than Ontario and Quebec. Obviously, from our point of view, in Nova Scotia for instance, the agreement involved equal provinces, equal partners.

But there must be an understanding of the historical links between Lower and Upper Canada, Ontario and Quebec, with their two main language groups. Those groups joined forces to create this country. The two are part of one reality. Neither one nor the other represents reality; the two together do. But there are different understandings of what this country is, and it is difficult sometimes for those who understand things one way to understand the other point of view.

I want to talk for a moment about the word distinct which was dealt with in the resolution. According to the definition in The Concise Oxford Dictionary it is an adjective and has three different meanings: 1 a not identical; separate; individual. b different in kind or quality; unlike. 2 a clearly perceptible; plain. b clearly understandable; definite. 3 unmistakable, decided.

A lot of francophones do not realize that in English the word distinct is often thought of in terms of the word distinguished, which suggests some sort of superiority or a heightened level. When we talk about a distinguished person, it is a person who has achieved a high level in life. In the past that has created a problem in Canada.

The difficulty with defining the word "distinct" is to make both sides, anglophones and francophones, see that it is used differently in both languages. That was a problem I encountered when I visited Quebec. I was talking with some students at Saint-Jovite and a girl asked me "Why do the anglophones not look up the definition of the word "distinct" in a French dictionary. In French, it means "different"; there is absolutely no suggestion of superiority".

But back in Nova Scotia, in my riding of Halifax West, when I talk to the people from down home, they ask "Why will the francophones not consider the definition and meaning of the word "distinct", because it has a different meaning in English?"

You can see that it is hard to see the other side's point of view, or for them to see ours. It is always hard. The answer is not to separate but to communicate and find a compromise.

Whenever we have an impasse or a deadlock the only solution is a compromise. In the measures we brought forward this week is a compromise. For example, we know that Quebec wanted a veto for itself over constitutional change. We are providing in the system of how we govern the federal government's approach to the matter a veto to four regions, not just to Quebec. We also recognized in the resolution that Quebec is a distinct society because of its culture, its language and its civil code. This is an important compromise for the country. Together they form an important compromise position that will help us bridge toward the constitutional conference in 1997.

This is not a constitutional change. Constitutional change is not precluded or prevented by these measures. It will be up to those who meet at the conference in 1997 whether or not they wish to make future changes to the Constitution. That is left to the future for now.

People in my area are saying: "Let's deal with it quickly. Let's deal with it in a nice, clean manner and set it aside for now so we can focus on the real problems of the country".

Is Quebec distinct? If Quebec were to separate it would be as distinct as Mexico from the other provinces of Canada. It has a different language and a different culture in many ways, not in every way, from the rest of Canada. The majority language there is different. We cannot say that about any other province. It is clearly distinct in that way.

Does this make Quebec superior? No. Does it recognize and celebrate our differences? Yes, it does.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the motion to recognize the distinct nature of Quebec society.

Before speaking on the motion, as such, I would like to refer to a short passage from the Practical Guide to Private Members' Business , which defines a motion. It says that the effect desired is the first consideration in deciding between a bill and a motion, that in passing a motion-as is the case here- stating a resolution, the House expresses a wish without committing the government to a particular measure or direction.

A wish is expressed, which does not commit the government to a particular measure or direction. It is important to remember that this is what the motion is directed at. The guide goes on to say that, on the other hand, a bill passed by Parliament may have major implications for both the government and the public.

But there is no cause for anxiety. This is not a bill, it is a motion, that is, a wish that does not commit the government to a particular measure or direction, in other words, it does not amount to much.

I would also point out that, in this House, a motion was passed last December 13, which reads as follows: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should officially recognize the historical contribution of the patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic government".

This motion was passed on December 13. What action has been taken to implement this motion since? None, none whatsoever, because it was idle talk that did not commit the government to anything.

