Debates of Oct. 6th, 1998

Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Chairman, Britain decided to do it under national defence rather than have a separate authority. Could the minister tell us why he has chosen to set up a separate authority rather than put it under another department?

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

Mr. Chairman, there are really three departments with an interest and an obligation under the act, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Health. We felt it would be better to provide a consortium of activities that would provide a certain unified approach as opposed to simply having one department and then having to borrow. It would not require additional person years. They would be assigned from the departments themselves to work in the authority.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Shall clause 10 as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Clause 10, as amended, agreed to)

(Clause 11 agreed to)

(On clause 12)

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. This article refers to the Minister of Health. My question is about an issue that has a profound impact on the environment and the health of Canadians, particularly those of us in British Columbia. It concerns the continued testing of nuclear arms and nuclear powered submarines at the Nanoose testing range in British Columbia.

Does the minister not recognize the very serious concerns of British Columbians about the continued use of the testing base at Nanoose Bay? Will he not give serious consideration to giving notice, as permitted under the provisions of the agreement between Canada and the United States, to terminate that agreement as a concrete manifestation of this government's concern about the potential impact of nuclear powered submarines and potentially nuclear armed submarines in Canadian waters?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge there is no evidence of any nuclear spillage coming from the test range at Nanoose.

Submarines in that area are self-contained and highly monitored in terms of whatever radioactivity may emit from the area. There is no evidence from anything that I have been able to gather that suggested there is an environmental pollution problem.

Regarding what may happen eventually in terms of Nanoose Bay, we have a reciprocal agreement with the United States on testing facilities in these areas. At this point in time the agreement is under operation and I see no reason for changing that.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a brief supplementary to the minister on the same issue.

The minister has referred to the environmental consequences of the Nanoose testing range. I want to ask the minister whether he is prepared to table with the foreign affairs committee any environmental assessments that have been done on the impact of this testing.

I know one of the concerns that the Nanoose conversion campaign has and many British Columbians who have looked at this range have is precisely that it seems difficult to get at any comprehensive environmental assessment of the impact of the range.

Will the minister undertake to make available to the foreign affairs committee and through that committee to British Columbians the results of any environmental assessments that have been done of the range?

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

Mr. Chairman, that would normally fall under the purview of my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. I will enquire with the Minister of National Defence to see what kind of studies they might have and see if they are publicly available.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Shall clause 12 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(Clauses 13 to 23 inclusive agreed to)

(On Clause 24:)

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

Mr. Chairman, I move:

That Bill C-52, in clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 9 on page 12 with the following:

Amendment to Schedule

1. The minister shall cause any amendment to the Treaty to be laid before each House of Parliament not later than fifteen days after it has been adopted by the Amendment Conference. The instrument of acceptance of the amendment by Canada shall not be tabled until the amendment has been approved by the House of Commons. Following the tabling of the instrument of acceptance by Canada, the minister shall, by order, amend the schedule accordingly and shall cause the order to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the order is made.

Mr. Chairman, we proposed a second amendment to this bill, which would require the minister to table the amendment in both Houses so that Parliament could pass it before the treaty was signed.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to quickly suggest that this amendment, because it creates a very distinct departure in the way treaties come about at the present time and that it is a precedent of course for treaties in the future, is really and truly beyond the scope of this bill. I would submit that as such it is out of order.

[The Deputy Chairman]

The amendment as presented is in order to be presented. If it is the pleasure of the committee to vote the amendment down, so be it, but the amendment is in order to be received.

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

Mr. Chairman, in November of last year, when the House was debating the bill to implement the land mines treaty, I moved a similar amendment, and we debated it with the minister and a number of members. I would not agree that it is out of order and I would like this to be debated today.

The minister will recall that last year, when we were debating the bill to implement the land mines treaty, we introduced a similar amendment. Although we recognize that this amendment would change the way treaties are concluded, we still think it would be useful to raise this point today, as a second bill is being introduced in the current session of Parliament.

We in the Bloc Quebecois think it important to democratize the process Canada follows in concluding its treaties by calling upon the House of Commons to debate treaties, including amending treaties, like the one we are being asked to implement through the legislative process today, before Canada signs them and agrees to be bound by them.

