Mr. Speaker, I will talk about one part only of the bill presented by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. That part is not the most crystal clear one.
It is recognized in Canadian constitutional law, and has been for the past sixty years, that the power to conclude treaties rests exclusively with the federal government. However, hidden among the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is one that asks the members of this House to recognize that provinces have the power to conclude treaties.
That power of the provinces to conclude treaties simply does not exist. And a change of this scale to the Canadian constitutional order requires far more than merely a debate in this House: it requires profound, lasting changes to our constitution.
I am not surprised by that. It is true to the culture and the behavior of the Bloc to try to do indirectly what cannot be done directly, that is to nullify the Canadian constitution.
Canadian constitutional law clearly establishes that the negotiation and ratification of a treaty is strictly within the purview of the federal executive branch. I should not have to teach that to the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry who is a professor of law.
However, if a treaty requires changes to current laws or the enactment of new ones, parliamentarians need to take action and we have done so several times.
If parliamentarians do not legislate, the federal executive is not in a position to ratify such a treaty, as it cannot reasonably conclude that it could be implemented. Therefore the international commitment made by Canada under such a treaty could not be fulfilled.
On that specific point, I would ask the other members of the opposition—and I am not talking about the Bloc members because I do not expect them to recant their decision in the interest of clarity—to review their position, because if they support this bill, they will be changing the constitutional law that has existed in Canada for more than 60 years.