Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Motion No. 26, which is the motion put forward in the House by the Prime Minister. I will oppose the motion unless it is amended, as was suggested by my leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
I am concerned that the federal government has used closure to limit debate on something as important as how Canada functions, how we respect and treat one another, and whether or not the principle of distinct society is a worthwhile course for us to follow as a nation.
The whole idea of using closure, or time allocation, has been addressed many times in the House. I will not condemn it at length. I will just repeat that I believe it is wrong. I know that members opposite, when they sat in opposition, declared that it was wrong. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands called it morally wicked if the Mulroney government introduced time allocation and closure. Yet the Liberal government has introduced this procedure far more often than the Conservatives did under Mulroney. The Liberals do not even bat an eye. They think there is nothing wrong with limiting debate on important issues that do not need to be dealt with in an emergency when the national good is at stake.
When we talk about distinct society it brings back memories. I first remember hearing this phrase discussed in the debate on the Meech Lake accord. Perhaps it was coined before that, but I was not aware of the phrase until the Meech Lake debate. Subsequently, it was a bone of contention when the Charlottetown accord was put forward and voted on in a national referendum in Canada and defeated.
It is interesting that the reason the Meech Lake accord never did pass is because of a member who sits in our midst. While there was opposition to the Meech Lake accord in the province of Newfoundland with its premier and there was resistance in the province of Manitoba with the government there, the one member at that time in the Manitoba legislature who probably had more impact on bringing down the Meech Lake accord than any other Canadian was the hon. member for Churchill, who now sits in this House.
It is interesting that the member for Churchill, in recognizing other problems the aboriginal people of Canada face, has called a sacred assembly. As a people they are doing some soul searching. They are even looking for inspiration from higher powers than themselves to solve problems facing the aboriginal people.
Maybe if we as a nation started to reflect on the one we recognize in our Constitution as the supreme authority, perhaps we would be better off than spending all this time trying to confer special privileges, rights, or distinct society, whatever that may mean, on a group of individuals. The Constitution calls upon us to recognize the supremacy of God. If we have the correct interpretation of how this almighty person looks upon the world, he looks upon us with the same eyes regardless of our language, our race, or our culture. I believe we are all equal before him. We are all special, but certainly I do not expect he would suggest that any of us are distinct or in some way deserve privileges the rest of us do not.
I want to talk a little about why I am concerned about the phrase distinct society. I am a little concerned about how it may be interpreted in the future. Quite frankly, I do not trust the Liberal government when they propose that this really does not mean anything.
I am reminded of a Liberal politician in the past who when he spoke in western Canada would not speak in glowing terms of the national energy program. This subject seldom came up because this Liberal, being a fairly knowledgeable and experienced politician, realized that western Canadians were aware that the national energy program had siphoned billions of dollars out of the western Canadian economy and into the federal treasury and the same proportional benefits were not returned to the people who owned the natural resource. Natural resources of course are a provincial jurisdiction.
This same experienced Liberal politician would go into Atlantic Canada, far away from the west, and expound on the virtues of the national energy program. I saw this on television one day. The wonderful thing about television is that sometimes it captures the things you say and it is recorded and broadcast in other parts of the country.
I realize that we have to be careful that we are consistent with our message in all parts of Canada when we are dealing with an issue, whether it be the national energy program or whether it be distinct society.
I have the uncanny feeling that when we are talking about distinct society the message being conveyed to the province of Quebec is not the same message that is being conveyed to other parts of Canada. The message to Quebec is that this will meet their aspirations. This somehow will confer on them some feeling of being a nation, meet demands that have been made by the separatists. Somehow these demands will be met and their feelings of nationalism will be appeased by recognizing them as a distinct society.
Then in the rest of the country the message is a bit different: Distinct society does not really mean anything, it is just an acknowledgement of something that already exists; it is no big deal, nothing to be worried about, and it might keep the country together.
I doubt that very much. It does not seem to make sense to me that you can convey one message to Canadian citizens in the province of Quebec and another message outside of the province. Something does not fit. Rather than question the message, we have to question the messenger. I do not think they are dealing a fair hand to Canadians when they describe the distinct society.
We really have to be concerned about how this term distinct society will be interpreted in the future. We can sit in this House and the government and the Prime Minister can say distinct society means this or that. But we know this term will be interpreted in the future by the courts and by future governments, so we have to be concerned about how distinct society is defined.
Actually I cannot find any place in Motion No. 26 or in any other information that tells us exactly what distinct society means in this case. We are told it includes the French-speaking majority. It does not say anything about any other Quebecers. We are told the House will be guided by this distinct society phrase. We are told the House will encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.
To me that sounds like a blank cheque. That is saying let us adopt the phrase "distinct society", hang it over the door of Quebec, and then we will try to pursue it with diligence and all our effort without knowing really what it means. We will interpret that in the future. We will let future politicians and future governments, perhaps even separatist governments, define the phrase distinct society for us. Just trust us, it will work out all right, that is what they are saying.
That concerns me very much as a Canadian, because I realize that when we are talking about the future of our country we are not talking about today only. We are not even talking about the people who make the decisions in this House and in the legislative assemblies of the provinces across the land. We are talking about the decisions that will be made in the future by parliamentarians and by people in the various legislatures, including possibly a separatist government in the province of Quebec.
In conclusion, I want to deal with this whole idea of conferring special status or rights on any group of society. Why would we do that? There are three reasons we might do that. The first reason is because these people are inferior to us and they need some kind of assistance. I do not accept that for the province of Quebec. I see them as my equals. Secondly, we can say that they are superior and they deserve some special status. I do not accept that either. I see them as my equals. Thirdly, we could say that because some of their ancestors were here before some of our ancestors they deserve a higher rung on the ladder. I do not accept that. Wherever we come from, we should all be treated equally. None of us should have any special status conferred upon us. Therefore, unless we accept the Reform amendments I cannot support the motion.
