Debates of Dec. 6th, 1995

Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with one of my fellow members.

In May 1987 Pierre Trudeau wrote an open letter to the country after the Meech Lake accord was signed. He had this to say about Quebec as a distinct society:

The real question-is whether the French Canadians living in Quebec need a provincial government with more powers than other provinces. I believe it is insulting to us to claim that we do-.The new generation-has no use for this siege mentality in which the elites of bygone days used to cower-.They don't suffer from any inferiority complex, and they say good riddance to the times when we didn't dare to measure ourselves against others without fear and trembling. In short, they need no crutches. Quite the contrary, they know that Quebecers are capable of playing a leading role within Canada.

Mr. Trudeau believed the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society would be a stepping stone to sovereignty, that granting special powers to Quebec would be the end of the Canadian dream. I think he was right.

Call Quebec a distinct society, promise to make government decisions in light of that status, and sovereignists will seize on it to say at last we are recognized as a distinct society, and a distinct society is a nation; we have only one more step to go.

The notion of a distinct society formed the basis of the sovereignty argument in the last referendum campaign and will be used to greater effect next time if this motion passes.

The current Prime Minister's last minute promise of a distinct society was born out of panic. It is a policy of appeasement to sovereignists in Quebec and it stands in opposition to traditional Liberal Party policy.

I agree with Mr. Trudeau about distinct society, but I take issue with his belief that national unity lay in his new Constitution and the charter which would form a federation, as he put it, set to last 1,000 years.

Instead, Mr. Trudeau, by invading provincial jurisdictions, by consolidating power in Ottawa and by starting us down the debt road that has led us to the fiscal crisis we now face as a nation, set in motion a series of events that led us to the brink of separation on October 30. It does not help that our current Prime Minister is so closely associated with the repatriation of our Constitution and being finance minister during the time that this fiscal crisis began.

Federal strategy during the referendum and afterward was put forward by the Prime Minister in the following way. He promised a virtual status quo, even though Quebec had been demanding that the federal government get out of provincial jurisdiction since 1920. The Prime Minister now says he will decentralize some job training to the provinces. It is too little, but it is not yet too late.

Finally, the lack of federal strategy ignores the changing face of Canada. The new Canada is more than just two founding nations. We have come of age in this country. We are no longer simply two founding nations. We are a nation of almost 30 million people and growing. We are a nation of 30 million equal people. There are no longer just two languages, there are many. Canada is more than just two rich and populace central provinces. It is a nation with a growing western economy and a population to match.

In the old Canada, Ontario and Quebec could afford to ignore the western hinterland. However, in 20 years British Columbia will be nearly as populace as Quebec. Alberta and B.C. already have the two strongest economies in the nation. The west is not only a theoretical equal, it sits now at the table as a practical equal with the central provinces.

Liberals seem to be living in the past, in the old Canada. That is why the notion of a distinct society reverberates so poorly in the west. If the Prime Minister wants to give special status to Quebec and this status means unequal powers or unequal treatment of all Canadians, regardless of race, sex, language or culture, then this idea will not sell in British Columbia and the rest of Canada.

That is why we proposed these amendments. It was to make it crystal clear that it does not involve any more powers or any unequal treatment of any Canadians. If he continues to treat provinces unequally, he is starting to drive a wedge in the west where there once was one only at the Ottawa River.

It is fair to say that everyone in this Chamber feels a good deal of pressure today, pressure from their constituents, from party colleagues, from provincial governments and even from people who are yet to be born, because future generations may have to live with whatever we decide. They are in a sense looking for us to do what is right.

I want to say that I regret what is happening in the House. The proverb states: "A house divided against itself cannot stand". At this crucial time in our history, we face a divided House of Parliament, not only between federalists and separatists, which is to be expected, but incredibly we also face a divided House among federalists.

The government seems to claim a certain omniscience on the subject of national unity but the results of the referendum proved it to be sadly mistaken. If at the beginning of the referendum campaign the Prime Minister had brought in the leader of the Reform Party and said: "We both represent legitimate viewpoints of Canadians. We can work out a strategy together. Let us combat the separatists in Quebec", I think the leader of the Reform Party would have co-operated gladly. However, there seems to be no room for compromise in the Liberal ranks.

