Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2006

Opposition Motion—The Quebec Nation

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to you, as my colleague points out.

By having constantly cheated Quebec on a constitutional level, the federalists are running out of arguments against Quebec's demands and the consensus in Quebec. They have to come up with all sorts of excuses to argue against us. They created a motion similar to the Bloc's, but nuanced, weaker, watered down and they are opposing our motion by saying already that they will vote for the other motion.

This is the problem as I see it. The successive federalist governments do not understand, and it is precisely with this closed attitude, with these types of restrictions and tricks that they alienate thousands of Quebeckers.

Lord Durham said in 1838, “I expected to find a conflict between a government and a people, but instead found two nations at war within the same state.”

Since that day when the Quebec nation was already recognized, the federal political plan, which is going on right now, was put in place to slow down, prevent, hold back the emergence and recognition of a people or a nation. The successive federalist governments boast about being open, flexible and an example of a federalism that works. The truth is that every gain within Canadian federalism, every bit of progress made by Quebec throughout its history has been hard won through recurring battles and always met with fierce resistance by the various federalist governments.

Conservative or Liberal, it is always the same thing: they all unite against Quebec. And every one of Quebec's victories, constitutionally speaking, has been nothing more than pure and simple catch up since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.

If today's debate is no exception, what the Bloc Québécois motion is asking is simply that Quebec be recognized as a nation. We are in full debate because the government had to add a nuance, amend the motion and impose its conditions.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Speaker, since I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert? You are indicating that I have a minute left.

I will close by saying that any hope that the federalists will propose something substantial in Quebec is non-existent. The disagreement on Quebec's place that has gone on since 1867 still exists. That said, the Quebec nation continues to exist even without Canada's recognition. It continues to pay its taxes and to have its own interests that sometimes differ from Canada's interests.

The Bloc Québécois continues to defend the interests of the Quebec nation.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague. She mentioned that certain people had deceived Quebec. Could she tell us who she is talking about? Is she talking about those who have been in Quebec City for 13 years and have not been able to restore fiscal balance? Or is she talking about those who set Quebec back on several occasions, like in 1982 with the patriation of the Constitution, at a time when the province was governed by sovereignists? Therefore, are sovereignists not setting Quebec back within the Canadian federation?

Has the presence of the Bloc Québécois in Ottawa helped Quebeckers, who form a nation, move forward? If not, what conclusions can be drawn from that?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

In my opinion, the significant presence of Bloc Québécois members in Ottawa is a testament to the fact that it does a good job representing the interests of Quebeckers. They feel that they are well represented since they elected 51 members of our party in the last election. It certainly means something to feel that a large number of Quebeckers want to be represented by members of the Bloc Québécois who defend the interests of Quebec in Ottawa.

Let us look at certain issues like the manpower issue and all the efforts we put into it. And there are bills that we introduced, such as the anti-scab bill and the amendment to the Employment Insurance Act. All these measures are dear to Quebeckers and reflect their values. That is my answer.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should admit that her party is using the valuable time of this House—where we should be debating current issues that are relevant and very important to all Canadians from all provinces—to engage in petty partisan politics.

A motion was presented to recognize Quebec as a nation, and now the Bloc wants to add “currently” within Canada. Like the hon. member, I too was elected to the Parliament of Canada to represent the interests of my region and my riding, to make laws, to present motions and to debate issues for Canada, as it exists. We cannot imagine a different Canada.

I visited almost every region in Quebec. About fifteen years ago, I dealt with a family from Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce, the Bonnevilles. These people were very proud of their riding and their region. They told me about the Beauce. They did not talk about the Beauce being currently within Québec.

Are the hon. member and the Bloc Québécois suggesting that we use this wording for first nations, that are currently within Canada, in case they decide some day that they want something else? Quebeckers form a nation within Canada. They are no less Québécois and no less members of that nation wether they live in Sainte-Marie or in Montreal.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question.

We have to be careful when extrapolating statements or speeches. There is something I want to tell the hon. member.

Quebeckers know they are part of a nation, but right now they do not feel adequately represented under the federal parliamentary system, in Ottawa. They are asking us to claim the right to manage what is ours, and to do so based on our values. Quebeckers are asking us to be strong advocates for their cause, here in Ottawa.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to talk about the Quebec nation and, specifically, the text of the Bloc Québécois motion, which reads as follows:

That this House recognize that Quebeckers form a nation currently within Canada.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for her excellent and most interesting analysis of the national situation in Quebec.

