Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2006

Opposition Motion—Quebec Nation

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comment. Indeed, based on our knowledge of history and the cultural elements that make each of us the person we are, based on realities and clear definitions found in the dictionary, based on a reality that is both historical and geographical and social, quite simply, without any dirty tricks, without trying to change the nature of the debate, without moving it on to another stage—a stage we are not currently at—we should be able to talk, observe and tell Quebeckers that we feel that they form a nation.

We see no objection. It poses no problem for us. We feel that if it were not for a kind of pathological obsession typical of some people in this House and which was illustrated, yesterday, by the Prime Minster, who tried, by a kind of motion, to add to the Bloc’s motion the idea of a political debate on the future of Canada, this could be simple.

Why is it not that simple? Why is it not that clear? Why did the Prime Minister try to change things? Why are we not able, you and I, with the Speaker, in accordance with the Standing Orders, to discuss this question simply and in all fairness to Quebeckers? I think that to ask the question is to answer it. Those who wish to transform this debate in order to take it to another level are, in my opinion, making a serious mistake.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, despite my youth, I too have had the privilege of serving in the National Assembly with the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and with the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie on the councils of two different municipalities and now here in the House of Commons. I would mention that I have also heard things which have surprised me in the course of my career. However, I have to say that the motion the Bloc Québécois is asking us to support today, even in an amended form, will remain in my experience as one of the most memorable interventions I have ever heard.

Here we have a political party devoted exclusively and obsessively to the cause of Quebec's separation from Canada asking Canada's Parliament to acknowledge that it is on the right track. The leader of the Bloc is, in a way, calling for a resolution on clarity. Indeed the political about-face is pretty spectacular, even for the Bloc.

Here is what one of the co-founding leaders of the independence movement is asking of Parliament. “Who would you allow us to be?” “What do you want us to become?” No member from Quebec having earned the privilege of sitting here has ever felt the need to ask his peers why he was here. Not Papineau, not Cartier, not Laurier, not Trudeau, not Mulroney nor any other Quebec leader has ever asked his provincial counterparts, “Who am I?”

No. They have each said in turn at various points in time, “This is who we are, this is what we want for ourselves and what we can do together for our fellow citizens”.

I doubt that anybody in a Canadian Parliament ever said to the representatives from Lower Canada, from eastern Canada or from the province of Quebec, that this is who they are and that this is how we will recognize them from now on.

Since 1792, when Canada's first Parliament met in Quebec, right up to the present, we have been called first Canadians, then French Canadians and now Quebeckers. It was not other people who named us, however. We have never asked our partners in the other provinces who we are.

I myself have no problem recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation, since we share a common language, culture and history.

I have already said so and I have no difficulty saying it again today. I am, as an Irish Quebecker, very proud to belong to the Quebec nation as are thousands of other Quebeckers from backgrounds other than that of the majority. I am, however, just as proud of my Canadian citizenship. These feelings are not contradictory. In fact, I think the Quebec nation the Bloc is so keen to celebrate would not perhaps exist today had French culture and language and our legal institutions not been protected in our various Constitutions. The surest guarantee of the continued growth of the Quebec nation is our participation within Canada as a whole.

The Prime Minister clearly understood it when he asked us to support it a motion recognizing that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada. Those four little words “within a united Canada” contain our entire history as a society, as a people and, yes, as a nation. We will soon be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City, the place where I was born and the city where past generations of Cannons and Powers, my ancestors, were able to make their dreams and aspirations come true.

I sincerely hope that this anniversary will remind all Canadians, wherever they come from, that, for four centuries now, successive generations of French-speaking men and women founded a country here, in America, a country that still allows them to tell the world about pride and solidarity. They not only asked others for recognition, they built a country in their own image, with the sweat of their brow, that reflects the scope of their ambition. This country is still their country and it will remain so as long as there are francophones in America.

It is true that, at times, Quebeckers have suffered under a kind of paternalistic, even antagonistic, federalism, but the Prime Minister has proved that he wanted to and has been able to bring in a new, open federalism that would allow the Quebec nation to express its rich personality and bring all its potential to the fore in a respectful relationship with our partners. That is not what the Bloc Québécois wants.