Let me remind you that a motion recognizing hockey as our national winter sport and lacrosse as our national summer sport was also passed. What action has been taken since? The Canadian lacrosse team's budget was eliminated. Completely. What good is a motion? It does not mean a thing.

Besides being meaningless, the motion is contradictory to begin with, because it reads, and I quote:

That-the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

"Unique culture". Just this afternoon, my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata asked the Primer Minister the following question:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, government members of the heritage committee maintained that there was no such thing as a Quebec culture-

Now this motion says that we in Quebec have a unique culture. Unique means that it is exclusive to Quebec, if I am not mistaken.

Yet government members maintained that there was no Quebec culture, only one great big Canadian culture. It seems to me that their position flies in the face of the motion these same members are about to vote on.

And what was the Prime Minister's answer?

Mr. Speaker, there is a French culture in Canada, and it is a Canadian culture.

There is only one culture in Canada: the Canadian culture. That is what the Prime Minister said. On the other hand, the motion tabled by the Prime Minister himself, seconded by his Deputy Prime Minister, recognizes that there is a unique culture in Quebec. It reads:

That-the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note-

-it does not say much, "to take note"-

-of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

What did the Prime Minister do this afternoon? Just the opposite. The opposite of what? The opposite of what a meaningless motion says to do. Is there any doubt about that? I will let you be the judge of that, Mr. Speaker.

Yet, during the referendum campaign, the Primer Minister repeated time and time again that he would positively not address constitutional issues, but deal with the real problems instead, namely job creation and deficit reduction. How did we end up debating this motion then? Because they were afraid. They looked at the polls and realized that they were losing ground. Faced with rising support for the yes side in opinion polls toward the end of the campaign and with the possibility of losing the referendum, the Prime Minister suddenly changed his mind. He set up a smoke-and-mirrors operation aimed at convincing the people of Quebec that the federal government was committed to making major changes to the current federal system after a hypothetical no.

The fact that this strategy was improvised from beginning to end was, of course, reflected in the Canadian Prime Minister's ambiguous and meaningless comments in the last days of the referendum campaign. On October 24 in Verdun, he said, and I quote: "Quebecers want Quebec to be recognized within Canada as a distinct society by virtue of its language, culture and institutions. I have said it before and I say it again, I agree". Yet, he tells us today that there is only one culture in Canada, although his motion says that Quebec has a distinct culture. No matter, he has a right to be mixed up.

The Liberal government also felt pressured to deliver on its vague promises to change the federal system following the razor-thin victory of the no side on October 30.

To do so, it set up two phoney committees. One of these committees was chaired by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; its mission was to save Canada. What a nifty little mission.

On November 29, even before the committee tabled its findings, the Prime Minister hastily announced three initiatives aimed at satisfying the desire for change expressed by the vast majority of Quebecers.

As far as recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is concerned, however, these efforts are not very impressive. But, before going any further, allow me to read the motion:

Whereas the people of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of Quebec's distinct society;

(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

Perhaps my French is not so good, but to me "culture- unique" means a culture that is different from others.

(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

In other words, this is just the opposite of what was done this afternoon.

Upon reading the motion, we realize that it is merely a recognition of Quebec society as it is now. It simply reflects a logical conclusion.

Nowhere in this text is there any mention of additional powers being given to Quebec. Even the minister told us that it does not provide powers to Quebec. He is an honest man.

This motion is meaningless. It is merely a symbolic recognition of what we already know, namely that we are different from the rest of Canada. Even the Prime Minister has said so.

The fact is that the recognition of Quebec's distinct nature, as currently proposed by the Liberal government, is light years away from what was proposed in the past.

Indeed, during the 1986-87 federal-provincial negotiations to make Quebec sign, with honour and enthusiasm, the Constitutional Act of 1982, the Liberal Party of Quebec made a demand, as part of its June 1985-86 political agenda. This is for the Quebec Liberals who hold a Liberal party membership: "The Liberal government is asking that a statement be included, in a preamble to the new Constitution, to explicitly recognize Quebec as a distinct society and as a cornerstone for the French element of the Canadian duality".

