Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his questions and observations.
We see this as the tip of an iceberg and the member is really asking for what is beneath that. This phrase that new Canada should be characterized by a commitment to preserving our cultural heritage and diversity has all the room necessary to recognize the factors of Canadian diversity that the member mentions.
There is the role of aboriginal peoples, the role of new Canadians from many lands, the role of the original French and English populations. This provides scope for that in our vision of a new Canada. Our vision of a new Canada with respect to aboriginal peoples has to include the doing away with the paternalistic Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the transferring of its responsibilities, functions and funding to local aboriginal governments. We have said that on many occasions and again the argument is how to do it and not whether it is the objective.
We recognize from a historical and sociological standpoint the French and the English as playing founding roles in the development of Canada. Our point, however, is that if we are developing constitutional arrangements we ought not to tie constitutional entitlements to factors like race, culture or language because we end up dividing rather than uniting.
I suggest again that in terms of the broad objective of preserving our cultural heritage and diversity, however broadly that is defined, we are not in disagreement. The constitutional arrangements that get us there, that is where there will be diversity of opinion in the House.