Not long ago, another Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, poured his heart and soul into the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. After years of heroic efforts, that recognition was never achieved. And whom do we find among the people who sabotaged the Meech Lake accord? The future founding father of the Bloc Québécois, Lucien Bouchard, who was consistent enough to go to Quebec City and take over the helm of the Parti Québecois. Then there was Jacques Parizeau who did everything he could, along with Bernard Landry, to tear down Brian Mulroney's government. They did it for the same reason that the current leader of the Bloc Québécois is doing it. The sovereignists fear one thing above all—that the Quebec nation will become stronger within Canada. But it is the nation itself that chose its future, and that is why, in both of the referendums run by the supporters of separation, a majority of Quebeckers chose to remain in Canada, in their own country.

When René Lévesque's Parti Québecois was elected 30 years ago, it was first and foremost because it promised better government, not immediate separation. We cannot criticize a citizen of a nation for being a nationalist. Like a majority of my francophone constituents no doubt, I consider myself a nationalist. Nationalism does not mean separatism. We can love Quebec without wanting to destroy Canada. This is why the majority of Quebeckers, when they felt that their place in Canada was threatened, wanted to uphold and affirm it. Of course, Quebeckers have elected Péquiste governments and Bloc members in the past, but they have never given up their place in Canada, the country that they dreamed of and created and that they continue to improve.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we must not mistake the real intent of the leader of the Bloc Québécois and his members, which is to recognize not what Quebeckers are, but what the sovereignists would like them to be. To them, “nation” means “separation” and that is that.

The Quebec National Assembly recently reaffirmed that the people of Quebec form a nation. The Prime Minister of Canada has just done so, and I hope every member of this House will do so as well by supporting his motion.

How can we forget the dignified, reasonable and resolute attitude of Robert Bourassa, whom I had the honour of serving, along with the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, when he said, at an extremely critical and important moment in our history:

—whatever is said or done, Quebec is today and for all times a distinct society, free, capable of assuming its destiny and its development.

Giving a name to things is not what is most important. We recognize those who contribute to Quebec society by what they achieve. Quebeckers want action and accomplishment, not words and declarations.

The Bloc Québécois, which wants to plunge us into yet another existential debate, has been around since 1990. What concrete, lasting achievements has it been able to deliver to Quebeckers since then? How has it advanced the Quebec nation it claims to serve and represent? It has done nothing because it can do nothing but talk.

Of course, it has provoked major debates like this one, but has it passed a single piece of legislation in this House? Seen a bill through? The answer is no, of course, because the Bloc does not form the government and never will. Conversely, in only a few months, Canada's new government has addressed almost all of the major priorities announced during the election.

Above all we have opened the way to a better future for the Quebec nation by defining a new federalism of openness, which is already bearing fruit. We are working on eliminating the fiscal imbalance, a topic that the Bloc has enjoyed going on about for years. But is it the Bloc that will be solving the problem of the fiscal imbalance? No, it’s the current government that will be doing it.

We have made it possible for Quebec to participate fully in the work of UNESCO, something Quebec has wanted for a long time.

We have made a commitment to respect the spirit of the Canadian Confederation faithfully by respecting the division of provincial and federal powers. We will be putting an end to abuse of the federal spending power.

The Bloc denounces, and tries to bring down, all governments that do not advocate separation, but our government is maintaining sustained and productive relations with the Quebec government, relations that are resulting in agreements and achievements.

Division has never helped the Quebec nation. “Let us cease our fratricidal fighting” said the great Honoré Mercier more than a century ago. He wanted to unite all Quebeckers, blue, red or whatever, so that the only French society in the Americas could forge ahead.

In conclusion, I urge the leader of the Bloc Québécois to think about everything that we could accomplish as a nation within a united Canada if we stopped tearing ourselves apart like this.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities talk about his government’s respect for areas of jurisdiction, what comes immediately to mind is that in Nairobi a week ago, when an area of shared jurisdiction, the environment, was under discussion, Canada’s Environment Minister had six days to ramble on but denied Quebec 45 seconds. I can tell the minister, this kind of sharing she can keep.

What I would like to ask is this: how can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities say right off the bat that this Bloc resolution is just about the most appalling thing he has ever seen during his time in Parliament, and in the same paragraph mention Brian Mulroney, whose efforts to get recognition for the Quebec nation and a context in which the people of Quebec would be respected and given consideration within the Canadian Confederation took several years of work in this Parliament? So it is hard to see the subject as one that it is absolutely astonishing to see raised in this House, given that the previous Conservatives devoted many debates to it.

But the minister had this to say, and I clearly heard it. I am quoting from memory, but I am pretty sure this is what he said. “I personally have no problem accepting the fact that the House recognizes that Quebeckers form a nation.”

