Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the order in council introduced on May 18 to amend the schedule to the Migratory Birds Convention Act so as to include the Parksville protocol, which amends the 1916 Migratory Bird Convention.
The government's proposal is merely intended to inform us about the change which will be made to this legislation. Members are not required to comment in any way on this legislative amendment.
Like the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, I find this situation unacceptable because I feel it is essential to debate the issue of migratory birds today. I cannot but deplore the fact that the House of Commons is not permitted to take a stand with respect to international treaties, such as the biosafety protocol, which Canada did not sign, despite its fine promises in Montreal last winter.
The biosafety protocol is based on the concept of prior agreement reached with all the facts on the table, so that countries will consider the harmful effects that a genetically modified organism could have on their biodiversity before importing it and introducing it into the environment.
I am dismayed to note that the right to ratify international agreements is limited to the executive arm, which is peculiar to the British parliamentary regime on which our system is based.
It should be noted that the situation is very different in the United States, where the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial arms proposed by the French philosopher Montesquieu is followed to the letter.
I will now address Bill C-214 introduced by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, which would correct this situation. Under this bill, the Canadian government could not negotiate or conclude a treaty without first consulting provincial governments and the House of Commons.
As well, Bill C-214 would not in any way limit the royal prerogative of provincial governments to negotiate and sign treaties in an area under provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-214 would mean that Canada could not ratify any important treaty without the members of this House having first approved that treaty by resolution.
The case before us today is the order-in-council amending the schedule to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which constitutes an important treaty because its implementation has, among other things, brought about the enactment of a federal statute. Why then does this government not want to consult members of parliament on this?
Just as was the case for MOX, it is obstinately forging ahead without consulting parliamentarians or the population, despite the recommendations of the Seaborn report, which stated as follows, in subsection 6.2.1.1 that the public must accept the plan for importing and stocking nuclear wastes before it is implemented.
I believe that, when Canada plans to ratify a treaty, this must not be done unless the Minister of Foreign Affairs has first tabled the treaty in the House of Commons, with an explanatory memorandum concerning the subject matter and the effects of the treaty, not later than twenty-one sitting days before it is to be ratified.
Thus, Canada should not ratify a treaty amending a treaty that it has ratified, as is the case today, unless it has notified us with an order making it possible to include in its federal legislation the amendments to the international agreement that has already been in place for some time. The Minister of Foreign Affairs should also have first tabled it in the House of Commons, not later than twenty-one sitting days before the amending treaty is to be ratified, with a note explaining the contents and effects of the treaty.
There is one very important point still to be mentioned. The intent of this bill is to fill a democratic gap resulting from the lack of real participation by the House of Commons and its members in all stages of the conclusion of international treaties.
We parliamentarians do not have a very high trust rating with the public. According to a poll taken in 1995 for the magazine L'Actualité , 4% of the population had full confidence in us. This poll stopped me in my tracks. At the time, I was not a member of parliament, but I was political assistant to the late member for Jonquière, André Caron, and I could not imagine such a thing.
The situation before us today does not improve our image with the public. I would hope that the bill of my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, will be passed thus correcting the current situation.
One thing is sure. The government could have arranged for the provinces and the House of Commons to have a say on this piece of legislation. We must not forget that the federal government asked the provinces to decide on the coming into force of the free trade agreement with the United States in the 1980s. Doing the same with the order amending the schedule to the Migratory Birds Convention Act would not have set a precedent.
Now that I have concluded these few introductory remarks, I will focus more specifically on the government's motion.
At the beginning of the century, in 1916, Canada and the United States recognized the need to protect certain common species of migratory birds. They signed an international agreement to protect those migratory birds considered useful or harmless to humanity. For almost 80 years, the 1916 Migratory Bird Convention provided the framework for the conservation of populations of migratory birds common to both the United States and Canada.
In 1994, the Canadian parliament introduced the Migratory Bird Convention Act, paving the way for tougher legislation to better protect migratory species. This legislation is administered by the Department of the Environment's Canadian Wildlife Service in co-operation with the governments of the provinces and territories. In fact, the provinces are responsible for enforcing the legislation. It is the provinces who are in a position to keep an eye on the public.
Through the enforcement and administration of this legislation in Quebec, the Government of Quebec was able, in April 1996, to hand out an initial important sentence in a case where the former owner of an outfitting operation was fined for using bait to hunt ducks, which is contrary to the regulations under the Migratory Bird Convention. Quebec is thus doing its job under the legislation.
However, certain species seen as harmful at the beginning of the century, and subsequently left unprotected, are now recognized as important to the environment and to our ecosystems.
Similarly, the guidelines set down at the beginning of the century are no longer completely consistent with today's reality. Increasingly, there is agreement that effective protection of species is not possible if we do not take into account all the factors that affect them, such as their habitats. Close and ongoing co-operation is essential between the various levels of government involved.
I will, if I may, quote from the report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled this morning in the House, which says, and I quote “—the shared nature of environmental jurisdiction requires close co-operation between federal, provincial and territorial governments”.
It is sad to see this increasingly centralizing attitude on the part of government members regarding environmental issues. Instead of working with the provinces, the federal government ignores their specificity and comes up with new programs or acts that encroach on their jurisdictions.
Migratory birds know no borders. Therefore, it is important to legislate at the international level. The protection of migratory species comes under federal jurisdiction, while the protection of their habitats is a provincial responsibility. This is why it is important to have sound agreements between the provinces and also adequate provincial laws. We do not question that reality, but we have a right to expect that much from the federal government.
Still, as I said before, what upsets me about the Migratory Birds Convention Act is not the need for international agreements on the protection of migratory birds, but the way the negotiation, signing and ratification of international agreements are conducted in Canada. That approach is seriously flawed.
We feel as though we are back in the 19th century, when it was common to sign bilateral agreements, including mutual defence agreements, in absolute secrecy. How can parliamentarians fulfil their responsibilities if the executive branch does not allow them to do so?
I remind members of the executive branch that they do not enjoy more public legitimacy than I do. They were elected, just like me, as parliamentarians and, if they hold a cabinet post, it is simply because the Prime Minister decided so, not because they were mandated by the public. But the public should be aware of our frustration as parliamentarians when we cannot express our support for or opposition to a treaty ratified by the executive branch. The public might wonder, and rightly so, what we are doing here. What is the point of going to the polls if members of parliament only enjoy limited power?
All these questions remain unanswered with the government's proposal before us.
