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.

An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who has once again shown how well he knows his file.

In his remarks, he briefly alluded to Bill C‑228, which is sponsored by the member for Jonquière and which deals with international trade treaties. I would like the member to explain to our colleagues here today how that bill would change the way Canada drafts international trade agreements.

How would it actually change the way things are done right now?

Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the process.

The Bloc Québécois is proud to have gotten an amendment adopted that will require the minister to ensure that a review is carried out every three years and a report submitted to the House. That is a good thing.

However, we would rather have debated the agreement itself. Instead, we are being forced to debate its application. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton introduced Bill C‑228 to strengthen Parliament's role in the treaty ratification process. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

Would it not be democratic if we could discuss it more ahead of time and talk about the process as well?

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of reconciliation, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C‑77 in the last Parliament and we will support Bill C‑10 as well.

From what I understand, my colleague is telling us that having more transparency in the implementation of treaties would create more awful bureaucracy. A few days ago, we voted on Bill C‑228, introduced by the Bloc Québécois, which called for free trade agreements to be debated in Parliament. That bill would not have created any new bureaucracy at all. The Conservatives always like to say that they do not mind working long days in Parliament. When it was time to vote on Bill C‑228, which did not create any new bureaucracy, my colleague voted against it.

When it comes down to it, is it possible the Conservatives just have a bit of an issue with transparency?

Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say hello to all my colleagues. Please excuse my hoarse voice. I seem to have caught a cold, probably from partying too hard over the holidays. My energy levels are still not back to normal, and neither is my voice. In any case, I am happy to be here. It lifts my spirits. I want to wish everyone a happy new year, although it is getting rather late to say that.

Today, we are talking about a bill to implement a new economic and trade agreement with Indonesia. I will start with the good before moving on to the bad.

Indonesia is a very large market. This bill provides a good opportunity for Quebec companies in a business environment that would be more stable and predictable, as is generally guaranteed by most agreements. It would support long-term investment and export development. The expansion of trade with Southeast Asia is also a great opportunity for green technologies, but not at any cost. I will talk about that in a moment. It is a good market. Of course, it will never replace the United States, which is something we will continue to point out. There is no easy fix.

It reminds me a little of that Indo-Pacific strategy that was announced with great fanfare a few years ago. I attended the briefing at the time, and later I asked a question. I said that Pierre Eliott Trudeau had announced a strategy, that Jean Chrétien had announced a strategy and that Stephen Harper had announced a strategy. Now it was Justin Trudeau's turn. I asked how this time would be any different. The answer I got was that there really would be a strategy this time and that we needed to have faith. A few months later, however, we found out that the Indo-Pacific strategy would be going ahead without India, because relations had broken down and negotiations had stalled. It was an Indo-Pacific strategy without India. My colleagues may make of that what they will.

However, we cannot say no to a good thing. We cannot be against the idea of an agreement with Indonesia in principle. I say “in principle” because we are very uncertain about supporting this all the way through. I will talk about our reservations.

I am going to start by talking about the method. It is nothing new: Parliament does not debate the actual agreement; it debates an implementation bill. Parliament passes laws according to a well-established process that involves conducting a detailed study in committee and holding public hearings. However, Parliament is largely excluded from the treaty-making process. Members will recall that the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-228, which was rejected about an hour or two before this debate right now. It is almost as though the parliamentarians here are unwilling to do their job as parliamentarians, and that is absolutely shameful. It amounts to saying that it is a lot easier to hand off all responsibility to the executive, let it do what it wants, engage in negotiations and then ratify the agreement. Ultimately, we will end up debating and studying it for the first time during the negotiation process, which is extremely secretive. In the end, debating and amending a bill allows little opportunity to change much of what is in the agreement.

We are mere elected representatives of the people. Let us not forget that Canada is a monarchy. We are mere elected representatives of the people sent here to argue positions and raise points. There are things we would like agreements to include, things we would prefer they not include, and things we would like to advance on, but our wishes neither count nor matter, so they get pushed aside. I thank all my Bloc Québécois colleagues for voting in favour of this bill. I also want to thank the two Conservatives who voted for our bill earlier.

