Debates of June 10th, 1996

Oceans Act

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 31 stands deferred.

We will now proceed to group No. 5, Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17 to 21, 23, 32, 33, 34 and 35.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-26, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 4, with the following:

"derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or interest held".

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-26, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 24, on page 5.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-26, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 7, with the following:

"derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or interest held".

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-26, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 8, with the following:

"derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or interest held".

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-26, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 8, with the following:

"20. (1) Outside provincial boundaries, with respect for the rights of the provinces and subject to any regulations made".

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-26, in Clause 21, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 12, on page 10.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 11, with the following:

"23. (1) Subject to sub-section (4), in any legal or other proceedings, a".

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 11, with the following:

"(2) Subject to subsection (4), in any legal or other proceedings, a".

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-26, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 38, on page 11, the following:

"(4) The certificate referred to in this section is not proof of the truth of the statement contained in it where the effect of the statement is to abrogate or derogate from the existing rights or legislative jurisdiction of a province."

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-26, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 15, on page 15, with the following:

"29. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments and in collaboration with interested per-sons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, shall lead and facilitate, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of marine eco-systems in waters that form part of Canada or in which Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada has sovereign rights under international law."

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-26, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 42, on page 15, with the following:

"31. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments and in collaboration with interested per-sons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, shall lead and facilitate, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, the development and implementation of plans for the integrated management of activities in marine waters that form part of Canada or in which Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada has sovereign rights under international law."

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

moved:

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-26, in Clause 29, be amended in the French version by replacing lines 4 to 10, on page 15, with the following:

"d'autres ministres et organismes fédéraux, les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux et les organisations autochtones, les collectivités côtières et les autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendications territoriales, dirige et favorise l'élaboration et la mise en".

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-26, in Clause 31, be amended in the French version by replacing lines 31 to 37, on page 15, with the following:

"d'autres ministres et organismes fédéraux, les gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux et les organisations autochtones, les collectivités côtières et les autres personnes de droit public et de droit privé intéressées, y compris celles constituées dans le cadre d'accords sur des revendications territoriales, dirige et favorise l'élaboration et la mise en".

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Canada oceans act and the number of amendments that have been proposed to the act.

I have to recur to the point I made earlier but with perhaps more precision. I have said it is not the appropriate role or mission for the House to assay constitutional amendments whether by the director or by the processes now being developed in intergovernmental relations and between federal and provincial ministers. This is an act which is devoted to Canada's oceans, and its integrity should be respected in that sense with proper criteria relevance applied to it.

The clauses the Bloc Quebecois wishes to amend in this act relate to Canada's rights and jurisdictions over its territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf as codified under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

These amendments are based on the misconception that this act could impact on existing provincial rights and boundaries. It is certainly not competent for ordinary legislation of this House to change the constitutional division of powers. There are other arenas and other processes in which that could be carried out if that were the will of the country.

I will not take up House time by enumerating our rights and responsibilities in each of Canada's maritime zones as declared by Bill C-26. However let me point out there are elements of the act, including the declaration and recognition of our rights in all of the maritime zones mentioned, which are in full agreement with international codes and practice.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to amend the oceans act in such a way as to suggest that provinces could have rights and jurisdiction in the maritime zones of Canada. Under international law however these are clearly assigned to the coastal state, that is, Canada. There is nothing to prevent efforts being made to promote constitutional change by direct amendment or otherwise but that is for another arena, another time and another place. It certainly would be a distortion of this act to try to incorporate suggested changes of that nature into it.

Bloc Motions Nos. 8 and 9 suggest that the provinces have rights seaward of the base lines. The concept of base lines is not used in international law or in Bill C-26 to determine the internal boundaries of a nation; rather the base lines serve as reference lines from which the nation defines its national maritime boundaries according to international law.

