Debates of Nov. 27th, 2006

Question No. 101

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

With regard to the government's $55 million cut to the Summer Career Placement Program, as announced on September 25, 2006: (a) how many jobs will be lost in the not-for-profit sector; and (b) how many jobs will be lost among small businesses due to the loss of such funds?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our unemployment rate, Canada is truly in an enviable position. We are in the midst of our best labour market in decades. Our overall participation rate for workers is one of the highest in the G-8 and our unemployment rate is at a 30-year low. Students are benefiting from the strong economy. Statistics Canada reported that in 2006, students had their best August of employment in three years.

Canada’s new government is refocusing the summer youth employment strategy where jobs are harder to find, by spending $45 million per year to help students who are having difficulty finding summer jobs.

We are also 100% committed to funding for the youth employment strategy, which is specifically targeted at youth at risk, aboriginal youth, and high youth unemployment areas.

This government has also led the way in encouraging Canadians to become apprentices, and we have invested $500 million in these programs. Many young people will greatly benefit from this new initiative.

The facts are clear. When this government examined the spending in the summer career placement programs, we found that many employers would have provided these jobs even if they did not receive one cent in funding.

Canada’s new government will instead focus funding where students need help, whether it is in rural communities, for new Canadians, or targeted at other barriers to employment. We will help students where they actually need it. The effect of our new program will be known when we evaluate the 2007 summer career placements applications.

I assure the member that the department will honour its ongoing commitment to help youth in need make the transition to the labour market.

Question No. 102

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

With regard to the Toronto Port Authority: (a) what safety standards are being violated should the Q400 operated by Porter Airlines land at the Toronto City Centre Airport without the installation of an Instrument Landing System (ILS); (b) what directives have been given to NAV Canada to speed up the installation of an ILS system at the Toronto City Centre Airport; and (c) were any government funds used to support the purchase and installation of such a system at the Toronto City Centre Airport?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, there is no regulatory requirement to have an installed and functioning instrument landing system, ILS, at Toronto City Centre Airport, or at any other airport in Canada, to operate the Bombardier DHC-8, Q400, aircraft.

The decision to install an ILS at Toronto City Centre Airport was undertaken by NAV Canada, Porter Airlines Inc. and the Toronto Port Authority. Transport Canada did not direct NAV Canada to install the system.

Federal government funds were not used to purchase or install an ILS system at Toronto City Centre Airport.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the motion that this question be now put.

The Québécois

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. member for Outremont had the floor, with four minutes remaining.

The hon. member now has the floor.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, four minutes is not very long, but I will use what time I have.

Before question period, I was saying how flexible Canadian federalism had been. In addition—and I am dating myself a little here—for those who have followed the constitutional issue and remember what we went through with the Meech Lake accords, each of the concepts has gradually resurfaced in the past 20 to 25 years. In recent years, we have witnessed another expression of this flexibility with the development of the concept of asymmetrical federalism.

During the term of the government led by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, we witnessed the signing of an agreement on health that the current government is forever boasting about. This Conservative government constantly wants to take credit for this wonderful agreement on health, which provided for a major transfer of $41 billion over 10 years. When the agreement was signed, we saw that the government was able to play a national role, with what I would call jealous respect for the provinces' jurisdictions.

I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie, who presided over the signing of many agreements with Quebec.

I will never forget the day we signed the agreement on parental leave, a long-awaited agreement that, once again, enabled Quebec to provide more generous parental leave for our fellow citizens, within the Canadian model, Canadian federalism, and at the same time respected Quebec's jurisdictions.

There was also an agreement on child care, which recognized the major progress Quebec had made and its leadership on that issue. Quebec was the inspiration for many other jurisdictions.

