A member opposite says that we would have something far better. I could not disagree with him more. To deny the contribution of the people who came to the continent from France, who had the courage, as Champlain did, to last an entire winter at Annapolis and to continue up the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers into the heartland of the continent, is a denial of what the country is all about.
The country was built by consent and consensus, not by force and not by dominance. The three measures now before the House to reinforce national unity continue the marvellous tradition of moving ahead together by consent and by consensus, not by one exercising power over another.
As we came together as a Canadian family at each stage we made special provisions for newcomers to the family and recognized their special needs. Whether it was the size of Prince Edward Island and the assurances it needed with respect to its representation in Parliament, whether it was British Columbia with its need for the recognition of a railway to link it to the east, we have always made special provisions. We respected the fact that we were creating a family.
That sense of family took a thousand people from my riding and tens of thousands from all over the country to Montreal on October 27. The hon. member is absolutely right: politicians could not have created that tremendous outpouring of goodwill and love for our country and commitment to keeping Quebec within Canada. However politicians could make it possible, as many of us did, for the people we represent to have the means of expressing that sentiment.
In the last week of the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada promised Quebecers that Quebec would be recognized as a distinct society within Canada, that no constitutional changes affecting Quebec would be made without their consent, and that changes would be initiated to bring citizens closer to services and to decision making.
It may be unusual for the Reform Party to see in place a government and a Prime Minister that keep their commitments. Just as we did in the 1993 election when we put forward very clearly our commitments to Canadians and our intention to keep them, in the last two weeks we have been doing exactly what the Prime Minister committed to do.
We are not trying to pacify, appease or please the separatists or gain their consent for what we are doing. We know they will not consent to anything that will unify and strengthen the country. We certainly are trying to speak to Canadians across Canada who want to see change, who want to see us moving forward together and not as the western separatists or the Quebec separatists want.
With the recognition of a veto for each of the regions of the country, we are saying that if we are to change the relationship that binds us together we will have to work at building a consensus around it. We cannot have parts of the country imposing their will on other parts of the country. That is not easy to do, but it is important that as we move forward we do it with consensus as we have done to this point in our history.
People have been concerned about distinct society and what it recognizes. First I will talk about the meaning of the word distinct. It does not, as some would have us believe, mean special, better, superior in some way or deserving of special treatment. It means different.
If there is one person in the Chamber who does not feel a great pride or does not accept that Quebec, with its majority French
language, its unique culture and its law system that is different from that of the rest of the country, constitutes a part of Canada that is different and by its very difference enriches the whole country, I am not sure he or she understands what the country is all about.
Concern has been expressed about how this might affect our attitude to people of different ethnic cultures, backgrounds and origins. I say to them the respect for diversity of the country is found in the original agreement that created the country, that we would respect each other's differences and each other's languages. Without the initial bargain of Confederation we would not have a country that is now a model for the world of how people of different cultures, backgrounds and languages can live together as one while respecting each other's uniqueness.
For the House to simply say we recognize the distinct nature of Quebec within the Canadian family and we undertake to respect that distinctness as we move forward with the business of the nation is not a threat to anybody. It is a reassurance to people who badly need to know that the rest of the country does value and does not intend to try to dominate, demean or diminish the special society that has been built in Quebec. Nor does it diminish our commitment as a federal government or our obligations of fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal peoples everywhere in the country inside and outside Quebec.
I will speak about the veto briefly. Perhaps there are some who feel that the majority simply by its numbers should be able to dominate and have its way. I am not one of those. I believe we can continue to solve our problems and our differences and to change and grow in the future by agreeing together as we have always done in the past.
I am proud to support the changes that have been brought forward. I am proud to look forward to a future for my children in a united Canada.