Under international law, rights in waters seaward of the base lines are vested in the coastal state. Canada as a nation holds title of sovereignty over the waters within its base lines and within its territorial sea. These waters are part and parcel of the territory of Canada. Furthermore, contrary to what is implied by Bloc Motions Nos. 8 and 9, Canada holds property rights below waters that are not within provincial boundaries.

Bloc Motion No. 14 applies to Canada's exclusive economic zone. It seeks to imply that there are or could be sovereign provincial rights in the exclusive economic zone. However under international law the exclusive economic zone is vested in Canada. For these purposes it is located well beyond provincial waters. International law as codified by the United Nations convention assigns to the coastal state Canada rights and responsibilities within the exclusive economic zone and these rights are vested in the state, in Canada, and not in the provinces.

Bloc Motions Nos. 17, 18 and 19 regarding the continental shelf in legal terms make the same erroneous implications, namely, that the continental shelf could be within the boundary of a province and that rights in this area could be exercised by a province. Once again I would refer hon. members opposite to article 77 of the United Nations convention. It clearly states that the coastal state Canada has sovereign rights for exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf, its non-living resources on its seabed and subsoil and of its living sedentary species. Under the international law and the convention these rights are vested not in the provinces but in the coastal state.

I therefore urge members of the House to reject Bloc Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 and 19 pertaining to the maritime zones of Canada. To endorse them would be to destroy Canada's international credibility, to contravene international law and to destroy the work of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Bloc Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23 refer to clause 23 of the oceans act which deals with the issuance of certificates of geographic location by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. These certificates are court documents issued by or under the authority of the minister which contain a statement that a geographic location specified in the certificate is located in a specific area.

In the case of the certificates issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the certificate would assert that a specific geographic location is within a specified maritime zone, that is the internal waters, territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf. In the case of the certificate issued by

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the certificate would assert that the location prescribed is within an area of a maritime zone where a specified provincial law may have been extended. Once again these certificates focus on the geographic position of the site in question. They make no statement about the authority exercised there.

Strong legislation is made on a solid foundation. Basic tools such as these certificates are required to enable the courts of the land to efficiently conduct their business.

It is clear that the nature of the certificates provided under clause 23 of the oceans act has not been understood by some hon. members. Through amendments proposed in Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23, the Bloc suggests that the federal government might, through the certificates issued by either the Minister of Foreign Affairs or those issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, impinge on provincial rights or legislative jurisdiction. The certificates provided for in this act do not deal with legislative jurisdiction. They deal with geographic locations, degrees of latitude and longitude. Constitutionally, they could not go beyond that.

It has been mentioned before, but I will mention it again. Provincial boundaries and provincial claims are constitutional matters which cannot and will not be unilaterally amended by legislation and administrative action such as the issuance of these certificates.

I therefore ask all members of the House to reject these motions presented by the Bloc which, if accepted, would make Canada's new oceans statute contravene international law.

On another issue, Bloc Motion No. 32 of this grouping, there is a proposal to have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the provinces take the leadership role in developing the oceans management strategy, while Motion No. 34 proposed to have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the provinces take the leadership role in developing integrated management plans. Canadians have asked that there be one leader, not ten. Such a proposal would leave us where we are today with a maze of legislation and responsibilities but with no one person responsible for getting all the players to work together.

It is not as though the provinces will be ignored in this process. The minister is committed to collaboration with the provinces, territories, aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and many other stakeholders. This commitment permeates the whole bill. The minister's leadership role must be preserved. For that reason alone, Motions Nos. 32 and 34 must be rejected.

To further strengthen the language of the act, I propose in Motions Nos. 33 and 35 that the French text of clause 29 be amended to be consistent with the English text in order to clarify and remove redundancies and make the bill consistent with the wording used in the Constitution and other legislation.

In addition, during the standing committee's examination of the bill, concern was expressed by the hon. member for Gaspé with the use of the term "communautés côtières". This term has been changed to "collectivités côtières" to address the concerns expressed by the hon. member.

