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-