Again, this was a model of the flexibility of Canadian federalism, and here again, provincial jurisdictions were respected. Unfortunately, given the ideology of the party opposite, that party did not see fit to continue the program. This is now going to cost the province of Quebec $800 million, and that is regrettable. It is regrettable because for a party that supposedly wants to restore the fiscal balance, it has dug an $800 million hole. If we add another $328 million hole, to bring us up to date in terms of the Kyoto protocol, that makes a hole of over $1 billion. For a party that has made major commitments regarding the fiscal imbalance, its record cannot be said to be especially glorious. But with this we must recognize that federalism has evolved somewhat. We have managed to sign infrastructure agreements, once again amounting to over $1 billion, while respecting provincial priorities.

So it is evolving, although too slowly for some. I too have had my impatient moments, but ultimately, I have to say that, today, this is the end result of a lot of discussion. It is the end result of a broad political will that has been expressed in various terms. Sometimes we have talked about distinct society; other times, we have talked about the Quebec people; and now we have come to the concept of nation.

At some point, when we may one day be ready to consider constitutional talks, who knows what terminology we will want to use to recognize Quebec’s difference? Because basically, we can play semantics all day, but ultimately, the intention is to recognize Quebec’s difference, a difference that can be reconciled with Canada’s differences. Basically, it is the sum of our differences that makes this country a country respected throughout the world and a country where each one of us can be comfortable with our own personality, with our own history.

That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that this is not a debate we would have wanted, because basically, asking someone else to define one’s identity is not necessarily the best thing to do. And it is surprising that it should be the Bloc Québécois asking for that identity to be defined. The most disappointing thing has been to see that the Bloc Québécois, which thinks that it has a different definition of Québécois identity from ours, would decide to come to the rest of Canada seeking that identity. It has been hoist on its own petard, and today, the three federalist parties find themselves offering their hand and saying that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sorry that the hon. member's time is up, but there are now five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for West Nova.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his very enlightened speech. This is the second time we have heard him on this matter.

The hon. member has a lot of experience, which he acquired under several governments, including the last government. He had already sat in this House before that. The members of this House know that often these issues are difficult within a government. This calls for discussion within caucus, the government itself, and between ministers. Rumour has it that some hon. members—and even some ministers—were just as surprised to hear the Prime Minister's statement a few days ago, last week, as we were and as Canadians and journalists were.

Can the hon. member imagine a prime minister making such a decision without consulting his ministers, namely his government's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that this debate does not lend itself to partisanship. However, when examining the Prime Minister's leadership style, this is not the first of his ministers who was totally ignored. I am told that in this government there are one and a half ministers, that is the Prime Minister who occasionally will deign to consult one of his ministers.

In the case of this motion, I am told that even his Quebec lieutenant was taken by surprise, as was the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. I am told that, on that morning, the latter was wondering if he would still be a minister at the end of the day. I was even told that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Quebec lieutenant, was writing an article for La Presse to explain why he was voting against the Quebec nation when all of a sudden he arrived in Parliament and the Prime Minister told him he was in favour of the Quebec nation. Thus, it was a surprise all around. I am under the impression that the federal-provincial relations minister was just as surprised.

In these circumstances, I can understand that a minister wonders what he is doing there. If he is not consulted in the least, if he is not in the loop, it is not worth being a minister. There are rumours circulating in the House that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may tender his resignation. If he was completely ignored on such a fundamental issue, I can understand his sense of isolation. However, that does not mean that this motion does not have merit and, for my part, I hope that the majority of members in this House will vote for the motion without it bothering their conscience. We must also bear in mind the symbolic value of this motion, the message sent of openness and of reaching out, and that is all. For that reason, one day the country will want to reform its institutions and at that point we will draw inspiration from the discussions we have had these past days.

For the time being, I am not surprised to see that some ministers and some Conservative members are somewhat frustrated. This is not the first time. I am told that since this government was elected, they have been kept in the dark. The government is led by one minister, that is the Prime Minister. The others follow behind somewhat sheepishly, but they do not have a choice unless they wish to lose their jobs.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite. In particular, it was of great interest that he would suggest that this is a non-partisan debate and then launch into castigation of this government and speculate as to what may or may not have happened in certain caucus meetings. Of course, he would understand full well what it is like to have been in different caucuses. He is essentially saying, “Wash me, but don't make me wet”, but this is nothing new for the slippery member opposite when it comes to his changing positions on federalism.