I therefore urge members of this House to accept the government's technical amendments in Motions Nos. 33 and 35, to reject Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 17, 18 and 19 in which the Bloc seeks to alter provincial boundaries, and also Motions Nos. 20, 21 and 23 which are based on erroneous assumptions that the federal government is seeking to alter federal-provincial jurisdiction and provincial boundaries. This is not its intent and it could not do so in this legislation.

Bloc Motions Nos. 32 and 34 should also be rejected to allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to assume the leadership role which Canadians have clearly requested.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the second time tonight I must express disagreement with the idol of my youth. He should not see it as a personal attack, far from it.

When the member for Vancouver Quadra tells us that the House of Commons is not the place to debate the Constitution, I have difficulty with that. I know, as he does, that traditionally, constitutional debates are held in the Chateau Laurier, and that real changes are made at night, between midnight and 6 a.m. This is where the 1982 Constitution was hatched, and René Lévesque was tricked, during what has been known since then as the night of the long knives. I know all this, the member for Vancouver Quadra is not telling me anything new. I am aware of this.

Except that, what were we doing here before Christmas, when we voted on the distinct society motion? What were doing and what was the government doing, the government of the member for Saint-Maurice, the little guy from Shawinigan who said during the referendum campaign that we could have administrative agreements? The leader of the official opposition in Quebec is building his career on administrative agreements. If they do not emanate from this Parliament, where are they coming from then?

I do not agree when they say that the House of Commons must not be the place where we do indirectly what cannot be done directly. I must remind the member for Vancouver Quadra that the few times we did act directly it would have been better for us to act indirectly, because the results were nothing to brag about. The member must not forget that the Quebec premier has not yet signed

the 1982 Constitution and the Quebec National Assembly has not ratified it.

I agree that fisheries, oceans, navigation, security and overview of marine areas come under federal jurisdiction so to speak. It is true and we do not deny it, the member is right. But, I am making a suggestion because, really, I am not convinced this is the way it should be.

Yesterday, I listened to the Prime Minister on the French network of the CBC; he was on the program Le Point . He was ready to do indirectly what the member just blamed us for trying to do. He was willing to conclude administrative agreements and to discuss these things here in the House. He was ready to accept anything yesterday. Before the cameras, the Prime Minister is always ready to accept anything and everything.

[An hon. member]

He is always ready to muddle an issue.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

He muddles so well that he just drowns himself in rhetoric.

In the Liberal Party's red book, they mentioned decentralization and administrative agreements. That is what we are talking about here. This area comes under federal jurisdiction, so now is the time to conclude administrative agreements with the provinces. You are good at making administrative agreements when you want to intrude in provincial jurisdictions, so let us try to reverse the trend and make administrative agreements in your jurisdictions. It is not so funny, this is not the place to do it. We cannot do that here. You cannot not do indirectly what you cannot do directly.

You were talking about economic rights-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I remind the House that any intervention must be made through the Speaker, and not directly to our colleagues from one side of the House to the other, whether they be old colleagues, students, professors or what have you.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot even do directly what I cannot do indirectly; this is complicated. As for integration, I will quote something that was written recently. There are two types of integration to provide for in a political entity if we want to guarantee its stability and coherence: economy and politics.

Economic integration implies that all aspects of the economic activity can be pursued within the entity, without tariff constraints or other trade barriers, and that there is considerable economic interaction within the whole area.

So, when we talk about the economic entity that we must have to stand up politically, here it is: relations with fishermen, those who operate in the area, who manage the area and, most of all, who make a living from the area since they are the ones most directly concerned. That is the first aspect, economic integration. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra he does not want to consider this.

One must also consider political integration, which means that the people in the political entity share many values and beliefs and identify with the political institutions, laws and government policies through which these values are expressed. The people living off fishery resources are told not to get involved in this, that it is none of their business. In fact, they are told to go back to their boats and fish as much as they want. They should not be concerned about whether or not there are any fish left, about whether or not our oceans are being restocked. The water and the sea belong to us, but you must still register your boats.