Instead, the Prime Minister questions the loyalty of Reformers just because they do not agree with the way the Liberal Party wants to fight separatists. Of course this is not true. We are not lacking in patriotism. We simply feel like most Canadians, that we have been shut out of the process and that the strategy is wrong.

What is that process? The resolution came before the House with two days' notice, an hour's notice to the press, a briefing to the Liberal caucus on the same day that the Prime Minister held the press conference. There was no briefing for any other members in the House. There was no public consultation or even consultation with the provinces, many of which reject this notion of distinct society.

Members of the Reform Party, like it or not, represent real points of view of real Canadians. On the Liberal side they may want to ignore the Reform members in the House but the people of Canada who voted for us cannot be ignored. In ignoring the thoughts of Reformers, the Prime Minister is alienating strong federalist forces outside of his own cloistered offices. Yet when the Reform Party protests, the Prime Minister chides them like school children and says: "Shame, shame you're in bed with the separatists". Then he proceeds to offer a constitutional veto to the separatist Government of Quebec.

There is a sincere desire for national unity on the government side of the House. I do not question that. Their tactics are wrong. There is wisdom on this side of the House worth hearing.

I would like to read from Hansard . When I asked the Prime Minister, when he must have known or he should have known that the west would never ever accept this distinct society clause, why he brought it forward, his Minister of Justice rose and said: ``Mr.

Speaker, I do not think we should assume for a moment that the hon. member speaks for the people of British Columbia".

I will say one thing. A slick Toronto lawyer does not speak for the people of British Columbia. If he wants to know what the people of British Columbia are saying, he should come out to the coffee shops, come out to the public meetings, come out to the talk shows, come out anywhere in the west and listen. If he listened he would realize the wedge that he is driving with this motion between British Columbia and the rest of Canada. I do not know why the government is proceeding with this.

The Reform policy is to confront hard and soft Quebec separatists on the one hand by developing realistic answers to the hard questions that the sovereignists like to sweep under the rug. We would detail the costs of separation for Quebecers and make sure that all Quebecers hear them. A huge percentage of voters in Quebec thought that they could vote yes and still have all the benefits of being Canadian. The federal government's failure to detail the cost of separation, to tell them where the rubber meets the road, tell them what they are in for, brought us nearly to the brink of separation on October 30. That is what we should do on the one hand.

On the other hand Reformers would also appeal to Canadian nationalists in Quebec, who represent well over half of the population. We would do this by showing them exactly where Canada can change, that we can devolve programs and responsibilities to all of the provinces equally.

We have detailed 20 separate areas where changes can be made without constitutional change simply by getting the federal government out of areas of provincial jurisdiction. Our strategy would confront the separatists on the one hand and encourage Canadian nationalism on the other and cultivate unity among all federalists across the country by preserving the concept of equality.

It is a reasonable strategy. It will work. I would appeal to all members to drop this disastrous distinct society motion while there is still time. Members should stop casting insults when someone comes up with another idea and maybe see if there is a kernel of truth in it.

I invite all federalists to create a strategy in this House for all members that is not created in the Prime Minister's office. It is time for the west to be brought into the picture. It is time for federalists to work together to tell the separatist Quebecois exactly what they are in for and to offer a new vision for a united Canada.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the consent of the House to split my 10 minutes with the hon. member for Elk Island.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very ill-conceived move on the part of the government. As a matter of fact I believe it is politically motivated solely. The Prime Minister, having totally botched the matter of the referendum and the move on the part of some people from one province to separate from the country is now desperate to show he is doing something. If this was such a good idea he should have done it two years ago and not hastily thrown it into the breach when he was in desperate difficulty.

Members on the other side are telling us over and over that this is going to unify the country. In fact, this distinct society proposal will do nothing but intensify Canada's divisions. In my few minutes I am going to put on the record why I believe this is so.

First, once we concede that Quebec is distinct we have provided an enormous justification for it to be separate. Second, formal recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness in the Constitution is meaningless unless that special recognition also becomes a principle used to interpret the Constitution with respect to this distinct society. The rules by which our country functions would then always be interpreted so as to treat one province as distinct and special.

