Canada After the Meech Lake Accord—Is the Nation Falling Apart?

Introduction:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to another meeting of The Empire Club.

My name is Tony van Straubenzee, and I'm not the President of The Empire Club. That distinction belongs to The Rev. Harold Roberts. I'm pinch hitting for him and it's a honour indeed.

Two years ago I asked my mentor, Angus Scott, what he thought about having a Youth Day at The Empire Club--a day when we could hear the views of four informed and concerned senior high school students. He liked the idea, so we called upon our good friend Paul Bennett and he and Mr. Scott put a panel together. It was a great success. So we decided to do it again, only this time we recognized that the one overriding concern on all of our minds is our own country. The students chose the theme "Canada after the Meech Lake Accord--is the Nation falling apart?" To help us discuss this crucial topic we call upon a good friend of The Empire Club, a woman who spoke here almost two years ago today, our Minister of Immigration and Manpower, Barbara McDougall.

Why Barbara? We've all heard her speak before, we've seen her, read about her, in fact you can't get away from her. Two weekends ago at our cottage in the Gatineau, it was pouring rain and my wife started talking about flowers and sheep manure again. So I went into the village and bought the Ottawa Citizen. Now you have to be desperate to make a special trip for the Ottawa Citizen. But, there was a full page story by Gian Hunter on our Minister with several large photos to boot. The article was the usual stuff ... does she want to be the next leader of the Conservative Party? ... what a great team player she is. A quote from Toronto lawyer Richard Boraks, "she's a warm cuddly lady-and tough as nails." Fine--I enjoyed it and then we got back to talking about gardens and sheep manure.

Last week my broker sent me a package. Hope springs eternal. Here are some tips or recommendations to look after me in my old age? No, it was a friendly note with an article enclosed on guess who? Barbara McDougall. Same article, different pictures this time, full page in the Calgary Herald and that takes some doing with Preston Manning in the old corral.

Two months ago the Prime Minister was our guest to talk about the Allaire Report, and he turned to a number of us and said, "By the way your friend Barbara is doing a great job."

Our guest loves young people, she is young at heart, full of energy, has compassion for people and she talks common sense. She has been an outstanding Minister, handling tough portfolios and, as General Legge said, when he thanked her two years ago, "she follows the motto, Justice with Humanity." Barbara was on the Students' Council at Leaside High School a few years ago. She was Vice President of the Students' Council at the University of Toronto a couple of years ago. Canadians have allowed themselves to slip into the bitching habit, criticizing our leaders in every field of endeavour, complaining about our fellow Canadians, damning one another, pushing for whatever is best for me and not for us, moaning about Meech. It is surely a time to get uplifted by a common-sense leader, a woman who has lived in at least four provinces and has made a success of three careers. In fact the kind of Canadian I wish we all could be--a better role model for students we could not find.

Ladies and gentlemen, The Honourable Barbara McDougall.

Barbara McDougall:

It's always a great treat to be at The Empire Club. Especially when Tony is introducing me, although I always hold my breath to wait for what he's going to say. It wasn't too bad today. I should tell you that the person who said that I was cute and cuddly and tough as nails is someone I don't actually know very well. It just shows that people can say whatever they want when it comes to politicians. Tony, you spoke very highly of some of the academics at our head table and let me just point out, since we're putting in some plugs, that Doug Lougheed also went to Leaside High School. And so there are many of us from our crowd too, who are participating in many ways across the land. It's a great treat for me to be with him today as well.

I'm especially pleased to be here on Youth Day with a panel of high school students to respond to my remarks and make their own remarks concerning the topic "Canada After the Meech lake Accord--Is the Nation Falling Apart?" After all, they will be the ones who have to live with the consequences of the actions that we will be taking over the weeks and months ahead. That will have a permanent impact on their lives and the lives of future generations. I don't know if their speaking here today has made them nervous. They all sound far more experienced than I certainly was at that age, but I did ask someone once, a very senior politician, as I was getting launched into politics, if you ever got over being nervous before you speak He said, "No, you don't." And he said, "If you ever do get over being nervous, you should quit." So if that's any comfort for your rolling stomachs, I can tell you that I am still among those whose stomach does the same thing. The other thing he told me was just to keep smiling, which people tell me I never do, so we'll try today to set a good example.