Can you understand that these people are dependent on your policies? They will have to live with your policies. For some, it will be a tragedy. I am convinced that the exhaustion of underwater fishery resources will probably lead to tragedy, but they should at least have an opportunity to express their views and to be heard.

We were talking about fishery resources. According to some studies, if seals and sea lions had been eliminated from the St. Lawrence estuary, fish stocks might not be as low as they now are. When they said so 20 years ago, no one listened to them. Politicians were above all this; they argued that the problem lay elsewhere.

We now see that the level of fish stocks and other resources in the ocean is only about 5 per cent of what it was in 1974. Before we lose forever this remaining 5 per cent, the federal government should wise up and start consulting the provinces as well as the fishermen and other people concerned. But they prefer not to do so directly. Forget about the Constitution.

What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? I wonder. I simply want to tell the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that I also wonder what he is doing here. We must talk about the Constitution. If they do not want to take direct action, fine, but they should still proceed indirectly so that the goal is achieved. As Balzac said, the bottle does not matter as much as the drunkenness. To the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, I say I will not take offence at the means used, as long as the goal is achieved. That is all I ask.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again we hear from the member of the Bloc the deep concern that people have for the intrusion of the federal government into areas where it does not belong.

In looking through the motions and the groupings it is clear that Motions Nos. 33 and 35 have to do with housekeeping.

Bloc Motions Nos. 8, 14 and 17 have to do with the safeguarding of the legal rights of provinces. At this time Reform is favourably disposed to these motions. We have not heard anything that would lead us to believe there is anything in these amendments that could create concern for the federal government.

Motions Nos. 32 and 34 give the provinces a higher priority in the consultative process which we think is progressive.

However, Motions Nos. 9, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 unfortunately deal with jurisdiction. The federal government properly has the right and the responsibility as the sovereign government of the land to exercise jurisdiction over Canada's marine waters. There are too many issues concerning Canada's marine waters such as international agreements on migratory wildlife and fish that do not recognize provincial borders and do not recognize international borders. It is only the federal government that can properly oversee the management of Canada's marine areas.

Reform will be supporting Motions Nos. 33 and 35. We are favourably disposed toward Motions Nos. 8, 14, 17, 32 and 34, and we will be voting against Motions Nos. 9, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it is comforting to see the interest all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois take in the consideration of this bill at report stage. I thank the hon. member for Chambly for the kind remarks he made earlier.

To come back to my horses, so to speak, Mr. Speaker; horses are normally on land, but the white froth on the crest of waves is also called horses.

What we must understand here this evening about GroupNo. 5-and I like the expression my hon. colleague from Chambly used earlier when he talked about neo-constitutional relations-is that we are doing our very best to come to an agreement with the people opposite. That is what is commonly called creating a partnership. We are even doing so at the instigation of former fisheries minister Brian Tobin, who told me: "Yvan, we want to be your partners. We want to establish a partnership". When you want to establish a partnership, you sit down with your partner and start making comparisons and agreeing on definitions. This is the very foundation of any partnership: the equality of partners.

To do so, we need to be able to talk and to establish clear premises from the start. When I was preparing these motions, I never thought the debate was going to develop this way. I must admit that I tried to get the idea across during our committee work. I did not jump on people with my idea, but when people come and tell me: "We do want to have partnership with you and make headway", I take that opportunity to check how sound things are. That is how the kind of motions before you today came about.

I could perhaps share or read a few, if I may. They deal with simple things. I am on Motions Nos. 8 and 9. Motion No. 8 deals with clause 8, defining rights. I am simply adding the words "derogates from any legal right or interest of the provinces or any legal right or interest held before February 4", to include the notion of province. It does not hurt anyone. Why should the government be ashamed of mentioning in the legislation that the provinces are its main partners? This is an example.