That was not written by nasty separatists in their political agenda, but by the Liberal Party of Quebec.

These proposals from the Liberal Party of Quebec led to the Meech Lake accord. Although the concept of distinct society in that accord was not worth much, at least it was entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. Moreover, the distinct society clause was interpretative. Therefore, the provisions of the Canadian Constitution had to be interpreted based, among other things, on that clause. Consequently, today's motion on the concept of distinct society is very far from what was agreed to in the Meech Lake accord. There was a minimum of interpretative powers. Today, there are none.

There is nothing of the like being proposed today, besides which the government side is deluding itself into believing that Quebecers will smilingly accept such a ridiculous proposition and undertaking-and I am weighing my words carefully with that choice of adjective.

Where were the people in the Liberal government when the people of Quebec came close to saying yes to sovereignty on October 30, at 49.4 per cent? Do the Prime Minister and his cronies really believe that the people of Quebec will settle for that stuff and nonsense when they came within a hair's breadth of acquiring a country with total control over all of its powers? No. The federal government needs to stop fooling itself and face up to reality.

Quebec is not inhabited by a distinct society, but by a people, the people of Quebec. The men and women of Quebec already know that, and this is why they do not recognize themselves in the meaningless concept of a distinct society. If there is one lesson to be learned from the October 30 referendum, it is that the people of Quebec are on their way to sovereignty.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is both a pleasure and a duty to speak to a motion so well characterized by the previous speaker as wishful thinking, a motion of the House of Commons on the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.

In this country people have long misunderstood the so-called identity of the province of Quebec. Quebec is not a province like the others. It is a people, a nation. It is a nation forged by history, a society that included aboriginal peoples and the many immigrants that came to change that society and be changed by it, that would enrich it and absorb its identity.

Quebec is not a province like the others, and until this fact is recognized other than by a motion on distinct society or some

Charlottetown accord on an equally hollow concept, Quebecers will have no choice but to ensure that in the next referendum, the result will not be 49.9 per cent, which is a close defeat or a close win, but a clear majority.

I hope so, not only for Quebec but also for Canada which as long as this issue is around, will not be able to consider its own potential and problems and guide the development of its economy and its own history in the best interests of Canadians.

We in Quebec claim and will continue to do so, that the best thing for Quebec and Canada would be to agree to a partnership.

We realize that the outcome of the referendum does not give us a mandate to negotiate this partnership immediately. However, Canada should not get the impression that symbolic gestures as frivolous as a motion on distinct society will do anything at all to deal with the problem facing both Quebec and Canada.

In my youth, which, I must admit, was a long time ago, I was very keen on history. History is an impassioned quest for understanding what makes a people and a nation. The Quebec people, the Quebec nation has come a long way since the first French colonists immigrated to Canada, which is an aboriginal name. These French immigrants quickly mixed in.

I need only mention the Carignan-Salières regiment with its many soldiers, mercenaries from every country in Europe. They settled here. When the English conquest left no choice but compliance, their intermixing explains why every historian studying this point in history says that, even at that time, the Canadians or "Canayens", like the Americans, former English settlers, would not have taken long to become independent in a country with a different name.

Fortune, if we can use such a term for the English conquest, dictated that there would be a colony within a colony and that, after all these years, Quebec through its complex but clear and unilateral history, would succeed in making itself felt as a people and a nation, ever increasingly. Increasingly clearly, and certainly since 1960, when, at the end of a period in which middle class business and economics had again taken root after 1760, young people spoke with one voice calling for "maître chez nous" and for "égalité ou indépendance", through the Ralliement pour l'indépendance du Québec, the RIN, or even the FLQ, leading this people, already a fact, to speak for itself. General de Gaulle did no harm either with his "Vive le Québec libre" from the balcony.