As a result, that province would have special status and constitutional powers, for if we state that in spite of its being a distinct society, Quebec has no more power than the other provinces, in the end it would be no more distinct than the others. The whole exercise would only be window dressing because Quebec's interests would not be better served by it. Separatists would be able to denounce it as yet another empty gesture and cause disaffection with the federal government to increase, not decrease.

The greatest danger is that giving Quebec distinct society status in the Constitution would almost certainly be interpreted as also giving Quebec special status and constitutional powers. Former Prime Minister Trudeau in 1987 pointed out that Quebec politicians will take the position "that if the Constitution says something it is because a meaning was intended". It is an old principle in lawmaking that legislators usually do not talk without saying something. It can happen, but not when they write laws. Thus we have to suppose that distinct society means something.

Trudeau was also quoted as commenting that if anyone thinks recognizing Quebec as a distinct society means nothing, "you are in for a superb surprise".

Anyone who has studied the courts' interpretations over the last several years of existing constitutional provisions will have no trouble understanding this. Canadians were astonished, for exam-

ple, when our courts told us the Constitution says that if you are extremely intoxicated when you kill someone, you are not guilty of a crime.

While we may intend only to recognize a sociological and historical fact when we amend the Canadian Constitution to designate Quebec as a distinct society, down the road it is clearly open to the courts to affirm that the provision really confers special status and powers on one of the ten provinces, whether it is in the Constitution or in any other legislation, such as the motion which is before us today.

Why would it matter if Quebec was given special status and powers? The simple answer is that it would only intensify Canada's divisions.

First, it would violate the principle of equality. This principle is foundational to the whole characterization of Canada as a democracy, where every citizen has the same rights and the same value. It would be completely unacceptable for some Canadians to be designated as having different or greater rights, different or greater value, than others. In the past we have condemned societies that sought to operate on that tenet. We have declared the very idea repugnant. Would we now find special status for some acceptable in our country? Never.

Second, far from bringing Canadians together, such a move would segregate them and emphasize the differences between them even further. The Prime Minister will attempt to characterize the move to confer distinct society status and a constitutional veto on Quebec as an act of generosity and reconciliation.

Tolerance and kindness have long been praised as traits of the Canadian people. We would not wish to be accused of acting otherwise. However, I believe that Canadians must place reasonable limits on any exercise of generosity. Therefore, we must ask whether it is reasonable to give a separatist government, committed to breaking up the country, a veto over the Constitution of Canada. It will truly result in fundamentally redesigning Canada to give some citizens more say and a greater degree of control than all other citizens.

If a unified Canada is our goal, the only sound course of action is to pursue those issues on which Canadians agree and not those issues on which they are divided. The Reform Party's vision for a new and better Canada is guided by the founding principle of equality of provinces and citizens. It is the only sound basis on which to go forward as a confident and unified people.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am both angry and grieved this evening. I am angry because something which I value so highly, the wonderful country in which we live, is being treated with such indifference by the government. I am grieved because the principles of equality are being violated in the proposed legislation.

I joined the Reform Party and became a member of Parliament because of my commitment to the equality of Canadians. I cannot understand how a government can look back without seeing that the policies of the last 30 years have driven a deep wedge into this country. How can those members then conclude that wriggling around that wedge some more is now going to produce unity? That does not make sense to me.

I am very gravely angered by that. I am grieved by the fact that we are here in a Parliament where we cannot properly and openly discuss this. Whenever we bring forward ideas we get into name calling instead of honestly and openly debating the issues and the principles that are involved.

We have a parliamentary system here that does not respond. There is no mechanism in this Parliament to change what is now being proposed and what is clearly wrong. The reason is that all the members on the government side do not have the freedom to speak and to vote what they truly believe.

I cannot believe that among the 176 members on the other side, not one of them has any serious questions about this legislation. There are four members in the government from Alberta. Every one of us in the Reform Party who is from Alberta has heard from numerous constituents that there are large problems with further bifurcating this country with this kind of legislation. Surely those other four Liberal members in Alberta have heard those same messages. If they have chosen not to listen and not to represent them here because of that nasty party discipline that is exercised in the House, which makes this place ineffective, that makes me very angry. We have here a system of governance that cannot respond to a major crisis in this country because of its archaic systems.

