Bill C-228

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (prior review of treaties by Parliament)

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to add certain requirements for the tabling in Parliament of documents relating to treaties entered into by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of Canada.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved that Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (prior review of treaties by Parliament), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak to my bill, C-228. I will read the summary of the bill:

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to add certain requirements for the tabling in Parliament of documents relating to treaties entered into by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of Canada.

More specifically, Bill C‑228 provides for the following: systematic tabling of treaties in the House of Commons; a requirement to wait 21 days after tabling before ratifying treaties in order to give the House an opportunity to consider them; and publication of treaties in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I will define what we mean by “major treaty” later on, but the bill proposes a requirement to obtain the advice of the House before ratifying major treaties and a requirement to consult civil society through a parliamentary committee before Parliament votes on major treaties, which I will come back to later.

Canada is currently bound by 4,400 international treaties. These are treaties in the broad sense and include agreements, protocols, conventions and amendments to existing treaties. These are all examples of different kinds of international treaties. Treaties affect all aspects of society, including taxation, investment, exports, environmental protection, human rights, labour law, international trade, government procurement and standards to be applied to marketable products. These treaties clearly have a considerable impact on all aspects of life, both economic and political.

I would like to point out that, in many cases, treaties are more important than laws. In today's world, who would deny that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has a greater impact on the people of Canada than the law governing Parliament's official poet? I picked a law at random. The current tariff crisis is demonstrating the consequences that a free trade agreement can have.

Furthermore, while any legislation passed in this Parliament could be amended in the next Parliament, the same cannot be said for treaties. Since they are essentially contracts between countries, they cannot be changed without the other country's consent. Meticulous and transparent review of treaties is even more essential given the relative permanence of treaties. Laws are passed after a well-established process that includes detailed study in committee after public hearings. Parliament, on the other hand, is largely excluded from the treaty-making process. That is not necessarily the case in other jurisdictions, and it is not how it works in other countries. In short, let me be clear: If the people's representatives are left out of the process, then the people are also being left out when it comes to ratifying treaties.

I would like to explain how international treaties are ratified. There are five main steps, and within those five main steps, there are a number of undemocratic processes that this bill attempts to fix.

The first step is to adopt a mandate. That is the starting point. Cabinet decides to start negotiations for a treaty and gives a mandate to the negotiator, setting objectives to be reached and red lines that must not be crossed. This is the mandate. The decision to start negotiations is generally public. We know that when the government wants to renegotiate CUSMA or develop new international treaty agreements, it is generally clear about its intentions. However, the negotiating mandate is not made public. The public remains in the dark about what will be negotiated and how.

Cabinet alone makes that decision, even if the proposed treaty deals with matters that are normally within the purview of Parliament and even if the treaty affects matters under the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Anyone can see that this is undemocratic.

After the mandate comes negotiation. This is when countries try to agree on a text that works for both of them. As we all know, this horse-trading, the entire negotiation process, takes place behind closed doors. Quebec and the provinces are generally not part of the negotiating teams, although they are often consulted and kept informed. Parliament, however, is rarely kept apprised of the status of ongoing negotiations and discussions.

The third step is signing the agreement. This is when countries wrap up negotiations, say they have agreed on a final text and commit to doing whatever their legislators need to do to ratify it. From that point on, there is a relatively final text that can be looked at. That is where Bill C‑228 comes in. It would require the text of major treaties to be tabled in the House of Commons. Then, after committee scrutiny, the House would have to vote on those treaties.

Here is how we would define “major treaty”. Members can probably see where I am going. What we want to see is a treaty approval process comparable to the legislative process. Generally speaking, “major treaties” means those that require the enactment of a federal law, confer new powers on the government, impose a significant financial obligation, result in a change to Canada's boundaries, the imposition of sanctions, or a transfer of jurisdiction to international institutions, affect the government's jurisdiction, or concern international trade.

As an opposition party, we are clearly able to define what a major treaty is, yet the government is still unable to define what a project in the national interest is. That was just a friendly reminder.

The fourth step is implementation. At this stage, countries change their internal operations to bring them into compliance with the requirements of the agreement. We are talking about changes to laws, regulations and government programs. That is the only step that Parliament is currently involved in. However, it is important to note that Parliament currently does not become seized with the treaty itself and cannot propose changes to any aspect of it. The treaty is unalterable, and parliamentarians only consider amendments to existing laws that will allow it to come into force.

