Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 26 this evening.
It is a pleasure to speak to any government legislation of significance these days because the Liberal government has developed a habit of invoking closure on important controversial bills. It is beyond comprehension. This is one of the most important issues before the House and the government is limiting debate. What is the government afraid of, that people may actually find out what it is doing?
It is difficult for me to find parliamentary language to accurately describe my outrage at how the government rams through legislation by denying members of Parliament the opportunity to bring the concerns of their constituents into the debate. However, I digress. I am here to talk about the motion before the House today. I had better take advantage of the opportunity to speak before the Liberals decide they want to invoke closure in the middle of my speech.
The motion is rather simple but leaves many questions unanswered. Motion No. 26 calls on the House to recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. Before I give my opinion on the issue of whether Quebec is distinct, I will address the issue of what this means to the rest of Canada.
If Quebec is distinct, does that mean that the rest of Canada is indistinct? Does it mean there is no difference between the outports of the Newfoundland coast and downtown Toronto? Does it mean there is no distinction between the isolated native communities of the north and downtown Vancouver? Does it mean the rural grain farming communities of the prairies are indistinct from downtown Ottawa?
The answer to these questions is obvious: No. Not only are the other nine provinces distinct from each other but there are significant distinctions within the provinces themselves.
My first administrative assistant on the Hill was a francophone from Campbellton, New Brunswick. I can accept the fact that she and her fellow francophone New Brunswickers consider themselves to be distinct from the Quebecers who live just on the other side of the Restigouche River.
This motion also recognizes the distinction between francophones in Quebec and New Brunswick but it does not recognize the distinction between New Brunswick's Acadians and New Brunswickers of British origin. Does that mean that there is no distinction between the two groups? That is the biggest flaw of M-26. It demands that this House recognize only one distinction.
Let us look at the three largest metropolitan cities in Canada. I have enjoyed my visits to Montreal and could have spent days wandering in the old town, but like Toronto and Vancouver, Montreal is a city whose population is a blend of old stock Canadians and larger, newer immigrant communities. Immigrants come to these cities from countries that span the globe. What is different is the percentage of the various ethnic groups that make up the population of each of these three cities.
Despite this difference, they are still all large cosmopolitan cities with tall skyscrapers in the central business district surrounded by a mix of industrial and residential communities.
However, the government wants us to recognize that Montreal is distinct but Vancouver and Toronto are not. Why? Because as is stated in part (2) of the motion, the government wants the House to recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition.
Now we know why Montreal is to be considered distinct and Vancouver and Toronto are not. Montreal is distinct because of its French speaking majority but where does this leave Montreal's anglophones and allophones? According to this motion, they must
be indistinct. Let us flash back to the aftermath of the referendum and Premier Parizeau's comments about the ethnic vote. His comments were roundly and rightfully condemned.
Members opposite were especially vocal in their condemnation of Premier Parizeau's attack on the ethnic vote. What does the government do in response? It put forward this motion that states that Quebec is distinct because of its French speaking majority. It wants to legislate a distinct status for Quebec's francophones, separating them from the ethnic minority, the very fact Liberals condemned Premier Parizeau for stating.
Once again, the government deals in a logic that can only be understood by that side of the House. It must be something in the drinking water in the government lobby.
Let us return to the question: Is Quebec distinct? Yes, Quebec is distinct. But Quebec is a diversified province with one area distinct from another within its own provincial borders, the same as all the other provinces.
The northern parts of British Columbia and Alberta are very different from the southern parts. I recall the comments that the separatists were all spouting after the referendum loss that the results showed division in Canada. No, the referendum result showed the division that there is in the province of Quebec. Although Quebec is no longer a homogeneous province, the federal government wants it to be treated as one.
Points (2) and (3) of the motion state that:
(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;
and that:
(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.
What this means is extremely unclear. The Prime Minister is telling Quebecers that these sections will provide Quebec with a great deal of power, yet at the same time he is telling Canadians outside Quebec that it does not. Which is it? Let us not leave this motion undefined. Reform Party members have attempted to clarify the meaning of distinct society with our amendment, that this motion does not confer any powers, rights, status or privileges to Quebec that are not provided to any other province. Our amendment will ensure that all Quebecers will be treated equally.
Our amendment also makes it clear that there is nothing in this motion that denies the fact that Canada constitutes one nation. That is the danger of passing the government's motion without the Reform amendment. By identifying Quebec as a distinct society, the government is agreeing with the basic tenet of the separatist mantra that the Quebec people are different from the rest of Canadians. Do the Liberals honestly believe that once they acknowledge this difference they can counter the second part of the separatist argument that because of this difference Quebecers need their own nation?
In dealing with this issue I have tried to do what this government refuses to do: ask the opinions of average Canadians. In my latest householder that has just started to arrive in the homes of my constituents I included my regular 10-question survey. I have two questions in that survey. First, do you believe that Quebec should be granted distinct society status if it confers special privileges or powers to Quebec? Second, do you believe that Quebec should be granted distinct society status if it confers no special privileges or powers to Quebec?
Unfortunately with the government's rush to stifle debate, I will not have enough time to have a truly representative response to these questions. However, as of this moment the answer to the first question is overwhelmingly no. The answer to the second question is still too close to see a trend. My greatest objection to this motion is that the government believes it is ordained to make these serious decisions on its own without any consultation with Canadians.
It would have been more appropriate if the government had stayed to its original plan and had us voting on this motion tomorrow, December 7. What could have been more fitting than having the government ram through a motion in this manner, and by having it do so on a day that already has a reputation of being a day that shall live in infamy. I guess we will have to come up with our own day of infamy, but then the government is providing us with so many.
The people of Surrey-White Rock-South Langley should have had an opportunity to express their opinions on this motion and the veto issue directly through a national referendum. However, they will have to be content with their MP having a chance to contribute in this debate. It is very unfortunate that there are many Canadians who have lost the opportunity to have their member of Parliament speak to this issue.