What is even more worrisome now is the human rights situation in Indonesia, particularly with respect to goods being produced for the Canadian market. The agreement will primarily benefit mining companies and the fossil fuel industry, and it puts respect for human rights and sustainable industrial development on the back burner.

I also have to mention the notorious investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, which I talk about every time this comes up, and I will come back to this point a little later. This agreement includes such a mechanism, and it serves as a bit of right to profit for multinationals. It gives them the right to sue the governments where they invest if they feel that their profits have been adversely affected. It allows them to be treated as true sovereign powers and to take states and governments to court. It allows a multinational corporation to effectively override the democratic will of elected officials who may have adopted a policy that, according to that multinational, would undermine its right to profit. There are plenty of examples, each more scandalous than the last. When this mechanism was removed from CUSMA, we thought that Canada had finally entered the 21st century, that it had finally listened to common sense. However, as we saw with the bill that was on the agenda earlier, parliamentarians here like to shirk their responsibilities.

As a result, they are still quite capable of living with the fact that multinationals are overturning their decisions, even if it means that it is becoming increasingly difficult for governments to legislate on issues relating to social justice, the environment, labour conditions and public health.

According to a report from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development dating from 2013, which does not take into account disputes initiated since then, 42% of cases were decided in favour of the state while 31% were in favour of the business. The remaining cases were settled. That means that, in 58% of cases, the claimants managed to completely or partially force the political leadership to backtrack.

Moreover, this quantitative data ignores an aspect that cannot be calculated: the pressure this puts on people responsible for establishing policy proactively. They might hesitate to pursue certain things for fear of being sued. There is clearly a deterrent effect in these mechanisms. Moreover, these disputes are very lucrative for large international law firms.

We have always opposed that, and I will continue to oppose it at committee. I do that all the time. Even when I vote in favour of certain trade agreements, I always vote against provisions that allow for investor-state dispute settlement under local law. After the committee reviews the bill being considered in the House, then I will decide whether I am ultimately for or against it. However, in either case, I will definitely vote against investor-state dispute settlement. I can give my word on that.

After all, Indonesia is a relatively poor country. Foreign investors should not be able to use the free trade agreement to dictate their will under threat of legal action. This would undermine the sovereignty of Indonesians, who already have so few rights. We will continue to oppose having this mechanism included in the agreement. If it were to be removed, we would undoubtedly be more favourable to the bill when it reaches the final stage.

Let us also talk about rights. During consultations on the agreement, working groups pointed out the prevalence of forced labour and human rights violations in Indonesian supply chains. They encouraged the government to include strong protections for workers, indigenous communities and the environment. Unfortunately, there is nothing about that in the agreement. There are no guarantees and no binding protections. The agreement even reverses the progress made on labour protections obtained by workers in some recent agreements, including the agreement with Ukraine. The only amendment that was retained in the agreement with Ukraine was mine. We were told that this needed to be monitored more closely, but that overall it was a real step forward.

However, after the Prime Minister signed agreements with Qatar and China, it became clear that human rights are not one of his top priorities. That is not the case for us. Human rights are important to us and we are committed to standing up for these values. The preamble of the agreement is totally ridiculous because it basically says that these are principles, period.

Indonesia is the largest manufacturing economy in Southeast Asia. The manufacturing economy accounts for more than 20% of its GDP. The manufacturing industry has really been a major part of Indonesia's modern economy. Unfortunately, Indonesia has gotten richer at the expense of human rights. That is putting it mildly. Although the Indonesian government requires all industries to comply with child labour laws, it has been reported that approximately 1.01 million children were involved in child labour in 2023. This is important and it must be taken into account. That will be coming our way before long.

There are many layers and subcontractors in the supply chains, which makes traceability challenging. This often makes it difficult to know the conditions under which certain products, like clothing, are manufactured.

There is no longer any doubt that the people who work in clothes manufacturing in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia—whether they are involved in cutting, sewing or bonding—often work in dangerous conditions for poverty wages, without any social safety net and without a formal contract. These workers are often exposed to harmful chemicals and unsafe work environments.