I will read clause 9. It is very eloquent. Subclause 9(5) mentions establishing a partnership; this is the provision I would like to see withdrawn-I realize this is boring for those who are listening to us at home, but I too would rather be doing something else. Put simply, the word "Limitation" appears in the margin, on the left side of subclause 9(5). This provision contains a limitation.

Here is what subclause 9(5) says. It reads:

For greater certainty, this section shall not be interpreted as providing a basis for any claim, by or on behalf of a province, in respect of any interest in or legislative jurisdiction over any area of the sea in which a law of a province applies under this section or the living or non-living resources of that area-

What does this mean? We are told that a claim cannot be made. A limitation is imposed. This is a bad way to start a partnership. I do not pretend to be a constitutional expert. I may not have as much legal expertise as does the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra or the hon. member for Chambly. However, I am an administrator by training and when you start with restrictions, it is a bad sign.

The same goes for Motion No. 14-we can go into details this evening, since we have time to do so. I specifically use the word "provinces" in the motion. Again, it is for a simple reason. Why is the government afraid of naming one of its main partners?

I will get to motions that are even more interesting. MotionNo. 23 seeks to add a fourth paragraph to clause 23. Earlier, in reference to certificates, the member for Vancouver Quadra said that, as regards Canadian sovereignty and international law, this is not quite the way to proceed. The member for Vancouver Quadra does not have to convince the whole world. He must convince the partners, that is the provinces, and the members who are here in this House.

I would like clause 23 to be amended by adding a fourth paragraph which would read:

"(4) The certificate referred to in this section is not proof of the truth of the statement contained in it where the effect of the statement is to abrogate or derogate from the existing rights or legislative jurisdiction of a province".

We might be told that what is indicated in clause 23 does not come under provincial jurisdiction, or what have you, but it would not hurt to include it in the bill, so as to stress the notion of partnership. One would say to the other: "Listen, if you accept it like that, I am prepared to live with clause 4, because I will not lose anything, and if it suits you, great, so much the better". But no. It cannot work like that.

I move on to Motion No. 32 right away. I will read it carefully, slowing down at the important words and comparing it at the same time. It refers to clause 29. This may be an academic exercise. In any case, I think it could be instructive for those listening at home, and even for certain members who did not have the chance to look through the whole bill.

As written, the clause reads as follows:

"29. The minister, in collaboration with other ministers, boards, and agencies of the Government of Canada, with provincial and territorial-"

I note that the provincial governments are not quite last, but come after relations with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, in collaboration of course.

What I would like to see, and I mention it in the motion, because the provincial partners will have to make it work, because Canada is made up of provinces, I would rather see the following:

"29. The Minister, in concert with the provincial governments-"

So there is an direct link right off the bat. As soon as you read it, it is clear: the main partners are the provinces and agreement must be with them. This is followed by "in collaboration with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada", and then "interested persons and bodies". But it is the minister, in concert with the provincial governments, who is going to "lead and facilitate, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces-it does not hurt to mention it-the development and implementation of a national strategy".

In other words, putting things in the right order from the start simplifies things later. It is not because I am a sovereignist that I would put the words in this order. I told you earlier that my second defect is to be an administrator by training. I therefore like to be able to identify the other players from the outset so as to be able to determine what our relations with them will be. I have said "in concert". What is done in concert? To lead and develop the implementation of a strategy. Now that is clear. But let us not begin with a list that, when the clause is read by more experienced jurists, such as there might be in this House, waters down the purpose of this motion.

If you try to do that, you risk serious problems, since this act will be implemented to resolve problems. So there must be an effort, from the outset, to avoid creating problems so that the relations are very clear.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

I have been listening to the words of the member for Vancouver Quadra. Although rigorously legal, his interpretation is that all of the proposed amendments suggested by the hon. member for Gaspé and supported by myself are constitutional amendments and thus there is nothing that can be done. This is not the proper tribunal for discussing it. We are not, therefore, the right ones to discuss it, for we are in the federal Parliament and here we must speak of laws and not constitutions.