I would like to quote some lines from the 1970 Quebec cult classic, Elvis Gratton. Here is the context: Bob, the main character, who is also Elvis Gratton, is a federalist.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

People are already laughing because they know the joke. The film is a joke. Nevertheless, I would like to quote the lines where he is trying to explain his identity to a traveller. This is what he says:

I am...a French North American, a Quebec-Canadian francophone, a French-Canadian-speaking French Quebecker... We are Canadian, American, North American francophones, Franco-Quebeckers... We are Franco-Canadians from Quebec, Quebec-Canadians.

The film is a joke. It is a very funny social satire. It is also a harsh criticism of Canadian federalism. It uses many types of humour: irony, puns, black humour and parody. It also uses jokes. This scene, in the context of this satire, is a joke. It made us Quebeckers laugh a lot. I can see that it is still making federalists in this House laugh.

I must say that this Pierre Falardeau film, which has become a cult classic as I said earlier, has made generations of us laugh. But there comes a time when we must stop laughing and turn our attention to serious matters.

Yesterday's Conservative government motion is a lot like that joke. “Quebec nation in a united Canada” is also a lot like that Yvon Deschamps joke that gets told and retold: “An independent Quebec in a strong and united Canada”.

This film pointed out that Quebeckers' conception of their nation has changed over the years. After the conquest, Quebeckers called themselves Canadians, in opposition to the people whom they called the English. Then they called themselves French Canadians in order to differentiate themselves from the English who had decided in the meantime to call themselves Canadians. All that time, as a minority within Canada, they continued to define themselves in relation to their origin. French Canadians were the descendants of the original French colonists. A person was born French Canadian but could hardly become one. It was at the time of the Quiet Revolution that all this changed.

Taking their destiny into their own hands and with the help of the Quebec state, Quebeckers gradually stopped defining themselves by their origin and started defining themselves by their sense of belonging to Quebec society. Quebeckers see themselves less and less as a minority within Canada and increasingly as a separate nation with its own territory called Quebec and a national government called the Government of Quebec.

While the francophone population is increasingly mixed as a result of the integration of immigrant children into its schools, the term “French Canadian” does not mean very much to young people any more.

Anyone who joins us on this beautiful adventure to build a French-speaking society in North America, making a strength of its differences, is as much a Quebecker as the descendants of the 17th-century French colonists. The hon. members for Papineau, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Saint-Lambert are Quebeckers, but they are not French Canadians.

There are still some Quebeckers who take an ethnic view of their nation. Marking Quebec’s fête nationale last June 22, the Conservative member for Louis-Hébert spoke in the House about:

— St. Jean Baptiste Day, a day to celebrate the cultural pride and rich heritage of francophones in every region of Canada.

This is not the view that the Bloc Québécois takes of the Quebec nation and its fête nationale, nor is it the view of most Quebeckers.

Recognition as a nation is more than symbolic. Some people think that recognizing a nation is a symbolic gesture of little consequence. That was the view expressed by the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages, who dared to say last June 23 that “people are not interested really in that question”. When asked whether Quebec City is a national capital, she said that is what the signs along the highways say.

Contrary to what she believes, recognizing a nation is more than just a symbolic act. Nations have rights, and one right in particular, which is self-determination. In other words, the right to direct their own development.

Two former premiers of Quebec, René Lévesque—a sovereignist—and Robert Bourassa—a federalist—agreed on this issue.

On June 9, 1980, René Lévesque said:

Quebec society has all the characteristics of a distinct national community, [and] has an inalienable right to self-determination. It is the most fundamental right the people of Quebec possess.

As for Robert Bourassa, on June 22, 1990, in a speech given to the Quebec National Assembly following the failed Meech Lake agreement, he said:

English Canada must clearly understand that no matter what anyone says or does, Quebec is and always will be a distinct society that is free and able to control its own destiny and its own development.

And those were the words of a federalist.

A people's right to self-determination has been clearly defined and set out by the United Nations. Resolution 2625 (XXV) adopted by the General Assembly in 1970 defines it best:

... all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, ... the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self determination by that people.

The Bloc Québécois does not want this recognition to be mere lip service. It is asking Canada to deal with Quebec for what it is. Established after the failure of the Meech Lake accord, the Bloc Québécois has learned from Quebec's repeated setbacks. We are not working on the renewal of federalism. It is up to the federalists to prove that they recognize that Quebec forms a nation and that they intend to take steps that will make this acknowledgement meaningful.

