Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 609
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to emphasize that I'm here with Marc-André Roche, who will be able to help me answer certain questions during the meeting.
I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to show that my bill respecting the conclusion of treaties is constitutionally valid. You've already received my written arguments, and I'll be outlining them to you in a few moments.
Bill C-486 reaffirms what the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine has asserted for 46 years: international relations are not the exclusive prerogative of the federal government, but are a jurisdiction shared between Ottawa and the provinces in accordance with the distribution of powers provided for under the Constitution.
In more concrete terms, the bill would provide that when a treaty falls within an area of federal jurisdiction, Ottawa could negotiate, sign, implement and ratify it without reference to the provinces or Quebec. Where the treaty falls within areas of provincial jurisdiction or concerns the provinces, Ottawa would be able to act only if mandated by the provinces for that purpose. The bill therefore provides that, within six months following the coming into force of the treaty, the federal government must enter into an agreement with each of the provinces to state specifically how it will consult them before taking action.
As Quebec is the only province that has challenged the federal government's power to enter into treaties in areas of provincial jurisdiction, we would allow the agreement to provide for full delegation of the provincial prerogative to negotiate and enter into treaties in areas within its legislative authority.
However, as Quebec has never acknowledged Ottawa's right to negotiate on its behalf without its consent, in its own areas of jurisdiction, the agreement between Ottawa and Quebec City will have to provide specifically, first, for Quebec representatives to be among the Canadian delegation and, second, for the Government of Quebec to give its consent before a treaty is signed.
Where an international treaty falls within the areas of Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction and does not necessarily apply to Canada as a whole, Quebec may negotiate it and enter into it on its own. Thus, to enable the Government of Quebec to enter into relations with foreign countries, Ottawa must inform them that, under the Constitution of Canada, the provinces are authorized to enter into treaties on their own.
What is known today as the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine derives from a speech delivered to the Montreal Consular Corps by Paul Gérin-Lajoie, then deputy premier of Quebec, on April 12, 1965. The speech by Mr. Gérin-Lajoie, a constitutional lawyer, was based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution of Canada according to which, first, the federal government is not superior to the governments of the provinces; second, that the distribution of powers must be absolute, and, third, that the provinces are fully sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction, whether they exercise it or not .
In a way, international relations must be conducted as an extension of domestic jurisdictions. All Quebec governments since that time have subscribed to the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine. Consider what Jean Charest said about the matter in 2004: "Whatever is a Quebec jurisdiction here at home is a Quebec jurisdiction everywhere."
In fact, even the current Prime Minister of Canada subscribed to the doctrine before he decided to maintain a grip on all powers that he holds or believes he holds. Here's what he said during the election campaign that brought him to power in 2006: "I am ready to discuss mechanisms to enable the provinces to extend their jurisdictions on the international scene." And I emphasize "to extend their jurisdictions on the international scene."
And this is very specifically what Bill C-486 does. The constitution does not state which government, the federal government or those of the provinces, has the power to enter into treaties, and rightly so. In 1867, that power belonged to the British Crown. In 1931, with the Statute of Westminster, Ottawa believed it had inherited all the treaty powers of the British Crown. If that had been the case, it would have exclusively held treaty powers, including powers over implementation, as provided by section 132 of the British North America Act. However, that was not the case. That was determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1936. On the contrary, the committee held that the legislative powers of the provinces remained intact and that the provincial legislatures were not bound by Ottawa's signature.
As to whether the federal government or the provincial governments has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, the tribunal did not rule. In fact, no court has ruled on the matter to date. However, one point has been well settled in constitutional law: executive powers are distributed between Ottawa and the provinces in the same manner as legislative powers.
The sovereign power that London held in 1867 was, in the words of the Supreme Court in 1998, transferred from Westminster to the federal and provincial capitals of Canada. I emphasize: nothing in the Constitution or the case law states that the federal government has full and exclusive power with respect to treaties—nothing.
Some say that, since Ottawa does have that power, it is because it has that right. That is the position asserted by constitutional expert Peter Hogg in the 1992 edition of his treatise on constitutional law.
The Supreme Court responded to that argument in 1998, in Reference re Secession of Quebec. It held:
A distinction must be drawn between the right of a people to act, and their power to do so. They are not identical. A right is recognized in law: mere physical ability is not necessarily given status as a right. ... A power may be exercised even in the absence of a right to do so, but if it is, then it is exercised without legal foundation.