In fact, the very minimal impact we can have is through our control, so to speak, over existing legislation. Since trade treaty implementation legislation affects tariffs, which have a financial impact, a confidence vote is usually involved. That is another problem. If we refuse to accept a treaty tabled in the House, Parliament could potentially be dissolved. This gives the government a disproportionate amount of leverage.

The fifth and final stage is ratification. This is the stage where the countries involved declare that their domestic laws are consistent with the requirements of the agreement and that they agree, under international law, to be bound by the obligations set out in the agreement. This stage comes under the exclusive authority of the executive branch.

If I can summarize, all these stages show that the process for ratifying international treaties is clearly undemocratic. In Canada, cabinet adopts the mandate unilaterally and keeps it secret. Federal negotiators report exclusively to the executive branch and do not have to report to anyone about the progress of discussions. The government alone brings the negotiations to a close and signs the final text of an agreement before disclosing it to anyone. Public debate is possible only after negotiations have ended and the text of the agreement is signed. That means it cannot be changed, whether by civil society, which can lobby elected officials, or by the elected officials themselves, whose ability to make changes is quite minimal.

In short, Parliament is essentially relegated to the role of a rubber-stamp chamber. It does not get to study the treaty itself. It merely adopts the changes to the laws that allow the treaty to come into force. During the review of the bill, any amendment that would affect the draft treaty is even ruled out of order.

Worse still, the government does its job with a knife to our throats, since laws to implement trade treaties generally affect taxation, which means they involve a confidence vote. That makes it impossible to change them. Either we approve them, or we face an election. Once again, this gives the executive branch a disproportionate amount of leverage.

What Bill C-228 would do is make the treaty-making process a little more democratic in five ways, which I will summarize briefly. First, it would require all treaties to be tabled in the House of Commons. Second, it would require the government to wait 21 days after tabling before ratifying a treaty to give the House an opportunity to consider it. Third, treaties would have to be published in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Fourth, it would add a requirement to obtain the advice of the House before ratifying a major treaty, which I defined earlier. The requirement to obtain the opinion of the House is not binding. I will see what my colleagues have to say about that. Lastly, civil society would have to be consulted by means of a parliamentary committee before Parliament votes on major treaties.

Quite frankly, when it comes to treaties, Canada is one of the least democratic countries in the industrialized world. The bill we are introducing is somewhat inspired by what is being done in Quebec.

In Quebec, there is an obligation to table and publish treaties. This obligation is set out in the Act respecting the Ministère des Relations internationales. This Quebec law also provides that the ratification of an international agreement or the making of an order cannot take place with respect to an important international commitment until the commitment is approved by the National Assembly. This mechanism allows the entire assembly, not just the executive branch, to express opinions. My colleagues will see that Bill C‑228 is largely based on the practice in Quebec, which requires that parliamentary approvals be published, and that is what Bill C‑228 seeks to replicate. It is also based on what is done in most European countries.

Canada is lagging behind when it comes to transparency, democracy and treaties, and that can be seen simply by looking at what is done in Europe and the United States. Parliamentary approval of treaties is the norm rather than the exception in Europe. Belgium even requires that regions and communities give their approval before it ratifies a treaty that affects their jurisdictions. Obviously, Bill C‑228 does not go that far. In the United States, Congress itself adopts the negotiating mandate. It is kept informed of the discussions and must approve the text before ratification. In Europe, the European Commission cannot enter into trade negotiations without the authorization of the European Parliament and a mandate from the member states represented on the European Council.

It is clear that, in many countries, parliaments adopt treaties through a far more democratic process. Furthermore, in some European countries, the adoption of treaties is considered important enough to be enshrined in their constitutions. That is the case in France, Germany, Denmark and Italy. Pursuant to its constitution, the U.S. must obtain legislative approval for certain categories of international agreements before they can be ratified.

In terms of transparency, Canada made some progress under the Harper government. I am sure that my Conservative colleagues will be pleased to hear this. It was in 2008 that the government outlined a new policy requiring all treaties signed by Canada and other states or entities to be tabled in the House before being ratified.