Quebec's history has passed through the election of the Parti Quebecois, the failure of the first referendum, a bitter pill for those who had worked so hard. But it was, however, productive, because 15 years later, in 1995, the 1980 referendum almost won.

In these few minutes, it is not possible to express the density of Quebec's history. I want to say that I have tremendous respect for all of the Canadians who are speaking up here, today, and who are attached to their country. I say to them the only way the countries of Canada and Quebec can develop and flourish is through mutual recognition.

It is by mutually recognizing not Quebec's distinct society, which is practically meaningless, but the depth, the profound nature of this people and this nation, of both Quebec and Canada, that we can mutually and collectively prepare for the future by building on a real foundation.

Unfortunately, instead of bringing us closer to a future to which Canadians and Quebecers are entitled, this situation is a setback, because it tries to fulfil a wish that has absolutely nothing to do with the real underlying needs.

I sincerely hope that our position will help Quebecers and Canadians take a real step toward their future.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour of supporting the motion before us today.

I am a Quebecer and it is as such that I associate myself with this motion. I do so because it is in the best interests of Quebec and because it opens the door to a renewed partnership for Canadian partners from coast to coast.

The ideal country does not exist, except in the imagination of certain persons. And we all agree that Canada is far from perfect. It needs to change. It must change to better reflect its own reality.

What is that reality? It is the reality of a vast country with a scattered, diverse population. It is the reality of a country in which regional identities are strongly expressed. It is also the reality of a country in which the francophones are concentrated in one province but a million others are distributed across the rest of Canada.

That is the Canadian reality. Not only must we take it into consideration and recognize it, but our institutions must also reflect this reality if we want this country to work and to achieve its full potential.

On October 30 Quebecers sent us a clear double message. While reaffirming their attachment to Canada, they indicated that they

wanted to see Canada change quickly to reflect their aspirations. We must know how to interpret this message. We must not only take note of it, but we must respond to it in a concrete way or this country will fail.

As the Prime Minister pointed out so well when the motion was tabled, the referendum results have taught us that we must not take Canada for granted. It was in this context that the Prime Minister made three firm commitments on behalf of the Canadian government during the referendum campaign. These three commitments were as follows: to recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada; to refrain from making any constitutional change affecting Quebec without the consent of Quebecers; and to undertake changes to bring citizens closer to services and decision making.

[Translation]

The time has come to fulfil these commitments, to take action. Through the motion before this House, we are starting to give concrete expression to the commitments made by the Prime Minister. By putting it to the members of this House this quickly, the government is showing that it takes its commitments seriously. It is showing how important this issue is, not only for Quebec, but also for the rest of Canada.

Why do Quebecers want to be recognized as members of a distinct society? The reasons are obvious. Quebec is home to a French-speaking majority, a unique culture, and a civil law tradition. Quebec has been built around these essential elements for more than three centuries. Recognizing this is not only acknowledging reality, it is also agreeing that these characteristics of Quebec society must be preserved and nourished in a context where Quebec co-exists in North America with a population of about 300 million anglophones.

To adopt this motion is to recognize that the French character of Quebec must be protected. It is to assert that Quebec must enjoy cultural security. It is to recognize the linguistic duality that is in the very nature of Canada and contributes to its cultural and social richness.

By recognizing Quebec distinct nature and by admitting that the definition of distinct society contained in this resolution is by no means complete, this House is undertaking to let itself be guided by this reality. The legislative and executive branches of government will be encouraged to take this recognition into account in all their activities and all their decisions. This means that this resolution will have a positive impact on the way legislation is passed in this House and decisions are made in federal government departments and agencies.

There is more. The motion before us today is but one of a whole series of government actions. During the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister also pledged not to make any constitutional change without Quebec's consent. That commitment is reflected in the bill recently introduced by the Minister of Justice to provide a regional veto power. Under this bill, any constitutional amendment proposed by the federal government will require the consent of Quebec and the other regions of Canada.

