Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-16, the Citizenship of Canada Act, previously known as Bill C-63.
I want to take this opportunity to thank our young and dynamic colleague for Outremont. Besides taking an interest in the issue of violence on television and introducing an excellent bill—one I am sure you will insist on supporting, Mr. Speaker, since you have always been against violence—he is our critic for citizenship and immigration.
I think it was very wise on his part to follow in the steps of his predecessor and to revive an amendment which reminds us of the importance of citizenship. Citizenship is important to a society. It is, first, the conviction that we live together, that our way of living together forms a common public culture. In such a common public culture, there is a number of elements.
Members will understand that knowledge of history is important. Otherwise, not only would nobody be able to understand Quebec but nobody would understand why Quebecers aspire to a national destiny. If you would be so good as to nod, Mr. Speaker, this would greatly encourage me to continue.
When we talk about Quebec's national destiny, we are referring to an unfulfilled, uninterrupted quest that will inevitably lead it, in the coming years, to achieve sovereignty and, of course, to create a country. The Premier of Quebec reminded us of that when he said that this whole process was now back on the political agenda.
Our common public culture is our history. It is also our language. No one can ignore that by choosing to live in Quebec, they are also choosing to speak a vernacular language, a language that is not the language spoken by North America's majority, but by a minority, the French minority. There can be no common public culture without participation through a common language. I will get back to this issue, which is rather central to today's proposal before the House.
When it comes to Quebec citizenship, another component of a common public culture that is just as essential as the language is a commitment to democracy. I hope Canadian Alliance members, government members and Progressive Conservative members—who will hold their convention this weekend—are well aware that there is a deep, fundamental attachment to democracy in Quebec.
We hope that all citizens will participate in our institutions and we say that democracy is a very real and dynamic component of the concept of citizenship.
How is that citizenship exercised? If I asked that question to hon. members, they would tell me that citizenship is exercised through the right to vote, through the choice that we make to have elected representatives speak on our behalf on major public issues and voice our concerns in the various assemblies.
We know that the National Assembly is among the most important assemblies in North America. My colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, knows about this issue better than I do, because he is a member of the world interparliamentary association. I think I can say that the National Assembly is among the oldest parliaments of North America. Parliamentarism was born with the Constitutional Act, 1791. Back then, there were few parliaments in North America. Therefore, Quebec can pride itself upon a long and deep rooted tradition of democracy.
Another element of our public culture is intercommunity relationships. We do not see Quebec as an homogenous mass where there is no place for input from other communities. Quebec is a land of immigration for various reasons. Of course, there is the inherent attraction of Quebec because it is at the crossroads of several major cultures, including the United States and France. Our francophile and francophone roots are of course very much present in our heritage and our society, because we still speak French, but also because this language is the expression of our culture. Quebec is a point of contact with North American society. It is no small matter to be the neighbour of the first economic power of the world.
Let us remember what Kennedy said. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when you were a child, a long time ago, you were an admirer of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. What did he say? Here is what he said about the relations between Canada and U.S. “Geography made us neighbours, and history made us friends”.
This is an elegant way of saying that we did not choose to be the neighbours of the most powerful nation in the world. This has its advantages and its disadvantages. This was a disadvantage as far as foreign investment is concerned, but it was also an advantage in terms of sharing a common market that has a potential to be expanded, a potential that has always been recognized by sovereignists. This is why, early in the process, sovereignists supported the previous government in the free trade initiative.
Having said that, I want to discuss our perception of citizenship in terms of the contribution of various cultural communities. For instance, a member representing a Montreal riding—I am a member from Montreal as are my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont, and those from greater Montreal, though I will leave it to Mrs. Harel to define its boundaries—cannot do his or her work without acknowledging the presence of cultural communities that are very dynamic in everyday life.
For example, in the northern part of my riding, there is a Haitian community. I think there is a large Ukrainian community in the riding of Rosemont. In the eastern part of my riding, in Bourget, there is also a small Portuguese community. What does this mean?
I have to make a fundamental distinction here. We are sovereignists who believe in the existence of a political citizenship in Quebec that has to be recognized. I will get back to this later. However, we also believe that Quebec society should benefit from the contribution of various communities.
Unlike multiculturalism, we do not define society as the co-existence of several cultures without a common thread. We believe that, for instance, Haitians who immigrate to Quebec, Portuguese who settle in Montreal or Ukrainians who live in Rosemont may have strong feelings about their culture, but we nevertheless expect them to adhere to a public common culture.
The best proof of adhesion to this public culture is, of course, making the effort to master the language sufficiently to be able to communicate in daily life.
Multiculturalism allows for the co-existence of several cultures and for everyone to continue to master their own culture while considering themselves Canadians. We do not share this vision. It is not the vision of the Government of Quebec and, of course, we do not believe it is not the vision that is most promising for Quebecers.
The proposal of our colleague from Rosemont is extremely reasonable and I cannot imagine that anyone would oppose it. The amendment proposes that, during swearing in ceremonies, the four main symbolic documents underlying the common public culture of Quebec, namely the Charter of the French Language of Quebec, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Elections Act and the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and Race Relations, be distributed. An official of the Government of Quebec would be there to explain their importance.
Again, Quebec is an land of immigration. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are three major centres of immigration. This means there are three provinces where there is a major centre of immigration. Quebec is one of them. We hope that immigrants will come to Quebec in large numbers and will take an active part in this common public culture.