Debates of Nov. 7th, 1997

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m. so we may proceed with Private Members' Business?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being l.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Distinct Society

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support equality among the provinces and Canadians in general by ensuring that no province be recognized as a distinct society within the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to begin debate on the private member's motion before the House.

In light of the recent Calgary declaration the merit of the motion should be self-evident to all Canadians. Given the desire of traditional parties to cling to the concept of distinct society, I am under no illusions about the criticism they will offer today.

To start, there will be those who will criticize the initiative before us as being anti-Quebec. To those who feel this way I respond in advance that like the Calgary declaration the motion is not anti-anything. It is in essence pro Canadian. It is crafted with the desire to create a new Canada where everyone is proud to be a Canadian.

I say this with a great deal of confidence. The motion before us is pro Canadian in the sense that it recognizes a fundamental principle held in the hearts of all Canadians, namely that we are all equal.

The motion before us is about advancing the principle of equality among all Canadians and entrenching the paramount importance of individual rights. The protection of individual rights is also significant. One of the major faults in the Meech and Charlottetown accords was that they sought to constitutionally entrench a collective right. In doing so, there would have existed within the Canadian constitution the potential that individual rights could be made subservient to the collective right of a distinct society.

This argument was based on the widely held and correct perception among Canadians that recognition of Quebec as a distinct society would confer some collective right on the peoples of that province not conferred on the others. Therein lay the problem and the dilemma faced by constitutional framers and politicians, the same people who tried on numerous occasions to ram distinct society through with little or no regard for the real feelings of Canadians.

What was the response from the traditional party leaders at the federal and provincial levels? They resorted to labelling anyone who opposed the distinct society initiative as unpatriotic. They also played on the fears of Canadians by saying that the country would fall apart without such an amendment to the constitution. The country is still here.

Worse still, there was a deliberate attempt to mislead Canadians about what distinct society really meant. At the time we had the former prime minister of the last place party telling Canadians outside Quebec that distinct society was nothing more than a symbolic recognition of that province's place in Confederation.

I want to briefly touch on that symbolic recognition. This is what distinguishes the Calgary declaration from Meech and Charlottetown. Meech and Charlottetown attempted to entrench distinct society as an interpretive clause which would give additional powers to Quebec. The Calgary declaration does nothing more than recognize what is a historical fact accepted by Reformers and Canadians in general, principally that the language and culture of Quebec make it unique but, and here is the key, this fact in no way takes away from the equality of Canadians or confers additional powers to Quebec.

That was the problem with Meech and Charlottetown. Both initiatives tried to craft this historical recognition into a constitutional power afforded only to Quebec.

All the while and within Quebec the former prime minister and the late Premier Bourassa were saying just that. To hear them tell it, the clause would be used to enhance that province's powers within federation.

The federal doublespeak and actions on distinct society would be quite funny if they were not so terribly sad for the future of the country.

I also want to deal with what I see is the potential harm in the collective right of distinct society ever becoming entrenched. Granted this will be speculative because thankfully the clause is not in the Constitution. That has more to do with the wisdom of Canadians than it does the foresight of traditional politicians who even now think entrenchment of distinct society will solve the unity problem.

In any event, the arguments concerning the potential harm of entrenching distinct society are speculative but they are not without a historical precedent to back them up.

I want to briefly discuss the precedent. The lessons and arguments in that instance will serve to highlight what I feel are the pitfalls where distinct society is concerned. Patriation of the Canadian Constitution was achieved to some degree because the federal government was able to secure an agreement with nine of the ten provinces. The federal government had acted unilaterally but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that some provincial support was needed.

The impact of that court decision would figure prominently in the effort to settle on a text for the Constitution, but in the finished document that became the Constitution Act, 1982, there also was a clause known as the notwithstanding clause. This clause was part of the price the federal government had to pay for getting an agreement on the Constitution.

The rationale behind the notwithstanding clause was to place some kind of a constitutional check on the powers of the federal government. At the time some premiers believed this was needed to in part prevent legislation or new spending initiatives which might cross into areas of provincial jurisdiction. It was also believed that this clause would help in securing Quebec's signature on the Constitution.

Aside from the rationale and intentions behind the notwithstanding clause, good, bad or otherwise, there were those who saw the potential danger in having a constitution which could allow a province to disregard federal legislation or a ruling by the supreme court concerning the constitutionality of a provincial law.