Given that, I want to ask him a tiny question, and we will see how serious he was. Should we then assume that he will vote in favour of the motion? My second question is the following. He told us that he feels that the motion presented yesterday by the Prime Minister saying “within a united Canada” reflects reality. The motion that was amended today says this:

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

Does he feel that this motion represents the reality today and that we, the Québécois, form a nation and that we are currently within Canada? Then I say to the minister, given these circumstances, he should support our motion, and I ask him to say so clearly.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I thank my colleague for his question. This calls for a bit of history. On November 15, Quebec’s sovereigntist forces celebrated 30 years—30 years of existence, 30 years of political discussion. So when my colleague asks me to recognize reality, I firmly believe that the resolution that the Prime Minister of Canada tabled yesterday is a recognition of reality.

On two occasions, Quebeckers, by referendum, said no to the proposal for a sovereign Quebec. Four other times, during three elections in Quebec, the federalist forces won, and during the election that brought Mr. Parizeau to power, we should recall that the Liberals got the most votes.

That means—thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for correcting me—that on six occasions, Quebeckers recognized reality. The resolution that the Prime Minister tabled is thus the reflection of the reality that we currently live in. According to the latest straw poll the voters of Quebec say “Canada is where we belong”.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister a brief question.

If by chance, the Prime Minister’s resolution was adopted, if reality was turned around and another province left Canada, such as Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and Labrador, would Quebec cease to be a nation?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what I was trying to explain. And I thought it was fairly obvious. For decades now, Canadians, French Canadians, Quebeckers themselves have defined themselves as they were, as they are. They have not asked the Canadian Parliament to define who they are, what their make-up is, and so forth. They know.

Every time we have tried to do it, who are the ones who have clearly tried to throw up roadblocks. Who? It was the sovereigntist movement in Quebec—in Quebec City; here, it was always the case.

The ones who tried to hamper the evolution of Canadian federalism, who tried to get something out of it, were none other than my friends across from me, it is they who, each time, invoked the humiliation of Quebeckers or other arguments that did not hold water. In fact, they are the champions of the status quo. That is what they are.

On our side, we want to see Canadian federalism evolve, because we believe that federalism is the best political arrangement and the best thing for Quebeckers. In fact, Quebeckers chose us: they chose us six times.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully respect the opinion, the option put forward by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I am not challenging it, it is his option; it is not mine. In my opinion, the two options are respectable and democratic and we must respect them.

When he said that we are the first ones to want to affirm that we are a nation, he is forgetting that Mulroney and Bourassa were actually the first. “Those lengthy negotiations”, was how it was put. He is leaving a bit out. As to whether the sovereigntists should take most of the blame for the failure of Meech, in my opinion, we could debate this for a long time, but that is not our purpose here today.

Today, we are saying that Quebeckers form a nation. The minister says he recognizes this. And we are amending the motion by adding “currently within Canada” after the word “nation”. That is reality. It does not assume that we will always be part of Canada, but nor does it deny that we may always be part of Canada. This is exactly what Bourassa said, free to choose.

I fail to see how the minister can vote against recognizing a nation in Canada's current context, a regime he currently prefers, never mind that it was the Bloc Québécois that submitted the proposed amendment. It is his right. It is his right at present.

How can he vote against the motion? What more does this motion need for people to vote for it? How does it differ from the Prime Minister’s motion? Where is the difference?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must remind the Leader of the Opposition that at present, there is no chance that his motion as amended will become reality.

There is a federalist political party in Quebec City, right? It has been there for the last six elections. This is why I am returning to this subject. Even if the leader of the Bloc Québécois plays some dirty tricks, the fact remains that tomorrow morning, Quebeckers will not vote in favour of his motion, thinking that maybe they are part of Canada and maybe they are not.

His motion says “maybe, maybe not”. Our motion says that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. This is what we are saying and it is reality. It does not say that maybe they will still be part of Canada in a few years or maybe they will not. That is the Bloc’s real intention. I am pleased that they moved this amendment today because essentially they are telling us exactly what is behind their motion. That is what they are telling us.