At present, the possibility of Quebec's self-determination within Canada, unfortunately, is not yet on the table. Sovereignty is currently the only means of achieving self-determination.

There is no hope that federalism will provide a sound option for Quebec. Disagreement about Quebec's place existed in 1867 and continues to exist.

The latest Environics poll indicates that 66% of Quebeckers feel that the Constitution must be amended to recognize the Quebec nation, whereas 83% of Canadians are against it. It is hard to see how Quebec and Canada will resolve that difference.

That being said, the Quebec nation continues to exist even without being recognized by Canada. It continues to pay its taxes, it continues to have interests of its own that are sometimes different than those of Canada. The Bloc continues to defend the interests of the Quebec nation.

Because there is a Quebec nation, there is a Quebec culture and a Quebec film industry. I will quote the representatives of the Union des Artistes du Québec, who were answering questions about the Interim Report on the Canadian Feature Film Industry on September 15, 2005:

We feel that there is a Canadian film industry and a Quebec film industry, no matter the language in which the films are created. First, this reality must be acknowledged and then the specific characteristics of each must be taken into account in order to define them and to find appropriate solutions.

For the Bloc Québécois, there is not a francophone market and an anglophone market in Canada. There is a Quebec film industry and a Canadian film industry.

Throughout the work of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the 2005 feature film policy, the Bloc Québécois tried to make the committee members aware of this idea, something that is obvious to anyone who knows anything about films in Canada and Quebec. The challenges these two markets face are so different that it is impossible to have a single feature film policy. The National Film Board of Canada noted in its own position paper:

—as of September 2004, Quebec films generated 21.1% of revenues in the French-language market, while Canadian films generated a mere 1.7% in the English-language market.

However, for reasons beyond our comprehension, the committee chose to ignore and to silence any reference to the Quebec film industry, which is defined as part of the French-language market.

Films such as Mambo Italiano, The Blue Butterfly or Bon cop, Bad Cop do not fall within the English-language market, but within the Quebec market. Recognizing Quebec films would require the federal government to recognize the specificity of the Quebec culture, which it refuses to do.

There has been a misunderstanding between Quebec and Canada since 1867. Since Quebeckers were forming a nation and their first allegiance was to Quebec, and thinking they would finally have the right to direct their own development themselves, they accepted the Constitution of 1867. Canada did not formally recognize that Quebec formed a nation.

I do not think I will have enough time to finish, but my colleagues will quite certainly pick up the arguments on the misunderstanding between Quebec and Canada that has lasted since 1867. If they ask me why, I will be pleased to respond.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this country has been a tremendous success. It is the project that was the vision of the bringing together of English and French, the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier and those who worked with them as Fathers of Confederation, who saw the possibilities and the potential of a united Canada that included those founding cultures.

There were some at the time who opposed it, including some from Quebec. In fact, a fellow named Sir Wilfrid Laurier was one of the fiercest opponents of Confederation, yet he too, over time, came to see the benefits and the opportunities that this country presented to his culture, to his home and to the Québécois.

We have seen what has happened since within a united Canada. We have had un épanouissement of the culture of Quebec, something that could never have happened had Quebec been alone in North America, when the Québécois culture might have been reduced to something little more than the Cajun culture in terms of the French Canadian tradition. It is the fact of the Canada of Quebec, a Quebec in Canada, and the Québécois being in Canada that has allowed the protection of that culture, the blossoming of it, as I have said, and the opportunities to build the greatest country.

Does the member opposite really believe that the cultural opportunities and the strengthening of Québécois culture that have occurred would have been possible had that people been subject to the ebbs and flows of North American culture and the strength of American culture? Or would they have been reduced to little more than what we see among the Cajuns today?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers form a people, Quebeckers form a nation. We have our territory which is quite distinct, we have our history, we have our institutions, we have our language. Any people and any nation wishing to thrive does so despite everyone else and despite any motion.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague’s speech in which she managed to conjure up both Elvis Gratton and Robert Bourassa in the same breath. I will remind her that Robert Bourassa is before all else a great Quebecker and he was also a great federalist leader during a particularly troubled period in Quebec. He was also a champion of sustainable development, and that is why Quebec now has a very positive environmental report card in that respect and can in fact be a model for the rest of the Canadian federation.