In short, the fact that Ottawa has seized exclusive power over treaties does not mean that it had the right to do so and that the provinces did not. There are no doubt some of you around this table who think it would be a bad idea for the provinces to play a role in the process of entering into treaties in their areas of jurisdiction. I agree with those people, and I intend to take advantage of the debate on Bill C-486 to convince them. However, that is a matter of political debate, not of constitutional right.
I would remind committee members that private members' bills may be automatically put to a vote unless they do not meet the criterion that the committee must apply: they "should not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982." In the absence of any constitutional enactment or case law contradicting my bill, I find it hard to see how this committee could find that my bill clearly violates the constitution. It does not concern the distribution of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Nor does it concern the distribution of legislative powers either. It merely enables the provinces to exercise the powers that are already theirs under the constitution.
With that, I am prepared to answer your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
Thanks to the member for his question. A clear question deserves a clear answer. I'm also used to asking questions when I'm on the other side of the table.
The answer is yes. I consulted three constitutional specialists, the best known of whom has addressed the issue as a whole. That is Hugo Cyr, professor of constitutional law at UQAM. He has considered the matter in a book entitled Canadian Federalism and Treaty Powers. Those three constitutional experts have come to the conclusion that my bill is irreproachable in that respect.
Of course, a political debate must be held, but those three constitutional specialists stated that this bill was irreproachable from a constitutional standpoint.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
One of the other two persons is a very well-known constitutional expert in Quebec whose name you probably know, but I have to keep quiet on that for the moment.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
No, I confirm that we consulted three constitutional experts, but we can only disclose the name of one of the three for the moment.
However, if the bill receives the consent of the House in the study on second reading, those constitutional experts will definitely be pleased to come and appear in committee.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
I want to make three points.
First of all, the member will recognize that the Constitution does not grant the federal government a plenary power with respect to treaties.
Second, when Canada obtained what could be called an international personality on the international scene, the Statute of Westminster of 1931 resulted in no change to the distribution of powers.
Third, it seems quite clear to me that executive powers are distributed in the same manner as legislative powers. That has been confirmed on at least two occasions. The Privy Council confirmed it first in 1892, and at least 50 Supreme Court judgments have confirmed it as well. I will only cite one, the 1978 judgment in Her Majesty in right of the Province of Alberta v. Canadian Transport Commission, in which it held that the executive powers, or prerogatives of the Crown, are distributed in accordance with the distribution of legislative powers.
Having regard to the constitution, the international personality attributed to Canada under the Treaty of Westminster, the Privy Council decision and the some 50 Supreme Court decisions on the matter, it seems to me that there is material to inform us, to enable us to come to the conclusion that the bill is entirely constitutional. I understand that it may give rise to various opinions, but it at the very least merits debate in the House of Commons.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
That, among other things, is the purpose of the bill. Before Quebec or any other province can negotiate and sign agreements, it requires the authorization of the Government of Canada, and we have to indicate to the international community, at negotiation meetings, that those states can undertake the negotiations. Something is therefore lacking to enable the provinces to act on the international scene. That's what's required; that's what the bill requests. It naturally requires the authorization of the Government of Canada. That's not contained in the present act.
In addition, I would like to go back to an argument raised by Mr. Reid. Earlier, he told us that, to his knowledge, only one country was making this type of delegation. He mentioned Switzerland, but there are many others, in particular Belgium, Germany, Argentina and Austria. I'll cite only the example of Belgium. Among other things, I'll cite article 167 of the Belgian constitution, which states: "The community and regional governments contemplated in article 121 enter into treaties, each in areas that pertain to it, concerning matters that fall under the jurisdiction of their Parliament."