In closing, let us recall the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. This exercise was conducted with the utmost respect for Quebeckers’ dignity. I was in Quebec City as was my fellow member from Westmount—Ville-Marie. Two options were presented to Quebeckers: continue to evolve within Canadian federalism or propose sovereignty association. The sovereigntist leader in Quebec City decided to remove the hyphen between “sovereignty” and “association.” The sovereigntists even repudiated what they had done in the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. They even repudiated that. What is their real intention? Now we see.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker and a Canadian, I am proud to rise in this House today on the matter of the Quebec nation and Canadian unity. It is a matter that lies at the very heart of Quebec's identity. Clearly it is a matter of great importance. In my opinion, a people's identity must never be the subject of political games. Unfortunately, that is the very intent of the Bloc.

We must ask ourselves why, in November 2006, the Bloc Québécois has put this motion before the House of Commons. What would prompt a sovereignist party to put such a motion before the House of Commons? I think this is worth thinking about.

The Bloc Québécois has never hidden the fact that it openly seeks Quebec's separation. Now it is asking the House of Commons, representatives from all across Canada, to recognize Quebec as a nation. Permit me to say that the situation is rather ironic. Quebeckers know very well who they are. They know their history well.

Earlier on, my colleague from Pontiac recalled the time when we sat together under the leadership of Mr. Bourassa, who had stated very clearly that Quebec was a distinct society capable of making its own choices. Why is the Bloc asking all the representatives of the people of Canada here to pass this motion? The fairly obvious conclusion is that by tabling this motion the Bloc Québécois is simply trying to create division among us here in the House of Commons. It is pretty clear. It is another trick to try to cast us in an unfavourable light and then proclaim to Quebec and Quebeckers that Canada's parliamentarians did not want to accept the fact. This seems obvious to me. This is the Bloc's only reason. If it is not the case, why is a sovereignist party that wants Quebec to separate asking the House of Commons to define Quebeckers? It makes no sense.

May I remind members that this is the same party that in 1995 voted against the distinct society within Canada. Let us be clear: the ideology of the Bloc Québécois, and the Bloc is explicit about this, is purely and simply Quebec separation, full stop. While the leader of the Bloc Québécois always says that Canada can continue to function as it wishes, it is obvious that Quebec is part of Canada. When he brings in motions that seek to divide the people, I have to conclude that he does not want Canada to function well.

I consider that the Bloc is playing a very dangerous game, and one that leads nowhere. The Bloc tried to set a trap for the other parliamentarians. By chance, its own foot has been caught. There are seasoned parliamentarians in this House. There are specialists in parliamentary strategy, I would even say in parliamentary tactics. That is exactly what the Bloc tried to pull, but it has not succeeded.

Essentially, by attempting to take control of this debate, the Bloc members are trying once again to make out that they are the only ones defending Quebec’s interests. I really cannot hear that said one more time in this House. I have been hearing it for over 10 years. They dare to say when they get up in this House to defend some issue or other, some program or piece of legislation, “We are acting in the name of Quebeckers”. Excuse me, but I am a Quebecker too. The member for Bourassa is a Quebecker, the member for Pontiac is a Quebecker. By what right do they make this preposterous assertion? It has been the same story ever since the Bloc started sitting in the House of Commons. It thinks it speaks for almost 7 million Quebeckers, but that is not so.

There are federalists in this House who also represent Quebeckers. The Bloc has trouble accepting that there are federalists here who defend the interests of Quebec, but who are also committed to promoting Quebec as a part of our great country. That is the fundamental difference.

The Bloc members may find it hard to believe, but there are federalists in the Quebec National Assembly as well. I was one, and my colleague from Pontiac was another, and today the Liberal Party of Quebec is leading the province, a federalist party that defends the interests of Quebec while promoting Canada.

The Bloc should perhaps admit this reality: there are a number of people who as elected representatives speak for segments of the Quebec population and care about Canada. I realize that the Bloc may also have difficulty accepting that there are federalists within my own party, the Liberal Party of Canada, who also care about defending Quebec’s interests within Canada.

I cannot pass over in silence the fact that this motion that has popped up in November 2006, as if by chance, follows the debate that is currently taking place in Quebec within my own political party. So I would really like to ask the members of this House not to forget that the rank and file of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec are really the ones who opened this debate. In my party, we have never shied away from debating important issues and new ideas, with a view to finally reaching consensus.

This is truly the sign of a party that is listening to its rank and file, and that rank and file comes from all parts of Quebec.

This morning, I would like to pay tribute to these men and women of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec who were courageous enough in recent weeks to put this debate on the nation at centre stage again. It took nerve. They did it and they deserve some credit today. I think these Quebec federalists have demonstrated that this is an important issue that can help us continue to modernize our federation and make Canada a more united country. They listened to people from all parts of Quebec in their consultations and they raised the issue. They reached out.