As a founding member of the Bloc Québécois, he left a federalist party to join the separatist movement and then returned when it was convenient. When he speaks of flexible federalism, is he referring to his own political career of having had affiliations of convenience?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the difference between the member and me is that my word means something and when I make commitments, I honour them. As for him, everyone knows that his word has no value and that no one can have confidence in him.

I believe that in the development of federalism and the development of my own beliefs, I have remained consistent. I remember the period when the Bloc Quebecois was established—the minister was here, I believe—it was a rainbow coalition. I remind him that throughout all that period, I had my membership card in the Quebec Liberal party and every week I spoke with Robert Bourassa. It was at his request, a request from the federalist premier of Quebec that I stayed here for two years. Personally, I had decided to abandon politics in 1990 after the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord.

I believe that this week I am the member who has been the most consistent in my position on the Québécois nation. Several of my colleagues have had to go through all kinds of contortions in trying to revise their positions. For my part, my position has always been consistent.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this feels wrong to me. It felt wrong when the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party passed its resolution and it felt wrong when passionate worried debate rose up across the country.

It felt even worse last week when the Bloc tabled its motion.

It did not feel less wrong but it felt more hopeful, as if the worst might pass, when the government then presented its counter motion.

However, the disease reached its incurable, treacherous peak when the Bloc announced that it would support the government motion—

--saying that Canada will become the first country to officially recognize the Quebec nation and that there will be many other countries that will recognize the nation of Quebec and the country of Quebec.

My country is more than this. Canada is centuries and centuries of aboriginal peoples, their respectful relationship to the land, their culture and history.

Canada is the French and the English struggling to survive in a new world filled with difficulties in order to build new lives for themselves. They were different in their languages, their cultures, their religions and their legal systems, but they were committed to the same struggle, to live together; and they succeeded in doing that.

Canada has people from almost everywhere coming here, changing us and themselves in ways exciting and unknown. Canada has immense resources and unimaginable possibilities. Our future is still in the making and still in the becoming.

Canada is a great global experiment, a true global society that works in the only way our global world of the future can work. Canada matters. It matters to me. It matters to us. It matters to the world. Therefore, when we deal with constitutional change, with things that lay out what we are and shape our future, it matters and it matters a lot.

Meech Lake and Charlottetown, agree with them or not, we examined, we debated and we took time. Meech Lake and Charlottetown felt serious.

This feels wrong because it does not feel as serious as it must be. It feels like games, bad, manipulative, opportunistic games, political games. Box somebody into a corner so they say or do something they do not want to say or do just to get out of the corner, just to save face, for them to box the other guy into say and doing just the same. We all save face and all get into a bigger box, a bigger box called the future, except that box belongs to someone else.

All these games and manipulations are not for us. They only create a slippery slope for later on.

The public has learned to accept most things political but not this. The stakes are too high. The public is saying that this is their country. The government got itself into this but why should they join it. Canadians want to know why they should let the government do this to them when this is their country.

This is pure politics. All this started with the ludicrous concept of having a debate fundamental to the country based on understanding different understandings of the word “nation”. In the last few days it has deteriorated into the ludicrous reality of such a debate in practice.

For those who want to engage in the debate honestly, seeking definitional clarity, they can forget it. Other parties to the debate want none of it. They want to say “nation” means whatever they want it to mean now and to change definitions whenever they decide they want it to mean something different. They can then go to the public and argue, spin and try to achieve by misunderstanding what they cannot by understanding.

When I first arrived in Montreal, what impressed me most was the pride of Quebeckers. The English language and American culture had invaded the whole world. The Quebeckers had no chance of survival. However, they said “No; not us, not here”. They know who they are and who they will be, forever.