This potential danger is significant because the arguments used to downplay the consequences at that time are the same ones used now with respect to distinct society. In this regard it is no small wonder then that Canadians feel successive governments have learned nothing from past constitutional experiences. They have little or no faith in the sincerity of politicians to do what is best or in their ability to deal with the national unity problem.

This is truly tragic. And as someone whose name escapes me at the moment once said, “Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them.”

What were those dire consequences that some predicted would befall the notwithstanding clause? Canadians with enough foresight saw that a province might use the clause to override the charter of rights and that in so doing, the rights of individuals in that province could be damaged. That is exactly what did happen.

But we need not concern ourselves with the circumstances under which the use of that clause came about. We will visit that in due course. What is now relevant were the arguments used at that time to allay fears that the notwithstanding clause would ever be used by any province.

I think we remember them well. They are hauntingly familiar to those used by former and present governments seeking to mollify Canadians about the constitutional impact of the distinct society provision.

As I said, in response to a well-founded fear that some province might use the notwithstanding clause, the government of the day sought to minimize the chance of this ever happening. The political media and to a lesser extent, the academic elites, said “Oh, this will never happen. No province would ever use the notwithstanding clause. The political price of using it would be too great for any province. The court of public opinion in that province would stop a government from invoking the clause” and on and on it went.

Basically, the predictions were ignored and political leaders felt secure in their belief that the override provision would never, ever be used. But of course they were wrong.

Let us fast forward from 1982 to 1989 when the Government of Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause. The province did this in response to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling which found Quebec's language law, bill 178, to be unconstitutional and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am not so much interested in why the notwithstanding clause was used. It is far more revealing to delve into parallels between the potential dangers it posed and those which by extension are inherent in the distinct society clause.

The politicians of the day had not been completely wrong about the effect of public opinion surrounding Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause. The problem was that the court of public opinion did not change a thing and its full impact reaction was well after the fact.

Still, some negative fallout was incurred by the Quebec government on the issue. For as constitutional as their use of the notwithstanding clause had been, it did not sit well with people inside and outside of Quebec who expressed concern that the provincial government had effectively trampled on the rights of English speaking Quebeckers.

What was needed then was an amendment to the Canadian Constitution, one that would allow Quebec to side step the charter of rights in matters such as language and not put the province in the awkward position of having to use the notwithstanding clause in order to do it. Such an amendment must allow the province of Quebec to make laws similar to bill 178. However, it must also ensure that such laws could not be challenged as unconstitutional.

In short, the Canadian Constitution would have to be interpreted in such a way as to recognize the province's rights to make such laws.

From the very beginning of that notion is born the idea of distinct society, in effect, an amendment which would allow Quebec to override the Constitution by giving it the power to take whatever steps were necessary to preserve and promote Quebec as a distinct society.

Let us now examine the predictions and the potential dangers of how a distinct society clause might truly impact on the Constitution. Indeed, the alarm bells that went unheeded with respect to the notwithstanding clause are the same ones ringing again over distinct society today.

If, as governments in Quebec have demanded, the Canadian Constitution and charter of rights must be interpreted in a fashion that recognizes Quebec as a distinct society, what happens in a situation where individual rights, such as freedom of expression, conflict with this collective right based on culture and language?

Actually the question is rhetorical because we all know the answer. It is just that there are those who are loathe to admit it, or refuse to accept it, or do not want the rest of the country to really understand it.

Using the situation surrounding the supreme court's consideration of Quebec's bill 178, a distinct society clause would have allowed the supreme court to come back and say bill 178 was constitutional. The highest court in the land would have been able to say this. “The law must be considered in light of a clause which states that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that Quebec constitutes a distinct society”.

That is right. No messy or unpalatable use of a notwithstanding clause. No federal government interference because the federal government would say that it cannot do a thing, the supreme court has ruled and that decision must be respected.

This sounds familiar. It is what every traditional politician likes to do when there is a controversy. Toss it to the court if possible. At least then voters will not be able to blame government for the consequences of its inactions.

In order that all MPs will be given a say in this matter, I ask for the unanimous consent of members present to make this motion votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan have unanimous consent to have this motion made votable.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Unanimous consent is denied.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the government to the motion tabled by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

This motion highlights the differing viewpoints between the government and the hon. member with respect to national unity. As was clearly indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the government has made this issue its top priority for its current mandate. We want to proceed with national reconciliation. We believe the Calgary declaration is an important step in that direction.

