We're obviously trying to work forward in a positive way, Mr. Chair. I think we might want to reflect on some words that would reassure us on the constitutional side. I believe there are some discussions going on right now, and we may come up with words that would make the point that this has to be done within the Constitution.
Certainly it's interesting that the assertion of federal authority found in the Hydro-Québec case may give us the cover we need. Mr. Bigras was kind enough to share the constitutional reference from the Library of Parliament. He reminded us of that issue that we talked about in terms of the use of the word “toxic”--giving us that power, or “peace, order, and good government”, for the federal government to take necessary measures.
We could also remind ourselves that we're not the only legislative players in this process. The committee can move a set of amendments that would then be subject to further amendment at various other stages of the process, whether it's at third reading or in the Senate. We don't have to come up with a definitive answer. If we could find a form of words that simply said “within constitutional limits”, I think that would probably cover off the concerns I raised about international trade. That's really a constitutional measure as well, as to who is responsible for negotiating international treaties.
We may be working towards a solution. I think I'm rather inclined to support this amendment, perhaps amend it a bit to provide greater clarity on the constitutional side, but reassure that there are various safety nets down the road that could help us out and give us a more definitive answer than we can provide today.