That danger is also evident in the leather tanning industry. Workers, often migrants, handle hides and hazardous chemicals and are exposed to significant health risks, particularly from the chromium compounds used in tanning.

The rights of migrant workers, especially women, remain vulnerable in Indonesia. The United Nations Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families has indicated that 70% of migrant workers in Indonesia are women and it has emphasized the need for measures to protect these women from harassment and exploitation. The committee learned that these women are frequently victims of abuse and that those employed in the fishing industry, often in irregular situations, are particularly vulnerable to human trafficking.

If Canada is looking to increase imports of clothing, fishery products and leather from Indonesia, it is imperative that we strengthen worker protections and ensure that our fundamental values are upheld, particularly with regard to human rights, so that our trade is not conducted at the expense of ethics.

That is why I introduced Bill C-251, which essentially copies the American model that works quite well, whereas Canada has almost never seized anything in its entire history. The burden of proof is reversed, and when entities, regions or companies are presumed to be using forced labour, the onus is on the importer to prove otherwise. It works. It has proven its worth. Canada's model, which relies entirely on the goodwill of customs officers, does not work.

Twice, in the March 2023 budget and in the March 2024 budget, we read verbatim that such legislation was going to be introduced by the end of the year, whether it was 2023 or 2024. As far as I know, it is now 2026 and we have not seen anything yet. I should mention that it was not spoken of again in budget 2025, although I imagine that has nothing to do with the Prime Minister's kowtowing to China's dictatorship. There is probably no connection; it must be me who is crazy. In any case, we are going to have to get moving on that. In due course, I hope the House will pass this bill.

I also want to talk about palm oil. Palm oil is already being imported into Canada. It is the most widely consumed vegetable oil in the world. Indonesia is a major palm oil producer. Palm oil imports into Canada are increasing at a startling rate. However, the production process is associated with a real environmental and human cost. Huge swaths of tropical forests are being destroyed, often by burning, to make way for plantations, resulting in a massive loss of biodiversity and threatening iconic species such as orangutans. This deforestation also contributes to air pollution and climate change. In terms of the social impact, the expansion of plantations, often carried out under the direction of warlords, frequently occurs at the expense of local and indigenous communities, in a context of abusive working conditions, exploitation and sometimes forced labour.

This agreement severely exacerbates the situation by stimulating the production and export of palm oil, without imposing any serious requirements, even though this would have been the perfect opportunity to do so. Some folks might wonder what I am talking about and whether this problem is really serious. The European Union created a panel on EU measures concerning palm oil and biofuels from Indonesia to address issues surrounding the production and import of these products into Canada. I think that shows the situation is quite serious.

It is also important to discuss any additional harms we might be causing there. Canada produces a large amount of plastic waste every year, but only a small portion of it is actually recycled here. A significant portion of what we think of as being recycled ends up in foreign countries for processing, particularly in the United States or Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, where recycling infrastructure cannot handle these kinds of volumes. Some of this waste, which is often hard to recycle and mixed with garbage, ends up in landfills or is burned in open air pits, polluting the local environment and exposing communities to health and environmental risks. Activists and experts argue that continuing to export plastic waste to countries that are not equipped to process it is not a sustainable solution. In addition, this goes against Canada's so-called targets for reducing plastic pollution and violates the principles of international law regarding waste management.

I also want to talk about mining and conflicts between mining investors and governments. Canada, incidentally, is a haven for mining companies. Canada is a flag of convenience, because these mining companies are often not actually Canadian at all. They are simply registered here. All they need is a post office box to be able to benefit from the advantages of the TSX. That is why most of the world's mining companies are registered here, because it gives them advantages.

Conflicts between mining investors and governments often begin as conflicts between investors and local communities, which are initially displaced from their lands or suffer environmental degradation, such as contaminated drinking water. I have seen this happen in Colombia and Chile. I have spoken with people who have been affected by air pollution, water pollution, the use of private security firms that have fired point-blank at locals. There are a number of documented cases today. We also know that in many of these cases, investigations revealed that Canadian embassies had an official line of pro-mining diplomacy, always supporting these companies. It is all well and good to go and talk about human rights in Davos in front of a bunch of people wearing shiny shoes and $2,000 suits, but we should really be taking concrete action on this, too.