I plead with those members opposite to use their own intelligence, their own analysis, their own convictions, their own beliefs, and stand in the face of this government. Because of their majority, they alone can do it. They are the only ones who can save this country.

If we keep on following the plan that is proposed, it is inevitable that the divisions among us will increase. In this very weak attempt to try to appease one province that has legitimate beefs and instead of listening to the legitimate beefs to offer this little appeasement carrot, they are putting at risk the unity of the whole country. They are doing that with impunity and as if they do not care.

It is a total shame. It distresses me. I really eagerly wish the Liberal members in the House would exercise principle and forget about this policy they have had of voting the way they are told. That will destroy this country.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to repeat the resolution, we are today debating the government's proposal to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.

According to the resolution, this distinct society is defined as including a French-speaking majority in Quebec, which is certainly distinct, since there is no other province in Canada that has such a French-speaking majority; a unique culture in Quebec based on the French language, which is also unique and distinct in Canada; and a civil law system, which no other province has. These are not exclusive traits of the distinct society but simply the high marks.

Let me point out that these three distinctive features that are in the resolution were first recognized and granted by the British in the act of cession of 1763 and in the Quebec Act of 1774. These distinctive features that are attributed to Quebec in this resolution are not new. What we are doing here today is simply restating this distinctiveness in a different way in this century.

Distinct society does not mean superior; it means different. We have in Quebec the civil law. Those in the other provinces have the common law. Neither is superior. They are different. That is what the distinct society clause means.

The distinct society clause does not mean special status. Quebec and all provinces have some special provisions in the Constitution relating to them, and they all in some way have special status, but this is not the meaning or the purpose of the distinct society clause.

Finally, the distinct society clause does not mean more power to Quebec. I submit that those who suggest this are being mischievous, destructive, and misleading. I found it extremely hurtful to hear one Reformer after another continually refer to this resolution as a constitutional amendment with constitutional consequences.

The source of the federal and provincial powers is in the constitutional act of 1867 and the Constitution Act of 1982. In particular, the powers of the federal and provincial governments are in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution of 1867. The only way those powers can be changed, abridged, increased or diminished is by a constitutional amendment. That is the only way they can be changed.

This resolution before the House is not a bill. It is a resolution. It is not a proposed constitutional amendment. To suggest otherwise is misleading the Canadian public, which almost amounts to dishonesty in the House. This is a resolution of the House of Commons. It is not a bill that will lead to legislation. It is not a proposed constitutional amendment. In no way can this resolution augment the powers of Quebec, nor can it reduce the powers of the federal government or any other province. This or another government might want to some day change those powers, but it is not doing it through this resolution.

If the purpose of this resolution is not to grant special status or to give additional power, then what is its purpose? The purpose of the resolution is to assure Quebec that despite its different language, despite its different culture and legal system, we want them with us; we honour and respect them with their uniqueness, with their differences, with their distinctiveness. It is a formal commitment by the Parliament of Canada, representing all the people of Canada, that we recognize they are distinctive and we want them as they are. We do not want to assimilate them, we do not want to blend them. Once passed, the resolution is also meant to be a guide, but it is not legally binding; it is simply a guide.

In many respects the resolution is like the great rally in Montreal on October 27. By that rally Canadians from all over the country, at great expense to themselves, came to Montreal to say that they wanted Quebec to stay in Confederation, that they respected Quebecers as they are, with their differences. But the rally had no legal or constitutional consequences. It did have very strong symbolic and political consequences-not legal or constitutional consequences, but symbolic and political consequences. It is the same with this resolution before the House.

The distinct society clause is saying to Quebec that we recognize its distinct institutions and culture and because of them Canada is a better country. Its consequences are political and symbolic but extremely important, considering the atmosphere of this country today.

I say it makes Canada a better country because Canada with two official languages and two cultures has a great advantage over other countries. These two languages and cultures are great assets, not burdens. Unlike the United States, unlike France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and Japan, which only have one official language, Canada can do business in English and French, can do diplomacy in English and French, research in English and French, write plays, novels, and poetry in English and French, produce television, films, and songs in English and French. It has great universities, libraries, and centres of research in English and French.

