Debates of Nov. 24th, 1997

Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chairman]

Shall clause 17, as amended, carry?

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Clause 17, as amended, agreed to)

(On Clause 19)

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Quebecois does not propose any amendment regarding clause 19, but I would like to ask a question to the minister. It seems that, as a minimum, regulations should be made to give effect to the convention. In fact, there is a reference to such regulations in clause 6(2) of the implementing legislation.

I would like to know whether the minister intends to propose regulations that would complement the act and ensure full legislative and regulatory implementation of the convention and, if so, when exactly he intends to do so?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, it is a good question. We would bring in any pertaining regulation once it is actually signed and in place. That really would apply to the Export-Import Control Act and we would apply it but we have to have the treaty actually completed first and deposited with the secretary general before we would move toward bringing in those regulations.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that the government is not in a position to have the regulations adopted before the treaty is signed and ratified by the government?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, that is basically the intent. We would have to wait for the actual signing of the treaty which will take place next week. It will then be deposited by the prime minister with the secretary general. We would then have to bring in the regulation which pertains directly to the Export-Import Control Act. We will repromulgate that regulation at that point in time.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if I unerstand correctly, the government is not in a position to have the regulations adopted before the treaty is signed and ratified because the deadlines do not leave enough time.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, it does get into somewhat of the arcane way these matters work, which I know the hon. member is well acquainted with from his academic career.

As it is, we cannot promulgate new regulations until the treaty is actually signed. It then gives the governor in council the authority to go ahead and apply the treaty as set out in the legislation. We cannot make that application until we have actually signed the treaty.

(Clause 19 agreed to)

(On Clause 20)

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, our proposed amendment raises an issue which is certainly more fundamental, and the debate on the bill provides an opportunity to discuss the participation of parliament, especially of the House of Commons, in the conclusion and the implementation of treaties.

This is an important issue, since it raises the question of the role of elected representatives and of the House of Commons as a whole in the conclusion of treaties. The treaty to be implemented was negotiated and concluded by the executive branch and it will be signed and ratified by the same, without parliamentarians and the House of Commons having truly taken part in the process.

Since clause 20 sets out that this convention will be amended, and that subsequent to the amendment changes to the legislation can be made by order, it seemed worthwhile to debate the role of Parliament and to ensure that Parliament is involved in approving a treaty which would amend this new convention on anti-personnel mines, even before the Government of Canada moves to accept such an amending treaty.

We would therefore like to see this bill include parliamentary participation and a debate in Parliament before the government accepts an amendment to the treaty. We therefore propose that this clause be amended. This would be an amendment which might significantly the practice of treaty approval, which in Canada is totally inconsistent.

It is a practice in which the House of Commons has no significant participation, and other parliaments could serve as an example, such as the Parliament of the United Kingdom which has for some years now been more actively involved in discussion and debate around treaties which the executive plans to sign and ratify on behalf of the government.

This is therefore an opportunity to stir up debate and to find out the Minister of Foreign Affairs' position on this question and whether he wants Parliament to be more involved in the treaty process.

I therefore move that:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 24 on page 9 with the following:

“Amendment to the Convention

1. Where an amendment to the Convention is adopted at an Amendment Conference under Article 13 of the Convention, ( a ) the Minister shall cause the amendment to be laid before Parliament within fifteen days after it is adopted by the Amendment Conference; ( b ) on approval of the amendment by Parliament, the instrument of acceptance by Canada shall be deposited with the Depositary; and ( c ) the Minister shall, by order, amend the schedule to this Act accordingly and shall cause the text of the amending order to be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after the order is made.”

[The Chairman]

The question is on the amendment.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member is an interesting point of general principle and theory. The hon. member has raised it within the standing committee on foreign affairs of this Parliament and the standing committee has created a task force or a subcommittee which is studying the matter of general principle.

I can say without exaggeration that this is a very strong subcommittee in the sense, as has often been said, of very strong courts. Our view would be that the amendment would affect a fundamental change, as is clearly intended, in the constitutional law of parliament. We leave open positions on this, but our suggestion would be that it is not proper to make it within the interstices of an amendment to a technical law before parliament. It should be considered as a matter of general principle as has already been foreseen by the standing committee on foreign affairs in creating the task force.