What do all these Quebec federalists have in common? It is what Canada represents to them. They legitimately expressed the attachment that a majority of Quebeckers feel for Canada, in their daily lives and in their hearts.

The founders of our country sought to create a land where two languages and a number of cultures and religions can peacefully coexist. I firmly believe in the presence of francophones in Canada; because of their attachment to their language and culture and Quebeckers’ determination to defend their identity, this country has learned to appreciate differences. Not only to appreciate and respect them but indeed to celebrate them. It is because of the French fact in Canada, Quebeckers who have defended their identity, that this country is open to other cultures. We now welcome people from all over the world to our country and accept them as citizens. Now other countries look at us and wonder how we have achieved this success in Canada.

In my opinion, the greatest contribution of francophones and Quebeckers is that this country is now open to all cultures and dimensions. This is why our country is so original compared to others around the world and why all eyes are on us.

It is fairly clear that the Bloc is trying to question everything we have achieved over the years. Yet the federalists in Quebec went through two referendums. Never mind the ambiguity of the question. I campaigned during these two referendums. I must say that when we went door to door during the last referendum—and I am sure the members from Bourassa and Pontiac would say the same thing—and tried to explain this issue to people, some Quebeckers said, “We will vote yes, but we will always be Canadian citizens”.

It was mass confusion. Yet, the outcome was no both times. Why did people vote no twice? Why are the Bloc and the Parti Québécois asking us to choose between our two identities? I am a proud Quebecker and a proud Canadian. Why ask us to choose between our identities? Why?

The answer was “no thanks”. No thanks: we are proud to have a number of identities. I am a proud Montrealer, a proud Quebecker and a proud Canadian.

The members of the Bloc have always had trouble accepting this reality. They continue to refuse to admit that, for the majority of Quebeckers, Canada is a country with a future, a country they still intend to keep building. For me, it is very clear that Canada would not be what it is today without Quebec, and conversely, Quebec would not be what it is without the participation of other Canadians in this collective project.

I think of my experience since entering politics. I will always remember that, before I did so, the Quebec Justice Minister at the time, Herbert Marx, told me that if I decided to enter politics, I would have to move ideas forward step by step. When you try to rush things and not let them proceed at their own pace, that is when you may fail. That is what is happening. Step by step, we are advancing Canada's recognition of the place of Quebec.

I arrived in federal politics, in this very House, in 1995. You may have been there, Mr. Speaker. I think you were, because you have a lot of experience as an MP. At that time we voted in this House to the effect that the people of Quebec are a distinct society within Canada. Let us not be surprised that the Bloc once again, naturally, voted against.

I recall that under the leadership of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, we took action on many issues to recognize Quebec's difference. Quebec had the opportunity to introduce its own parental leave, and we recognized the innovative initiative of the Quebec day care system. First and foremost, there was the desire—and I want to salute the very firm resolution shown at that time by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard who was then Prime Minister—to record in an agreement the concept of asymmetrical federalism in this country.

We can see that this is being done step by step. The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard even said, in response to the leader of the Bloc during the leaders’ debate, that he had always recognized that Quebec was a nation.

What is happening today? Why has the Bloc tabled this motion? That is really the question we should be asking ourselves, and we must not fall into the trap. I repeat that I am proud that the rank and file members of the Liberal Party of Canada have been bold enough to bring this debate back to the forefront. I am proud to see that the federalist parliamentarians of this House have not fallen into the trap set by the Bloc Québécois. But above all, as a Quebecker, I am very proud to see that my parliamentary colleagues from all across the country are prepared to recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec. Truly, this warms the hearts of all Quebeckers.

For this reason, I ask the Bloc to accept the following subamendment to the amendment that has been tabled.

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, if the sponsor of the motion will consent, I move: “That the amendment be amended by deleting the word ‘currently’ and by adding the words ‘a united Canada’ after the word ‘within’.”

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 85 an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion.

Therefore, does the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie consent to the amendment being moved?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would you please reread it?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The subamendment reads as follows: That the amendment be amended by deleting the word 'currently' and by adding the words 'a united Canada' after the word 'within'.

Do you agree?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I would agree, Mr. Speaker, if the member's subamendment read “currently within a united Canada”, because that is the current reality and it does not dispense with either option. Both options are respected.