Quebeckers know who they are. They have had to. They could not have made it if they had not. They do not need any official definers to tell them who they are. Some day all Canadians will get down on paper what Canada really is, what Quebec really is and what together we have made ourselves to be. However, it will not happen this way. It cannot happen this way.

Does the Bloc really want to convince Canadians outside Quebec to accept Quebec as a nation.? Not at all.

The Bloc wants the process to be so inappropriate that all such Canadians will reject the question. It wants to grease that slippery slope so that Canadians inside Quebec will reject those outside Quebec and the Bloc's cause of independence will be advanced.

The pawn in this game is the public. As Canadians, we feel deeply about our country. Politicians and political advocates for decades have been playing games with our emotions, manipulating them for their/our own purposes. They/we have completely poisoned the well of discussion and debate on this question. No side trusts the other and no citizen trusts any politician.

Though it does not seem this way, the problem is not really the languages of French and English. It is the language of spin, manipulation and bigger agendas. Neither the government's motion nor the resolution of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party will do anything except create greater division and distrust.

My country Canada is more than this. For me, the motion has no precise language, no precise depth of understanding, no time and mechanism to work this through, no clarity and no support. The government motion should be defeated.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I found my hon. colleague's speech rather baffling.

Having seen what has transpired over the past few days, with our Prime Minister, in a very respectful and honourable way, putting forth a motion that addresses and respects the Québécois and recognizes Canada as a united nation with all provinces together within Canada, does the member not agree that this kind of motion shows a deep respect and acknowledgement of the Québécois and the fact that as parliamentarians we are recognizing that Quebec is a nation but a nation within a united Canada?

Instead of playing the games that the member opposite is talking about, which I on this side of the House see as a big political game, with all due respect to the member, does the member not agree that acknowledging it in this way is a very Canadian and very respectful way of doing this?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this whole debate has to do with the many different understandings of the word “nation”. All we needed to do, after the motion was introduced last Wednesday, was to clarify the statements by the Premier of Quebec in terms of what the motion would represent, in terms of the laws, the reinterpretation of laws and of the different understandings of Quebec internationally. The day after that was the Bloc's statement in terms of what all of this represented. The problem in all of this debate is that we cannot have a debate if we do not have a common understanding of what it is we are debating.

The word “nation” has many different meanings outside of Quebec. Among most English-speaking Canadians the word “nation” is the same as the word country. My nation, my country. Canada is a nation and it is a country. For most francophones inside Quebec the word ”nation” has a different meaning whereby we can have many nations within one country and there is no predetermined destiny of where a nation will become a country.

However, we cannot have the kind of national debate on a subject that is so important and so fundamental when there is no common understanding on what one is debating.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in knowing from the member what it is about the term “united Canada” that he does not understand. Is it not very clear?

If the word “nation” is so difficult to define, why does the member keep using it? I know he uses the word in terms of first nations. Who then are the first nations within this united Canada?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I usually use the phrase “aboriginal peoples” as opposed to “first nations”.

With the motion of last week that added the words “within a united Canada”, I had hoped that would represent a context that would help to more clearly define for average Canadians what nation meant and what we were really doing on this. In the subsequent days that followed that did not happen. In terms of the commentators, they would be using the word in whatever way it was most useful to them.

This question is important to all Canadians, as we have seen in the debate in the last three or four weeks. This is our country and this matters a lot to us. The way in which we get to debate it and resolve it is critical to what we end up resolving. The key to the whole thing is how we end up living with it out the other end.

The story the Bloc members will tell in terms of Quebec has nothing to do with the desire of creating a common understanding about nation. It is nation as a way of creating country.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this historic debate in this House.

I know that the members of all parties in this House have stated their positions with great emotion and passion for this issue, like the member who has just spoken. It is true, and he was right to do so, because this debate is so important and so fundamental to the future of our country.

This motion goes to the very heart of what makes up a country, what makes up a nation, what it means to be Canadian and what it means to be Québécois. The motion is perhaps an opportunity to remind ourselves how lucky we are to live in Canada and what is at stake when we embark on such a discussion. The motion is perhaps an opportunity to remind ourselves of what is at stake for not only the Québécois but for the entire country.