This resolution alone will not do the job, but with the veto bill it is a very good start to assuring Quebecers that we accept them as they are with these differences referred to in the resolution and we want them to stay with us.

I urge Canadians and I urge my colleagues in the House to put themselves for one moment in the shoes of French-speaking Quebecers. Here we have an island of approximately 8 million francophones in a North American sea of about 350 million anglophones. Put yourself in that same situation. Reverse the languages. We have 8 million anglophones in a sea of 350 million francophones. They see this situation as putting their language and

culture at risk, their distinct language and culture threatened by the overwhelming majority of the anglophone provinces of the population of North America.

Under the Quebec Act of 1774, French-speaking Quebecers were the majority in that state, although it was a British colony. Under the Constitution of 1791, with Upper Canada and Lower Canada, it was one to one: the French Canadians were equal in population more or less with the Upper Canadians. It was the same under the act of the union; up until 1867 it was Upper Canada and Lower Canada.

Now they are one out of ten provinces and they are a much smaller percentage of the total population. Would my colleagues try to understand this situation, put themselves in the shoes of the French Canadians in Quebec? Try to understand how they might believe with great credibility that their unique institutions would be at risk in that situation.

That is why assurances are required, and the distinct society clause is such an assurance. I urge my colleagues to give it some thought and support it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, there are two members who wish to speak further. We are supposed to stop at 11 p.m. I wonder if the two members who wish to speak could either divide the time or we could not see the clock until each is finished. Would that be agreeable?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Not seeing the clock is fine.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Not seeing the clock is acceptable.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

If my hon. friend from Esquimalt cannot see the clock, I can understand it at this hour. I am sure he and I would be happy to share our time.

In spite of the remarks that were made by some of the predecessors from his party who suggested that those of us on this side of the House were speaking because we felt we had to vote a certain way with the government, let me assure the other members in the House that when we rise to speak on this question we are speaking from the profound desire of Canadians to speak for our country, to speak of how we understand our country and what we are trying to achieve. We may have our differences, but we must understand that together we must try to resolve what is right about our country.

As the great prime minister of this country, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, said many years ago, elections decide everything and answer nothing. The referendum is somewhat like that. It made a decision. It decided that Quebec was to stay in Canada, but it did not answer the question as to under what conditions it is to stay in Canada. It did not answer many of the fundamental questions we are obliged as parliamentarians to review.

I believe profoundly and seriously that the Prime Minister's initiative is not a constitutional initiative but is a realistic initiative. It corresponds to the aspirations of Quebecers. It is a solemn undertaking by this federal House and our executive to be guided in its decisions by a recognition of Quebec's unique culture, linguistic characteristics, and civil law traditions.

When we come to this House, we all come with our various experiences as individuals and Canadians. I was born in Montreal but grew up in British Columbia, in Vancouver. Most of my family still lives in Vancouver.

I am there regularly. I consider myself a westerner, to some extent, but I now live in Toronto. I had the opportunity and the privilege of teaching at the University of Montreal and McGill University, so I also consider myself a Quebecer.

When I look at the history of Quebec since 1774, since the Quebec Act, since our colleagues rejected Lord Durham's proposal to submerge Quebecers in an English ocean, if I may use that expression, when I look at the history of my country, at great French Canadians like Cartier, Laurier, Saint-Laurent, Trudeau and Chrétien, federalist Quebecers faithful to their people and convinced that federalism is the best way to protect their people's existence. Why can we say that?

Because the province of Quebec has a distinct identity. There is a distinctiveness that makes it different from the rest of Canada. There is Bill 101 which protects the French language in Quebec. Quebec controls immigration to the province, which is not the case in other provinces. Internationally, and I have a particular interest as chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Quebec with its membership in the francophonie and its privileged relationship with France is seen as different from the other provinces.

We can say that in terms of protecting French culture and the French language in North America, for reasons already mentioned by the previous speaker, Quebec already has a different identity, a kind of distinct society. It is a very important asset for us in the rest of Canada. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made an emotional speech the other day about protecting the French language outside Quebec and he really convinced me that I as an Ontarian had a duty to protect the distinct identity and distinct society of Quebec.