I would agree to including the word “united” if we say “currently within a united Canada”. I am prepared to agree to that. It respects what we have in Quebec because in Quebec, nobody can deny that there are two options. I respect theirs just as I believe they respect ours. If the member were to move that subamendment, I would accept it immediately and we would have unanimity in this House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The word “currently” does not appear in the subamendment.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

If she agrees to include it, I would have no problem accepting the subamendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion, the sponsor of the motion does not consent to the subamendment. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the subamendment cannot be moved at this time.

The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, things have moved quickly in this House, but I would have liked an opportunity for debate with the hon. member.

I have the feeling that adding the concept of “united Canada,” as the leader of the Bloc agreed to, could have settled it. Still, since you say there was no consent, I will return to the essence of the member’s remarks.

I am astonished by something I have just heard. The hon. member said that when her party formed the government, it submitted the question of a distinct society here, in this House, and voted on it. She was proud of that. Yet, in the same breath, she condemned the Bloc Québécois motion asking that the question of nationhood be submitted to the attention of this House.

First, I am having trouble understanding something. Why is it that, when the Liberal Party submits the question of a distinct society, it does not cause division, but when the Bloc talks about a nation, that causes division and is wrong?

Second, she says that the Bloc Québécois is divisive and is not entitled to bring such a matter before Parliament. I find that very intolerant.

And yet, a colleague in her own party, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, raised this issue publicly during the leadership race, and the issue has been widely debated within the Liberal Party. But today, we must listen forlornly to someone saying that we are not entitled to submit this question.

If I understand the member correctly, it is appropriate for the Liberal Party to ask Parliament whether it wants to vote for a distinct society or not. However, the Bloc is not entitled to ask for a vote on recognition or non-recognition of a nation. It is fine for the Liberal Party to talk about a nation; but it is despicable when the Bloc Québécois raises the issue. I am having trouble following the logic.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that the Bloc Québécois was not entitled to present any motion whatsoever before this House. I merely questioned the motivation. Why would a party that calls itself sovereignist, that wants Quebec to separate, choose to seek the approval of all parliamentarians from across Canada? It seems rather ironic. This appears to be another gimmick, which is why I really asked the question. What is the motivation behind all this? The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean is now suddenly quoting one of our candidates. I feel justified in saying this is what they are trying to do: they are seeking to divide the federalist forces in this House. They were mistaken to think that we would not vote together on a motion that would recognize Quebeckers as a nation within a united Canada. That is exactly what happened. It does not take a genius to figure this out, especially since the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean is a specialist in parliamentary strategies. We must give him credit. He is a brilliant strategist and loves this. He knows all the standing orders of this House. He thought he could make the Liberal Party of Canada look bad. Well, he was wrong.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a Quebecker, but I am proud to be a Canadian who has lived everywhere in Canada. I have spent a great deal of time in Quebec. For 30 years, I was willing to sacrifice my life in the service of the Canadian Forces for all Canadians. This includes Canadians in Quebec. I became attached to Quebec because it is a part of my life and I feel this is a privilege, just as Alberta is part of the Bloc leader's life, if he chooses to enjoy that privilege. I am not prepared to give up this attachment and this privilege in the name of separation, nor will I ever be.

Would my hon. colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie agree that Canada and all parts of Canada are indivisible as part of what makes us all Canadians, and that all Canadians have a right to input on our future together as Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, most of the people who believe in this country in my home province are proud Quebeckers and proud Canadians. If we look at this country’s history, there are many examples of Quebeckers who helped build the country we know today and who want to continue to do so. At the same time, and this is not contradictory, they want their distinctness and specificity recognized. They also want to continue to share common values and build this country together. These desires are not at odds with one another. It is the same thing when we speak of Quebeckers taking pride in having two identities. There is nothing contradictory about this.

The hon. member said that he had lived in Quebec. Everyone will agree not only that most Quebeckers have a distinct culture and language, but also that over the years we have become a very inclusive society, like Canada, welcoming thousands of immigrants, and we have developed unique institutions. Even though Quebeckers and Canadians share a way of thinking and a set of social values, Quebeckers as a whole have developed even stronger ones.