Many think of Canada as a young nation, a country that has, as has often been said, more geography than history, and yet it is more than a bit ironic that this young country should be one of the most respected, with one of the oldest democracies and one of the oldest and most successful federations on the planet.

As stated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the support of this motion is a generous showing of solidarity. To paraphrase them both, it is a beacon of hope for other nations and a shining example of humanity and harmony. Those are weighty words from current federal leaders which, I think, are quite representative of the dominant view of this House and rare. It is in fact far too rare an instance in which we see a convergence of support in this chamber.

If there ever were such an important cause to rally around I would suggest this is it. National unity and the preservation of Canada are surely something all members of Parliament should agree upon without equivocation or qualification.

While I might take a position contrary to the member opposite from York, no one doubts anyone's loyalty to Canada and no one doubts anyone's passion for what they believe is important to this country.

While this debate may invoke emotions and, in some cases, the inkling of partisanship, we need to bring it back to the fundamental issue of how we preserve this great nation, this incredible fabric woven together over our country's history that is reflective of two founding nations.

The truth is that Canada is a federation that works. The success of our country has not been achieved by accident, and is not something that can or should be taken for granted.

The Fathers of Confederation chose a form of government that was particularly well suited to the inclusion of regional, linguistic and religious diversity. The best example of that diversity is unquestionably the existence of two major linguistic groups. The presence of Quebec is one of the main factors that led to the creation of Canada as a federation. The founders wanted to build a country that would make room for our diversity.

Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, stated emphatically:

I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or render it inferior to the other; I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible.

Georges-Étienne Cartier stated in the Confederation debates of that time:

We could not legislate for the disappearance of the French Canadians from American soil, but British and French Canadians alike could appreciate and understand their position relative to each other....It is a benefit rather than the inverse, to have a diversity of races.

Let us not refute the intentions of the founders of the Canadian federation. They were all too aware of the need to recognize diversity, differences and specificities of all partners of the federation. They made it work, most important, and they did it under more trying and demanding circumstances than exist today.

Let us not give way to the politics of convenience or short-sightedness. Let us instead demonstrate the same characteristics of our founding fathers, perseverance, fortitude, honourable compromise and most of all, tolerance and mutual respect.

For their part, these traits have been bread in the bone, in the very marrow, in the DNA of Canada's genetic makeup. Canada was premised on the concept that diversity is a permanent characteristic. As the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney said:

Our approach to sustaining that prosperity is, first of all, an inherent flexibility in our Canadian federation that allows us to live together, to celebrate our differences and to understand, in a living way, that to be different does not mean that we are not equal, and to be equal does not mean that we must all be the same.

Mr. Mulroney further added:

Equality in Canada simply means that no one has the right to discriminate against us because of our differences.

From a historical standpoint, we learned long ago that we have to be mindful of the accommodations needed in a society where there are two major linguistic groups. Quebeckers have always exhibited a constant determination to advance and defend their rights and to preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage. They have achieved fantastic success, and all of Canada, the whole world in fact, is the richer for it.

Federalism has served us well. Today, it is hard to imagine other arrangements that could have served us as well. A federalism that, 140 years later, is still a model for the rest of the world to follow.

The challenge of accommodating diversity is perhaps one of the most difficult facing the world today. The recent debate in Quebec on what constitutes reasonable accommodation for religious minorities is echoed in similar debates around the globe.

Diversity is a modern reality. Most states in Europe, Asia or Africa contain a variety of languages, religions and cultures. Many of the most successful in dealing with this diversity have chosen the federal system of government.

Looked at from a contemporary world viewpoint, it is apparently homogenous states that are the exception. The nation state, which implies the parallel occurrence of state and ethnic nation, is extremely rare. In fact, there are no ideal nation states. Existing states differ from the ideal in two ways: the population includes minorities; and, they do not include all national groups in their territory.