These disputes are often caused or exacerbated by a lack of adequate consultation on the project. In Indonesia, the community on the small island of Sangihe is a case in point. This community has long been fighting to prevent the Canadian company Baru Gold from starting industrial gold mining operations. If the community succeeds in stopping the project, but the agreement is ratified in Canada and Indonesia, the company would have the option of suing Indonesia for lost profits. On what grounds? On the grounds of the investor-state dispute settlement I mentioned earlier. Is that not a wonderful thing? Well, that is what Canada is defending.

The current reconfiguration of trade partnerships and supply chains calls for severe and strict requirements for ethical consistency: no economic ties should be maintained with suppliers or states involved in human exploitation or trafficking, particularly to the detriment of the Uyghur and Tibetan peoples, in the case of China. Of course, we will never cut off economic ties with the regions that are affected, but we must nevertheless be firm with the states that are in charge.

Lastly, we also have to bear in mind that Quebec and the provinces are responsible for implementing the provisions of treaties within their areas of jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois demands respect for this sovereignty. Quebec has its own Indo-Pacific strategy—which pre-dates Canada's, if I am not mistaken—that aims to support Quebec exporters and attract foreign direct investors from that part of the world.

Yes, we are in favour of trade. The Bloc Québécois is the natural successor and supporter of the independence movement that was among the first to advocate for free trade with the United States in the 1980s. Free trade gave us a chance to breathe, to escape the confines of the Canadian market. We are still in favour of it, provided, of course, that the products we get are untainted by human rights abuses.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my previous question, I reminded the House that the Bloc Québécois is very committed to addressing these international trade issues.

My colleague from Jonquière introduced Bill C-228, which aimed to establish a committee to discuss these treaties here in the House, to negotiate international agreements.

I would like to come back to that because my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton also introduced Bill C-251, which seeks to ensure that the goods we import are free from the taint of modern slavery and human trafficking. I am part of a group that discusses this issue, and we have learned that, unfortunately, in 2026, many women and children are still in forced labour situations. There are many risks.

What does my colleague think about our bill?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the speech she gave as part of this very important debate. In the current context, market diversification is crucial for our businesses. However, I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, so this is an issue that I follow very closely, and I find it troubling that, in 2025, there are still so many children and young women who end up in forced labour.

In any case, the problem in all of these agreements is one that the Bloc Québécois raised through Bill C-228 on which we just voted. If this bill had been allowed to continue to move forward, we could have brought these treaties before the House for debate. It is not right that only the Prime Minister's Office gets to decide on agreements that affect issues that are so critical for local businesses and human rights.

Some countries have already adopted this practice by allowing debates in Parliament when major agreements are signed. What does my colleague think about that?

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, today's debate has been extremely interesting. Bill C-228 is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to put words into action.

Like many, I was captivated by the Prime Minister's speech in Davos for a number of reasons. First of all, among all the wonderful things I have read in my lifetime are the works of Jan Patočka, the person who inspired Václav Havel, a leading Czech philosopher and author of the book The Power of the Powerless. I was fascinated to see the Prime Minister quote him.

What the Prime Minister said in Davos was that the power rivalry often causes great powers to forget their duty to middle powers and that carefully calculated interests often rule the day when it comes to international relations.

I thought this was interesting because we can follow Prime Minister's lead and draw our own analogy. Instead of talking about international powers, let us talk about the federation. In the Canadian federation, it is often carefully calculated interests that drive policy and our trade agreements. Perhaps to the Prime Minister's great misfortune, Canada is not a unitary country. Within Canada, there are national minorities, such as Quebec, that are trying to defend their own economies.

I want to come back to the Prime Minister's speech. Speaking about the supposedly rules-based international order, the Prime Minister said that the strongest too often exempt themselves when convenient and that trade rules are enforced asymmetrically.