Let me begin with the question that we were asked today, and answer the question directly. Is Canada falling apart? No. But it is going through a very difficult time and what seems to be in our country an endless history of constitutional negotiations. Sometimes we should look a little more at our history before we make boldface predictions about our future. I recently came across a very interesting little book It was written by someone named James P. Taylor. It was published in 1899. And it is called All the Cardinal facts of Canadian History Carefully Gathered From the Most Trustworthy Sources. It is a virtual day-by-day account of Canadian history from Columbus' arrival in 1492, October 12 to be precise, to the publishing of his book in 1899. Twenty-three hundred Doukhobors from the south of Russia landed in Halifax on January 20, 1899, on their way to settle in the Northwest--something clearly of interest to Ministers of Immigration, perhaps not to anyone else.

But we find also that in March, 1868, the Legislature of Nova Scotia passed an address to the Queen requesting a repeal of "So much of the Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as relates to Nova Scotia." In other words, nine months after Confederation, Nova Scotia wanted out. Was Canada doomed then? Well, when we read on we find an entry on January 25, 1869, that by an Order-in-Counsel "better terms" were granted to Nova Scotia. The provincial debt was assumed by the Dominion, being increased from the original $8 million to $9.1 million and an annual subsidy of $82,698 was granted to the province for 10 years, being computed from July 1st, 1867. That was our first federal/provincial trade-off following Confederation. And we've had a series of them ever since.

I don't deny that these are difficult times. None of us could. Nor that these are different times with different players and different motives. But I also don't put a lot of stake in pessimistic outlooks. I don't deny that we have some problems, but on an international scale Canada is the finest country in the world. As Minister of Employment and Immigration, I am very familiar with the fact that over 1 million people a year make enquiries at our offices abroad about coming to our country. Canada is seen as a haven for freedom, for justice, for equality and for opportunity. We inside Canada lose sight of that. The people abroad don't see the petty, internal squabbling, the wrangling over constitutional processes and the federal/provincial funding formula. They see what is good and what is great--those who come today, just as our own ancestors did for those of us who have been here for several generations.

Right now there are numerous commissions and task forces travelling around the country, to fathom what Canadians really think about their country, and what they want for the future. Some of that is all over the papers and all over our television sets and as the English writer Samuel Johnson once quipped, "the beginning and ending of all great things is messy." I can't believe he said anything that inelegant, but I'm assured that he did. Democracy gets very untidy. It is indeed a very untidy process, because it consists of a lot of voices. But that is the way we are. We are democratic. And that is the way we will continue to be. Unfortunately, too often, we hear a repetition of many of the old bitternesses, the old rivalries, the old prejudices. But there are a number of interesting proposals being put forward as well. And somewhere out of that, we will find the harmony and the consensus that has helped us grow and prosper for the past nearly one hundred and twenty-four years. And that harmony, the consensus, begins at a very personal level. It's not just something that happens at the national or international level. It happens every day in our lives. It happens by accepting differences of problems among us, by accepting changes, by accommodating the views of others and, most of all, by accepting reality.

Quebec has always been a special jewel in the Canadian crown. Its distinctiveness has always enhanced us as a nation. And yes, Quebec is different. It has been from the time the very first documents were signed, I believe in 1763. Quebec is an island for francophone culture, not only in North America but, outside of France, in the Western world. And within Canada we have respected those differences. We have protected them. But let's also acknowledge with our friends in Quebec and other fellow Canadians that part of our strength as well, is in our common fundamental values and principles. Tony referred to the Prime Minister being here. He spoke eloquently then and the following day in Quebec city concerning our country. He said, "As a government we will not allow short-sighted political opportunists to effect the break-up of our nation... I begin from the premise of a strong and united Canada. We have every intention of working with Canadians, to restructure Canada. We have no intention of dismantling it."

Any negotiation is not merely a paper exercise, a reconciliation, a balance sheet. This is what you get inside the country, this is what you'll get outside the country. We must also reconcile the hearts as well as the minds of Canadians in Ontario, in Quebec, in the West and the Maritimes. It means, for example, providing adequate recognition and involvement for Canada's aboriginal people. This inclusion in the re-confederation process was part of the native agenda that the Prime Minister announced last September. We must also deal with the question of Western alienation as well as finding permanent solutions to the structural economic problems that have resulted in certain regions of Canada being permanently disadvantaged vis-a-vis the rest of Canada. In fact, there are many regions to be heard from and there will be special interest groups as well that will be heard in this discussion. But one caution that I would offer to all of them, as well as to ourselves, is that they must legitimately represent the constituency that they present themselves to represent. And they must look beyond the needs of their own particular interest group to the greater good and betterment of our country. All of us must get involved in that discussion again.