Today's Canada is a prosperous, politically stable country because we have made diversity an asset rather than a problem or an issue. We embrace and celebrate that diversity rather than refuse it or repel it.

In fact, the economic and fiscal update recently released by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is a positive signpost in this continuum marked by strong economic growth, focused government spending, lower debt and reduced taxes. All of this prosperity is for the benefit of all Canadians.

The advantage Canada plan will further help Canadians build a strong economy by creating the right conditions for Canadians and Canadian businesses to organize, thrive and prosper.

Canadians are able, as a result, to make democratic choices based on respect for human rights. Today, more than ever we understand that accommodating pluralism is not merely a political necessity, it is also a source of price and enrichment which reflect Canadian values.

Our capacity to adapt as a society, to build institutions that respond to demands of its citizens has served us very well. Federalism is a natural response to governing a large, demographically and regionally diverse country. With 10 provinces, 3 territories, 6 time zones and bordering on 3 oceans, Canada's regional diversity and geographic diversity is obvious.

Our diversity is also reflected in our two official languages. Almost all Canadians speak English, 85%, or French, 31%, and one in five also speaks a non-official language. These diversities do not reflect the intangible benefits of language and culture in our nation's rich fabric. It goes beyond far beyond language and culture. These are things cannot always be grasped, or seen or felt, but they are there and they breathe in every community throughout the land.

Canada is increasingly urban and multicultural. In 2001 nearly 80% of Canadians lived in cities of over 10,000. In today's Canada, immigration represents 41% of the growth, a 2004 figure, and new Canadians tend to settle in our major urban centres, including Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal to mention a few.

There is also no denying the enduring contributions of our earliest people, our first nations, Canada's aboriginal people.

As well, in many areas of the country, we have the contribution of the original pioneers who came to make their homes in this vast and often harsh land, the Prairies, the communities that dot our coastline and our majestic north.

Canada is made up of much more than large city centres. The small towns, communities, rural life in our country continues to be an important part of the fabric.

Ours is an enormous and awesome country in size and soul, one of governance and getting along, of balance, of benefit, of being benevolent, all Canadian personality traits.

Beyond accommodating regional preferences and diversity, Canadian federalism has provided an environment in which contemporary national, provincial and cultural identities have flourished. Federalism allows and encourages experimentation in political, social and economic matters.

The open federalism approach of the Prime Minister is in keeping with that modern nation state, mature and confident in the overall desire to succeed in a united and strong Canada. The willingness to succeed with les Québécois as a nation of people among others within a strong and united Canada is the abiding and unbending part of the equation.

Canadian federalism is not—as the Bloc Québécois would have us believe—a yoke that has hindered the development of Quebec. Rather, it is an open and flexible system that is constantly evolving. Quebec is inextricably bound up in the Canadian dream.

Canadian values derive from the fact that we have to understand one another and adapt, with courage, generosity and sensitivity, to the presence of two linguistic communities.

All of the succeeding generations of Canadians have had to meet this challenge. The choices we have made attest to our common aspirations for the future of this vast country, choices that are the envy of the whole world.

Anyone who has travelled much outside Canada knows that Canada is still one of the most favoured nations. Our prosperity and our public-spiritedness have been achieved through hard work, but can never be taken for granted.

Canada is a pluralistic society, not just because of the diversity or the makeup of the population, whether linguistic, cultural, ethnic or regional, but, more important, because we have come to understand that these differences contribute greatly to our national community and our very identity. To use the symbolism of our great river system and source of natural clean water, of life itself, all the vast rivers of nationhood flow to one sea.

Across the country, Canadians work together in a variety of ways to build a better nation with no group building in isolation. As a result, Canada has become a model for other countries. In a world with some 6,000 languages and only 200 states, pluralism is the norm, not the exception. Its success requires a uniquely Canadian talent, the ability to work together and transcend that diversity.