The Canadian government often exempts itself when convenient. In the current tariff crisis, I have never seen the government take concerted or significant action on the infamous softwood lumber issue. I have also never seen the government seriously address the issue of the tariffs on aluminum. Softwood lumber and aluminum are the two main economic sectors currently subject to tariffs, and they are economic sectors specific to Quebec.

I was elected in 2019 during the negotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. We soon realized what the government had done. It had forgotten to protect aluminum. We were caught off-guard, and our political party had to fight hard to get protection for aluminum.

In his speech, the Prime Minister talked about living in truth, which is what Václav Havel wrote about in The Power of the Powerless. We need to stop living within a lie. The Prime Minister said, “You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination”.

What we are seeing here, regarding international treaties, is Quebec's subordination to federal power. I will not repeat the examples of the softwood lumber and aluminum sectors, but it is a reality. This bill calls for more consultation with members of Parliament and a mechanism that allows us to study these treaties in committee.

I was shocked to hear my colleague from Don Valley West say that strengthening our democratic processes would be a waste of time. I heard the Prime Minister's speech in Davos, where he said that we must clearly assert the values and rules governing international trade. Then, the Liberals come here and say that the democratic processes that enable us to assert the rules and potentially hear all sides are a waste of time.

Earlier, my Conservative colleague from Edmonton Manning said that this would significantly increase our workload. His leader spends his time saying that Liberal and Bloc Québécois MPs are lazy because they are not willing to do committee work at the discretion of the leader of the official opposition. However, when it comes to studying something as important as an international treaty, his MP says that it would add too much to our workload. In my opinion, these are considerations are erroneous, and MPs should have read the bill in its entirety.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to welcome everyone back to this place, including Canadians who are watching at home. I am pleased to rise on our first day back to contribute to this debate on Bill C-228.

I want to start by thanking my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague who introduced this bill.

The context for this bill is important, because it concerns how we, as parliamentarians, understand our role in relation to international commitments that can bind Canada for decades, shape domestic law, and affect the lives of Canadians in very real ways. It is particularly timely as Canada seeks to forge new relationships during a precarious time in international affairs, development and trade.

Bill C-228 proposes a new statutory framework for parliamentary scrutiny of treaties before ratification. It would require treaties to be formally tabled here in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, before Canada can ratify them. It would establish a mandatory waiting period of at least 21 sitting days between tabling and ratification. It would define major treaties and require them to receive additional review and advice from our committees. It would also impose additional transparency obligations, including publication of treaties and related documents, while allowing for limited exceptions in urgent or exceptional circumstances provided that Parliament is informed afterwards.

These are significant proposals, and they raise important questions about balance: balance between efficiency and accountability, balance between executive authority and parliamentary oversight, and balance between Canada's need to act decisively on the world stage and Parliament's responsibility to scrutinize commitments made in Canada's name before they happen.

One strength of this bill is its attempt to bring clarity and consistency to a process that often feels opaque. Canada's current treaty policy, enacted in 2008 and updated in 2020, requires that treaties be tabled not before signature but only before ratification. This policy provides some visibility to the House but little formal influence. Ultimate authority remains with the Prime Minister and cabinet. This policy is known as the Ponsonby rule, and it was adopted from the U.K., where it has been in place since 1924. It was codified there into a law not dissimilar to this bill by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

The information provided here when treaties are tabled varies, and the opportunities for meaningful debate are often limited by time or by competing priorities here in the House. Our current process does not provide Parliament with much of a say, let alone a veto. The executive branch, through the Prime Minister and cabinet, retains authority to make, really, all the decisions. The goal of giving Parliament a chance to have more input and debate is therefore worthy. Transparency is not an abstract principle in the world we currently live in. It is the foundation of democratic consent, particularly when treaties affect domestic law, public spending or regulatory authority.

This really matters at a time when many Canadians feel the government is very far away and makes decisions without consulting them, and where some treaties are seen as limiting our sovereignty. Transparency builds trust, and trust is essential to governance. We seek to ensure that parliamentarians, and by extension Canadians, are not simply presented with a fait accompli.