The nine premiers would not support the spirit of the hon. member's motion either. Even though the results of the consultations they will be holding with their respective populations are not yet in, it already appears that the majority of Canadians support the major principles of the Calgary declaration.

The first part of the motion the member is asking us to consider concerns equality among provinces and Canadians in general. I would reassure my colleague that equality is a principle shared by all Canadians and supported fully by the our government. The first two clauses of the Calgary declaration are devoted to it.

The principle of equality is at the heart of our identity. It is a bulwark of our culture and our identity as Canadians. It is the very essence of our democratic system. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly recognizes it in section 15, which guarantees equality of Canadians before the law. In this regard, clause 1 of the Calgary declaration provides that all Canadians are equal and that their rights are protected by law.

We are also in agreement with respect to the equality status of the provinces. There are not two or three types of status for provinces. In the Canadian federation, provinces have equal status. All provinces can exercise the same powers. I would remind my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan of what clause 2 of the Calgary declaration has to say on the matter. “ All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equal status”.

Nevertheless some provinces may show more of a desire than others to exercise some of these powers. In fact, over the years, some provinces have used certain powers while others have chosen not to do so. For example, all provinces have the power to administer the collection of individual income tax, but only Quebec does so and has the necessary personnel and infrastructure.

In 1965 all provinces had the right to opt out of certain national established programs and receive appropriate compensation, including tax points. Only Quebec chose to do so, which is why the federal tax rate is lower in Quebec than in the other provinces.

Only Quebec has exercised its constitutional right to set up its own pension plan. The other provinces are covered by the Canada pension plan.

Those powers that Quebec has exercised have always been available to the other provinces. That the Government of Quebec has exercised them while others have chosen not to does not confer special status on the province. That is why clause 6 of the Calgary declaration stipulates that if any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, those powers would have to be available to all provinces. Thus equality does not mean uniformity, nor does equality of treatment mean uniformity of treatment.

Let us consider an example that concerns the province of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. When the government works with the Government of British Columbia to support Pacific salmon fishers, that does not give the province an additional right in comparison with other provinces. Rather, it means that only British Columbia has a Pacific salmon fishery.

That same flexible approach also applies to tax breaks for Alberta for oil sands development, and yet these two examples do not make our fellow citizens in Alberta or British Columbia Canadians plus.

Neither case involves special privileges, but rather different contexts. Governments must recognize that all provinces and all citizens are equal, but must also respond to a variety of needs and circumstances. The flexibility of the Canadian federation is thus expressed, by accommodating differences without compromising the principle of equality.

I would even add that each province can occupy all of its space within the federation in its full specificity and Canada is the richer for it.

Equalization is another example. Under that program the federal government makes payments to some provinces but not to others. That does not mean that inequalities are being created among the provinces. Rather it means that all citizens have access to comparable services, no matter what region they live in.

The essential difference between our party's view and my colleague's motion is that for him equality seems to mean uniformity, whereas we believe that these two concepts do not necessarily mean the same thing. To impose uniformity of treatment in a country such as ours is to deny one of its greatest treasures, its diversity. That will never be the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.

My colleague maintains that recognizing the specificity of a province in the Constitution would run counter to the principle of equality of provinces and citizens. As I have already stated, we all agree with the principle of equality among citizens and provinces. The government, however, rejects the one size fits all approach. That is why we support recognizing the unique character of Quebec as proposed in the declaration of the nine premiers.

The Calgary declaration defines the unique character of Quebec society in terms of its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law. That definition reminds us that Quebec is different from the other provinces in many ways, one characteristic being that it contains within its territory the only French speaking majority on the North American continent.

I would remind my colleague that although the expression “unique character” has only recently entered the political vocabulary, all of our constitutional laws have contained implicit recognition of the distinct character of Quebec's identity from the Quebec Act of 1774 to the Constitution Act of 1982, including the Constitutional Act of 1791 and the Constitution Act of 1867.

In fact the Constitution Act of 1867 recognized Quebec's special legal system and even then contained provisions regarding bilingualism and the appointment of supreme court justices.

I would add that the constitutional recognition of the unique character of Quebec would merely formalize an existing practice in the courts, an opinion that is shared by the former chief justice of the supreme court, the Right Hon. Brian Dickson.

