Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Intergovernmental Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the federal government seems to want to set the rules of Quebec's referendum process and bases its claims on the requirements of the rules of democracy and on the need for a clear question.
What gives the minister the right to think that the federal government is more credible than Quebec when it comes to formulating a question? Is he basing it on the clarity of the question in the Charlottetown referendum?
Transfer Payments November 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this former leader of the Bloc Quebecois is also a premier who, along with nine other premiers, has harsh words for the government's use of the surpluses.
Instead of retreating to his ivory tower and dreaming up plans to limit the powers of Quebec's National Assembly, would the minister not be better advised to have a word with the Minister of Finance so that the next federal-provincial conference focuses on the real problem: getting the money to those who provide the services?
Transfer Payments November 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian federation is chronically dysfunctional—those with the money are not providing any services, and those providing the services have no money.
In the meantime, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is worrying about the referendum practices of the Government of Quebec rather than devoting his energy to resolving this fundamental problem that has been identified by all premiers.
Would the minister not be better advised to do what he was appointed to do and speak to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, so that action is taken to right this fiscal imbalance?
The Late Alfred Pullen Gleave November 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I too wish to pay tribute to Alfred Pullen Gleave, who sat as a member of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons from 1968 to 1974 and represented the riding of Saskatoon-Biggar.
A farm producer, grain farmer and seed grower by profession, he was a member of agricultural unions and, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle reminded us earlier, was president of the Saskatchewan Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union. As he wrote in the introduction to his autobiographical United We Stand—Prairie Farmers 1901-1975 :
“Political action was an extension of the farmer's movement. I used it as well as I could to advance western Canadians' interests in general and the farmer's movement in particular.”
During the six years he sat in the House, he was an ardent defender of farmers and a formidable member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. He was a feisty MP, as my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona, just told me.
He was particularly interested in issues having to do with the price of wheat, farm marketing boards, price controls and inflation. He served as president of his party's caucus and also served a leader, David Lewis who, like his predecessor, Tommy Douglas, was, in his words, and I am again quoting from United We Stand , “an outstanding man”.
To a man whose efforts gave meaning to the slogan “Humanity first” of the CCF, the forerunner to the New Democratic Party, to the man who also toiled on behalf of his family, his constituents and his fellow citizens for
“a more secure and bountiful life for themselves by working together, by sharing the load”,
members of the Bloc Quebecois pay a final tribute, and to the family and friends of the late Alf Gleave, present their deepest condolences.
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
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—
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Quadra for his three questions.
First, on concluding treaties and provincial participation in the conclusion of treaties, I did not raise that in my remarks this morning, because I wanted to limit them to the role of parliament in the conclusion of federal treaties.
Since the treaty we are being called upon to implement comes primarily if not exclusively under federal jurisdiction, only the federal parliament may intervene for purposes of legislative implementation.
But, if you want an answer to your question, there would be ways of involving the provinces in the conclusion of treaties, even in a federation like Canada. What is more, Quebec, with its Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, believes not only that it must be involved in the conclusion of treaties and approve treaties concluded by Canada in areas over which the Constitution gives it jurisdiction, but it believes and affirms, as all successive governments of Quebec have done, that, under the present Constitution, it even has authority to act autonomously in concluding treaties in areas that come under its jurisdiction.
It is because of the continual foot-dragging of the federal government—which has often sought to introduce umbrella agreements to limit Quebec's autonomy—that many Quebecers want sovereignty. There is no excuse for this foot-dragging, even within a federal framework, and it will only stop when Quebec becomes a sovereign state with the authority to conclude its own treaties free of intervention by the federal government.
With respect to the second question, when treaties are not self-executing, they have to be implemented by legislation. Here we have an example of a treaty that is not self-executing as far as all of its clauses are concerned, since the Civil International Space Station agreement requires the Parliament of Canada, and the House of Commons in particular, to pass amendments to the Criminal Code in order to implement section 22 of the treaty, which the implementation bill does in clause 11. The treaty not being one hundred percent self-executing, it was therefore important for this House to adopt implementing legislation.
What I wanted to emphasize in my speech, however, was that this legislation implements an international treaty which did not have the prior approval by this House that it ought to have had. It is necessary for the House of Commons to approve a treaty in order for it to have greater legitimacy. Then parliament can move to pass implementing legislation.
Finally in response to the third question from my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, concerning Australia, I realize that there is a great difference. I would not like to see us with an arrangement similar to Australia's, one which is in my opinion contrary to the federal principle. It is precisely because at one point we had a Privy Council judiciary committee that respected provincial jurisdictions that today we still have shared legislative jurisdiction over implementation.
That is not enough to convince us to stay within Canada, however.
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I too am wondering about the relevance of the remarks made by the member for Langley—Abbotsford. I find him incapable of ingenuity.