I find that most curious. We have looked at laws here, and I have sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. I recall the famous debate on occupational training.

That was an area of provincial jurisdiction, and yet in Bill C-96, the act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development, the minister awarded himself powers in this area, by making official those powers he had long recognized as his, having long interfered in that area.

During another session, Bill C-28 dealt with financial assistance to students, another area of provincial jurisdiction, education, under the Constitution. Through legislation, the minister made legal his intruding in this area.

I have been a member of the health committee for some weeks, where there was a bill to make the existence of Health Canada official, reinforcing and clarifying its role. It already existed under another name, but now it is really called the Department of Health. An act has been passed to that end, clarifying the powers of the minister, yet health is a provincial jurisdiction.

At that time, the types of things that have been said just now were not being said, for it was OK, it was for the well-being of all Canadians. Each time there is federal intrusion, it is for the good of the people. I have been interested in politics for a long time, and I can remember Réal Caouette's time here. He used to say: "The government has your good at heart, and it will manage to get its hands on your goods as well". I say he was absolutely right.

There are areas which are not in the Constitution: culture, the environment, communications, to name but a few. Since it is not written down, not specified, when we get into a grey area, we know that the Supreme Court will be called upon to decide and will always say that if not set out otherwise, it is a federal area of jurisdiction.

Without going over every recent event, the Prime Minister recently stated, repeating it last night again on Le Point , that he wants a partnership, and what the hon. member for Gaspé is proposing is precisely the possibility of entering into partnerships, reaching agreement, collaborating with the provinces. Why? Because the Constitution was written in 1867, and things have changed for it, as they have for the catechism.

I will soon be 50 years old, so I am entitled to that analogy. When we were in primary school, we read the catechism. There were questions and answers, and we said: "That is the way it is". I was prepared to believe that things did not change. Today, however, perhaps it depends on religion, but sins are not what they used to be. Things have changed. You do not even have to confess to a priest any more. It is changing. Society is changing, but Canada's Constitution is immutable. It cannot be changed.

Recently we were told that, since there was no provision for a province's sovereignty, it was out of the question. They try to convince us that it is immutable and that if it is not provided for it is out of the question. If we listen-I was going to say religiously-to the member for Vancouver Quadra, nothing can be changed. Nothing whatsoever can be changed.

The question is about the impossibility of changing anything, not a comma of what the opposition suggests. I remember-I have been here for three years. When we manage to get a minor amendment on a minuscule word, it is a real victory, because traditionally with this system proposals from the opposition are not accepted. The party in power runs the show. We see it on the sheet we have. If it is a Liberal government proposal, it is good; if it comes from the opposition, it is not.

The people listening to us must be saying: "What is all this?" What does it all mean. It must be changed. Opposition speeches are intended to try to convince the members opposite that, yes, in theory things can be changed. We said: "We are indeed sovereignists, but it is because the system is immutable, there was never any desire to change it".

So those who must prove us wrong must prove that it is amendable, that there is room for improvement and that the opposition has valid things to say. The fact that it is logical ought to be enough. No. There is the party line, and that is the end of that.

If you do not do that, you are saying, like the member for Vancouver Quadra, that the Constitution does not permit that. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, tonight we are talking about things which we should really not be talking about, and I appreciate your extraordinary tolerance, allowing us to talk about something the member for Vancouver Quadra thinks we should not be talking about. But curiously enough, the Chair and its advisors ruled our amendments, the amendments moved by the member for Gaspé, to be in order, which means that they can be debated and voted on.

The member for Vancouver Quadra says: "It might be in order, we can discuss it, but in any case, it will lead nowhere, the Constitution does not permit changes". This is a strange situation, and since we cannot make further changes, I will spare my voice, but I find this rather bizarre legally speaking. This is quite a lesson in democracy for the young people who are listening to us. Efforts made to get people interested in politics are all for naught when the answer is: "This is not in the constitutional catechism, and when its is not in the constitutional catechism, there is no salvation".

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.