This bill tries to distinguish between routine agreements and those that are truly consequential. This reflects a common-sense idea. The more significant the commitment, the more rigorous the scrutiny should be, but the way “major treaty” is currently defined in this bill is so broad that it risks capturing nearly every treaty Canada enters into, along with amendments. At the same time, it excludes memorandums of understanding, which can have huge consequences for Canada despite not being classified as treaties under the bill.

All of that having been said, the bill should not be dismissed out of hand. There is value in examining whether current practice reflects modern expectations of privacy and accountability. Codifying aspects of existing practice, as the U.K. has done, is not radical. Bill C-228 is well intentioned. It reflects a genuine desire to strengthen democratic oversight and public confidence in Canada's treaty process. As drafted, however, it raises real concerns about feasibility and balance.

I look forward to continuing this debate when time permits.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, former prime minister Stephen Harper established a new policy on the tabling and ratification of treaties through a ministerial statement in 2008. That policy remains in place under the current government.

Under that policy, treaties are tabled in the House of Commons 21 sitting days before ratification by the minister. Treaties that require changes to domestic law go through an additional process before ratification, which is when the enabling legislation has passed in Parliament. This procedure has served Canada well. The Conservative Party supports the practice of ensuring that Parliament is fully informed and consulted before binding action is taken with regard to any major new international treaty. Transparency is something that the Canadian people expect of all of us.

Bill C-228, though, is not about transparency. An act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act regarding the prior review of treaties by Parliament does not increase transparency. Instead, it would restrict the power of the minister. The bill, should it become law, would constrain the royal prerogative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs by requiring a committee review and report back to the House and by requiring the advice of the House before ratification. This would, to put it simply, make it more difficult to ratify treaties. Is that something we want to do? Is that something we should be doing?

I may not be a fan of the policies the government proposes. I may think it is mismanaging the affairs of the country, but I do not question its right to govern as it sees fit. It seems to me this is an attempt to remove that right.

If the bill were to become law, it would impose three requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs. First, it would require the minister to table major treaties along with an explanatory note in the House of Commons prior to ratification. That is already a policy and practice, but the bill would make such a tabling a legal requirement. Second, it would require that a committee of the House of Commons review the treaty and report back to the House prior to ratification. Third, the minister would be required to obtain the advice of the House prior to ratification.

The bill states that a “major treaty” is one that:

(a) requires for its implementation

(i) the enactment of an Act of Parliament,

(ii) the conferment of new powers on His Majesty in Right of Canada, or

(iii) the imposition of a tax by Parliament;

(b) imposes a significant direct or conditional financial obligation on Canada;

(c) concerns the transfer of part of Canada’s territory or any change to Canada’s boundaries;

(d) requires Canada to impose immediate or conditional economic or military sanctions on a state;

(e) concerns the territorial jurisdiction of Canada, including its jurisdiction over a maritime area or airspace;

(f) concerns international trade or investment or Canada’s position in the global economy; or

(g) concerns Canada’s participation in international institutions, including a transfer of jurisdiction to such institutions.

That covers a lot of territory. We can think of the number of proposed trade deals on the table at this time. We can think of our participation in the various international organizations we are a part of. About the only things that are not major treaties are memoranda of understanding.

This legislation does not seem to take into account the realities of Canada's place in the world and the complexity and scale of our international agreements. During the past 15 years, over 500 treaties have been signed by the government, which is a rate of more than one treaty tabled per sitting week. The level of oversight proposed by the legislation would require a significant increase in the workload of the House of Commons and its committees. Oversight of treaties would displace other business.

If the bill merely sought to codify the practice and procedure that has been in place in the House since 2008, I would have no problem with supporting it. It is the other aspects of the legislation that concern me, especially that it would add to the workload of our committees.

