Mr. Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge the work done by my colleague from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot. I see that he did his research, but unfortunately for us Quebeckers, he completely missed the point.
The bill states the following, and I quote:
In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God—
I would like to focus on “a people”. However we may view the history of Canada, there are two peoples, except when the word “Canada” refers to the St. Lawrence Valley in the history of New France.
“A people” is an affront, an attack on the heart of who we are. There are two peoples, and I would even say three, including the aboriginals, following the Dussault-Erasmus report that was so carefully shelved. After the work and effort that was put into that report, it has now been shelved.
The least the government can do—I already mentioned that the aboriginals should be recognized as a people—is to recognize Quebeckers as a people and a nation. We are a people and a nation. Any solemn declaration made before God that does not acknowledge this, that is the right to our language and our culture in general, is an affront.
I understand the effort involved in determining the five fundamental values, but they are not enough for us because they do not take into consideration the heart of what we are.
I would like to remind everyone that Gérard Bouchard—our former leader, Lucien Bouchard's brother—wrote an article in Le Devoir today in which he responded to the criticism from those who oppose the fête des Patriotes in Quebec. This criticism came from Montreal anglophones who said that it had ethnic overtones. According to Gérard Bouchard, they missed the point completely.
It is important to remember that the movement that led to the insurrection of 1837 also included anglophones, and that Alfred Nelson was one of those who proclaimed independence in the spring of 1838. So in every sense of the word, we are a people and a nation.
Therefore, an oath of citizenship that would be pledged to “a people”, leads me to conclude, unfortunately, that my colleague from this committee with the very long name has missed the point. I'm sure his intentions are good, but he cannot not know, if he knows us even a little, that saying “a people” is an attack on us, it does not include us.
I would add that, given the circumstances in which we live, any citizen who settles in Quebec, who is a Quebecker, shares the rights of Quebeckers, of our people and our nation.
It really bothers me when I see that, on an issue as sensitive as this, we are incapable of coming together. There is recognition. It is not an ideological recognition, it is a recognition.
I have just returned from a meeting of the European Union with the Canada-Europe Committee. Countries like Belgium have one, two or three different peoples, and countries that used to be at war, are now trying to reach a compromise, foster tolerance and recognize each other.
Canada should also look to the European Union to see what it is attempting to do, instead of taking advantage of every opportunity to impose a single reality that does include us, that does not correspond to our history now or that of the future.
I am sorry to say this. I hoped to be able to say something different, because I do find the idea of these principles to be a good one. However, I say this in all honesty, the ideas presented by the member opposite struck quite a chord with me.