Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss the amendment to Bill C-57 proposed by the hon. member for Laval Est. I respect the hon. member's dedication to federalism and the learning and thoughtfulness that she brings to this task.
Allow me to make a general comment in starting that it is necessary in approaching the matters of amendments to substantive bills to exercise a prudent economy in drafting and at all times to consider criteria of relevance so that the main purpose and thrust of the bill be not deflected.
The opening paragraph of amendment 3.1(a) is one that is of course very dear to the heart of the present government. The Prime Minister of Canada has led a very successful delegation to China with the full co-operation and presence of nine of the ten provincial premiers.
The intention of the government is to proceed in full vigour with ideas of co-operative federalism as developed by Prime Minister Lester Pearson and carried on by his successors. We want to work with the provinces because we recognize that the
common problems of the world community entering the 21st century require a co-operative path in Canada of all the players.
We recognize a certain ambiguity in 3.1(a) but we have no particular problems with that. I simply mention that what is within provincial jurisdiction is by no means clear. There are no watertight compartments. The Canadian rule under the Labour Conventions decision of 1937, much criticized incidentally, is followed by no federal state other than Germany.
In general, the view in federalism is that once an international agreement is entered into the legislative power to implement the agreement follows. That is not the Canadian position. I would stress that all Canadian governments, particularly the present one, have been very respectful of provincial interests and very anxious to ensure co-operation.
Some of the suggestions here seem to go well beyond the scope of an amendment and what good federalism requires or even sensibly suggests. Is it suggested, for example-I looked to see if there was any ambiguity as between the French and English texts-that the issue of trade dispute resolution, the machinery and processes, to which both the French and the English texts of article 3.1(b) are directed is a matter that should be discussed-now that the agreement is there-between federal and provincial governments?
It is a well known Canadian position that we support compulsory third party settlement of disputes. We have constantly raised the necessity for implementing the jurisdiction of the international court as final arbiter. Our problem with many international agreements, including NAFTA, is that this is not something with which the United States is happy. The solution for the United States is to understand the World Court better and to learn to adjust its claims better to the processes of decision making there.
On these issues, Canada obviously will continue to study the matter and continue to raise new issues of dispute resolution. I wonder at this stage what is useful in retaining this as another matter for extended federal-provincial discussion. You could drive a Sherman tank through the proposition "any economic matter of major international significance". I wonder whether it sensibly belongs in an amendment.
It seems to me that what the hon. member for Laval East is proposing reaches other areas of continuing concern for the government of federal-provincial relations including federal-provincial economic relations. The Constitution is not a static institution even though the amending powers may not work. There are enormous possibilities for creative adaptation of machinery by custom and convention.
I would have thought these matters were probably better addressed through another arena and perhaps another minister. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is concerned with studying the issue of continuing federal-provincial economic consultation and co-operation.
I wonder whether 3.1(c) is a useful amendment to Bill C-57. I look at 3.2 and 3.4 and wonder again. Article 3.4 opens a Pandora's box. In essence you are getting into asking the minister to take measures that may run in direct conflict with the international agreements. In any case it is not a matter to be reached by indirection in the interstices of what purports to be an amendment. I would suggest again some prudent economy there.