The unique character of Quebec society is an obvious observation which is taken into account in current practice. So how would recognizing it jeopardize the equality of citizens and provinces? Simply put, in no way.

The Calgary declaration is not a constitutional amendment. It is a statement of principles. However if recognition of the unique character of Quebec society were to be entrenched in the Constitution, that recognition would be framed as an interpretive clause like the current section 27 of the charter of rights which recognizes the multicultural character of Canada's heritage. Fifteen years after the charter was adopted, can any Canadian say that his or her rights have been threatened by that clause?

In addition to honouring the universal principle of equality, such recognition will serve the unity of the country well. As I have already said, our government made national unity its top priority in this term of office. And whatever helps the cause will receive our support.

This is why we support the Calgary declaration. We recognize that it is a positive step by proposing a framework for discussions that reflect Canadian realities and values.

I would like to finish with a quote that Canadians believe, as Alberta's premier Ralph Klein has said, in a Canada where all provinces have equal status, but a Canada that allows Quebec to protect those things that make it such a unique part of our national character, a tolerant and diverse nation where we are all equal as Canadians no matter where we live but where the word equality is not used as a blanket to smother diversity. I believe that is what Canadians believe.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to see such misunderstanding of Quebec and a constant, and thinly veiled, attack on the Quebec people by English Canada.

A reading of motion M-26, which we have before us at this time, leads us to that conclusion. All Quebeckers reading it and listening to the debate would reach the same conclusion.

This is an extremely important subject for us in Quebec and I would need far more than ten minutes to explain our point of view concerning it. I will, however, make an attempt to explain it to you, and to convince the hon. members of this Parliament, solely on historical grounds, briefly of course. Solely on historical grounds, I trust that they will understand that provincial equality, as seen by the hon. Reform member, and even by the government members, does not in any way correspond to the historical demands of the Quebec people.

Speaking of history, I believe we cannot help but conclude that the creation of Canada was based on a historic misunderstanding. In 1867, when Lower Canada and Upper Canada decided to unite, it was common knowledge that francophones were a minority everywhere in North America with the exception of Lower Canada. The people of Lower Canada had agreed to a federal system knowing that this would at least give them the power and democratic control of a member state within the federation.

As for Upper Canada, what it wanted was a very strong Canada, a unitary regime. The signing did take place, however. The Fathers of Confederation did sign an agreement, believing one thing, but the facts prove that they reached a devious agreement to get around the system they had used to sell Lower Canada on signing. Since 1867, therefore, quietly but inexorably, areas under Quebec's jurisdiction have been nibbled away at, along with those of the other provinces. Quebec, however, is most vocal in its demands. The area of jurisdiction found under section 92 of the Canadian Constitution is being nibbled away at.

Little by little, in an indirect by nevertheless real way, through Supreme Court judgments—and the list is long—the federal government is taking powers away from Quebec.

The most recent example, hot off the press so to speak, is Bill C-14 on water management. If there is one area that comes under Quebec jurisdiction this is it. If there is one thing that is dear to the hearts of Quebeckers it is water. The federal government in its wisdom figured it should interfere in that area in the name of peace, order and good government or using the rule of federal precedence.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, the Quiet Revolution stirred Quebec to go from passively defending vested powers to actively claiming new powers. This is nothing new. Since the 1960s, successive Quebec premiers have constantly been asking that Quebec be given more powers. Why? Because they found it necessary for the political, social, economic and cultural development of Quebec society.

However, capitalizing on the failure of the 1980 referendum, a Prime Minister named Pierre Elliott Trudeau, together with nine English speaking provinces, repatriated the Constitution and imposed it on Quebec. It should be noted that the Constitution of 1982 was never ratified by Quebec. It was never approved by any of the Quebec premiers. Since 1982, we have had premiers in Quebec who were federalists and even Liberals. As a big brother, or small brother perhaps, of the Liberal government across the way, Robert Bourassa himself refused to sign this Constitution.

In 1982, for the first time since 1867, the Constitution was amended without Quebec's consent. That was the end of an old dream of Quebeckers, who had viewed the federation as a pact between two founding nations, which could therefore only be changed with their mutual consent.

What Motion M-26 shows is that the concept of distinct society has lost a lot of ground in a very short time. A previous speaker mentioned the Meech Lake and Charlottetown agreements and the Calgary declaration. Closer scrutiny invariably reveals that every time there is an agreement in English Canada, Quebec ends up not with more but with fewer powers.

