Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this historic debate on the Prime Minister's motion which recognizes Quebec as a distinct society by its language, its culture and its civil law tradition.
The motion we are now debating is one of three initiatives for change announced by the Prime Minister last week and which act on the commitments made during the referendum campaign in Quebec. In addition to recognizing Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, the federal government will henceforth grant a regional veto on all constitutional changes and pull out of manpower training.
These initiatives result from promises that the Prime Minister made to his fellow Quebecers during the referendum campaign and, particularly, the great Montreal rally which brought together more than 150,000 people, including 500 from my riding of Simcoe-North and the neighbouring riding.
It is important to note that these initiatives are not the only measures the government has taken in response to Quebec's referendum, but they surely are an important step. Moreover, they are further proof that when the Prime Minister makes a promise to Canadians, he keeps his word.
During the referendum campaign, everybody was talking about the need for change, everybody said that, from then on, things should be done differently if our country were to remain united. However, I have the impression that the change the vast majority of politicians were referring to did not reflect what Quebecers want.
Indeed, when I was going from door to door during the referendum campaign, people were constantly telling me that they wanted jobs, economic stability, a better future for their children, a good social climate, and so on. I can assure the House that the numerous Quebecers I met gave little importance to constitutional changes and the squabbles that go with it.
In this regard, Quebecers are not very different from all other citizens of Canada. People from my riding of Simcoe-North express the same concerns. That is why I say that the commitment to change to which we should give a lot of importance is the one the Canadian people, including Quebecers, want. This is why I am proud to be part of a government which, for two years now, has been tackling with the real problems of the Canadian people, which are job creation and economic growth.
That being said, the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister are not without sound basis and legitimacy. The motion on distinct society is important because it recognizes an obvious historic fact and reassures Quebecers as to their place in our country. In fact, the concept of distinct society is not new, neither historically, nor constitutionally.
According to Professor Ramsay Cook, francophones in British North America and Canada developed early on a consciousness of their distinctiveness, both individually and collectively. The most obvious badge of that distinctiveness was language, while the civil code provided a legal foundation for difference.
The idea of distinctiveness is even recognized implicitly in the British North America Act of 1867. The mere fact of creating the province of Quebec was the beginning of acknowledging a distinct society within Canada. There are also explicit recognitions of this fact in the Constitution. For example, section 94 recognizes the civil law of Quebec as distinct. Section 133 made Quebec, alone among the original provinces, bilingual, and by doing so made French for the first time an official language of Canada.
The motion put forth by the Prime Minister is yet another explicit means to acknowledge Quebec's distinctiveness. Even though the distinct society resolution we are debating is not a constitutional resolution, it is important that it is a solemn commitment that sets out how the federal government, the only government in Canada that speaks for all Canadians, will conduct its affairs. In effect, it will indicate to all citizens and all federal government authorities that it is the will of the House of Commons that the distinct character of Quebec society be recognized once again within the Canadian federation.
I also want to assure all Canadians that the expression "distinct society" is not exhaustive by any means. Even though the motion simply notes that the distinct society includes some specific elements of Quebec, it does not exclude others. It does not exclude the fact that Quebec is a pluralistic and democratic society, that all its citizens are equal before the law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the Canadian Constitution.
This motion and the other measures announced by the Prime Minister are a significant first step in delivering on the promises he made during the referendum campaign. They are also an important bridge to the first ministers conference on the amending formula that is scheduled to take place in April 1997. Once these negoti-
ations start we will have benefited from the practical application of the distinct society motion and the veto bill.
The Prime Minister made it quite clear that these measures can some day be entrenched in the Constitution if it is the desire of the province of Quebec and other provinces to do so. However, the Government of Quebec has stated categorically that it does not want to participate in any constitutional discussions. Until this unreasonable position of the Parti Quebecois government changes, we will not be able to incorporate these measures into the Constitution.
I am convinced that the vast majority of Quebecers will view these initiatives in a favourable light. They will see that the Prime Minister is serious about making the changes they want.
Obviously, members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois will oppose these changes. The reason is simple: they are separatists. They have no intention of improving Confederation. Their only goal is to destroy Canada. As Jacques Parizeau said during the referendum campaign: "We do not want a distinct society, we want a country."
In spite of the intransigence of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois, we will not let them prevent the adoption of these changes that are not of a constitutional nature, changes that the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada want.