This vision of Canada as a nation, inspired by generosity and tolerance, has repeatedly triumphed over narrow ethnic tribalism. Canadians in Quebec and across the nation are proud of our success. Our Canada includes a strong, vibrant francophone Quebec, les Québécois. We would not have it otherwise.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his fine speech, but I noticed that he did not really talk about Quebeckers. Rather, he talked about the French-Canadian nation. Now, I believe in this French-Canadian nation, because I am part of it, and I must point out that the French-Canadian nation does not end at the border between Ontario and Quebec. It was our ancestors who discovered a large portion of this country that is Canada. In fact, the first Canadians were French inhabitants. It was Aboriginals who called them Canadians.

Therefore, when he uses the term Québécois, is he speaking of those first francophone settlers? If that is the case, where do I fit? I have the same ancestors as they do. By happenstance, maybe a few hundred years ago mine chose to move on and help build the country we call Canada. I still speak French. I still live as a French person. French is still my first language.

There are almost nine million Canadians who share what I have, but unfortunately, when the term Québécois is used, it does not include me. Nor does it include anybody else outside of Quebec. What is the definition of Québécois and why should we suddenly think of them as a nation? There is no real definition of it. Are we not just playing games to try to gain votes?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I very much respect the member and her passion for this issue. I also respect her heritage.

In my opinion, the member is right. This debate is not a simple question about borders for Quebeckers. This question concerns the hon. member and perhaps other people who represent those who founded this country.

I think this is a question that she can best answer for herself as a person who speaks French as her first language, views herself very much as a Canadian as I know she does, and is a strong federalist. We have other nations within this country that she has alluded to, as have others.

We have the Acadians who live in the Maritimes.

They are one of the very earliest descendants of francophone origins who are very much a part of this great cultural diversity and who have a very tragic history in this country.

Yet, I think when we try to narrowly define any of these people, any of these founding people within the country, it becomes a dangerous and inflammatory debate.

Therefore, this is not about partisanship. This debate was sparked very much as a response from the government to the Bloc Québécois. I think it has exposed the true intent of the Bloc Québécois. It was to divide the Liberal Party who are in the midst of a leadership campaign. It was to divide this House of federalists and others perhaps, within the federalist ranks, who take a different view on the interpretation of the word nation.

In this debate and this context, the term “nation” refers to the Quebeckers, the people who live in Quebec.

I think that to that extent this issue and this particular debate will not end here. I suspect it will continue, but we do hope for, to quote an often overquoted phrase but one that I think is so important, “peace in our time” on this subject. No one wants to embark on a protracted, divisive constitutional debate and no one wants to get into the accusatory discussion around what the legal obligations are here. This is a government of generosity and inclusiveness. We see the Québécois as a nation within a strong and united Canada.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize how difficult this must be for the minister. Just today we had two soldiers killed in Afghanistan and tomorrow or the next day their remains will be brought home, draped in a Canadian flag and a nation will be very thankful of the work that they were doing in that part of the world, not a nation of nations, but a nation. I am sure that the minister will join me in recognizing that we are paying respect to them as a nation for the work that they are doing in fighting for human rights, justice and peace around the world.

I am wondering what we tell the parents of the two soldiers who are coming back. Do we say that this is a nation which is grateful to your sons and daughters or is this a nation of nations which is respectful to your sons and daughters? I am wondering if the minister will share with us the exact expression that he is going to use when he meets those two families.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members would share in our gratitude and our remorse, and our great thanks on behalf of a grieving nation to those families who have lost sons and daughters. It is the ultimate sacrifice in defence of not only our country but the values that we stand for: freedom, democracy, respect for the rule of law, and respect for human rights. These are the very motivations which led us to embark on this mission in Afghanistan with other UN countries as part of a NATO backed mission.

While tragedy has befallen these soldiers, this is not a time to mix the issues or to somehow skew our gratitude as a country. Quebec is very much a part of this nation, very much a part of the mourning that will follow. To that extent, I know I join the member opposite and all members of the House in expressing our great gratitude and share with the families our thoughts and our prayers at this most difficult time.