Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today in the debate on Quebec's jurisdiction with regard to international representation.
First, I want to enlighten the House on what Canadian constitutional law says or does not say in terms of foreign policy and the right to conclude international treaties. The Constitution Act, 1867, when first enacted, was virtually silent on this subject since the British government had reserved for itself the right to conclude international treaties affecting Canada, with the result that, under section 132 of the Constitution, the Parliament of Canada was nothing more than the agent implementing these treaties for the empire.
Thanks to the Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada acquired full status as an international presence and has maintained, since that time, that it has the exclusive jurisdiction to conclude treaties and implement them.
However, this vision was changed ever so slightly as of 1937, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which set things straight. In fact, London ruled that the power to implement international treaties belonged to the level of government responsible for the jurisdiction mentioned in the treaty. In other words, Parliament and the various legislative assemblies, including the National Assembly of Quebec, have the power to create legislation to implement treaties concluded by the federal government with sovereign states, as long as the matter specified in the treaty is under their jurisdiction, according to the Constitution Act, 1867.
This historic decision paved the way for a whole series of legal decisions about the power to conclude and implement international treaties. According to these decisions, among other things, the conclusion by the federal government of an international treaty targeting an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces does not mean that the provinces are no longer responsible for this area of jurisdiction. In simpler terms, it means that the intervention of legislative assemblies remains essential to the implementation of said treaty. Furthermore, and in my opinion, the essential thing to remember from these rulings is that Quebec and the provinces are not bound to implement a treaty concluded by the federal government which affects any matter under their exclusive jurisdiction.
That is the very heart of the matter. It was raised by Quebec premier Jean Charest, who put it as follows:
When the Government of Quebec is the only government with the jurisdiction to implement an international commitment, it is normal for it to be the one who makes that commitment.
In a context of globalization, where decisions are multilateral and liable to affect it directly, what could be more normal and logical than for the Government of Quebec to demand the right to speak for itself in international forums when matters under its exclusive jurisdiction are involved?
If on the one hand, these exclusive jurisdictions enabled it to refuse to implement any international agreement concluded by the federal government because it would not fit in with its aspirations, then it goes without saying that, on the other hand, in order to achieve treaties respectful of the specific needs of Quebec, it needs to speak for itself.
In a context of globalization, where crucial decisions affecting Quebec are taken, and with full respect for its own constitutional dynamic, the federal government must recognize that Quebec has the right and power to assume on the international level the extension of its internal jurisdiction. This legitimate request is nothing new, having been stated for the first time in 1965 by the Liberal Minister of Education, Paul Gérin-Lajoie. Known ever since as the “Gérin Lajoie doctrine”, it was reiterated by the Premier of Quebec last November in Charlottetown.
Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has publicly acknowledged that she could have said the same as Premier Charest did, we have asked her whether she would propose to her government that it allow Quebec to speak for itself internationally.
As usual, however, the question was deflected by a jesting remark from the minister, who found it amusing that such a request would come from a sovereignist MP.