I speak as an Ontarian. Can we say as Ontarians and as British Columbians that we have an interest in protecting a distinct society

in Quebec? Does the existence of a francophone majority within a province in Canada enrich the cultural and political life of the country in a way that enables us to be distinct and different?

This is an extraordinary and complex subject. We can say that our colleagues who have spoken earlier in the House are right when they say that British Columbians are distinct. Of course this is true. We are all distinct.

However speaking as I do, coming from Toronto, we recognize that our culture in North America will only survive in the face of North American television and the enormous pressures in which we live on the north-south pole, whether they are economic, environmental or cultural, if we live beside Quebec which is part of us, enriches us and gives us a specificity that is different. We as Ontarians are different because we have Quebec as a distinct society beside us. We as Ontarians live in a country that is bilingual, bicultural and bi-juridical.

I have had experience as a young lawyer travelling outside the country. One of my great privileges was to work as a Canadian in international conferences. People were able to say to me: "You represent a country that represents the civil law and common law traditions. You represent a country which has the Gaelic traditions and the Anglo-Saxon traditions. You are able to act as a bridge in this new world, this interdependent world in which we live. You are able to participate in this world in a way that is different from Americans, British, French and anyone else in the world", precisely because we are Canadians and precisely because we are enriched by the presence of the distinct society of Quebec which forms a part of ourselves. We do not need to reject it. It enriches our experience. We are able to be what we are because we have Quebec as a part of us. We would be poorer if we did not. We would be poorer if we did not have Quebec as a distinct society.

If we look into the 21st century we must recognize that we will be challenged as a people. Whether we come from British Columbia, Alberta, the maritimes, Ontario or Quebec, we will be challenged to adapt to enormously changing conditions. In the course of those changes our adaptation, our flexibility and our ability to be something different will be precisely because we have been able to shoulder together, to partner together with our colleagues in Quebec a linguistic and cultural experience that means we can live and make something work in the country that is different from anything else.

That is why I argue with my colleagues in favour of the distinct society. I respect their difference of opinion. I ask them to respect ours. This is not some political vote. This is a strong belief of people.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

How about inequality?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

There is no suggestion of inequality, as my colleague suggests. Distinct society is not a special status. In recognizing Quebec as a distinct society we do not diminish ourselves. We enrich ourselves. This is not a suggestion of superiority. This is a suggestion of a recognition of a difference with which we live and with which we enrich ourselves by adapting and making a part of our culture.

I realize my time has almost expired. I want to say that in Ontario we have a very large francophone community, whose survival depends on the existence of a distinct Quebec society. A society that contributes to the enrichment of our society in Ontario and to the existence of an Ontario that is distinct from the United States, and I want to say to this House that the existence of Canada as a distinct society depends on our recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.

I will repeat that in English as I believe it very strongly. The existence of Canada and the future of Canada as a distinct society depend upon our willingness to recognize the existence of Quebec as a distinct society within us. That will be our strength. That will be our future. That will be the future of Canada.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a basic principle in a democratic society is the principle of equality for all of its individuals. This principle is being abrogated and trashed by the motion the government is putting forth to give the distinct society clause to one province.

The principle of equality is something that Canada stands for, Canadians have fought for and Canadians have died for. It is the basic tenet of our country and one that this party and Canadians outside Quebec will not stand by and allow to be broken apart.

Canada stands as a beacon of hope on the planet. It stands as a beacon of hope in the global community, a hope for equality, peace and tolerance. That is what Canada stands for. Yet the course the government is taking is abrogating that and violates the very principle of equality we stand for.

Rather than leading us down the road of unity, it is leading us down the road to disunity. The government is balkanizing the very country that stands as a beacon of hope for unity and tolerance that is held up by the rest of the world.

The recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is not a benign statement. Rather, it enables one province to have special status over others. It is first step toward including it in the Constitution. Some may argue that it is benign and necessary, but that flies in the face of equality for all Canadians.

It enhances Quebec's group rights as opposed to the individual rights of Quebecers. It would enable an aggressive Quebec provincial government to abrogate its responsibilities and trample the rights of the minorities within Quebec. Statements by various

separatist leaders after the referendum led us to believe nothing else than the fact that some of them were racist.