However, the tabling of treaties in the House remains a courtesy, similar to the courtesy shown by the Chair in letting me know that my speaking time is over. I am looking forward to hearing my colleagues' opinions. I believe that this is a bill that calls for greater democracy and transparency. I hope everyone shows such good faith.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when I think of this private member's bill, the first thing that comes to mind is that we have literally dozens, if not hundreds of treaties that have been brought in. Since I was first elected, there have been probably 400-plus treaties.

I contrast what the member is asking for with the sorts of procedures we have had over the years. For example, on trade agreements, we have opportunities for opposition days. There is all sorts of debate when legislation and so forth come forward.

I have never really heard someone say they have an objection to how the majority of the MPs in the chamber did not support a particular treaty. Is he aware of any treaties that the majority of MPs did not support?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, we need to focus on treaties that have a slightly broader scope. Why have all the other countries, like the European countries and the United States, decided to have a more democratic treaty-making process? I suppose it is because they believe in the role of elected officials when it comes to international treaties.

We have seen some major blunders in the past. I was first elected to the House in 2019, when Canada had just renegotiated CUSMA. One sector that was left out was aluminum. Aluminum was the only sector that was not protected under CUSMA, even though steel was.

A Canadian negotiator candidly told us that this situation had come about because the problem was not addressed at the negotiating table. If the government was in the habit of consulting elected officials who are aware of the realities and the needs on the ground, this type of problem might not happen.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this very important bill in the House. As he said, most European countries and the United States have a process that involves parliamentarians before final ratification.

I was elected in 2015, and there was a lot of talk about protecting supply management. I am pleased because we just passed a law that protects it, but in the last three trade agreements, supply management was sacrificed and used as a bargaining chip with other countries, whether it was with Europe, the United States, or as part of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

If we had a more democratic law, such as this one and such as exists in Europe and the United States, would Parliament have had the tools and means to protect the supply management sector?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what an intelligent question. I think that is fantastic. The answer is yes. During a recent discussion that my party caucus had with Daniel Johnson, who was premier of Quebec and also a trade agreement negotiator, Mr. Johnson told us how dysfunctional Canada's approach was, since it does not involve the terms of negotiation being validated by its houses of assembly.

In the United States, the negotiating mandate comes from politicians. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Canada, which for a long time sidelined the much-debated issue of supply management; not only is it essential to Quebec, but it also serves the interests of other agricultural producers in Canada.

It took a lot of painstaking work by the Bloc Québécois to get supply management on the federal government's legislative agenda. We had to fight with senators. During CUSMA negotiations, this issue could have been resolved quickly if the House had been asked, and perhaps even if Quebec City had been consulted to find out what was important to them in trade negotiations.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Jonquière for introducing Bill C‑228, which is a private member's bill. I am grateful for his work on this important and timely issue.

The debate on this bill touches on fundamental principles of our democracy and our constitutional framework. In a global context marked by geopolitical uncertainty, it is essential to ensure that Canada's treaty-making system reflects today's reality.

First, I rise today to reaffirm the integrity, transparency, and accountability that are already built into Canada's treaty-making process. This includes the essential step of tabling treaties in Parliament. This step is a more recent addition to our tradition, but it has been respected and supported by Canadian governments of all political stripes since the January 2008 announcement of the policy on tabling treaties in Parliament.

Since the introduction of the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament in 2008, successive governments have maintained a strong commitment to transparency by regularly tabling treaty texts before the House. These documents, along with negotiating positions and impact assessments, are made available to parliamentary committees, allowing Parliament to exercise oversight.

Our government will always take a strong stand for transparency in Canada's international agreements and partnerships. As we endeavour to diversify our relationships abroad, we agree that there can be no compromise on transparency to Parliament.

We agree that as we focus on diversifying our relationships and treaty relations abroad, there must be no sacrifice on openness with Parliament.

As members of the House know, the authority to enter into international treaties on behalf of Canada belongs to the elected government. Like many of our allies who also follow the Westminster model, our government has a mandate to negotiate, sign and ratify treaties on behalf of Canada for all Canadians.

It is important to recognize that the constitutional authority to enter into treaties rests with the elected government of the day, consistent with the Westminster parliamentary tradition. As with many of our allies who share this system, the executive branch is tasked with negotiating, signing and ratifying treaties on behalf of all Canadians.