In her speech, my colleague talked a lot about what divides Quebeckers and Canada. My question is about something that unites them, about a fundamental issue, climate change. How can my colleague, who represents Quebeckers, not support the Clean Air Act, which is precisely meant to protect the interests of Quebec and combat climate change?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that I am listening to the scene from Pierre Falardeau's film all over again.

Because he has asked me a question about climate change, which fits very well with the motion we are debating today, I will answer him by talking about the point of discord that has existed between Quebec and Canada since 1867.

In point of fact, as I started to say earlier, because Quebeckers formed a nation and their first allegiance was to Quebec, they agreed to the 1867 Constitution thinking that they were finally getting the right to determine their own development.

But Canada had never formally recognized that Quebec formed a nation. The Supreme Court ruled on this subject in 1981. On April 17, 2002, the National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:

That the National Assembly reaffirm that it has never adhered to the Constitution Act, 1982, the effect of which has been to diminish the powers and rights of Quebec without the consent of the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly, and that it continues to be unacceptable to Quebec.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the question from the member for Lévis—Bellechasse concerning climate change, among other things.

This is a perfect illustration of the federal government’s lack of comprehension of the Quebec nation. Over and over, in the National Assembly of Quebec, its members have passed unanimous motions calling on the federal government to recognize the right of Quebec to implement the Kyoto protocol. But we have a federal government that stubbornly refuses to recognize this national consensus in Quebec.

I therefore ask my colleague, is this not another example that illustrates that we are dealing here, not with asymmetrical federalism, but on the contrary, with a federal government that is refusing to recognize another national consensus that demonstrates the existence of the Quebec nation?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is perfectly correct. The environment issue is a good illustration of the fact that Quebec is a nation where a consensus exists concerning the welfare of Quebeckers. The way in which the Minister of the Environment treated Quebec on the international stage in Nairobi is another example of the fact that Quebec is a nation and would have the full status that it needs on the international level if it were sovereign.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate today, which need I say, is a debate that was born of a strategy, of a tactic on the part of the Bloc Québécois that does not seek to have the Quebecois nation recognized by the whole House of Commons. The Bloc Québécois thought by tabling this motion to divide the members of this House, the federalist parties, and, finally, to be able to say to Quebeckers once again how humiliated they were because the House of Commons refused to recognize the Quebecois nation.

Well, their firecracker has exploded in their faces; right in their faces. Thanks to their motion, they have united all the federalist forces in this House for the first time in a very long while. In that sense, that tactic of division—I would go so far as to say that treacherous tactic—enabled us yesterday to witness a great moment in this House.

I never thought that I would stand up to applaud the Prime Minister during this session! I never thought that I would delight in the presence of the leader of the New Democratic Party! The one person to whom I was ready to give a standing ovation was the leader of the Liberal Party. However, yesterday, because of the Bloc’s strategy of division; because the Bloc wanted to weaken Quebec and then have it humiliated, it went completely off track. As a result, we see now that they are skating on the edges of their skates, over on their ankles. They are proposing an amendment about a united Canada. They no longer know where they are going because their strategy failed miserably.

At the same time, this provocation gave each of us the opportunity to reflect, in our own hearts and consciences. In that sense, what happened yesterday, because of the motion by the Prime Minister, will enable us all to speak out, as Quebeckers and Canadians, with one common voice. It is the worst possible message that the Bloc members could hear.

They were convinced that the Prime Minister would say no to the Quebec nation. They were convinced that this party would be divided and that their motion would be rejected. Then, they would have travelled to Montreal, Quebec City and the regions to say how terrible this was. It is absolutely unbelievable to see that the Bloc, which claims it does not need to search for its identity, tabled a tactical motion to try to get recognized and to seek its Quebec identity here, while being convinced all along that it would not happen. However, it is precisely this provocation that led, yesterday, to a great moment of national unity, and I must pay tribute to that party for achieving that.

The Bloc Québécois' action resulted in some of my colleagues, who had reservations about this whole thing, to agree on a recognition. A vote will take place within the next few days to recognize that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. It is a very positive thing to see this change in views and mentalities.

I know that Quebeckers are pleased to see that this House recognizes their difference. This quest for recognition goes back many years. I remember that, during my career, at the 1980 referendum, Quebeckers were told that if they voted no, they would get a form of recognition and federalism would be renewed. I was also there when the Constitution was patriated, in 1982. That patriation was an unfinished business.