In the Meech Lake Accord, the Bourassa government, a federalist government I might add, set out the five conditions to be met before Quebec could approve the Constitution Act of 1982. What were the five conditions?

First, recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, which would be meaningful and would be used by the courts as an interpretation formula to grant more powers when considering Quebec's traditional demands.

Second, guaranteeing a more prominent role regarding immigration.

Third, allowing Quebec to participate in the appointment of supreme court justices.

Fourth, limiting the federal government's spending power. It is through this power that, increasingly, the federal government has been taking over powers that belong to Quebec, powers that are recognized as ours under section 92 of the Constitution. With its spending power, Ottawa is putting money in areas that are not under federal jurisdiction.

Fifth, recognizing Quebec's veto on the reform of federal institutions and the creation of new provinces.

These were the five conditions seen as a minimum by a federalist Quebec premier, Robert Bourassa.

We know what happened to the Meech Lake accord. English Canada felt Quebec was getting way too much. Following this episode and some arm-twisting, the Charlottetown accord was struck. What happened then to the notion of distinct society, which was the minimum for Quebec to join the Canadian confederation?

They tried to dilute it even further, with a sort of Canada clause in which everyone was equal, in which the principle of equality of all the provinces appeared for the first time in an accord concluded with English Canada.

What became of the Charlottetown accord? It was defeated. It was defeated in the west because it gave too much power to Quebec, and it was defeated in Quebec because it gave too little power to Quebec.

Then there was the Calgary accord. The focus shifted to unique character. Distinct society was no longer of interest. And here we saw a premier who was at least honest, the premier of Ontario, who said that unique character was meaningless because everything in Canada was unique, from Pacific salmon to the tar sands of Alberta. It was all unique.

In addition, as if that were not enough, points 2 to 6 of the Calgary declaration set out clearly the equality of the provinces.

Never will a premier of Quebec, whether it be Maurice Duplessis, Lesage, Johnson, Sauvé, Bertrand, Barrette, Bourassa, Parizeau, the last Johnson, Daniel, or the present incumbent, Lucien Bouchard, allow Quebec to be put on an equal footing with all the other provinces because we are one of the two founding peoples. This historic fact must be recognized. There must be recognition of the fact that Quebec forms a people. And in this regard they must know their history, they must look at the historic demands of Quebec and reach the conclusion that a motion such as the one before us asking the House to recognize that all the provinces are equal and that none can be recognized as distinct under the Constitution of Canada is unthinkable. No, no and no.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the citizens of my region for having chosen to send me to represent them here in the Canadian Parliament.

I come from a proud region that has always asserted its nationalism. It is a region where nationalism has also developed in a rather sustained manner because we have always had to fight to be recognized by both the major levels of government, the one in Quebec and the one in Ottawa.

On every issue, whether it be large infrastructures, social matters or regional development plans, I can tell you that great effort is always necessary to be recognized and to be able to have a fair share of the benefits to which we are entitled.

As for the resolution by my colleague from the Reform Party, I know that it is an issue where it is quite easy to slip into inflated rhetoric. I will try to avoid this, knowing that you are a member of that party, although I think that you are capable of showing understanding and objectivity in an issue that is of interest in fact to the whole country and that can at some point involve the security of the population.

Speaking of the Reform Party, I must admit that the perception I had from the exterior when that party was first created was that it was perfect in all areas, from social issues to fiscal matters. Gradually, however, I realized that this is not exactly the case. When moving a party leader into a house costs the population $115,000, I must say that since these figures were published in the public accounts, in my region and through all my colleagues, I can assure you that the party has lost a lot of credibility in its consideration of both fiscal matters and constitutional matters.

We also remember its campaign, especially during the last two weeks when conciliatory advances were made to us after we had been excluded as Quebeckers during two full weeks, after the door had been shut completely on us as partners who are acceptable, who can make a rather comprehensive contribution to the future of our country.

In short, I think the Reform Party has a long hill to climb to return to its pristine state of old. They are realizing that as they wear out it is hard to put forward proposals for national reconciliation. This seems blatantly obvious to me.

Let us take a normal family, an ordinary family. Clearly we are all equal, but we are not all identical. What is true for a family is true for a country like ours. Certain collective rights must be defended. Our language, culture and legal system are collectively different from those of the rest of Canada. It is in the interest of Canadians to do everything possible to promote the protection and development of this unique, distinct culture and of this people, which should be allowed to continue as co-owner of Canada.

