Madam Speaker, I had a prepared speech, but after listening to the member for Esquimalt-Juan du Fuca I think I had better throw half of it away because I want to address several of the points he touched on.
I tried desperately during his presentation to extract the positive elements of his intervention.
If we are to solve the Canadian unity problem, it will not be by adopting such a motion. It will be by having dialogue. I would like to have a dialogue with the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
One positive element of his speech, despite the Reform Party's lack of understanding of Quebec's needs and problems, was the language the distinctive culture in Quebec. He touched on the valuable contribution that Quebecers have made to the creation of this country. However, I still have serious doubts because when it came time for the Reform Party to recognize that great language and culture that make Canada unique and the efforts of Prime Minister in response to the passionate plea we made on October 27, the member and his party voted against the government's efforts to recognize Quebec's distinct society and the regional veto.
We are on a dangerous treadmill. This is what I want to point out to the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. When he uses words like intolerance and violence they preoccupy me immensely. The member from the Bloc Quebecois implied the motion is provocative and may induce violence, that is exactly what I fear.
The member also said his province is fed up with pandering to Quebec, again another form of intolerance, another form of showing we are not open to dialogue.
Prior to the referendum premiers were begging Quebecers passionately, saying "we will work hand in hand with you, your aspirations and concerns are our concerns". However, the member today measured his province by how much we benefit in economic terms from the federation and how Quebec is being pandered to and how people are fed up with always responding to Quebec's demands.
I remind the hon. member we made concessions to accommodate provinces when they joined Confederation. We made a concession for his province of British Columbia. We promised British Columbians: "Join our family and we will build you a national railway". That dream was realized in 1892, contributed to by the many immigrants who came to this country to help build that dream.
I ask the hon. member where would British Columbians be if that national dream had not been realized. Would the prosperity the province realizes today have been realized? I doubt it.
We made concessions for P.E.I., the smallest province of Confederation. We said: "Join our family and we will make sure you are represented in the House of Commons and the Senate and we will build you a fixed link". Quebecers paid for that national railway and for the fixed link. Quebecers did not say "where is our fair share"?
I am disappointed the member is not here. I believe if we are to solve the Canadian unity problem we must show respect for each other and have dialogue and understanding. I ask Reform Party members, who are now suddenly showing up in Quebec, being political opportunists, receiving petitions in my riding and other ridings, that if they are sincere why were they not involved in the unity debate during the entire referendum? Where were they?
They talk about their 20-20 vision. I think this motion is unfounded, very dangerous and very intimidating.
Therefore, our government supports co-operation with the provinces and all our partners in order to develop new approaches and find constructive solutions.
The Government of Canada does not intend in the slightest to promote confrontation, as is suggested in this motion, because it could undermine the renewal of federalism and especially our social harmony.
We want to unite Canadians, not divide them. We have launched a process of national reconciliation and federation renewal. We have taken some concrete measures by implementing initiatives to restore the balance within our federation, to reinforce our economic union and enhance our social solidarity and to further define the devolution of powers, just like the hon. member himself wanted us to do.
Canadians outside Quebec are open-minded and try to draw closer to their fellow citizens in Quebec, by recognizing that their differences are what makes our country's strength. If we work together to ensure our federation goes forward and meets the expectations of Canadians, we will have reached our goal without having to hold another referendum on secession.
We believe we can work constructively with the Government of Quebec, given the open-mindedness shown by Premier Lucien Bouchard, as we do with all the other provincial and territorial governments. It is our duty, our responsibility.
The next first ministers conference will deal with restoring the balance within our federation. It will give the federal and provincial governments the opportunity to discuss the priorities Canadians want us to set. This is why the motion put forward by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca seems inconsistent with our government's action plan. And this is why I do not support this motion and I urge my colleagues not to support it either.