Obviously, the quest for the recognition of the Quebec difference was central to all these representations. This has been the case for a very long time. In that sense, the motion tabled by the Prime Minister is in itself a historic measure that will allow us to hold out the olive branch to Quebeckers, particularly federalist Quebeckers, and tell them that we recognize their existence and their difference within the great Canadian family.

At the same time, this means we recognize that we have more than one identity. We can be both proud Quebeckers and proud Canadians. We can be shaped by both of these identities. Together, all of our identities create the Canadian mosaic. By recognizing the Quebec nation, we are telling Quebeckers that they are more than just a part of our multicultural society and we are recognizing a historical reality. In that sense, I think this would make many of our fellow citizens feel better about being part of this country and feel accepted just as they are. Period, as the leader of the Bloc Québécois would say.

We are what we are. I think the Bloc Québécois' tactics have enabled us to see that, among ourselves, Quebeckers can define themselves. They have also enabled us to see that our colleagues from elsewhere in Canada accept and value our differences. Our differences are valuable. They do not hurt us; rather, they make us better and enable us to express ourselves in many different ways. Obviously, our ability to express ourselves in French strengthens Canada.

In the end, when we look at the message we are sending Quebeckers, it is clear that our colleagues in the National Assembly think this is one of the best messages we have sent in a long time. Those who boast about representing all Quebeckers should have listened to Premier Jean Charest last night. As the premier of all Quebeckers, he urged the Bloc members to vote for the Prime Minister's motion. He recommended that they do so graciously and recognize the existing reality. Oddly enough, today the Bloc members are turning a deaf ear to the Premier of Quebec. Very interesting. The people who were supposed to be speaking on behalf of Quebec are turning a deaf ear to the premier. Perhaps, if they do not want to listen to Jean Charest, they could listen to Mario Dumont, who says this is very good and a step in the right direction.

Then again, this broadened the consensus among the members of this House. I am very happy to see that we were not alone to send this message. We have reached out with this motion, and our colleagues at the National Assembly have responded. Personally, as a Quebecker, I am feeling much more in tune today with the majority at the National Assembly than the people in that corner. Together, we are shaping something that will let the Government of Quebec know that there are men and women in Ottawa who recognize their difference as well as the needs of a Quebec society that is a nation in our midst. That is obvious.

I am therefore pleased that the proponents of slash and burn tactics got burned, and it was their own doing. We responded to provocation by not letting ourselves be divided. We will not allow anyone to push us around just because they are using some tactic. They were so sure of themselves, with their prepared speeches saying that the Prime Minister said no and that we Liberals were all over the map. Viewing the country as much more important that our respective parties on this momentous occasion, we all came together and supported the motion.

The people of Quebec will not be fooled. They know full well that, on the eve of the Liberal convention, the Bloc Québécois was intent on driving a wedge between us. It did not do so in an effort to foster unity among Quebeckers or to give greater leverage to Quebec, but rather to weaken Quebec and then be able to cry humiliation. That is why I am criticizing Bloc members for not playing the role they purport to be playing.

They claim to be the defenders of Quebec and Quebec's interests. It was not in Quebec's interest to try to divide this House and send a negative message to Quebeckers. That is why I think that our fellow Quebeckers will sense a generosity of spirit, a harmony of spirit with other Canadians, and I really want to pay tribute to my own colleagues as well.

This is not an easy debate. For some, the concept of nation has a meaning that goes beyond words. In that sense, our colleagues on this side of the House have also made progress. I think it is important that their thinking has evolved. This is a step forward, and it will enable federalists in Quebec to say that it is not true that Quebec is isolated; it is not true that we have to accept the Bloc's version of history. It is not true because the rest of the country is reaching out.

There is still much to be done. Clearly, this has to be seen as an olive branch. Certainly, we are going to keep calling on this government every day to keep its promises to Quebec and the other provinces. For example, the government is saying that it is going to do more in terms of transfers to the provinces, but ultimately, it is doing less. We have noted that weakness. We will judge the government not only on its resolutions, but on its actions, and we will wage a partisan battle in due course.

I could have voted in favour of the motion, despite the Bloc's bad faith. I had nothing against the original wording of this motion, but I feel that the Prime Minister's version is far better. Moreover, we would have amended his version if we could. But since it was not possible for us to make an amendment, I think that the Prime Minister's version is far closer to reality. The National Assembly is very comfortable with it. The Premier of Quebec, their premier, is urging them to vote for the Prime Minister's resolution. They should listen to their premier.