We are not asking for privileges. We are co-owners of this country. We will do everything to remain so.

I was listening to my colleague from the government. The problem in this case is that grandstanding is so easy that irresponsible politicians in this country have succeeded in spoiling the social climate.

Mr. Speaker, you are a reasonable man. Do you remember the Meech Lake accord in 1990? Our government was in power and Mr. Mulroney was the Prime Minister. God knows he cannot be blamed for working toward reconciliation.

At that time, 90% of Canadians were in favour of the accord. What was the result of interventions by certain former Liberal prime ministers and premiers, Clyde Wells and two or three others? A deterioration in our social climate, and a party like the Reform accentuates that negativity.

What has led to the degeneration of our social climate in this country is the irresponsibility of certain politicians and certain political parties; instead of working constructively, working in the best interest of all Canadians and the best interest of all Quebecers, they have preferred to stoop to partisan politics. I believe this is the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment.

It is such a bad situation that, should a committee be struck, I am not sure politicians should sit on it. Like everyone else in this House, I talk to ordinary people who must work every day to earn a living. I talk to cab drivers. I talk to my barber. I think these people, who are people like us outside the House of Commons, would very quickly find a solution.

What divides and separates us is very minor. A solution could be found very quickly. Unfortunately, when politicians decide to deal with this issue, they do so for partisan motives and I am convinced this is the problem in the constitutional debate.

Yesterday, I talked to people from the education community. They told me “Mr. Harvey, will they ever leave us alone? Will some people take their responsibilities and find a reasonable solution in a country where everyone deserves a chance to have his or her place in the sun”?

Over the last 30 years, considerable effort and money has been spent on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced—and you and I have discussed this on a few occasions—that we should not try to take advantage of a situation and not always think in terms of regional interests.

I ask Reformers to adopt a more comprehensive view of things. It is not true that their plan would succeed garner support from the 20 million people in eastern Canada, if it does not recognize the collective rights demanded by all Quebeckers and by the vast majority of Canadians. This issue deserves to be settled.

Our fellow citizens are asking politicians across the country to cool down and deal with real problems by using the right words. The worst enemies of the kind of partnership everyone wants are the extremists. The people in my riding in Quebec and elsewhere come to us with real issues, economic issues, social issues; they talk about roads. They want their politicians to improve their quality of live in a real, concrete way, without arguing endlessly about minor details.

It is not true that, as I heard someone say earlier, Quebeckers believe all Canadians are against them. It is not true that Manitoba farmers wake up at night thinking about their counterparts in Lac-Saint-Jean because they hate them so much. I do not believe that. This is a highly emotional debate fuelled by irresponsible politicians with regional interests. This is the great challenge facing Canada.

I repeat, if a committee were formed to help us, as Canadians, get back on track, I wonder whether members of Parliament would be the best candidates. I would rather see it composed of ordinary folks, people familiar with the real needs of Canadians. They would find a quick solution to this problem.

It has been my pleasure, on this Friday afternoon, to make my humble contribution to this debate about an issue of concern to the whole country.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to private members Motion No. 26. It is important to recognize that the province of Quebec occupies a unique place in Canada and that all Canadians should reach out, whether they be Quebeckers or other Canadians, to preserve our wonderful country.

When we line up all the reasons for keeping our country united, we can manage without difficulty to celebrate and recognize Quebec, the only majority French speaking society in North America, as a fundamental characteristic in Canada. We can manage to say as did the Manitoba constitutional task force in 1991:

It is time to reach out formally to the people of Quebec and recognize in the Constitution their special identity which has contributed so significantly to the building of Canada.

Talk Constitution, why not? All democracies make constitutional changes from time to time. Usually they do so by proceeding one step at a time, one issue at a time.

It is obvious that Canada deserves to survive and can be improved even without constitutional change. It is just as obvious that Quebec has everything to gain by staying in a united Canada, whether or not the Constitution is amended. Federal Liberals have reiterated that truth unceasingly in Quebec and right across Canada. At the same time a better affirmed recognition of Quebec in our Constitution would be a good thing in and of itself, a remarkable expression of Canadian values.