The objective of the motion is clear: to protect Quebec from amendments that might reduce the powers of the Quebec National Assembly. By taking this action the Government of Canada is recognizing that the Government of Quebec, as the only government representing a francophone majority in North America, has a central role to play in the evolution of Canada.

This is a far cry from the so-called meaningless motion referred to by the separatists in recent days. Through this bill, the federal government strengthens the regions, particularly Quebec. We feel it is a first step toward a more flexible and more effective federalism.

It would be wrong to claim that the only purpose of the motion is to meet the aspirations of Quebec. Canada is not a melting pot, nor has it ever been. The issue here is proposals that reflect the deep nature of Canada. The issue here is ensuring not only our national unity but also its harmony and the effectiveness of its institutions.

I have followed the debate on the motion with interest. I have heard the criticisms of the official opposition, which were not really surprising. I have also heard the criticisms of others who claim to be defending Canada while at the same time opposing the motion. To them I would say that it is easy to criticize after the crisis is over. However, what will those who object today say when the separatists mount another attack? I invite them to answer right now, before it is too late.

Canada is a federation of partners. It is by preserving the spirit of partnership and co-operation and by recognizing both our differences and our shared objectives that this country will grow and prosper. The motion we are debating today deals exactly with this concept of partnership. The Canada we all want is a country in which each region has its own specific character and the freedom it needs to express it. That is the essence of what this motion contains.

The definition of a federation is not a grouping of equal partners. The purpose of a federation is to permit the differences of the various parts to be accommodated within one country. Otherwise it is a unitary state. We are not, because we have started as a group of people who were different and who founded a type of government able to accept the differences. It is really unfortunate that there is

now a party which does not agree that the differences the country has are part of its richness and of its wealth.

The motion before the House specifically relates to the concept of partnership. The Canada that we want is a country in which every region will have its own distinctive character and the means to develop it. This is the very essence of the motion.

Canadians want a united country. They are open to changes that will preserve its unity and promote its development, as evidenced by the resolutions recently passed by the legislatures of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, to recognize Quebec's distinct nature.

I am convinced that the majority of Quebecers and Canadians recognize themselves in this motion. I would humbly submit to the Official Opposition, moreover, as well as to the Government of Quebec, that they are wrong to reject it.

Of course the separatists cannot accept propositions with the object of making Canada work better. This is an undemocratic attitude, for it denies the results of the referendum. It also condemns Quebec to immobility and rejection of any improvement to the system. It is thus in contradiction to what most Quebecers want.

We have no illusions about it. Since the Government of Quebec is interested solely in its own option, we shall not engage in constitutional discussions which would be doomed to failure from the word go. But that does not prevent us from taking steps today in the direction Quebecers and all Canadians want us to go. Needless to say, however, if Quebec and the other regions of the country consent, the Government will be open to including the changes contained in this motion in the Constitution.

Every member sitting in the House has the opportunity by voting for this motion to acknowledge Canada for what it is, a diversified country, an open country, a country that has always based its development on accepting and preserving its differences.

For, beyond those differences, the shared values and objectives we have always had as Canadians, regardless of where we live, remain: freedom, tolerance, the creation and distribution of wealth for individuals and regions.

The months and years to come will surely afford us the opportunity for a concrete demonstration of the fact that we go far beyond principles and pious wishes.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to put on the record some of the comments I have received from constituents. They have watched and participated with all of us, or most of us, as a number of members and parties in the House did not participate in the process, in order to reach out to the province of Quebec with most Canadians to set the country back on a path of a unified purpose and commitment to the dream which has made this country the envy of the world.

I would like to publicly thank those from the Prince Edward-Hastings riding who took that long bus trip to Montreal on October 27 to extend their hand and to once again tell Quebecers their Canada included Quebec. It certainly was a contribution I know was well meant and very useful. I thank them for that extra effort as well as the individuals and businesses in the riding that helped to make that possible during that day and during that critical time in the future of our country.