Furthermore, the province of Quebec with the distinct society could supplant federal policies by using the argument that Quebec is one half of Canada and the remainder is the other half. It could manipulate federal policies based on that. It is highly iniquitous because Canada is made up of ten provinces, not two groups.

Unfortunately this and previous governments have not engaged in the process of trying to bring Canada together. They have engaged in the process of appeasement. There are some glaring examples.

The federal government gives Quebec $7 billion a year. In fact, Ottawa has transferred $160 billion to Quebec over the last 30 years.

Quebec has three seats on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Quebec has been allowed to use the notwithstanding clause to step on the rights of anglophones within that province. Would Quebec tolerate the rest of Canada using the notwithstanding clause to do the same thing? I do not think so. Neither would the rest of Canada.

The rest of Canada has not been trampling on the rights of Quebecers. Rather, it has been engaging in the process of appeasement. Quite frankly the people in the rest of Canada are fed up and will simply not tolerate this any longer. That is why a distinct society with a veto is intolerable to the rest of Canada. We are hearing, sadly, the nascency of separation in the rest of Canada. That is not something about which we should be proud.

We are witnessing a tragedy. Canada is being fractured into many different groups. People are talking about Canada in a defeatist fashion. They are saying we have no vision, no direction, no identity and no culture. Some would say that Canada is like a rudderless boat in the ocean, buffeted around by circumstances beyond her control.

I do not accept that. Canada has an identity. Canada has a soul. Canada is strong. Canada has courage as we see in our peacekeepers. Canada has culture as we see in Celine Dion and the Group of Seven. Canada has made scientific contributions through Dr. Fraser Mustard.

Canada has strength in its people, in their everyday actions. That is what has made Canada the great country it is today. They are the heroes of Canada. That is the identity of Canada and that is why it is held in such high esteem throughout the world. It is our identity. It is very clear to those who have travelled to other parts of the world. We are not some benign, opaque country without an identity. We are a great country.

Essential to the unity of a country is the concept that every citizen is equal. We are not first anglophones or francophones, Quebecers or British Columbians, Afro-Canadians or Indo-Canadians. Above all else we are simply Canadians. The hyphenated Canadianism we have pursued does not bring us together with our differences; it divides us. Our differences, whether they be language or culture, do not need to ghettoize us. Rather, our differences are something we can cherish. Our differences bind us together as citizens and as human beings in a common humanity.

It irritates me to no end and gets me very angry and also saddens me to see our differences used as a way of separating us instead of bringing us together. We need to change that now. It requires strong leadership for us to do this.

To the Prime Minister, stop negotiating with the separatist leaders because you will not win. It is a futile action. Bring your principles of equality, your principles of understanding and tolerance, directly to the people on the ground in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Both need to heal. Both need to come together and both need to understand each other. You must have again as the basis of your decisions equality for all.

Constitutional changes must not go to the politicians. They must not go to the provinces. They must go directly to the people. Constitutional changes must go to a binding national referendum, to all Canadians, as it affects us all. It seems the government lacks the belief in the people of this country that they would uphold tolerance and respect for each other in the decisions they make.

The rest of Canada and I am sure the people of Quebec want nothing more than to be treated as equals. They want nothing more than to live their culture and their language. If we give culture and language directly to the provinces, as we must, the people of Quebec would be the masters of their own cultural and linguistic destinies.

That is what they ask for. That is what they must have. That is also what the rest of Canada must have. The message we send to the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada is this. We stand here today simply as proud Canadians with a history, Canadians with a future based on our differences, based on what binds us together, based on respect and tolerance for each other.

It is not a fantasy. It is something we can pursue and achieve. All it requires is leadership from here, leadership in the community and for all of us to work together to raise Canada to the truly great height it can reach.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 57, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House is deemed to have divided on the motion and the recorded division on the question is deemed to have been requested and deferred until December 11, at 6.30 p.m.

On behalf of the House I thank everybody who permitted us to have this late debate, all the people who worked long and hard tonight.

It being after eleven o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 11.04 p.m.)