At the same time, parliamentary control and transparency are central to our democratic governance. The current policy framework offers a number of opportunities for parliamentary participation by the provinces, territories, indigenous groups and relevant stakeholders, from preliminary consultations during treaty planning and negotiations, right up to tabling of the treaties prior to their ratification.

For nearly 20 years, since 2008, successive governments have tabled treaties in Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the policy on tabling treaties in Parliament. This process is not a mere formality; it embodies the philosophy that underpins our system of government.

As we begin the debate on Canada's current treaty-making process, it is important that we all understand what exactly our current policy is and what level of openness, input and transparency it affords to Parliament.

First, a government's accountability in the treaty process begins well before signing or ratifying a treaty. It begins with the planning stage. As the policy states, when a negotiating mandate is developed, public servants must demonstrate that they have conducted a comprehensive consultation process. This process involves not only federal departments, but also, depending on the subject of the treaty, the provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, as well as civil society in the form of non-governmental organizations, academia and industry.

Second, these consultations continue throughout the negotiation phase. Stakeholders are consulted, including provincial and territorial governments where certain provisions of the treaty fall within their constitutional jurisdiction. In the case of multilateral negotiations, representatives of these groups are often part of Canadian delegations.

Third, for agreements of major economic importance, including trade agreements, additional transparency measures were put in place in 2020. These additional measures require that the government table in Parliament a notice of intent to negotiate at least 90 days before the discussions begin and that negotiation objectives be tabled 30 days before.

Fourth, the requirement to table the text of international treaties in Parliament before taking any action intended to bind Canada is an essential component of our commitment to accountability.

During these treaty-tabling periods, opposition parties have the option to seek a vote and pursue a debate in the House regarding the treaty in question.

Fifth, where the fulfillment of the obligations in a treaty requires amendments to federal legislation, a bill to implement those obligations is presented to this House and follows the standard procedures for the adoption of law. This again provides significant opportunities for review, examination, debate and approval by parliamentarians.

Finally, the commitment to public transparency is also reflected in the publication and registration of treaties. Once in force, they become publicly available, they are registered with the United Nations and they are kept in the public domain, ensuring their visibility both in Canada and internationally.

For treaties with significant economic implications, such as free trade agreements, the government introduced enhanced transparency measures in 2020. These include the requirement to table a notice of intent to negotiate and the negotiation objectives in this House before talks begin. Furthermore, Parliament's approval is required before implementation legislation can be enacted, ensuring legislative scrutiny before these treaties take full effect domestically.

In summation, the current parliamentary review process for treaties has seen over 450 treaties brought before this House since 2008, providing members with opportunities for examination, debate and, if desired, votes. When treaties require amendments to federal laws, such changes must pass through the normal legislative process, offering further opportunities for parliamentary review.

It is true that Bill C‑228 seeks to strengthen parliamentary participation by requiring prior approval of treaties. That is an honourable goal shared by every member of the House.

However, we should be cautious about any changes to our ratification process, particularly when they may introduce delays and uncertainties that could hinder Canada's ability to negotiate effectively and respond swiftly to evolving global circumstances.

This year alone, nearly 20 treaties have been tabled in Parliament. Under the process outlined in this bill, each of these treaties would have had to spend months in committee and months more awaiting the drafting of a government report, meaning several years' delay in the implementation of international agreements that have earned our country a global reputation as a reliable partner.

This balance between executive flexibility and parliamentary oversight is complex. Other Westminster democracies, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, offer useful examples.

In the U.K., treaties are laid before Parliament prior to ratification under the Ponsonby rule, allowing scrutiny while preserving executive discretion. Australia and New Zealand follow similar practices, where parliamentary review occurs after negotiations.

In short, when one considers the extensive transparency measures that have been in place for over two decades, the notion that treaty-making in Canada lacks transparency is not borne out.

In conclusion, I have outlined key steps in Canada's treaty process, a process that ensures that each negotiated agreement is guided by the principles of democracy, transparency and respect for the constitutional framework. This system is robust, it provides for appropriate consultation and it allows for parliamentary participation through the tabling period.

I understand and share the concerns raised by my Bloc Québécois colleague. We are operating in a complex global environment, and Canada's international relations decisions carry more weight than ever.

I thank my colleague for his thoughtful contributions and for highlighting the vital role Parliament plays in shaping our foreign policy, and I look forward to continuing our collaboration.