The Speaker suggested that he would have to be ingenious to be relevant. His remarks had to do with the Nisga'a agreement, the implementing legislation being debated today. I should say “his many remarks” because he spoke almost exclusively about this native treaty and not about the Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act.
Yet, ingenuity was possible. For instance, it could have been suggested that the Nisga'a treaty should have been debated in the House before it was signed, or before it was ratified by the Government of Canada or the Government of British Columbia.
There is a parallel to be drawn here between domestic treaties, those having to do with aboriginal matters, those described by the Supreme Court of Canada as sui generis , and international treaties, because the process for each is, in many regards, similar.
Treaties are debated, discussed, negotiated by governments. However, to apply in domestic law, they also require implementing legislation, and sometimes legislation from both a provincial legislative assembly and the federal parliament.
I imagine that this is not something a person can do unless he is really ingenious: when he does not want to really address a bill such as this one, when he wants to waste the precious time of the House on a debate that ought to be kept for the appropriate time.
I want to speak of this implementing legislation, indicating what lessons can be learned from it and the path it followed in order to get before this House, after the negotiations that led to the Civil International Space Station Agreement.
The signature and implementation of treaties is an important issue. It is one that involves us all, because treaties are playing an increasingly important role in international life. Their numbers are multiplying. Hundreds of treaties are entered into yearly, and ratified by Canada and other countries.
This often requires parliaments to pass legislation to implement these treaties and to give them effect in Canadian internal law.
For the benefit of this House and those who are listening to us, I would like to say a few words about the process, particularly since I just recently introduced Bill C-214. This bill is aimed at getting parliament more involved in the process of concluding treaties, at democratizing in a way the process whereby treaties are accepted by the state and subsequently lead to the passage of legislation in order to implement the international obligations negotiated by the government.
I will therefore give hon. members a short course in international law. I am pleased that my colleague from Vancouver Quadra, who is also a professor of international law, is with us and will no doubt be able to add to my modest contribution. He will, no doubt, wish to share with us his thoughts on these proposals for increasing parliament's involvement in the treaty process.
I would also like to remind hon. members that an international treaty is something that has first been negotiated. As a general rule, negotiations are conducted by governments represented by officials—in this case, officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs—or by diplomats, the ambassadors. When very important treaties are involved, ministers of the government are also involved, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in particular, since, under the Department of Foreign Affairs Act, it is he who is generally responsible for concluding international treaties.
Treaties are negotiated with other countries usually. Negotiations may take place with international organizations. Often, these organizations provide the forum for such negotiations. There is the negotiation, for example, of treaties in the context of the United Nations, which often acts as a forum for conferences, where debates are held on the treaties and lead to their passage.
It is not enough, however, to negotiate a treaty, because treaties, depending on the constitutional law of the country, sometimes require action by parliament to permit their acceptance by the country, so that the country can agree to be bound by the treaty.
This is where practices differ significantly from one country to the next. For some countries, like Canada and most countries with a British style parliamentary system, treaties are concluded, and the countries agree to be bound by the provisions in them, such as in the one creating the international space station, without parliament's involvement.
Here in Canada, a government can conclude a treaty and sign it after it has been adopted. It can even ratify it without parliament's prior approval or agreement that the country will be bound under the international treaty.
There are countries, however, that involve their parliament and can neither sign nor ratify—in most cases it is ratificationt— without the prior approval of parliament and the holding of a debate to give parliamentarians an opportunity to consider the text of the treaty and its provisions before the government commits internationally.
In France, for example, parliament must adopt an act approving any treaty before the French authorities can ratify it.
The practices are different, but they tend increasingly to involve parliament in the process leading to the conclusion of treaties and give it a say in the process, since the content of an increasing number of laws passed by parliaments depends on the treaties that were first negotiated by the government.
I believe that in parliamentary systems such as ours but also that of other countries, there is a real lack of democracy in that parliamentarians are asked, as we are today in the case of Bill C-4, to adopt laws whose content is largely determined by the content of treaties negotiated by the governments, even though their parliaments were not involved in the discussions on that content.
This is why I have introduced Bill C-214 which, I hope, will be the subject not only of a debate but also of a vote. This bill proposes that the House of Commons be involved in the conclusion of treaties by first approving a treaty and thus authorizing the government to ratify that treaty once the House has been informed of its content.
Some fear, however, that such a procedure might prevent the government from negotiating and accepting obligations pursuant to debates held between states. The example of the United States is often referred to; two-thirds of the U.S. Senate has to support any treaty the government—in this case, the President—wishes to ratify on behalf of the United States.