The resolution we are debating is certainly an honest and thoughtful fulfilment of an important commitment the Prime Minister made to the people of Quebec during the referendum debate. We are fortunate as Canadians to have a Prime Minister who displays and portrays very clearly integrity and sincerity in his actions. When he makes a promise to Canadians he fulfils that promise.

The package of unity measures announced and put forward to the House and to Canadians in every province has three parts, as we well know: to recognize within Canada that Quebec is a distinct society; not to proceed with any constitutional change that affects Quebec without Quebecers' consent; and to undertake changes to bring services and the decision making process closer to citizens, initially in the field of labour market training.

This kind of leadership, to put this type of thing before Canadians and before the House, is what is needed today in order to heal the wounds, and the recent wounds, that need to be healed in order to move forward together as Canadians. This motion along with the bill concerning the veto and other actions of the House concerning workforce training measures provide a confident display of national reconciliation.

The motion that addresses the legitimate concerns of the citizens of Quebec in terms of our acknowledgement of the distinctive characteristics of Quebec as a society is only a recognition of the reality there today.

If we analyze the motion by looking at the second part it says very clearly that Quebec includes a French speaking majority. That

is a reality. It says Quebec has a unique culture. That is a reality. It says Quebec is governed by the civil law tradition. That is a reality.

This motion does not give any special status to the people in Quebec. It recognizes one of the things we all say everyday, that our country is made up of many diverse cultures. However, we have six million French speaking people of a unique culture, different from many of the rest of us, in Quebec.

The motion provides them the assurance that the federal government will be guided by the recognition of that distinctness and carries the Prime Minister's personal commitment that he and the government will gladly incorporate into the Constitution, when all the provinces are prepared along with Quebec, appropriate resolutions to do so.

No matter what area we are dealing with, our own riding or an organization we belong to or in the House, we know there are differences. We know there are people who think differently. The important thing, whether in our own families or whether in the larger family of a constituency, a province, a municipality or in the House, is that we recognize and appreciate each other's differences.

We may not always agree but the only way we are to get ahead in a family of any kind, whether it is a family of the House or a family that we call Canada, is to go forward together. We are stronger as we work together to achieve that end. It is a disappointment to most Canadians when we see one political party in the House saying it wants a Quebec without Canada and another political party making it very clear it would be very happy, certainly not upset, if we had a Canada without Quebec.

The concerns that this motion conveys special powers to the province of Quebec or that this motion is an acknowledgement of the Constitution's inability to be flexible enough to accommodate such changes are simply unwarranted.

While this motion has no legal effect, it definitely expresses an important commitment by the elected body that speaks for all Canadians, this body that we are all part of here this evening, and it recognizes an obvious reality without giving the people of Quebec any powers that Canadians elsewhere do not possess.

That is not the intention of this motion. The intention of this motion and the intention and the challenge of the House is to treat all Canadians equally. We also have to recognize Canadians are not all the same when it comes to language, culture and, in the case of Quebec, the law and the civil law code they are governed by.

The Constitution is more than capable of accepting this change, as is the government. The willingness of the Quebec government to make that possible would be a significant help in giving greater weight to this important measure.

I am disappointed that the official opposition and the third party are opposed to this motion, opposed and fail to recognize the diversity of what makes up this wonderful country we are all part of.

The negative contributions to the debate during the referendum by some members of the House, some parties in the House, nearly cost us the country. We cannot stand by and allow that to happen again. It is illogical, narrow minded and not of the national character we have here Canada.

Canada must reassert our strength of purpose and unite our people. This is a commitment the government is prepared to make, and is making. It is the potential of this motion and it will be the legacy of the government and the Prime Minister.

We are a country incredibly rich in culture, resources, beauty, geography and opportunity. I encourage all members of the House to do what we can, individually and together, to make our country even stronger in the future than it is at the present time. I urge all members of the House to support this motion.