Instead of listening to their premier, they want to play a little game with Mr. Boisclair, who has just reacted, 24 hours later, to what is happening here. There seems to be a disconnect between them.

We know this motion must be understood in its broadest sense. I have no intention of sparking a constitutional debate here today, but personally, as a Quebecker and a Canadian, I hope that one day, when the time is right, we can begin another constitutional round during which we can settled this unresolved issue that is the patriation of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, the amending formula, and so on.

I hope that we will one day go beyond a mere resolution. But the day will certainly come when Canadians everywhere will be interested in exploring certain constitutional changes. Today, I do not see a consensus, nor is the official government in Quebec calling for changes. Jean Charest is not calling for constitutional changes, and this will not hinder his chances of winning the next election. At present, we must ask ourselves if we are ready to take small steps.

The Bloc's insipid provocation has forced us to take a step that allows us to reach out to Quebeckers. I do not believe that we have solved all the world's problems, but I feel good as a Quebecker and a Canadian. I feel somewhat more comfortable knowing that my own colleagues recognize Quebeckers as a nation and that our colleagues across the floor also recognize what makes Quebec different.

By allowing this recognition, we are probably contributing more to Canada as a whole, because we feel accepted and recognized for what we are. This is true for every aspect of the Canadian population. In order to participate fully in a society, we want to be recognized by our fellow citizens for what we are and what we bring with us.

As for Quebeckers, we bring the history that allows us to claim the title of nation.

The Bloc tried to fool us. You could say they were hoist with their own petard. In the end, the Bloc allowed us to collectively send a clear, unequivocal, non-partisan message to Quebeckers. For this, I am extremely grateful to the Bloc.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member for Outremont.

Would Quebeckers no longer form a nation if Quebec were no longer part of Canada?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very comfortable with the idea that Quebeckers could decide their destiny through a democratic process. Robert Bourassa said so, and every democrat recognizes this fact.

But a real democrat also recognizes that, twice already, in 1980 and 1995, Quebeckers have chosen Canada. In that sense, I think that, from the moment that Quebeckers choose Canada and choose to contribute fully to Canada, that is the message that has to be acknowledged. Should Quebeckers make a different choice in a democratic process, all the international rules you are aware of would then apply.

For the time being, the motion put forward by the Prime Minister reflects much more closely our daily reality. There are members in this House who want to change Canada's reality. We know that. The problem is that a majority of Quebeckers do not agree with them. They are always in the minority. In the polls, however twisted the question may be, they remain the minority. They have not moved forward at all in recent years. I realize that this is frustrating to them and that this is why they hope to use humiliation as an excuse, among others, but their tactic is not working. It really blew up in their face this time.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and I agree with several of them.

My ancestors and my parents are from the province of Quebec.

My ancestors left Quebec and came to Ontario many hundreds of years ago. Part of the reason they left Quebec was to grow this country, to build this country. As my colleague said earlier, the anglophones and francophones and many people from various countries all over the world built this wonderful country into what it is.

I agree with my colleague that yesterday was a special moment in history. There is no question about that. I think that 20, 50, 100 years from now people will realize how important a moment it was. It showed that when somebody wants to hurt this country, hurt the francophones, hurt the anglophones, hurt whomever, we as Canadians will not let that happen. We will rally together as a House, not as a House divided, but as a House unified, with one exception. I was wondering last evening as I reflected on what happened yesterday, does this not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the party opposite does not represent Quebeckers. That party wants to tear this country apart, the country which my ancestors and the member's ancestors built.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a democrat. Therefore in my opinion all those who were elected to this House are equally legitimate and representative. As much as we may have fundamental differences regarding the Constitution, I still have the same respect for all the members of this House, because they have been elected by their fellow citizens.

Actually the real test is not whether or not there are 51 MPs from the Bloc Québécois; it is knowing whether we are able, as federalists, to make contact with the Quebec population—the francophones in particular—and get it involved in this passionate project called Canada. There have been shortcomings in the past. In my opinion, the existence of the Bloc Québécois—I could not speak otherwise—reflects a vacuum at one point in history. There is nothing accidental here. Thus, as much as I think they have to be combated, I also think they have tried out some little tactics in order to divide us and they have not succeeded. It has created this advantage. In the end, each member is here in this House legitimately. Everyone is democratically elected and deserves our respect.