As we continue to consider Bill C‑228, it is critical that we reflect not only on the transparency and oversight mechanisms already in place in Canada, but also on the constitutional principles that define the roles of the executive and Parliament in the treaty process.

I look forward to the rest of this debate.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for bringing this bill forward. I think it will give us an opportunity to talk about the treaty process here in Canada and in the House of Commons.

The first multilateral treaty negotiated and signed by Canada was the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The first bilateral treaty negotiated and signed by Canada was the Halibut Treaty between Canada and the United States in 1923. Before that, the United Kingdom negotiated, signed and ratified treaties on behalf of all of the countries in the empire. Full treaty authority was not fully delegated to Canada until 1947, with the issuance of the Letters Patent, 1947. As I think my colleague mentioned, there are some 4,400 treaties that Canada has entered into or has been bound by over the years.

An important starting point for this particular private member's bill is discussing the nomenclature of a treaty. Under the Vienna convention that codified international practice in 1969, Canada defines a treaty as “a single instrument” or “two or more related instruments” and indicates that treaties can come in various forms of description. They can be called treaties, conventions, agreements, protocols or some similar word. They can be a simple exchange of diplomatic notes or a simple exchange of diplomatic letters. All of these are incorporated into what Canada considers to be a treaty.

What is not a treaty is an arrangement or a memorandum of understanding. Those two documents are not considered by Canada to be treaties, although other states consider them to be treaties.

It is important to start with that description of what we in Canada call a treaty before we go on to a discussion of the bill.

When I look at Bill C-228, I note that it further defines a treaty as an amendment to a treaty. Treaties are not simply the original bilateral, multilateral or plurilateral agreement; any amendment to such an agreement is also considered a treaty in the definition provided by the bill.

The bill then goes on to define what a major treaty is. When I read the bill, a major treaty seems to encompass pretty much all treaties. They are almost one and the same. A major treaty is defined as any treaty that requires for its implementation “the enactment of an Act of Parliament”, “the conferment of new powers on His Majesty in Right of Canada”, or “the imposition of a tax by Parliament”; “imposes a significant direct or conditional financial obligation on Canada”; “concerns the transfer of part of Canada’s territory”; “requires Canada to impose...economic or military sanctions on a state”; or “concerns the territorial jurisdiction of Canada”. In the final two descriptions, a major treaty is any treaty that “concerns international trade or investment” or “concerns Canada’s participation in international institutions”.

When we look at what a major treaty is as defined in the bill, it pretty much encompasses all treaties. A very broad set of treaties would be defined and captured by this bill.

What the bill would do can be summarized by three elements. The first is it would codify existing policy and practice by the Government of Canada and the practice here in the House of Commons, which my hon. colleague across the aisle called the Ponsonby convention.

As an aside, I might mention that one of the primary schools I went to when I was a kid was Ponsonby Public School, which is just down the road from where I grew up. It was probably named after the person who authored the convention, but it is the Ponsonby rule that had been in place in the United Kingdom since 1924. That rule in the United Kingdom has been codified into law by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

What we currently do here in practice in the House, what the government currently does in policy, which was enacted by the Harper government in 2008, is being proposed to be codified by the bill that is before us, and I think that is an interesting idea. It is something the U.K. has done, but in practice I do not think it would make any real change to the way we consider treaties here in the House.

The second and third elements of the private member's bill would change significantly how we deal with treaties. The second element is that “the Minister must obtain the advice of the House of Commons regarding the treaty before ratifying it.” In other words, the minister needs to ensure that a debate and a vote take place in the House as a whole for each treaty laid before the House. The third element of the bill is that all major treaties would be reviewed by a committee of the House and that the committee would have to report back to the House.

I think the second and third elements of the bill would be a problem, and I want to explain why. As my hon. colleague mentioned, there are some 4,400 treaties that Canada is party to. Let us just assume that they have been negotiated over about 100 years; that means about 44 treaties a year. That would be a lot of treaties for the House to debate and to vote on each and every time. It would be a lot of work for a committee to review and report back to the House each and every time.

Seeing that the House typically sits only 26 or 27 weeks a year, we would be looking at having a day of debate and a vote in the House pretty much three days out of every two weeks the House is sitting, and the committees of the House would also be tasked three times every 10 sitting days with reviewing and reporting back on a treaty.