Our suggestion to the hon. member, therefore, would be that he should withdraw the proposed amendment at this stage. We would undertake that the general principle would be discussed by the task force. It would always be appropriate, if and when the task force makes a recommendation, to propose amendments to the legislation and others, if and when it is adopted. That would be our position.

In a technical sense it is constitutionally inelegant to propose a fundamental constitutional change in the law of parliament by indirection. Therefore we would suggest to the hon. member that he might withdraw the amendment. We would undertake to give full speed to the study by this impressive task force which has a very well qualified chairman. I believe the other members are equally well qualified.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very complex and has far-reaching impacts on this type of negotiation.

The standing committee of foreign affairs is the appropriate forum for discussion of the amendment. We would not support the amendment today. However we do see the potential for this type of discussion in committee and the potential for this type of change for future treaty ratification.

It is important to recognize that a lot of countries will be looking at Canada's legislation relative to the land mine treaty and will be adapting some of the Canadian approaches in their own countries.

We do not want to create some type of legislation that is easily bogged down in the mechanism of parliament that prevents speedy ratification for other countries. It is similar to what happened in the U.S., for example, with the fast track negotiating powers which had not been granted to the president and are thus inhibiting and impeding progress or U.S. ability to participate in international trade negotiation to the full extent that it would have been able to with fast track.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party cannot support the amendment by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, but we certainly see the utility of having it introduced into the House of Commons for further debate and for further examination.

If the amendment were to be proceeded with right now, it would change the bill in a manner that would detract from the current activity and the current thrust of the bill. We look forward to going ahead in the future and examining it in further detail.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I want to reassure the parliamentary secretary that it was not my intention to be inelegant in proposing such an amendment and with respect to the Constitution, because these matters are far too serious for one not to be elegant.

As you noted, the intent was to raise a matter with the minister, which, it appears, arouses the interest of both the official opposition and the Conservative Party. This question should be debated in full. Other parliaments have debated it, but this parliament has failed to do so sufficiently in recent years.

Before considering the proposal by the parliamentary secretary, I would nevertheless ask the minister if he could give us his initial reaction to the question which this amendment raises and which other amendments could raise about the role parliament, including the House of Commons, in negotiating treaties.

I would ask for a very preliminary comment in the light of his recent experience with the treaty this legislation is attempting to implement and which this House may debate at some time other than when the legislation is implemented. I would appreciate a comment from the minister on this question.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, I certainly find the hon. member's proposals interesting. I agree with the parliamentary secretary's recommendation that there be an interesting exchange of viewpoints in the foreign affairs committee.

As he said, it is a general problem of replacing the representatives of the executive in the negotiation and signing of the treaty. Generally speaking, I am interested in looking at all the ways parliament is involved in foreign affairs issues especially, for example, a government decision to establish military intervention under the aegis of the United Nations and so on.

At this point, I am a keen observer of the work of the foreign affairs committee. I will look forward to the work of the committee with considerable interest.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer. I can see that the minister does not want to say too much at this point in time, but it would nevertheless be worthwhile to put this question to a vote to know where the various parties stand.

Accordingly, I do not intend to withdraw the proposed amendment, but I will, of course, submit the question to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as requested by the minister.

[The Chairman]

Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the purpose of the motion moved by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is to promote a substantive debate, and it is already clear from the somewhat short remarks we have heard how committed all the parties are, and the government in particular. The minister himself would like to know what would come out of an in-depth review by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I am wary and reluctant because, if the question is put and the amendment is negatived, then I do not think the government will repeat the offer contained in this amendment so that the issue can be looked at by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, whose agenda is already pretty full. But if the matter is of such importance that we would like it to be debated by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I would ask for the consent of the House to withdraw this amendment and allow the committee to consider the matter in keeping with the commitment made by the minister himself.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment for committee consideration?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent for the proposal.

Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chairman]

Members have heard the terms of the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?