We are all aware that resources are limited. We are trying to serve the people of Canada in a cost-effective manner. Every committee I have served on in my more than 10 years in the House has struggled with the limited time available to it. Inevitably, there are topics and studies that many members would like to address that cannot move forward due to the limitations on time and committee resources. Can we, in good conscience, add to that workload? How long does it take to comprehensively examine a treaty, bring together witnesses and discuss its pros and cons? How would such a procedure delay the implementation of the treaty? How would this process be viewed by our international partners, who would see months or perhaps years of negotiation delayed, even after an agreement, by what they would see as unnecessary bureaucracy?

I would not be surprised to find that the bill, if passed, would lessen Canada's standing among the community of nations. We want to be known as a country that is easy to deal with, that can make deals and treaties quickly and that does not get bogged down in the process. We do not want to have a reputation as a nation that cannot make up its mind or that does not stand by its agreements.

I suspect that if this legislation were to pass, it would quickly be seen as the burden it is. In the interest of expediency, committees would, instead of reviewing the treaty, merely rubber-stamp it. They would call no witnesses and have no discussion. In which case, what would be the purpose of passing the legislation before us?

As someone who believes in the historical value of Parliament as the people's voice, I understand the intention behind someone wanting to ensure that the House of Commons would have a say in Canada's treaty process. However, there are some things that are just not practical. There is a difference between providing oversight and micromanagement. Though well intentioned, I think the bill might stray across the line from one to the other.

One of the things we must take into account when considering legislation is how easily it can be implemented. Passing new laws is the easy part; putting them into practice is an entirely different matter. It seems to me that Bill C-228, while it does have some good aspects, is one of those bills that would be easy to pass and extremely difficult to implement. We could pass it. We could also pass a bill to repeal the law of gravity. I think both have about the same likelihood of successful implementation.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister have us believe that we need to ally ourselves with Europe for a war? Who are we at war with, the United States? We could very well lose everything. The sense of security we enjoy in Canada is clearly directly linked to the United States and our continental approach. That needs to be reflected in our trade relations. A partnership with China risks provoking the United States, likely resulting in surtaxes on our purchases, which the U.S. has been threatening for a year. I think we could all have done without that. It will have an impact on the trade agreements covered by this bill.

On that note, I want to mention the leadership of the Bloc Québécois, which is trying to bring a little more transparency, a little more democracy, a little more accountability into the picture. Foreign policy and international policy cannot be rooted in emotions. We have seen that too often. We see what Donald Trump is doing and the damage it is causing. It is impacting all of our industries. Instead of constantly looking for solutions, why not strengthen our relations with the United States and many others?

What we do know is that Canada has more than 4,400 international treaties of all kinds. These are treaties, agreements, protocols, conventions and amendment agreements to existing treaties. They impact many aspects of people's lives, like taxation, investments, expropriations, environmental protection, human rights and labour rights. That is what is in these treaties. The Bloc Québécois wants to ensure that these treaties are tabled systematically in the House of Commons and that there is a period of at least 21 days after tabling before they are ratified so that the House has an opportunity to consider them. In the interest of transparency, which is sorely lacking in this government, the Bloc Québécois also wants these documents to be published in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

As for major treaties, we want to establish an obligation to seek advice from the House before they are ratified, of course, and to consult our civil society through a parliamentary committee, because major treaties affect everyone. We need to ensure that decisions are made and that they are sustainable.

In fact, treaties basically involves five stages. A mandate is created, which goes without saying. However, where does the mandate come from? It would be nice if it came from parliamentarians, given their role as elected representatives of the people. Next come negotiations. I realize that this requires some give and take, but the signing stage is important, and that is where Bill C-228 comes in. It requires that the text be tabled in the House of Commons and that the House, after a study in committee, provide its advice on these treaties.

Major treaties are treaties that require the enactment of an act of parliament, change the government's powers, impose a significant financial obligation, result in changes to Canada's boundaries, impose economic sanctions or transfer jurisdiction to international institutions, affect government jurisdictions or deal with international trade. Before reaching the implementation stage and, of course, the formal ratification stage, these treaties would all be ratified by Parliament. I think that makes sense.

Basically, Bill C-228 will ensure that the ratification process is democratic, so that we are no longer threatened by global events in high finance. It is important to solidify those foundations.