Going back to our history again, there are some similarities between what's going on in Canada and what went on between 1864 and 1867 after the Charlottetown Conference and before the signing of the British North America Act. In 1864, the politicians who signed the final document at Charlottetown and took it back to their colonies, to their communities, were called opportunists. They'd sold out their particular colony to those scabby people in Upper and Lower Canada and they hadn't listened to the people. But those politicians persevered as we are going to do. And who were those leaders? Well, we know that one of them was Sir John A. Macdonald. We may have forgotten that the other was Sir George-Etienne Cartier. And, interestingly, Newfoundland was at the conference too and it chose then to stay out. But those leaders persevered and ultimately they won. And they encouraged Western colonies and regions with sometimes more acrimonious discussion. Aren't we fortunate that the leaders of all those colonies had the vision in the end to come together.

Today we have an opportunity that didn't exist so easily then. An opportunity for all of us to become a part of this, to be involved. What do we need to build this country? What do we want? What are we prepared to give up for each other in order that all of us may share? Whether it's under the auspices of the Spicer Task Force or any of the other groups that are visiting the country and profoundly trying to find a new solution, or through our own direct links through other branch offices of the firms we work for, or through other people that we know in other schools where we may participate in athletic competitions. We here today are no greater or lesser than our forebearers. They had dreams. We have dreams. They had obstacles. We have obstacles. They had their builders and they had their nay-sayers. We have those same forces amongst us. We have one thing, though, that they never could have imagined. We have the living proof of a country whose richness has increased day-by-day, person by person, family by family, region by region, to testify to the greatness and the prescience that those leaders had.

Now it's up to us. We cannot lose our own moment in history. In the months ahead we will hear an avalanche of principles, proposals, propositions, prospects on constitutional reform. But there are some fundamental principles. And the Prime Minister set those out when he spoke here on February 12th and when he spoke the next day in Quebec City. When we talk about the various proposals and assess them first, will they lead to a more prosperous Canada? Second, will they produce a more efficient federation and a more competitive nation? Third, are they fair to all Canadians? Do they respect our diversity? Fourth, are they practical? Are they doable or are they pie in the sky? Fifth, do they protect our national standards, for example, pensions and health care? Sixth, will they move decision-making closer to the people? Other voices and approaches must be encouraged. And finally, do they safeguard the rights of all Canadians wherever they have come from and whatever part of the country they live in?

In the end, the answers will come from all of us. From the people like those in this room. It's too early to determine exactly what will be the process of negotiation and conciliation. But we must give these issues the attention that they deserve. It is the future of our country that we're considering. I believe that democracy, untidy as it is, is alive and well in Canada and I have faith that we can develop a process for a consensus that will keep this country strong and united. We are a country that has been independent and proud and united and prosperous for a hundred and twenty-four years. And we will ensure as leaders of our country that you have the opportunity to pass this heritage and tradition on to your children and to your grandchildren and to all those who will come after.

Adam Richardson:

It's an amazing fact of our world that history repeats itself. For all the people telling us that we must learn from the past, we still somehow manage to get ourselves into the same disastrous situations, in slightly different ways. In the late '70s, our country found itself in a dire situation. We were in the grips of a major recession. Confidence in the government was low and people were confused. And the question of Quebec independence was asked, as Quebec's confidence in Canada failed. A decade later we find ourselves in an eerily similar state. Confidence in the central government is low, the economy is slipping, and yet again Canadians of all faces ask for satisfaction. Again the people of Quebec, fed up with confused national policy, full of blunder and little future, seek a new referendum on independence.

In 1980 it took the resolute, confident voice of Pierre Trudeau and his strong moral support among Quebecers to save Canada. The newspaper clippings of the times were similar to those now. Many asked "Who will speak for Canada?" "Who is speaking for Canada?" What Canada needs now is someone who will lay down the facts, a negotiator who believes in a strong central Canada and strong central government. We need to stop politicising and give to all Canadians what they desperately ask for--a plan, the choices, and a place to bargain. At a time when a Canadian voice is needed, the central government is doodling and hiding. They must speak now or lose Canada. They must take a stand and then must present this stand to all Canadians.