Let us do a little what if experiment together. What if the people of Saskatchewan were in the situation that Quebeckers are in today? What if they lived in the only anglophone province surrounded by nine francophone provinces in Canada and French was the language of the United States, the international language of economics, finance, science, the Internet, movies, the latest pop music, and the language of immigrants from Asia or elsewhere? Why then would they not ask their fellow citizens in the other provinces to recognize this special situation they have found themselves in? We might not call it distinct society but then again we just might.

This desire to affirm cultural and regional identities is seen around the world. At the end of this century, as populations mix together, as identities become uncertain and as the number of languages is decreasing rather than increasing for the first time in the history of humanity, people are affirming their language, their culture and their identity.

The vast majority of Quebeckers feel Canadian and want to stay Canadian. They are as proud to be Quebeckers as British Columbians are proud of their province and Nova Scotians are proud of theirs.

I am proud to come from Ontario.

We need to find a way to express the obvious link between constitutional recognition of Quebec and the great Canadian value of respect for diversity. We could easily harmonize that recognition with our ideal of the equality of citizens which the Canadian charter legally entrenches. We can harmonize it easily with the equality of status of the provinces.

Equality of status must not be confused with uniform treatment. As members of the House can easily understand an example, parents love their children equally and give them the same attention, but they treat each child according to his or individual needs.

It is the ability to combine equality and diversity that has so contributed to the country's success and reputation in the world. It is precisely in that perspective that we should recognize the place of our only majority francophone province within Canada.

In so doing, we would for all practical purposes merely be formalizing a principle already admitted by our courts, a principle that leads them to take account of the context of each province in order to make just decisions, including the specific context of Quebec.

It is the eminent Saskatchewanian, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Brian Dickson, who said:

As a practical matter entrenching formal recognition of Quebec's distinctive character in the Constitution would not involve a significant departure from the existing practice of our courts.

We cannot actually amend our Constitution to express the character of Canada and the unique place of Quebec so long as a secessionist government is in office in Quebec, but we can seek the way to express what we all believe.

When the premiers of the nine provinces and the territorial leaders next meet, I hope they will continue down that road started in St. Andrews and continued in Calgary.

Yes, we are ready to engage in a positive way to secure the future of Canada. Yes, our Canada will include Quebec for ourselves and for future generations, an authentic Quebec that is part of Canada, that is part of all of us.

As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has demonstrated time and again, if it is explained that we can reconcile the diversity of Canada including Quebec's uniqueness with the principles of equality of citizens and the equal status of provinces, support for recognizing Quebec is even higher.

Let us look at the popular support for the principles of the Calgary declaration. An Angus Reid poll shows that 73% of Canadians, including no less than 70% of British Columbians, think the premiers national unity initiative is a positive step in the right direction.

A new Environics poll shows that around 70% of Canadians, including interestingly enough 68% of British Columbians and 68% of Quebeckers, support recognizing the unique character of Quebec in the Constitution as long as any advantage this may give to Quebec is made available to the other provinces.

Because Canadians judge that the principle of equality and diversity is good in and of itself they support the Calgary declaration. It is in this spirit that I urge citizens to participate in the consultation process that the provincial premiers have launched to discuss the Calgary declaration.

This is an initiative that will help keep Canada together so that as Quebeckers, as British Columbians and as Ontarian residents we can all continue to share in this marvellous country.

I hope I have demonstrated that the recognition of the specificity of Quebec does not imply a special status for that province and that it is in the interest of all Canadians that this show of good will be realized.

Further, I remind all hon. members that Canada is currently undergoing an intense period of social and political change. We have not become a tolerant country by accident. Our country has an enviable reputation in that regard because since the beginning of our history anglophones and francophones have been called on to journey together.

That spirit of openness has allowed Canadians to welcome to our country new citizens from all corners of the international community, including my family. Our diversity is a strength and a defining characteristic of our country. We all know that Canada is a remarkable human success. We all must work hard each and every day to keep it united. Every one of us can play a role in that regard.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There are five minutes remaining for Private Members' Business and it has been the convention of the House that the member moving the motion be given that five minutes to wrap up. If the hon. member would like to have the floor, it is the hon. member's privilege.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with honour that I speak for the first time in the 36th Parliament. As with my first speech in the 35th Parliament, I want to take this opportunity, in my second maiden speech, to thank the constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London for electing me in June of 1997. It was a great honour to be re-elected. Being elected the first time was a tremendous honour, but to have it reaffirmed is certainly one of the greatest moments in my life.

Let me now turn to the issue at hand, Quebec and its uniqueness.