I will always remember that, when this Parliament and the then Liberal government decided not to participate in the war on Iraq, Canadians everywhere applauded, but Quebeckers applauded even louder. When we signed the Kyoto protocol, Canadians everywhere applauded, but Quebeckers applauded even louder. Ask any immigrant who settled in Quebec and who is now a Canadian citizen how much he feels a part of Quebec and Canadian society. This is what we are trying to achieve together, unlike the Bloc Québécois, which is trying to divide Quebeckers.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been in this chamber for a while. This was not my fault. I do not think I could have chosen a better day to come back.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague of many identities. Why is the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois a trap when I read in the newspapers—I was not in the House but I did read the papers—that the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada wants the entire Liberal Party to recognize Quebec as a nation and has even found an opportunity to make it official? I was happy to read this. How is the Bloc’s motion today dividing us? How is it a trap? I would like an answer from the hon. member.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I am glad that the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île is with us. I know that she has gone through a difficult time, but she is a fighter, and that is why she is here with us today. I am very happy to see her.

Although I have a great deal of respect for her, in my opinion, the Bloc clearly wanted to take advantage of the debate within my own political party, knowing full well that we will hold our convention in Montreal in one week's time and that this issue will be discussed and different ideas will be expressed.

The Bloc wanted to take advantage of this situation to make the federal Liberals uncomfortable. But the opposite is happening today. I even wonder whether I should thank the Bloc for giving us an opportunity to unite in this House and recognize this reality of Quebec within our Canada.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not get lost in the maze of amendments, subamendments and political games for the time being. In fact, I am very proud to stand today and speak in favour of a strong Quebec nation within Canada. That is the reality. Quebec is part of Canada at present. The NDP and I will continue to fight to keep Quebec in Canada.

I myself am a francophone with Quebec and Acadian roots who was born in Saint-Boniface, in Manitoba. I lived in Ottawa for many years. I also lived in Montreal and Calgary. I became a city councillor in Victoria, British Columbia, where I now live. I know what a beautiful and diverse country Canada is. That diversity is an integral part of our identity as Canadians.

I believe strongly in the Canadian federation. I am a federalist through and through. I entered politics partly so that the federal government would hear and consider my community's priorities and voices and partly so that the federal government would not be a centralizing force, but a unifying force, protecting the social, cultural and environmental rights of all Canadians.

When I entered politics, it was also because I believe in the importance of a strong presence of both cultures in a united country. I greatly appreciate the contribution of the Quebec people to the social fabric of our country, both in the past and to date. I appreciate the Quebec culture and language, its sense of humour, music, literature and politics. These are part and parcel of what it means to be Canadian.

However, I cannot speak for Quebeckers. I believe that the Quebec nation will define itself as it wishes. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously proclaimed, as was stated this morning, that Quebeckers form a nation. That is why I wholeheartedly support the NDP acknowledgement that Quebec is a nation. I believe that we must recognize a simple fact, an obvious fact. My conversations with Quebec members of our party and my Quebec friends have convinced me that a good number of Quebeckers firmly believe that the Quebec nation can realize its tremendous potential, and its destiny, in a united Canada.

They believe that Quebeckers can be masters of their own destiny while being part of the Quebec nation. They do not approve of the Bloc Québécois option of a separate Quebec.

Similarly, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians outside Quebec want to see Quebec culture and language to be protected and thrive. We are not the same country without them. One need only think of how oversubscribed for example immersion schools are on the west coast in Vancouver and Victoria where parents have to camp outside in the fall at the time of registration to ensure that their kids can learn French. They even take part in lotteries, again to ensure that their children have the opportunity to become bilingual.

The cultural context of British Columbia is favourable to French to the extent that I was able to teach my own children to speak French and now I see my grandchildren learning French. There are many francophone associations. French music and shows are appreciated and that is also part of the contribution of Quebec to the rest of Canada.

The reaction of Canadians from coast to coast to coast in October 1995 was an extraordinary display of kinship. It reflected the overwhelming sentiment among Canadians that to lose Quebec would be to lose a part of ourselves, for Canada with Quebec is how we define Canada. I believe we are allowed, as federalists, to define our country as we see.

The evening of that famous referendum I was deeply saddened and I thought how rudderless I would feel without Quebec. Nor did I think that as a francophone my viable option was to leave western Canada to live in Quebec because I need both parts of Canada to feel truly Canadian. How can we be Canada without its intrinsic parts, without Quebec? Such a reality could not exist.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister has finally recognized Quebec as a nation. In the last election, he was urged again and again to recognize this fact. He had difficulty saying the words. It was only political gain and opportunism that led him to do so yesterday. But I congratulate him nevertheless. As is their custom, the Liberals also decided to jump on the bandwagon.