The formula I am proposing is one where approval by the House would not necessarily be binding on the government, which would, ultimately decide whether or not to ratify a treaty. This is not a procedure or formula that would paralyze a government, at least not in a system like ours where the government very often, almost always in fact, has a majority in the House and can get a resolution passed in favour of approval because of that majority.
My discussions, and some debates with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have led me to conclude that the minister has considerable misgivings about such a procedure. He should not have any. This is a procedure aimed at making the process of ratifying treaties more democratic and involving MPs in the procedure for signing a type of document that is becoming more important in our societies and, I feel, will continue to do so.
For example, there are the debates and negotiations soon to begin at the World Trade Organization, leading to a number of treaties around the turn of the new millennium. These treaties arising out of the WTO millennium round will—or at least should—be debated in this House before the government makes commitments that will be binding on this House when the time comes to enact legislation implementing them.
We might also mention treaties pertaining to cultural diversity we want to negotiate with UNESCO and many other treaties that concern trade and cultural issues, individual rights and freedoms and information technology issues, since treaties concern all matters of interest to governments and to parliaments as well.
I believe also that transparency would require—and this is the focus of other provisions in Bill C-214, which I tabled in this House—the government to agree to table treaties in the House so parliamentarians might be aware of their content.
It would thus agree to members of this House knowing our international obligations and to the enshrinement of a practice that was carried on for a number of years in this House. It was abandoned for a number of years but, only a few months ago, it was revived after I lobbied increasingly in this forum and in other forums to have treaties tabled to properly inform this House of Canada's international commitments.
In addition, I wanted—and would like to convince my colleagues in the House of this—the government to do a better job than it is currently doing of making the content of treaties known, not only by tabling them in the House, but by publishing them in various forms, electronically for example, on an electronic site such as that of the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is one of the rare sites of the departments of foreign affairs of developed countries where the country's treaties may be accessed, with a few rare exceptions.
We must also make sure they are published in the Canada Gazette, as are the laws, and that they are published in the Canada treaty series, as they currently are but at more reasonable intervals, since sometimes it takes months if not years for a treaty to appear in the series.
These are changes in practice that, in my view, deserve to be adopted by this parliament. They would, in certain respects, modify the royal prerogative underlying the government's authority in this area.
This House, however, is empowered to abrogate part of this prerogative and adopt a much more transparent and more democratic procedure involving all elected representatives—not just those of the government party that sit in Cabinet—in important decisions having to do with treaties and the government's response to them.
As I make this proposal, I am aware, and wish to inform the House, that, in other Commonwealth countries, and I am thinking of Australia and New Zealand, and even in the United Kingdom, the mother of all parliaments and some say of this parliament, recent practices for concluding treaties have been modified to introduce greater transparency. Treaties are tabled in the Houses, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, and distributed much more widely, with much greater parliamentary participation than we are seeing here, in the House of Commons.
There is no excuse for the resistance to these changes, certainly not the lack of willingness and transparency of a government that should realize, on the eve of the year 2000 and a new millennium, that changes are in order. These practices must be adapted to the new importance of treaties in the international as well as domestic order.
Bill C-4, the Civil Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, was introduced in this House without our ever having been able to examine its contents, without any examination before the treaty was signed.
According to my information, it was signed on January 29, 1998, and adopted on that same date. Signing already commits signatory states to a certain extent because article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates that a state is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty before it consents to be bound by it and ratifies it.
Thus, by signing the treaty on January 29, 1998, Canada assumed a number of commitments, without this parliament having been consulted. It is therefore necessary for a signatory state to agree to involve its parliament. Parliament must be involved in examining the treaty itself, not just its implementation, because implementation legislation depends on the treaty contents. This bill ought to have been introduced only after the House of Commons had examined the treaty.
In closing, I wish to state that I feel it is important, and hope to have the opposition parties' support in this, even the government party as well, to ensure that Bill C-4 will be the last such bill, and that in future all treaties requiring implementing legislation will have initially been approved by the House of Commons.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act November 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I think you did in fact pay close attention to my remarks.
The issue of citizenship, as set out in this agreement, indicates no racist intention, no intention of excluding anyone. It must be understood that the concept of citizenship and its possible extension are based on historical precedent and are intimately tied to the history of the Nisga'a nation, which was covered by the Indian Act, which was racist, of course, but which will be replaced by an agreement on self-government allowing native peoples to grant citizenship according to their own rules, which will not show them to be racist, in my view, any more than the other peoples of this country, such as the people of Canada and Quebec.
What interested me in this agreement is the willingness to allow the Nisga'a, the Nisga'a people and its government, to examine international issues, international agreements, international arrangements. Indeed, it is mentioned in chapter III, which concerns fisheries, particularly in section 115 where the Nisga'a are given the right to be consulted when the Canadian government negotiates fisheries agreements having an impact on existing rights they could have over these resources.