Now is the time to present the options to plot the course of Canada. We must move now to closely analyze the requests of all who demand change in Canada. We will find that these requests can be met while making Canada stronger and not destroying Confederation. Quebec's demands stem from emotion and a strong conviction to protect Quebec culture. Thus we should give Quebec some further cultural leeway, so long as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't violated. And we should also move to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, while realizing that others in Canada also deserve this title. We must prove to Quebec through understanding and action that their culture is both welcomed and cherished in Canada. The West asked for equal representation. They want to be partners in Confederation. This can be achieved through a provincially elected or appointed Senate, with equal representation from all provinces. Guarantees of equal representation on other federal bodies can also further the voice of the West in Canada.

Rather than splitting Canada into ten different countries, with ten different policies, we must work to solve federal/provincial problems through a strong central government with equal provincial representation and protection. Rather than giving away power, we need only have more communication while policy is implemented, ensuring all provinces have a voice in federal policy. Canada is in dangerous water now, for we find that in a crisis we are stuck with a federal government no one likes or trusts. A system to hold government responsible must be constituted. And the people of Canada must be better able to voice their opinions. Now that Quebec has indicated it has its ears open, it is time for a strong voice to call for renewed negotiations, constitutional reform, and the future of the nation.

A priority is that we meet the needs of Canada's first nations. Let's cut out the politicking and give these people their land and self-government. In order to retain a national identity, the government must stop deconstructing Canada. We must continue to support Canada's common media such as the CBC. The media can be used as a powerful tool for unity. We must stop cutting the social programs and the services which Canadians hold sacred. And we must also make it an advantage, not a crutch, to do business in Canada. It is time for Canadians to speak out for Canadian unity. It is time for the Federal government to set the agenda, to talk to the people and lay down the cards. It is time to bargain, compromise and solve. Now, finally, we must learn from the past. We must embrace the federalist vision Pierre Trudeau used a decade ago to save Canada. It is our turn to be the voice of Canada. Thank you.

Aimee Delman:

How many of us sitting in the audience today feel equal to the task of reshaping our country? Are we up to the challenge of finding a way out of the current dilemma we are in, concerning Quebec's prominent desire for sovereignty? Are you feeling the Belanger-Campeau reports have developed an increased sense of drama equal to that recently witnessed when President Bush made it impossible for Sadam Hussein to say "Yes. I'm pulling out, just give me room." Are Canadians feeling uncomfortable with both Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Bourassa? When are English Canadians going to wake up and deal with the national crisis of frightening proportions. A day of reckonings put on by an upcoming provincial referendum on sovereignty will soon be upon us.

It is clear to me at this time in my life that the contemplation of profound federal changes by our country is a very serious business. It dwarfs the issues of Free Trade, the GST and recession. Do the majority of Canadians, from Pacific to Atlantic, want a long acrimonious divorce? Instead are they capable of the effort and hard work necessary to find a viable solution. If we are willing to accept the challenging problem concerning the uncertainty of a future Canadian union, then we are one step closer to working towards a solution. We must attack the apathy Canadians feel towards the issue of national unity. Existence of apathy makes worse an already fragile crisis. A fresh accord can evolve from the concept of Meech Lake.

Since Confederation, Canada has developed a renewed and deeper awareness of itself. The opportunity for a new constitutional accord would enable a mature Canada to take with it a sense of confidence and self-assurance into its future. Let us develop an accord which will focus on and redefine Canada's social contract, multi-cultural fabric, native recognition, substantive development and economic viability. Surely, if you have been following the media coverage of events since Meech Lake you will have recognized that our country is not lacking the expertise across all walks of life needed to get this job done. Equal to the challenges we face, we must recognize that Quebec has always been a distinct society within Canada. Allowing Quebec additional room and greater opportunities within Canada should lead to a positive burst of energy and accomplishment, giving Canada more fuel for its future. Any province that is self-confident of its abilities and its worth should be willing to be a part of the future. We must demand from our elected officials that they will attack the problems diligently, bringing solutions to us so that citizen groups can negotiate an accord that has longevity, strength and foresight, to endure a challenging Canadian and global future.

