Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the interpreters. I also want to thank the translators. I often call on the translators of the House to translate my remarks from French to English or from English to French.
I want to pay particular tribute to Elizabeth Cowan, a translator with the House, who does an exceptional job.
To respond to my colleague's question, I will say that the scope of section 4, which appears in a number of implementing acts is not very clear, especially since it is an implementing act that concerns federal jurisdictions.
This is something I would very much like to clarify and I will no doubt do so as professor of international law when I have more time to exercise this profession, which I have left temporarily to become a member of this House.
I would add, in closing, since I know my time is limited, that federalism could work very well with expanded powers for the provinces to conclude treaties. This could be the case for Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia. The formulae that apply in Belgium might even be used as an example.
Under Belgian federalism, communities and regions are empowered to conclude treaties. But this government is ignoring parliament and, I agree with the hon. member, it is ignoring the provinces as well by setting up and exercising a monopoly on foreign policy and on the conclusion of treaties.
This is one reason why my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and many Quebecers want sovereignty, which will give them jurisdiction to approve and conclude treaties and to involve their parliament—the National Assembly—in their implementation. Having the National Assembly approve treaties before they are implemented—