Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa should know that this was not a point of order and that the only example of what I mentioned earlier is the Reform opposition day when they and the Liberals voted hand-in-hand to blame the government of Quebec, among others, for not having held consultations on the drivel called the Calgary declaration. If the member for Bourassa did not understand that yesterday, I am telling it to him now—he is in front of me—and I hope that now he will understand.
That having been said, I read the motion carefully and I must tell you—and here I agree with the parliamentary secretary when she says that this motion is in bad taste and ill-considered—that no matter how hard I try to read it from left to right and from right to left, I have difficulty understanding it. I would like to read it for those who are listening:
That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill in accordance with Standing Order 68(4) b ), to prevent the reference to and designation of any Canadian or group of Canadians in a hyphenated form, based on race, religion, colour or place of origin.
I read it several times, and I wonder what exactly he wants us to bring in a bill on? Will it be in the regulations made by this House or in the regulations made by a department? Will it be in the legislation, in the bills, in the acts? Is its purpose to make a law on private conversations between individuals and to prevent people from mentioning Canadians of Irish, Portuguese or Haitian origin, or even Quebeckers? Is its purpose to make laws on that? I do not know. Is it to forbid members in this House to use this language during debates. I do not know, the motion does not mention that.
There is one thing certain however. I agree with the parliamentary secretary. Earlier, I started by making a joke, but I agree with what has just been said on the government side. I would like to add that there is in Quebec a Charter on Rights and Freedoms. In Canada, there is the Canadian Charter on Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution Act, 1982. Quebec has never ratified it. No premier has signed it, as the member for Bourassa would mention, I am sure. But there is section 15.(1) which states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms has an equivalent of this section. I believe that as far as protecting individuals is concerned, in Canada and in Quebec, we have the appropriate tools. I believe that we are even ahead of many countries when it comes to individual rights. I sincerely believe that this is a debate that we should not be having.
I think this is a pointless debate under the circumstances, given that there are already provisions that deal very efficiently with this issue. You will have gathered from what I said that I am opposed to this motion.
I will conclude with two comments. First, with his motion, the hon. member of the Reform Party managed to suggest that the concept of Canadian culture should be redefined. I think that he does not understand his motion all that well either, because that was not exactly his intention.
Second, on the government side, in interpreting the motion, they managed to say that they were in favour of a strong and united Canada. Again, both sides are showing great imagination. But they are not really addressing Motion M-24 before us.
For all these reasons, you will understand that I cannot be in favour of Motion M-24.