Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill River, for giving the House this opportunity for discussion and no doubt to go further.
I have many reasons to wish to speak to this motion. I was not on the foreign affairs committee when it carried out its study proposing the addition of the entire circumpolar aspect to Canada's foreign policy, but I can say that I have already been the Parti Quebecois adviser on this program, and as such proposed the addition of a component for the north.
We cannot look at a map, know the history or be interested in international relations, or know society—I am speaking of Quebec—and not know that the north is inhabited by native peoples, nations, totally original societies, that developed mores and, in terms of the environment, for example, are inheriting problems generated in the south. They do not always have the means to resolve these problems.
I was also aware of the need for the various societies in the north to talk to each other. I am pleased as well to hear the member point to the major contribution by a geographer, an anthropologist, Louis Hamelin, a historian as well, who really contributed to giving the north, northern societies and northern Quebecers, their letters patent of nobility. I think he really pushed us to expand our interest in the north, but he also pushed for organization of the people in the north.
All these reasons heighten our interest, because we have to learn from others and must get organized. The member for Churchill will not, however, be surprised to hear me raise a question, which in Quebec and no doubt in the other provinces, if it applies, is of interest: it is the question of the translation. For the expression “frontière canadienne”, in English, instead of saying Canadian border, they say boundary. I have had some research done, and this is confirmed by international research. The word frontière is closer to the English term border, while boundary is a better equivalent of limite or “limite territoriale”.
The definition that I found reads as follows: “Border: noun, edge of a road, etc.”. The second meaning is that of a “dividing line between two countries”. This is not what the motion of the hon. member for Churchill River is about. On the other hand, the definition of boundary says “noun, border, anything marking a limit” and adds “between countries”, “frontier”. So, I urge this assembly to allow us to continue the debate on the member's objective by accepting the following amendment.
I move:
That the motion be amended by replacing, in the French version, the word “frontière” with the following: “limite territoriale”.
Members will realize, and I am sure the hon. member does, that we completely change the meaning of his motion if we change the border of the provinces.
I am sure this is not at all what he intended. His intention is to define a boundary within borders, but a boundary beyond which people recognize themselves and are defined as being from the north, as being nordic people and as being part of the circumpolar circle.
Other members wondered whether the 55th parallel should be debated. I think we could discuss it, but not if the word “frontière” is kept instead of “limite”. I have not spoken with Mr. Hamelin, but I think he would agree with the word “limite” instead of “frontière”.
I wanted to move this amendment because, otherwise, we are no longer talking about the same thing. We are talking about redefining borders and I do not think that the member for Churchill River intended, by his proposal, to create societies completely detached from the province to which they belong. I believe he wants people living in northern regions to be able to form groups, with the approval of the provinces and NGOs, in order to define goals, bring pressure to bear, run programs or take part with parliamentarians in the proceedings of the Arctic Council.
Once again, I congratulate the member on raising this issue in the House and I urge him to take into consideration the reasons for my amendment.