The starting point for me in understanding this issue was when I visited French-speaking communities in Quebec and talked to the French-speaking people of Quebec. They have a much different take on this than we do.

People need to understand that at a very fundamental level they feel threatened by living in what they see as an anglophone Canada, an anglophone North America and, in may respects, with the age of Internet, mass communications and satellites, what may turn into an anglophone world. What they want is some recognition in the rest of the country of their Frenchness. They want some understanding that they can have a minimum of protection in the Constitution. In certain respects it is an emotional thing, but they feel that their culture, their heritage and particularly their language are under great threat.

I explained this to people in St. Thomas. When we see a Pizza Hut open up or a Blockbuster video on the main street of St. Thomas it is not a cultural issue. When my children play on the Internet, that is not a cultural issue. If I go to an American movie, again, it is not a cultural issue. If I am bombarded with Much Music on television when my kids are watching it, it is not a big issue for me as an English-speaking person. However, those types of things in a French-speaking community may be taken far differently. They may be taken as just another sign of the dominance of English in our culture today.

It is at that level that they feel they need some protection. They want it to be recognized by the rest of the country. They want some acknowledgement. The greatest acknowledgement they can have is a simple line in the Constitution which states that they are unique and that they can enact laws to protect that uniqueness, within the parameters of the charter of rights and freedoms which ensures that all Canadians are equal. I think it is quite reasonable that it be within the parameters of the notion that all provinces are equal.

If we go to a French community today we may find no one who speaks English or very few who speak English. They actually believe that 30, 40 or 50 years down the road their children and their grandchildren, because of all these outside pressures, will be speaking English. When we start to understand the issue at that emotional level, I think we can understand what they are after.

They are after recognition, which the Calgary declaration does an adequate job of providing. It recognizes Quebec as being unique. We can debate whether we should use the word distinct, unique or some other word. For me, it is really about semantics. It really does not matter. The main point is that the majority of Quebeckers are French speaking and they want to protect their culture.

Once they get the recognition, they also want to have a veto over changes to the Constitution. That will basically give them the two anchors of any constitutional change. They need recognition and they also need a regional veto.

If we open our minds to this we can see the possibility as can people in my own community of Elgin. One person compared it to ethnic clubs. He said that he could care less when the German people get together and they go to the German club, the Saxsonia Hall in Aylmer and speak German for example. He could care less about a Hungarian club that might be in Simcoe or some other place, or a Croatian club just outside St. Thomas. It matters not to him that the people in Quebec want to speak French. He says that is a perfectly legitimate thing.

I explained to him that it will not affect his right for anything, that it will not make him any less equal, that it is really about people protecting their language and their culture. At its most fundamental level this is respect for the ways of their parents and grandparents, for the traditions that have been passed down. It is respect for the traditions they have grown up with and a desire to see those traditions passed on to their children and their grandchildren.

We can all understand that. We are proud of our heritage. We are proud of what our ancestors did regardless of our ethnic backgrounds. In Quebec they feel particularly threatened and they want to see it protected. I think we should support that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time for Private Members' Business is at its end. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, two minutes to wrap up. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to have two minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that my motion has produced such a good debate. I hope through it all we have learned much about each other's opinions, our differences and our similarities. Surely that is what part of this was all about.

I want to say especially to my hon. colleagues from the Bloc that they should not ever see this as an attack on Quebec. It has always been my desire to see the country stay united with a strong Quebec with its unique culture as part of a strong Canada where people are seen as equal and differences are tolerated.

However the hon. member should realize that many other Canadians see the use of a phrase like distinct society as the way for a particular majority in any province to have its way over a minority. I would not tolerate that kind of situation in my own province of British Columbia let alone in the province of Quebec or in any other province of Canada.

Equality certainly does not mean uniformity. No one in his right mind would think that. We in this country are a very diverse people. If we are going to get along in this nation we must not use phrases which for many people are seen as giving anyone or any group special status over anybody else. After all we have Canadians of aboriginal background. We have Canadians of Ukrainian background, Canadians of Italian background and I could go on and on.

A nation cannot survive as a bunch of separate and distinct societies. It will never weave the kind of fabric that is needed to keep the blanket of the country together. Sooner or later it will unravel and there will be no country at all. Je suis Canadien. I was born a Canadian, I will die a Canadian.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper. It being 1.54 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 17, 1997 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1.54 p.m.)