The glue that will solidify this renewed federalism needs to go beyond constitutional reforms. It must come from a new focus and direction in education. Our schools must develop a student with a strong sense of identity. A student exposed to a curriculum filled with past and present Canadian history and issues. Canadian studies must be available from the earliest years so that we can begin to see Canada's needs beyond provincial and regional boundaries and biases. A sense of pride and patriotism developed early will lead to greater compassion, understanding and cooperation on a national level.

Can we be confident that our Canadian family will not opt for the acrimonious divorce? Are Canadians ready and willing to develop creative change rather than face a seriously reduced economy limiting our abilities to compete in the new global market? Are we willing to give up our G-7 membership and influence that goes with it? Do we wish to dismiss our union, only to watch as our sovereign provinces become grafted onto the United States? Are we willing to risk our favoured position throughout the world, because we will no longer be perceived as a nation able to resolve our national crisis, a nation of strength? The urgent challenge to all Canadians who wish to live in a unified, vibrant and authoritative Canada in the future, is to rise above indifference and impartiality. Something is missing in the solution to our national crisis. Let us demand that our leaders and fellow Canadians bring a new energy to a non-partisan national involvement. It is time to fill the void or the true void will be the gap once filled by a nation called Canada. Thank you very much.

Kevin James:

We have heard that Canada today is on the brink of crisis. But I also believe that our country has an unprecedented opportunity for change for a radical and necessary restructuring of our entire federation. We welcome this opportunity for change because we have seen, with the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord, that the old system has failed us. It has failed us because it did not involve us. It has failed because no federal leader has had the courage to embrace genuine reform. And because Canada today cannot operate under the same system and with the same institutions as at the time of Confederation, 124 years ago.

In 1867, the Dominion of Canada encompassed only four of our provinces today, with Ontario serving as its westernmost region, and Nova Scotia on its eastern border. The act of Confederation was not ratified by the people. Instead it was submitted to the colonial legislatures for approval. The terms of Confederation therefore did not receive a formal popular mandate as they should have. Any new constitutional process must provide for direct popular consultation. Another legacy of Confederation was the un-elected upper chamber created to defend the country's propertied interests. The Senate has no legitimacy today in the eyes of the people. We want it abolished or changed. Our constitution continues to recognize only English and French communities as Canada's founding nations, excluding its aboriginal people. It does not recognize the new character of Canada's essential compact, one that today has evolved to embrace regional and ethnic diversity. The Meech Lake Accord failed because it offered only a limited decentralization of our federation, based on Quebec's agenda and not the needs of our provinces. Today we require an extensive redistribution of powers to all our provinces. The time for far-reaching and genuine reform is now at hand.

The involvement of the first ministers in the constitutional process erodes its legitimacy and subjects it to the myopia of elected politicians. I recommend that a constituent assembly be struck including members of Canada's legislatures, aboriginal peoples, representatives of the North, of women's and multi-cultural groups, of farmers, big business and trade unions. Let them draft a new constitution for Canada, setting their sights on Canada in the year 2020. Let the assembly critically examine our political system and federal framework. Does Canada still require a Governor General, or does that office, a vestige of British Imperialism, serve only to alienate our French-Canadian compatriots? Does Canada require a Senate? Should it be abolished immediately or reformed to provide for equal elected and effective representation of our regions. The constituent assembly would have the mandate to respond to these and other questions.

I foresee our Country in the year 2020 as a federation of semiautonomous provinces with greatly increased legislative powers. The federal government would serve as a guarantor of equalization payments, setting policies only in the jurisdictions of defence, trade and revenue, foreign relations and the environment. A decentralized federal system recognizing each province and region of Canada as a distinct society, is the most reasonable alternative to centralized federalism which is no longer relevant to today's political realities and exigencies. This so-called condominium model of federation provides for provincial autonomy and domestic policy, while acknowledging an important role for the federal government in regulating external concerns. It provides for a union of equal and autonomous provinces within a federal framework. The political institutions, the terms of federal union and the distribution of powers which served Canadians well for over 100 years are failing us today. Let us greet the constitutional discussions of the months and years ahead, not with fear, but with enthusiasm for change. Let us call upon the federal government to convoke a constituent assembly to deliberate and draft a new deal for Canada, neither deriding nor dismissing any position however extreme. Then let us decide in a national referendum to accept or reject that constitutional proposal. Our generation has the mandate to continue the process of constitutional reform. We are prepared to think creatively and act boldly in fashioning a new Canada.