Finally, whether we are different from you or from others, we have to respect one another in our differences. In a democracy, the people are always right.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I still feel the effects of yesterday's great moment in the House. I agree with other members present that it was a defining moment. The words of respect that flowed for Quebec have to be extended to all members of the House.

I am concerned when I hear the message in relation to the motion before us. In his initial remarks, the member for Outremont instead of talking in a measured way about the motion, there was an attack. I do not think that attack belongs here, and I am very concerned about that. I believe that kind of discussion probably belongs in the Liberal leadership convention next week.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where he got that. The reality is that this debate is taking place because the Bloc Québécois tried to get involved in the Liberal leadership race and tried to embarrass the Conservative government. This is not great strategy. Its strategy is so clear and open that we have all seen that they are caught up in it and do not know how to back out of it now. We have all seen it. All the media watching us know that the Bloc is completely tangled up in its tactic.

The Bloc Québécois has been here since 1990. But they choose this week to ask for a resolution about the Quebec nation, no doubt inspired by the federal Liberal supporters. Come on!

As much as I would like to say that the resolutions in this House are always nobly motivated and nation-building, in this case, it was not noble at all. It was to try and trip us up. The truth is that it has had the opposite effect and I am very pleased with the results. In this sense, the Bloc members have served a purpose. For once, we have had a unanimous motion by all federalist parties and, as a result, they have united us in a cause greater than each of our own parties. That is quite an achievement.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight about something my Liberal colleague said. I think he misled the House earlier when he quoted Mr. Boisclair. I would like to remind him that Mr. Boisclair said earlier today in the media that the text of the motion sends a false message about a united Canada because Quebec did not sign the Constitution, and that the Conservatives' motion is a motion of convenience more than anything else. It has no real meaning and is merely symbolic.

I would like my colleague to tell me why he cannot vote on a simple motion that recognizes Quebeckers as a nation unless that motion contains the words “united Canada”. Why the words “united Canada”?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Drummond should have talked to her leader a little earlier today. He was ready to add the words “currently in a united Canada” to his own motion. That is what he suggested to the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. He was ready to add that to his text as long as the word “currently” was in there.

So the leader of the Bloc Québécois was ready to recognize the existence of a united Canada. Frankly, that surprised me, but I thought that maybe he had become tangled up in the intricacies of his own strategy yet again. Still, he made the offer. Mr. Boisclair should be very insulted by the offer the leader of the Bloc Québécois made to the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie with respect to the amendment. He offered to include the words “united Canada” in his amendment.

Mr. Boisclair, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is double-crossing you. Maybe he wants your job.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Labrador, the Trans-Labrador Highway.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this very important debate today, a debate that has been brought on by the Prime Minister of Canada, who made a very bold move but a very correct move at a time when leadership was demanded and leadership was found, and it was not found wanting.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, my colleague in the House.

There are a couple of points with which I want to start.

Let me very clear, today's debate, which the Bloc Québécois has brought to the House, has long been fueled by political actors for debatable and questionable purposes. In bringing this debate to the House, the members of the Bloc want, above all else, to refuse to acknowledge the truth. That truth is Canada is a federation that works. It works because of our heritage, the heritage of a decentralized country, the heritage of a federation that recognizes the realities and specificities of our provincial and federal partners.

All regions and provinces have benefited from the decentralized qualities of the Canadian federation. Those qualities have more generally contributed to the vitality and development of all Canadians, especially Quebecers. I am proud to take part in today's debate and to take the opportunity to remind the Bloc, once again, that it is wrong to depict the Canadian federation as a straitjacket that is thwarting Quebec's development.

Indeed, I do not understand why the Bloc is so stubbornly belabouring themes that do not even need to be questioned. It is obvious to everyone that Quebeckers live and flourish in a province that has its own specificity, allowing the francophone majority to affirm itself and have its exceptional identity respected. It is also obvious that this society, which is so rich and so special, allows for the presence and development of multi-ethnicity and plural identities.