I looked at the statistics for the last five Parliaments, beginning with the 41st Parliament, about the number of treaties that have been laid before the House. In the 41st Parliament, which lasted about four years, there were 142 treaties that were laid in front of the House, which is roughly 110 a year. In the 42nd Parliament, which sat for four years, there were 91 treaties that were laid before the House, which is a rate of roughly 22 treaties each sitting year.

In the 43rd Parliament, which was the pandemic Parliament, when arguably, even though it lasted for a year and a half, we really sat for only about a year, 32 treaties were negotiated during the roughly 20 to 30 weeks the House sat. In the 44th Parliament, over three years, 62 treaties were laid in front of the House. Just in the first eight weeks of the current Parliament, I counted ministers' laying before the House 17 treaties, at a rate of roughly more than two a week.

When I look at what the bill proposes, I think it would be an undue burden on the House and its committees. I think that three treaties every 10 sitting days being laid before the House, triggering a debate with a commensurate vote, and three treaties every 10 calendar days being sent to committee for review and report would put a big burden on the House and distract us from the other critical work we need to do in this place.

I will finish by saying that I think this is a well-intentioned bill that has allowed us to shine a light on the Ponsonby Rule, which has been in place here in the chamber since the Harper government issued the policy through a ministerial statement in 2008. Some of the aspects of the bill are interesting, such as the codification of that rule into law, but I think the way the bill has been worded in its second and third elements, related to a review and vote in the House and its committees, would put an undue burden on the House.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade to speak to Bill C‑228. This bill, which I think is very important, seeks to strengthen transparency and parliamentary oversight around trade agreements. Ottawa's lack of transparency in these matters is downright monarchical.

I have been here for six years, and as my colleagues have said, not once have we voted on a trade agreement. We have always voted on bills to implement agreements. This means that it is virtually impossible to amend them and they are always tabled under very tight deadlines.

I also find it somewhat ironic to hear people saying that we have a policy on treaty-making. Apparently, because we have had this wonderful policy since 2008, everything is fine. I find it ironic to hear that today considering that the policy was violated just a few days ago. This policy, which is not a law and is therefore non-binding by definition, normally provides for a 21-day period between the announcement of the content of an agreement and the introduction of a bill. However, the bill on the protocol on the United Kingdom's entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership was introduced after only 15 days, so I find it very funny to hear today that this policy is perfect when it was not even respected just a few days ago. In other words, perhaps they need to find a better argument. Let us get the message across to them.

Whatever the issue and whatever the political leanings of the government, Ottawa does not appreciate its opponents scrutinizing its actions too closely. When it comes to trade agreements, secrecy is the name of the game. Canada is living up to its monarchical tradition by keeping the agreements it signs under wraps, no doubt for fear that they would fall apart under scrutiny, much like a vampire exposed to the sun.

As a member of Parliament, I experienced this in December 2020. I was on the Standing Committee on International Trade and we were asked to study the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom but without seeing the text of the agreement. Who would have thought that possible? We heard from witnesses, senior officials and representatives of organizations. Their recommendation was to adopt the agreement, despite concerns about this thing or that. At one point, I raised my hand to say that I had not read the agreement. I asked the witnesses if they had information I did not have. One by one, they each told me that they did not know, that they had not received any information. Is that not unbelievable? It really was a theatre of the absurd. Only in Canada could such a thing happen.

When Canada's foreign affairs department was created in 1909, the minister was supposed to table before Parliament an annual report on the department's operations. This report would logically include an overview of Canada's international discussions and commitments. This was somewhat of an attempt to demonstrate the beginnings of a desire for transparency. In 1995, at the height of globalization, the department's act was amended to give the minister a freer hand by granting him jurisdiction over international trade, to the detriment of Parliament. The 1909 annual reporting requirement was abolished in 1995.

I will take another look back in time. In 1926, the House of Commons passed a resolution stating that “...before His Majesty's Canadian Ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.” That is what was passed, but in actual fact, this practice was applied unevenly for 40 years until it was finally abandoned in 1966. A parliament worthy of the name should adopt procedures aimed at increasing the level of democratic control over agreements.

