Newfoundland School System  Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely hypothetical example. Since we are dealing with hypotheses, let us assume that one province, with a very strong majority, were to turn up with a constitutional change that was clearly discriminatory toward a minority in that province—and I am not in the least singling out New Brunswick with this, it being a bilingual and profoundly democratic province—but let us assume that sometime in the next few decades a government with a bad idea were to say to us “We've had enough of official bilingualism in New Brunswick, and we have a clear majority behind us in this”.

Newfoundland School System  Mr. Speaker, it is not paternalism in the least, it is federalism. Federalism is defined as a system in which public power is not concentrated in a single order of government, thus better protecting the freedom of citizens. The democratic federations are evidence of this. We, the Canadian Parliament, have the responsibility of looking at what has occurred.

Newfoundland School System  Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member is quite right. Each province must be considered individually. But the same principles must be applied to all. In the case of the Government of Canada, there are two principles. First, is the proposed amendment good for the province in question?

Newfoundland School System  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what issue he is talking about. I do not find the question to be precise enough.

Newfoundland School System  Mr. Speaker, I understand the question. I do not understand the problem the hon. member has. Section 43 applies, so it is a bilateral amendment. Is that the point? If the point is that it is a bilateral amendment, there is no problem with that. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that section 93 is involved.

Newfoundland School System  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a resolution to allow a bilateral amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. The Terms of Union of Newfoundland are part of the Constitution of Canada. Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides that an amendment may be made to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces.

Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to repeat in this House what I said Friday night in Kamloops, as can be read in the transcripts. Please excuse my English; it won't be very long. Do you know how many groups in the world give themselves collective identity?

Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs  Mr. Speaker, “—if we say that there is no future for co-habitation of cultures, synergy of cultures within the same state. That the sole solution is a separation of cultures. This is a wrong idea. I don't want this wrong idea to win in my country”.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada supports the constitutional amendment passed unanimously by the National Assembly. We think it is important to have a parliamentary committee, particularly as there was not one in the National Assembly. We think that the amendment should be approved because it is good for Quebec and because there is consensus.

Linguistic School Boards  Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a pluralistic society whose people hold various views. The federal government reviewed the issue and concluded there was a consensus for a measure that would be appropriate for Quebec society. The committee is doing its work and we will await the results.

France-Quebec Agreement On Collection Of Support Payments  Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question a number of times, and the answer is that Quebeckers can only have rights that have force in law in France under a treaty signed by two governments. I would add one thing. The fact that things have dragged on so long is due to the partisanship of the other side.

France-Quebec Agreement On Collection Of Support Payments  We keep trying to practice empty-chair politics. Between 1994 and 1996, Canada negotiated with France, and the Quebec government refused to take part. Now it has tried to negotiate a parallel agreement, which cannot have force of law in France because of French, Canadian and international provisions.

Quebec-France Agreement On Child Support  Mr. Speaker, article 26 of the Canada-France agreement provides the following: France and the provinces and territories of Canada may enter into arrangements concerning any matter dealt with in this Convention that is within provincial or territorial jurisdiction, to the extent that such arrangements are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Convention.

Quebec-France Agreement On Child Support  Mr. Speaker, the treaty is not yet in effect, but it is through this treaty that agreements may be signed between the provinces and the French government until it does take effect. One thing must be clearly understood: Quebeckers cannot have rights with force of law in France, unless it is in the context of a treaty between governments, according to French provisions, in fact.

Quebec-France Agreement On Child Support  Mr. Speaker, there are several problems with the draft agreement, including the suggestion that Quebec is a contracting party to international conventions signed between existing or future states. But this is just one problem. Another problem is that the draft agreement includes areas not covered by the Canada-France treaty, thus technically preventing it from becoming a formal agreement, both in France and in Canada.