What a great success story, but to what can such an accomplishment be attributed? If we buy into the Bloc's logic, we arrive at conclusions that disturb me. If we buy into the Bloc's credo, we reject all the achievements that make Canada a decentralized federation based on respect for differences as it was founded in 1867. If we share the Bloc's ideas, we are admitting that since then the exceptional quality of the language, culture and institutions of Quebeckers have never found their place within our federal system. In short, this means admitting that respect for differences and respect for the spirit of federalism are illusions that have nothing to do with Canada's evolution and Quebec's development. I soundly reject those theories.

Should we ignore the facts? Should we ignore history? We have such a striking reality before our eyes, but we still need to debate it. I ask again, for what reason?

It is clearly so difficult to sum up in a single word the diversity of Quebec society and Canadian society. Quebeckers have been marked throughout our history by a will constantly reaffirmed by generations of men and women to promote and defend their rights and preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage, and they have succeeded brilliantly within the federation of Canada.

Should we contradict that? Quebeckers also belong to a community that has strong tools for development, progress and prosperity. Should we contradict that? Yet let us recall the words of Mr. Landry, who admitted himself that Quebeckers had obtained a remarkable degree of development and vitality because they had the legal a financial tools similar to those of a nation.

I believe instead, and I am convinced of this and I emphasize it, that it is precisely the Canadian federal system that has allowed the vitality and development of Quebeckers and their cultural, linguistic and institutional richness. Our federation enjoys extensive flexibility so let us not deny the achievements of our history and our tradition. Let us not refute the intentions of the founders of the Canadian federation. They were aware of the need to recognize the diversity, differences and specificities of all partners of the federation. We owe much of that to the very presence of Quebeckers themselves.

Quebeckers fully participated in the founding of Canada, supported it, knowing full well that their specificity and their differences would be respected within it. That flexibility, which is particular to a federation, has served not only Quebeckers but it has also served all of Canada. Every province, every territory, and every region has been able to benefit from it and contribute to it through their own vitality and development.

Within a federal framework Quebeckers have been able to safeguard their economic development and affirm the specificity and vitality that has not been limited within their own borders, but has spread throughout the globe through the spirit of a unique culture and won the recognition and respect of the entire world.

I admit, and this is reflected in the government's decisions and actions, that our federation is also obviously a work in progress, as indeed any political system is, be it federal or unitary. It would be ridiculous to assert that a federal system is established so that it can no longer evolve.

Indeed, how can it not evolve in response to circumstances and the many changes that come our way? How can we not recognize the significance of new issues that emerge that may affect the quality and the life of Canadians and Quebeckers, issues that we must address in an increasingly competitive world? It is that inevitable evolution that the Canadian government wanted to respond to through the concept of federalism of openness.

We have already seen that new approach in action, based on respect for differences and the spirit of federalism as Canada's founders wanted. Just look, for example, at Quebec's participation at UNESCO, at the objective we have set to restore fiscal balance, and at our commitment to respect areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Through this concept of federalism of openness we wanted to ensure that our heritage would be forever preserved. By adopting the federalism of openness, we have sought, and still seek, to ensure that the spirit of federalism remains, that it continues to serve the needs of a decentralized federation and that, accordingly, the full vitality and development of Quebeckers and Canadians is assured.

Through a federalism of openness, I wanted to respond to the will of Quebeckers and Canadians, to their will to strengthen our federation by working more closely with our partners, fully respecting the powers and jurisdictions of each. Such cooperation also means a profound respect for our partners and a will to draw on the experience and expertise of all for the common good.

The vast majority of Quebeckers are rightly proud of their Quebec identity and their Canadian identity. What they want above all, like the majority of all Canadians, is for their governments to work in the common interest of all of our fellow citizens and agree to forge a genuine partnership throughout the country based on solidarity and respect for diversity.

Canada can work harmoniously if it is based on consultation and cooperation by all orders of government. We can see that this whole debate that was fuelled by the Bloc has nothing to do with the words and intentions of the government and the citizens of Canada.

We should instead look more closely at the achievements of the Canadian federation and the spirit of federalism as an inclusive and evolving principle for the well-being and development of not only Quebeckers but of all Canadians.

Our government is keenly aware of the role that Quebeckers have played in the building of our country. They obviously continue to play a key role within the Canadian federation by drawing on their strengths and their many assets, by giving free rein to their creativity recognized worldwide, and by contributing to a Canadian political unity through their specificity and their enriching culture, and their contribution of all of these attributes to the development of Canada as a whole.

All Canadians and Quebeckers are connected through our past, through our present and for the future. If we work together for the common good of all, that future will be bright, for together we can do great things.