Madam Speaker, I had prepared a speech, but I am going to have to leave half of it out, because something happened during question period which I find extremely important. But first, I would like to let you know that all Bloc members will speak for 10 minutes only.
Last Wednesday, when he tabled his motion, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
-Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. As a Quebecer and a francophone, I understand and share the desire of my fellow Quebecers to have our difference recognized.
He was talking to the motion he had tabled in the House. The motion reads as follows:
That
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;
This afternoon, during question period, I asked the Prime Minister if he was in agreement with his colleagues on the heritage committee who, for the past two weeks, have been coming strongly against the distinct society and Quebec culture. I asked the Prime minister if he believed that his colleagues had the right to state that there was only one culture in Canada, and that, from now
on, Telefilm Canada should fund artists on the basis of their political obedience.
The Prime Minister rose in this House and said that in Canada, there was only one culture, a Canadian one, whether French or English. It would appear that, two weeks after tabling in the House a motion saying that we are distinct because of our unique culture, the Prime Minister has not understood his own motion, probably because it was written by a member of his staff. If our culture is unique, it is the Quebec culture since we are in Quebec, and that is what we are requesting.
Our culture is unique because it is French, because among other things our majority is French-speaking. But, today, the Prime Minister said: "No. There is only one culture and it is Canadian." You cannot have it both ways, either the Prime Minister does not understand the meaning of the motion or he understands very well and, for the first time this afternoon, when he rose in the House, he recognized that Quebec is not a people, that there is only one people and it is Canadian, English Canadian preferably. However, he allows us the privilege of expressing the English culture in French. This is the gist of what he said this afternoon.
Yet, when we passed the bill which created the Department of Canadian Heritage we asked that the government be responsible and acknowledge that there was a distinct society in Quebec. We repeated our request, we proposed amendments to recognize Quebec culture, but the Liberal government trivialized Quebec. It made its culture part of the Canadian melting pot, excluding it from its bill on culture and denying Quebec its very distinct existence, its fundamental right to express its difference.
During the last two weeks, the Liberal Party's representatives on the Heritage Standing Committee practically had allergic reactions every time they heard or met witnesses who financed artists or films.
Today, the Quebec people want to be recognized as a people and want the powers which go with it. On October 30, 49.5 per cent of Quebecers voted for a country of their own; the federal government is offering us an empty shell, which has only some value as a symbol, and we realized today that it is not even worth the paper it was written on two weeks ago.
Quebecers are a people. As early as 1766, the English government of Murray said that Quebecers, who were then called Canadians, were a brave and courageous people.
In 1791, the Constitutional Act divided Canada's territory into two colonies, in order to recognize the existence of two peoples on its territory. At that time, these two peoples were called the Canadian people, but they lived in Quebec, hence today's Quebecers, and the British people.
In 1839, Lord Durham, whom we cannot suspect of being a Quebec nationalist or of having a separatist frame of mind, came to the following conclusion in his report on the state of the colony, and I quote: "Problems in Lower Canada are not political or administrative in nature, but are the result of the forced co-existence of two distinct nations in the same state."
In 1905, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, an inveterate Liberal, said and I quote: "Every time I go back to my province, I am sad to see there is a feeling that Canada is not for all Canadians. We must come to the conclusion that Quebec is our only homeland."
In 1965, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, whose work Prime Minister Trudeau hastened to wreck, released a preliminary report in which it noted that Canada was going through the most serious crisis in its history. The commission exposed in these terms the misunderstanding on which the Canadian crisis was based and is still based, and I quote: "[-] English people, many of whom were showing good will [-]did not understand [-]the profound leanings of so many Quebecers towards an increased autonomy and their growing belief that Quebec would become a distinct nation ruling its economic and social institutions."
Because English Canada still does not understand Quebec, the constitutional future is doomed and we will never be recognized as a people. According to the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, an essential requirement for Canada's survival is a real association that can only exist between equal partners.
In fact, this motion is totally in line with what Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon told the Toronto Star on April 27, and I quote:
"Quebec has to make its decision based on what I believe is the greatest country in the world and not look for us to change our country in order to make it more acceptable for them".
In fact, the Premier of Manitoba is telling us to either take Canada as it is or leave. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is fundamentally opposed to the motion before us today, and our voting against it will surprise no one in Quebec. Quebec is no longer content with crumbs. Quebecers have risen, they are standing up with their heads held high. They are asserting themselves as a people who want to be recognized as such and they want to negotiate as equals.
In the wake of the Meech failure, Robert Bourassa said, and I quote: "Quebec is, today and forever, a distinct society that is free and capable of controlling its own destiny and development".
At his party's March 1991 convention, he convinced his colleagues to adopt the Allaire resolution, which read as follows: "The failure of the Meech Lake accord is a historic event. This failure has made it imperative for Canada to change. Above all, the Meech Lake accord failure occurred at a time in history when Quebec society has reached a level of maturity, openness and development allowing it to feel fully in control of its future. Undoubtedly, Quebec now has the means and resources needed to exercise its choices".
Quebecers know that the Prime Minister's proposal is empty. Today, they understand that the Prime Minister is incapable of quoting a single Quebec author. His references are strictly Canadian. Quebec will accept nothing less than to be recognized as a people with all the powers that this entails.