My political party, the Bloc Québécois, introduced seven bills on the procedure for reaching agreements between 1999 and 2004, requiring the minister responsible for the ratification of an agreement to table it in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, within a reasonable time frame, and requiring the approval of members of Parliament before any ratification. As a result of the Bloc Québécois's efforts, it is now policy that an explanatory memorandum be submitted within a reasonable time before an agreement is ratified by elected members, but no government has ever had the courage to create binding legislation. As I said, this policy was violated just a few days ago, yet they have the gall to use that as an argument today. It is unbelievable.

As a result, the government can act arbitrarily, as the Liberals have just done once again. We are certainly not a British regime where Parliament is supposed to have partial veto rights over ratifications. While fundamentally desirable despite being ridiculously inadequate, this policy consisting in asking members what they think after the fact could be a means of controlling Parliament. Rather than really involving members in the drafting of international agreements, this policy is merely an instrument to sound out the opposition parties' position, since they are presented with a finished product that is all ready to go.

Some parliaments around the world even consult elected members before starting negotiations to obtain mandates on sectors to be promoted or protected. That is vastly different from what we have here. The United States, for example, has a law that protects the sugar sector, while the European Union frequently holds votes to ask its members what they would like to see protected, promoted or, conversely, removed from the table. The principle makes sense. Members of Parliament are elected by the public to represent the interests and values of their constituents. Given its lack of transparency before, during and after trade negotiations, Canada has a long way to go when it comes to involving members of Parliament in the process. It also falls far short when it comes to involving the provinces. However, this is another issue that the current bill does not address. Nevertheless, it shows how ridiculous Ottawa is when it comes to democracy and transparency.

The way the process works in Canada can be summarized as follows: First, cabinet unilaterally adopts the mandate and keeps it secret. Second, the Canadian negotiators report only to the federal executive branch and are not accountable to anyone regarding the status of discussions. When they appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade, they tell us next to nothing, regardless of whether the meeting is in camera or public. Third, the government alone ends the negotiations and signs the final text before sharing it with anyone. Fourth, public debate can only begin once negotiations have concluded. At that point, the signed text is impossible to change. Parliament is essentially relegated to the role of rubber-stamping the treaty. It never votes on or debates the treaty itself, but rather an implementation bill. Ultimately, we can change next to nothing or nothing at all. We end up with an implementation bill that is a few pages long for treaties that can sometimes be 5,000 pages long.

Parliament simply adopts the changes to the laws that will allow the treaty to come into force. During the study of the bill, any amendment that would affect the draft treaty is ruled out of order because it is only the implementation bill. I find it unfortunate that our Conservative friends are opposed to our bill, as far as we know, because virtually all of their proposed amendments to the free trade bill with Ukraine were rejected and ruled out of order. I voted against the Conservatives' proposed amendments, because I disagreed with them. However, each time they were ruled out of order, I still voted with the Conservatives in committee to challenge the chair's decision, because it seemed logical to me that these proposals should still be debated and put forward.

Today, the Conservatives are defending the same policy that prevented them from changing anything back then. What a brilliant move. Ultimately, Parliament ends up doing its job with a knife to its throat, and that is what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to do my job, which is unfortunately to enforce speaking times.

The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-228, legislation that would fundamentally reshape how Canada affirms its treaties.

I will admit that this is not quite the agreement I hoped to be speaking to after more than five months of trade negotiations with the U.S. Still, Bill C-228 raises issues that go to the very heart of how Parliament exercises its constitutional role.

The intent behind this private member's bill is commendable. It seeks to give Parliament a stronger voice in the treaty process to make the approval and adoption of agreements more transparent and accountable. Those are principles I support, but while the goal is worthy, I believe the way this bill goes about achieving it is flawed. At the risk of echoing some of the thoughtful concerns by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills North, I would like to briefly outline the key provisions of this legislation.

As written, the legislation would do three things. First, it would formalize the practice of ministers tabling major treaties in this place prior to ratification, along with an explanatory note. Second, it would require a committee of the House to review any proposed treaty and report back to the House. Third, it would require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to obtain the advice of the House before ratification.

While I am all for giving this place a bigger voice in the machinations of government, I am concerned about the second aspect of the bill, namely the requirement of a committee of the House to review and report back. My concerns are threefold. First, what is the purpose of sending proposed treaties to committee? Second, can the committees, as they are currently constituted, actually carry out the massive increase in workload Bill C-228 would necessitate? Third, and perhaps most important, I am concerned about a potential chilling effect it may have in a negotiating process.

