Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate in order to express my deep commitment to the preservation of Canada.
I must also express my disappointment in the fashion in which the debate has found its way into the House. I have yet to be convinced that the leader of the Reform Party is not simply using a critical juncture in our country's history to score fleeting political points.
In his motion the Reform leader refers to the need for a defining vision for Canada. He then outlines a series of policy options to indicate his own sense of vision and that of his party.
My sense of vision for a nation does not rest with the policy options we choose. It rests with the values we pursue; in our case values of generosity, mutual respect and generational and international responsibility, to name a few. Policies should then be chosen to reflect the values contained in that vision.
To build a country purely around good management and social order has been the mistake made by many in history and it is not one we need make here in Canada. Having said that, I recognize the democratic process and as such am accorded the opportunity to place my own views on the record.
In some ways I guess I am relieved. Most of us here as well as most other Canadians welcome the chance to reaffirm a commitment, a commitment to remain the best place in the world to live, just as the UN has recently decreed, because neither a Canada without Quebec nor a Quebec without Canada would be able to claim that same international standing.
Apart from our obvious abundance of resources and relative affluence, the real bounty we possess lies in our unique history, our ability to compromise and understand the position and perspective of others, to subjugate our own narrow self-interests in the interest of the larger whole. This is the way we have evolved.
Canadians either consciously or unconsciously have an abiding understanding that none of us individually, regionally, even collectively lives alone in the country. Nor can we or should we wish to claim some kind of moral or cultural superiority. This is what makes our country great; not our wealth, not our beauty, not our vast expanse and limitless developmental potential, but our people and the course we have charted for ourselves.
We need only look to see what is happening elsewhere to realize that the struggle among elements of our own Confederation mirrors a larger debate taking place in every continent.
In many countries cultural conflict has been the source of bloodshed and has caused the loss of generations; such a tragedy and all because the solitudes are resolute. We watch aghast as others, not us, fail to find the will to co-exist and even thrive.
In Canada our competing values have been a source of enlightenment. Differences have taught us compassion, mutual respect, a desire to know and embrace the intricacies of other cultures, other worlds and other points of view.
We embrace these and champion our multicultural fabric as the asset that distinguishes us from other countries. For too long our leadership has been timid, assuming that ordinary Canadians might not share the same spirit of compromise, the same generosity, the same noble purpose of which I speak.
I feel otherwise. Canadians, because of our relative youth, because of our unique history and perhaps even because of an unnatural preoccupation with our Constitution, have spent more time discussing, debating and defining our country than we have a right to. However we have done it and we are a more thoughtful place for it. We need only look a little south to our American neighbours to recognize the truth in this. The United States approach to nationhood demands conformity by its citizens to a narrowly defined set of habits, traditions and principles.
Perhaps the argument can be made that this was at one time appropriate but that time has clearly passed. Both the present and the future belong to those able to cope with the enormity and diversity of our world and even our country.
While considering whether to offer as a candidate in the last election, I recall watching the American Democratic convention in Atlantic City. One of the key speakers of that convention was Senator Bill Bradley. I watched amazed while the senator from New Jersey suggested that the U.S. had occupied its superior position in the world because of its natural resources, but that now the value of physical abundance was diminishing the American's position would be maintained because as the global community became smaller the fact that so many cultures called the U.S. home would once again give it some kind of advantage on the global stage.
While I agree in part with the senator's analysis, I take great exception to his conclusion. It is Canada that is the place where members of all nations can feel at home. Canada is the place where people can truly celebrate their cultures to the greatest extent possible with government support and encouragement.
Madam Speaker, I was privileged to grow up in the only officially bilingual province of a bilingual country. Most of my friends and I myself support this opening up of opportunities and the protection of minority rights, and to us, the opportunities of diversity are a way of life. Granted, my generation of Anglophones in New Brunswick is mostly unilingual, but only due to circumstances. My children and other members of their generation are for the most part bilingual. To them, the struggles and debate that marked our past no longer make sense.
Earlier this century our former Prime Minister and the father of the modern Liberal Party boasted that the 20th century would belong to Canada. Many whose values tend toward materialism dismiss Laurier's pronouncement as wishful thinking.
As we enter the 21st century and as countries and people around the world struggle with questions of ethnic strife and ideological absolutism, we face a choice. Isolationism and scapegoating and finger pointing that go with it are not the answer. I believe in the need for pluralism and bilingualism in our case and the generosity of nationhood will be held up as the primary lesson learned from the 20th century. Whether we serve as a model of accommodation and compromise or become just another example of unfortunate shortsightedness depends entirely on us.
Canada is not without its challenges. Nor can we claim a past without blemish. We must confront with resolve our failure to include in a way of their choosing Canada's aboriginal communities in our abundance and comfort. We must attend to the inequities that continue to diminish us all, inequities between the genders, inequities between those of us who have been here for generations and those of us newly arrived.
We must be vigilant to ensure that programs and policies be in place to protect and promote both our official languages from assimilation regardless of where we choose to live.
Further, we must do a better job of promoting the values of which I speak. Racism exists in Canada but I believe in most cases it is born of fear and confusion rather than deep-seated hatred or profound incompatibility.
We should never underestimate the work and sometimes expense involved in nurturing a model of nationhood that requires patience, understanding and generosity of spirit. In short, it draws from all Canadians the very best in each of us.
To illustrate, in the spring of each year many go through the annual ritual of deciding which plants to grow. We travel to local markets and nurseries. Some of us, less optimistic, purchase hardy annuals with the knowledge that little effort is required for these plants to flourish. Braver souls recommit each year to buying and growing roses and other such delicates. We similarly possess the knowledge that more work is required and that the challenge of success is more daunting. At the end of the day those who chose the roses and finer flowers will have done something special. Quite simply, as a country, whether it be from good luck or vision, we have chosen to grow roses. It is harder; it does require more work, more patience and more creativity. Even the sting from a thorny debate is not enough to thwart us in our overall pursuit. In the end we have done something special and it is through the maintenance of that the majority of Canadians remain resolute.