It is interesting to note that there was no hesitation whatsoever about this, despite the fact that negotiations on these points were difficult, apparently. That is what the Nisga'a representatives told us. Provinces, particularly Quebec, seldom have a voice in the process and have nothing to say in the development of a negotiating position concerning international treaties and agreements.
This agreement constitutes an example of partnership that should inspire all those who want to conclude agreements with the native nations. It would certainly inspire a sovereign Quebec, since Quebec intends to maintain the existing ancestral treaty rights of native nations when it attains sovereignty. It also wants to negotiate partnership agreements with the 11 native nations in Quebec.
Finally, I want to wish the Nisga'a people, its members and its representatives that the new freedom and the self-government the agreement gives them will allow for the full development of their nation. It is a process that will interest the Quebec people, which is searching in its own way and with its own timeframe for the same kind of development and freedom, and which will walk side by side with the Nisga'a people.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act November 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate on Bill C-9, after the member for Saint-Jean, the Bloc Quebecois Indian affairs critic, and to repeat in the House that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this bill, that it is in agreement not only with the implementing legislation, but also with the content of the Nisga'a final agreement, and that it supports this initiative because its purpose is to confer genuine self-government on the Nisga'a people.
Unlike the member for Saint-Jean, I have not had the opportunity to meet on Nisga'a lands with representatives of the Nisga'a nation, people like Mr. Gosnell, Mr. Nice, or Mr. Calder, the individual at the origin of the dispute now coming to a close, the individual who took this case to the courts, with the result that the supreme court recognized the inherent rights of the Nisga'a nation. But I recall my early days as a law student at the Université de Sherbrooke, where this important case, one of the first recognizing the inherent rights of first nations, was studied by my fellow students.
I did, however, have an opportunity to meet with representatives of the Nisga'a nation when they were here in Ottawa last week. I saw the degree to which their fight was a fight for freedom, a fight they were proud to wage, a fight they wanted to see out in the House, in parliament. We assured them that members of the Bloc Quebecois would rise and give their support for this bill, as I am doing today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.
I told the representatives of the Nisga'a nation that, as a professor of constitutional law interested in native issues, I found this treaty a fascinating document. It is document that shows it is possible to find a novel and original formula to bring together various people and to get them to share the same territory. The various chapters of the agreement ensure the form of self-government that all aboriginal nations, not only those of Canada, but those of other countries also, must enjoy.
Let me reiterate that the work done by the negotiators and especially the Nisga'a negotiators deserves to be recognized as a novel and original initiative that sets a very interesting precedent for the negotiations to be held elsewhere, by other aboriginal communities in Quebec and in Canada.
It is a fascinating document that includes provisions dealing with lands, land title, forest resources, roads and rights of way, wildlife and migratory birds. Environment issues are addressed. It also mentions the administration of justice, cultural artifacts and heritage, questions that are of concern to the Nisga'a and on which they will now be able to legislate. The agreement also provides for a Nisga'a government, village governments, as well as a Nisga'a Constitution and legislation that will implement the underlying principles the Nisga'a have chosen to enshrine in their Constitution.
The self-government system created by this agreement will ensure that the Nisga'a, the Nisga'a nation and its representatives will become masters of their own destiny and make their own decisions concerning their economic, social and cultural development.
Some of these provisions are a source of concern to certain members of this House. I must admit that I do not understand the Reform Party's attitude.
Not only do I not understand it, I am rather ashamed of their attitude in this House. Their interpretation of this agreement shows that they do not understand it. It shows that they did not examine it properly or, if they did, then they are real demagogues.
For example, when it comes to the issue of citizenship, the agreement clearly provides that it can only be granted to those who qualify as Nisga'as, but that the Nisga'as can adopt laws to extend the concept of citizenship and grant it to people who do not meet the criteria set in the agreement, as provided in clause 20 on the eligibility and registration of Nisga'as.
To claim that the agreement is racist, that the concept of citizenship is racist, is an argument that does not hold up.
René Lévesque November 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to a great democrat and a true visionary. It was 12 years ago that René Lévesque, one of Quebec's most prominent political figures, died.
Through his commitment, tenacity, determination and courage, René Lévesque was, for over 30 years, the architect of modern Quebec and an inspiration for millions of his fellow Quebecers, to whom he said they formed “something that resembles a great people”. As a democrat, he accepted with great dignity the verdict of a people for whom he had the greatest respect and for whom he entertained the loftiest goals.
René Lévesque was a visionary and it is to his credit if Quebec was the first government in North America to recognize aboriginal nations living on its territory.
Today's anniversary inspires those of us who believe in René Lévesque's dream to fulfil his lifetime dream of providing to Quebecers, in a democratic fashion, the tools they need to achieve their full potential.