To be clear, this is not a question of effort. The reality is that there are just not enough hours in a day, a week or a month for parliamentarians to thoroughly scrutinize the dozens, if not hundreds, of additional documents that could be sent to the relevant House committees.

To provide some context, since 2008, 467 treaties have been tabled in the House. By my napkin math, during that same time period, 341 pieces of government legislation have passed committee and received royal assent. We already face severe limitations on our ability to analyze legislation and conduct studies at our committees. With the addition of proposed treaties being sent into the room, the very few hours we have would be reduced even further. This means less legislation passed, fewer treaties approved, fewer private members' bills agreed to and fewer studies in committee.

For a microcosm, in the 41st Parliament, former prime minister Stephen Harper and his strong, stable, national majority government tabled 142 treaties in the House. If this bill were law then, that would mean that that Parliament would have had 142 additional study topics and 142 other very important committee meetings that would not have occurred. This is assuming the absolute best-case scenario, where each treaty is approved by all parties with little or no debate. Who knows how long a treaty may require at committee.

This leads to my second concern with the proposal to send this to committee, which is the simple question, why? Parliamentarians do not have the capacity to amend or change the wording of a proposed treaty. We are simply there to say yea or nay. We are not involved in the negotiation process. The government is, with ministers, skilled public servants, subject matter experts and diplomats hammering out minutia after minutia. I am curious as to what members would envision the committee process would look like. Would we treat the treaty like legislation? Almost everyone in this place has done line-by-line consideration of legislation before. We know how tedious, but necessary, it is.

Let us engage in a bit of a thought experiment. Let us say that tomorrow this legislation achieves royal assent, and additionally, the government announces we have a renegotiated CUSMA. It is a trilateral trade deal with revisions and additions. CUSMA then gets sent to the international trade committee. The agreement is about as long as the previous one, ringing in at just under 1,900 pages. What happens next? Do they do line-by-line consideration or clause-by-clause consideration? How are the offices expected to do due diligence in understanding each clause in the little time we have?

Does the committee supply simply a nay or yea? Does this end the deal? How much time is given to the committee and its members to consider the document? Does a 10-page treaty get the same amount of time for MPs to familiarize themselves with as a 2,000-page behemoth? Does rejecting the treaty mean that trade talks collapse?

This highlights an unfortunate reality that the legislation could not meet. Either the process is fulsome and done with attention to detail and due process that it deserves, in which case it quite possibly cripples the workload of the relevant committee, or it turns into a rubber-stamping process, in which case it is irrelevant and not needed. This, of course, ignores the other elephant in the room: It provides all parties with another legislative process that could be politically weaponized, further delaying the process.

All of this leads to a third issue that, in my opinion, is by far the most serious. This may be the first time that members will ever hear a Tory say this in the House, but the legislation's most worrisome aspect is the potential effect this will have on limiting the authority of the current government to do its job. The legislation would have a massive chilling effect on the government's ability to negotiate in good faith with other governments. Simply put, why would the nations of the world put any faith or effort into the treaty negotiation processes if the entire process can be derailed or held up in Parliament? This is particularly poignant given what is happening right now in Washington.

To be clear, the Conservatives wish nothing but total success to the government in its negotiating efforts with the U.S. We all want what is best for Canada and the U.S. We may disagree on how we are going to get there, but our goal is the same. I would like to take this opportunity to place on the parliamentary record my continued commitment, that of my team and myself, to extend our co-operation and support to the government negotiating team in any way we can. I reiterate to the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister directly that my door remains open and that my commitment to constructive co-operation and engagement with our U.S. neighbours is unwavering.

However, I want to be clear: Members should understand that the willingness to co-operate does not exempt the government from rightful scrutiny and criticism where it is warranted. It also means that the government needs to signal its intent to actually engage with the opposition to get the best deal possible for Canada and end this unjust, unprovoked trade dispute. To bring this back to Bill C-228, the last thing I would like to do during any negotiation process is to signal to any potential trading partners that the government does not have the agency to negotiate on behalf of the government.

In closing, Bill C-228 is guided by good intentions to strengthen Parliament's role in treaty approval. However, as drafted, it risks slowing decision-making and blurring the line between advisory oversight and executive responsibility. I would like to applaud the member for Jonquière for his vision and efforts to empower this place, but, unfortunately, I cannot support the implementation of that vision as is.