So you're entirely right, Mr. Reid, to say that Switzerland is an example, but there are many others in the world, at least among the federated states. There is the example of Switzerland, but we could also cite the examples of Belgium and Germany.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
That's correct. From a reading of the bill, you'll see that one clause provides that the Government of Canada will inform the governments of foreign countries that a province is able to negotiate and enter into a treaty on its own. You asked me why Quebec wasn't doing it. That's precisely because Canada has to inform foreign countries of the fact that the province is able to negotiate and enter into a treaty.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
The answer is yes. In 2000, Bill C-214 by my former colleague Daniel Turp was introduced and had a similar purpose. Many members supported the bill. So it will be understood that this is not new. The debate was held in Parliament in 2000. The people around the table clearly were not all in agreement, but at least this type of bill, which introduced nothing new, was debated in the House of Commons. This is essentially what we're asking. My Liberal colleague was entirely right earlier to say that we do not have to take a position on the merits of the bill. We simply have to determine whether it is possible to debate it, to the extent that it is not all clear.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
I wanted to say thank you to you.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, good morning, Mr. Minister. Welcome to the committee and best of luck in your new responsibilities.
Based on what you said to Mr. Kennedy, I understand that you cannot go into detail. But it seems to me that it is your duty, as Minister of the Environment, to protect the budgets available to you.
When we look at the main estimates that were submitted, we see a reduction of 20% expected for your department. It seems to me that the Minister of the Environment is not very active. It seems to me that he is a ghost Minister of the Environment, obedient and at the service of the Minister of Finance, who is prepared to make cuts in his department. You can understand that people expect the Minister of the Environment to be proactive and to protect the budgets placed at his disposal.
When I looked at the main estimates, I was very much interested in the Meteorological Service of Canada, among others, and in everything having to do to the deterioration of the climatological networks.
I don't know if you know that an Environment Canada report, issued by your department in June 2008, stated that Environment Canada's abilities were compromised in recent years because of the collection, interpretation and dissemination of information on the state of our national climate system. Major errors slipped in.
Environment Canada's clients, both internal and external, cannot get the information they are looking for. So I went and looked at what was planned in the main estimates. In fact, there were some contributions. I had a nice surprise.
But after I saw what you did with these contributions and the funding that you had been given, I was disillusioned. I was disillusioned when school principals and guide and scout leaders called me up and told me that, with that money, you were sending weatheradios to the various people involved so that schools and guide and scout leaders could "monitor the broadcast for weather information including warnings."
While you have cut back on Environment Canada's meteorological services in recent years, how can you now justify an expense in the order of $888,000 to help school principals who have taken your device, put it on a shelf and never used it? How can you justify such an expense now?
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
I invite you to try it out. I would be curious to find out if any schools in east or west Montreal would be able to use this kind of device.
You told us that Canada is a leader in meteorology. But your own internal report indicates the opposite. The report establishes that the Meteorological Service of Canada is having trouble achieving the international standards of the World Meteorological Organization. We are not a leader; no, we are losing our role as a leader, which is worrisome.
You spoke about the observation that needs to be done in the north. I don't know if you are familiar with the PEARL observatory, which is currently looking for funding and is losing its funding simply because your government has cut back on funding to the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.
You have cut back on funding to scientists, you have cut back on funding in your department. You cannot provide reliable information on weather and climate. So how can you say today that you are able to meet the objectives with regard to adapting to climate change when you are cutting back on funding to researchers and to climate change programs? You are doing everything to ensure that Canada not only does not achieve its greenhouse gas reduction targets, but also cannot adapt to climate change.
View Bernard Bigras Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, continuing with the matter of greenhouse gases, I have a lot of difficulty understanding your analysis. In the chart on your website—Mr. Ouellet referred to it—the calculations were 701 megatonnes for 2009, 718 megatonnes for 2010, 720 megatonnes for 2011, and 728 megatonnes for 2012. These numbers clearly include federal measures. So, I am seeing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
On your website, your chart is showing numbers that include federal measures and numbers that don't. With the federal measures, with what you are proposing, the trend is not toward a reduction in greenhouse gas emission for 2009-2012, but rather an increase. That's the comment I wanted to make.
Next, it seems to me that research is fairly important. So far, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences has financed a number of centres, including centres in the Arctic. I'm thinking of the atmospheric research centre in Nunavut. That centre was funded by the foundation.
Here's my question. In what you are proposing today, is there something that is going to make up for the cuts in funding to the foundation? You are saying that, in a few years, only infrastructure will be left, so a building, and that there won't be any researchers funded by the foundation. Has Environment Canada planned to offset the cuts in funding that the foundation is providing to these research centres? It's nice to have infrastructure, but it doesn't work very well if there are no researchers.
Results: 1 - 15 of 609 | Page: 1 of 41

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data