Jessica Joss:

I have heard people say, "I'm not anti-Quebec, I am pro-Canada" Je ne suis pas contre le Quebec, mais je suis pour le Canada. Nous sommes tout des Canadiennes. We are all Canadians. As we embark upon a period of national reconstruction we each develop our own vision of Canada. My vision of Canada is that with a determined central government that will pass by the Quebec independence movement and keep our country together; an effective Senate that will truly represent the diverse cultural identities of Canada; a Canada that stretches from coast to coast with international influence and respect gained from making nationhood work for its citizens.

We often think of Canada as a regionally diverse nation, but the common ties far outweigh these diversities. Deep down we are all Canadians first. Among the elements of our national pride, we must have pleasure in realizing that we respect multi-culturalism. Once immigrants become Canadian citizens they are not expected to relinquish their heritage. This contributes to the Canadian uniqueness as a first multi-cultural nation of the 21st century. Pardon the cliché, but "eve have no melting pot here." And we should not. in order to maintain our stew, each element or ingredient, a region, a province, a cultural group, or single citizen, must be willing to donate a little so the recipe is successful. We must all give a bit to keep Canada the great nation it is and should be. Because Canada is a country that is a melange we have to realize that different components of the population will have different views and concerns.

Depending upon your background, your education or your occupation, what you view as an element of great importance will vary. Because of these varied opinions we need a strong federal government to harmonize the diverse and conflicting interests. This government should not be impotent. We must allow it enough power to manage our country effectively. By defining the jurisdictions of both provincial and federal levels very precisely, we can avoid overlapping which can lead to conflicts. The national government should have total control over matters that relate to external affairs, including in this category not only foreign policy and defence but also immigration. A province should not set its own immigration because that does not keep a country strong, that merely contributes to the diffusion of national identity, a feeling which is responsible for helping to keep the country united. Having a solid central seat of government gives a focus for our loyalties for a country that is so spread out--a central beacon of leadership. By following that light we can remain a strong and united country as we will be working towards common goals.

These communal targets are defined by the mandate given to the party that has been elected. We have to give them the right to implement the platform they ran on, because they were the choice of the majority of the electorate. Then, the voice of the majority of people having been heard, their mandates and wishes can be fulfilled by a strong federal government. But to counter-balance the national tendencies we need a second political entity. A check and balance system. If the legislative agenda being followed by the federal government is insensitive to regional or ethnic interests, the Senate is the place to overcome that problem. By creating a Senate which is regionally divided, the interests of each region are protected. I see there being six logical zones; the Maritimes, the Territories, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia Each region should be equally represented so that their interests are fairly looked after.

It is quite simple to change the Senate to effectively take care of geographical regions but we must not forget the cultural and ethnic interests. The Senate is the perfect forum to address emerging needs and cultural challenges. We must consider Quebec, English Canada, the first nations and the cultural groups who arrived later. Once the Senate's voice has been made effective, we must make it productive and see to it that it is gainfully occupied. Instead of having Senators appointed as partisan favourites, why not narrow the list for the Prime Minister to choose from--an idea borrowed from Meech Lake. If each Premier submitted a list of candidates the Prime Minister would have a more select group to draw from. In the zones, the representation would be equally distributed amongst each province and territory involved. A revitalized Senate with strong cultural and regional voices would have the elements needed to effectively counterbalance the Lower House.

We need all the provinces and the regions with the similarities and differences to make Canada the nation we proudly call home. We must all work together and compromise to keep Canada united with or without Quebec's consent. We cannot stand to lose one of our integral building blocks which has contributed to make Canada the country it is today. We must not let our country be divided and we must work strongly to negotiate for that cause. The federal government must set a realistic time-frame to counter the 1992 referendum and it must establish a special parliamentary committee in which all parties should equally carry the burden of maintaining Canadian unity. With a strong federal government and an effective Senate which fairly represents each region, Canada would have a potent institutional and administrative base with which we could commonly seek a progressive future. With concerned, cooperative and dedicated provincial, federal and regional representatives whose mandates are affirmed by the populous we could achieve the international esteem we as a great nation deserve.

The appreciation of the meeting was expressed by Angus Scott, Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and a Director, The Empire Club of Canada.