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.