In this debate I believe it is important to denounce the lack of vision of the Liberal Party that led us straight to the sponsorship scandal. Just like the referendum, programs steeped in corruption placed our country at risk. They damaged federalism in Quebec.

However, other current trends are worrisome for the future of our country. As Roy Romanow aptly stated in an article published in The Walrus:

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an influential lobby group that represents Canada’s largest corporations, recently advanced the idea that Ottawa should grant more taxing powers to the provinces and cease making transfer payments historically used to ensure that national standards for social and economic programs are applied throughout the country. Apart from narrowly defined roles primarily in defence and foreign affairs, what is left for the federal government to do under such a scheme?

It is obvious to me there are many ways of destroying a country, whether it be by corruption but also policies and neo-conservative policies. I oppose the watering down of our Canadian social fabric by a government that substitutes tax cuts for social policy, downloads responsibilities to provinces, and sees the federal government as a mere skeleton dealing with military and foreign affairs.

We have to be very careful, as we make allowances for our differences, not to compromise what makes our country unique in the world. The NDP recognizes the importance of building the country, investing in what makes us unique, investing in post-secondary education, in certain social programs and in our public institutions. The NDP has long recognized Quebec's specificity, its national character and we even reiterated that during our convention, in the Sherbrooke Declaration:

The national character of Québec is based primarily, but not exclusively, on:

1. a primarily Francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language;

2. a specific culture, unique in America, that is expressed by a sense of identity with and belonging to Quebec;

3. a specific history;

4. a specific legal system;

5. its own economic, cultural and social institutions.

We have long proposed a vision that allows Quebec to stay proudly in Canada. What we foresee is a Canada that respects Quebec. We are proposing solutions and a vision that will make Quebeckers want to stay and build a progressive country with its allies in English Canada.

It is because we believe, first and foremost, that an egalitarian and cooperative society must accommodate and celebrate differences, and not level them, that we are supporting the concept of Quebec as a nation within Canada. Unity does not necessarily mean uniformity.

It follows that the federal Canadian state and Canadians outside Quebec recognize that Quebec has to have specific powers, some leeway in order to develop to the fullest its culture and language that are so fundamental not only to Quebec's identity, but also to Canada's identity. The NDP recognizes the historical fact that Quebeckers are a nation, a nation—and let me be clear—within Canada.

We are simply acknowledging a fact that is unchanged regardless of who proposes it. We know that the Bloc is playing games around this idea, but we are not. We will not play those games.

The people of Quebec know well, at least I hope they do, that this debate is about much more than just a word. It is about recognizing the Quebec people, with its unique culture and history and its institutions, as a truly unique society not only in Canada but worldwide, a society which is actually the envy of the world.

The NDP recognizes that Quebec forms a nation, but when it comes to the separation of Quebec from Canada, the NDP chooses Canada. It has always chosen Canada and so have Quebeckers. We are a proud federalist party. We are proud that our federation includes Quebec.

The Bloc's objective in Parliament is clear: it wants to see Quebec leave the great Canadian family fold. We oppose their blueprint.

In a world rife with sectarianism we must build bridges not rip them out.

We in the NDP believe that ordinary Quebeckers will be better served by remaining within Canada. This is why we think that, despite our differences as federalists, we must work together to really, actively create the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec. We are actively proposing a vision of cooperation, recognition, equality, respect, flexibility, transparence and honesty. We are asking the people of Quebec to join us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria , for her eloquent presentation in support of one of the fundamental features of the Canadian identity, namely the recognition of Quebec's specificity. She spoke not only with words but also from the heart, and her speech was very touching.

How, in her opinion, will the recognition of Quebec's specificity and vitality help francophone communities across the country continue to develop?

How does she see the interdependence between Quebec and the francophone minorities in other regions of the country?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I thank the hon. member for his question. I sense that it is a real question. Quebec is an inspiration to Canadians and French Canadians outside that province.

Many of my francophone friends spend summers and study in Quebec. This relation is very important to us, and we benefit a lot from it. As I said, some Canadians and francophone Canadians of French origin have chosen to settle in the west, or outside Quebec, for all sorts of reasons. This does not prevent them from appreciating Quebec and the fact that Quebec has fought over the years. I agree that it was not always easy. We have a lot of respect for these efforts, because they enabled all of us to thrive and to be who we are. Personally, it has enabled me to keep my language and to be the person that I am.