I want to point out that Quebec has also stipulated that the National Assembly must ratify international agreements and decrees. The National Assembly has a role to play here. Bill C-228 follows the example set by Quebec. The same thing exists in most countries in Europe. In the United States, Congress has given itself the mandate to negotiate. In Europe, the European Commission cannot enter into trade negotiations without the authorization of the European Parliament. These kinds of practices are common these days and considered normal for maintaining the essence of what is known as democracy.

However, this democracy is fragile. The Prime Minister has talked about this, and I agree with him. When we see countries arming themselves more and more, it raises some questions.

We see that the Prime Minister is going to China and opening the door to Chinese EVs. I have an electric vehicle myself, but I would never want to use a Chinese EV. First of all, I have no confidence in how it was manufactured. We know nothing about the traceability of the materials used, where they come from or, more importantly, the human rights that were violated in order to build these vehicles. These EVs may cost $10,000 or $20,000 less, but at what cost? I am talking about the lives of the workers, the children, who manufacture these vehicles and about mineral mining and the appropriation of global supply chains for strategic critical minerals. I think we all know that, once a vehicle is manufactured, imported and used, the consumer's data no longer belongs to them. I am talking about travel data, as well as all any conversations that may take place inside the vehicle. I do not trust the Chinese regime at all. When we buy from the United States, we are dealing with companies. When we buy a Chinese product, we are dealing with the Chinese government. For me, this is a real threat to democracy. We have opened the door to an agreement with China to have our data stolen. I think that the Prime Minister is setting an extremely dangerous precedent.

Afterwards, he went to Davos and said that we would be on the menu and that we need to wake up because the world has changed. Then he went to Quebec City and said that it turns out that we all misunderstood what happened 400 years ago, because it was actually the beginning of a partnership. I imagine that English Canadians are now telling themselves that, when their farms were burned down, it was the start of a warm relationship. When their wives were raped, it was perhaps the start of a relationship by blood tie, a friendly relationship. That is the message the Prime Minister delivered last week when he twisted history. I look forward to seeing how this all plays out. In the meantime, if we want things to change the right way and in a democratic fashion, the bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois should be passed by the House.

The House resumed from October 21, 2025, consideration of the motion 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.

An Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question, because her answer provided a nice segue. She just talked about the negotiations that took place under the government of Prime Minister Harper. However, that government also adopted a policy on introducing and tabling agreements and treaties in Parliament. Currently, that policy is not being followed, given that the government introduced the bill within a shorter period than required by this policy. This policy is supposed to enable us to do our work more effectively.

What does the member think about the government's failure to comply with the existing policy, which is still available on the Government of Canada's official website? Does she believe that a policy is not enough and that we need legislation like the one the Bloc Québécois is proposing in Bill C‑228?

An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to my colleague's comment that every party here agrees with the government and that we are just opposing for the sake of opposing.

There is something that my colleague has not considered. Parliament is very poorly consulted on trade agreements. We have no mechanism that would give us a say during the negotiation period or the ratification period of trade agreements. Bill C-228 would change that.

I would like my colleague to speak to the House's lack of transparency when it comes to trade agreements.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a question that has sadly gone unanswered all day by my Liberal colleagues.

Canada probably has one of the least democratic legislative assemblies when it comes to trade agreements and international treaties. The House does not have the means to make a sufficiently informed decision when it comes to ratifying these types of treaties, a situation that Bill C‑228 seeks to correct. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any appetite for this on the government side.

I would like to ask my colleague if she is comfortable with the fact that the majority of trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors, without the House of Commons being informed of what is happening. I would like to know what she thinks of this.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Jonquière introduced in the House Bill C-228 to ensure that all treaties are systematically tabled before the House of Commons, so that they can be debated and amended. This bill also includes a provision requiring a 21-day waiting period after a treaty is tabled before any action can be taken toward its ratification.

In relation to what we are discussing right now, the government has not complied with the 21-day deadline. The Liberals said that we do not need legislation because their policy already covers that. If we do not need legislation, then why are the Liberals not complying with their policy?