Treaties today are of such importance they must now be examined and discussed by the House of Commons and by Parliament. I would like to point out to the minister and my colleagues here that the practice in most of the governments of the Commonwealth, which share the parliamentary tradition of this House, is gradually evolving, be it in Australia, New Zealand or, more recently still, in the United Kingdom itself, where Parliament is much more closely involved than the House of Commons here in Canada.

We are proposing this amendment to initiate a practice that should be applied not only to amending treaties, but to all bilateral or multilateral treaties signed by Canada.

In our opinion, it is not sufficient that ministers—including the Minister for International Trade, and more so than the Minister of Foreign Affairs—involve the foreign affairs committee in the debate on certain treaties, as was done in the past with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, or now with a treaty that Canada intends to sign with the European Free Trade Association.

It was barely a few days ago that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for International Trade asked the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs to take part in the debate that is beginning on that treaty.

It is not enough to consult Parliament. Parliament should approve treaties before the government signs and ratifies them. Such is the purpose of the amendment. It seeks to change a practice, but that practice must be changed. It must be changed, so that what we experienced with the Multilateral Agreement on Investment—and which we may experience again if the government tries to prevent Parliament from debating such important treaties—will not happen again.

So, this is why are proposing an amendment which is minor but which would indeed make the government more accountable to this House when it signs treaties, including amending treaties.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was accurate when he said that we had this debate when we brought in the anti-personnel land mines treaty.

The same basic question remains. This is not a slight modification or amendment. It is a major constitutional change. What it recommends is that we begin moving toward a republican form of government, the cabinet style of government where parliament holds executives accountable, and the executive has to negotiate and deal with treaties. That would change in a very fundamental way.

I am not sure members at this stage, at the clause by clause discussion of the bill on comprehensive treaties, are prepared to undertake the significance and weight of making a major constitutional change. In a very practical way it would substantially alter the capacity of Canada to negotiate and deal with treaties.

It would cause the same kind of problems that the United States is now finding itself in, where it can sign treaties but never have them ratified. Unfortunately, that country has a long inventory of treaties which it is unable to ratify because of the requirement of the Senate to give its approval.

In cases where there is a disagreement between the executive branch and the legislative branch, it is simply not ratifying them. It is not even close to ratifying this treaty, as well as many other treaties that have similar kinds of context.

Fortunately in our system we have that capacity. The parliamentary system, in my humble view, is superior from that point of view. When the government makes a commitment internationally and it has a majority, it has the capacity to hold the pleasure of the House in making that kind of change.

I say to the hon. member, as experience has proven, we go out of our way to ensure that parliament is consulted. We have fundamentally changed the rules by which we work in the House in terms of any international action that we are going to take. We have debates in parliament. If parliament is not sitting or if it is not convenient, we go to the committees. In the case of these treaties, when they require legislative changes, we bring them in for full debate, such as we are having today.

At this point in time it would be very unwise to sneak in the back door, by way of amendment to this particular bill, something that would change the Constitution. If the hon. member wants to change the Constitution, there are other ways of doing it rather than doing it through this kind of format.

I would ask the indulgence of the House to say that the object of this bill is to have a comprehensive test ban treaty, to which Canada is a signatory, and not to change the Constitution.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the minister has stated a couple of things that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

I heard that the government can go off and sign international bills because it has a majority. Thirty-eight per cent of the people in this country voted for this government. That is not a majority. Sixty-two per cent did not. The arrogance of saying that we can sign whatever we want because of that is a little bit hard to take.

I also find it hard to take that we have gone off with the international court and with Kyoto. We have signed agreements and have not consulted the premiers or this parliament and we have not listened to Canadians. We say this is right and that this is democracy.

Mr. Chairman, that is not democracy. Canadians are starting to demand that we have a democratic system where we have transparency and openness, and where responsible decisions are made by members of the House. To say that we fairly and democratically debate in the House or in committee is a long stretch of the imagination.

This amendment is relatively simple and straightforward. It simply asks for some accountability from the Department of Foreign Affairs before international treaties are put forward and signed and that we would go to our colleagues in the House to ask their opinion. It is rather offensive to think that we would not listen to the people in a case like this.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in saying that, on behalf of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party, I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

I listened carefully to the minister's reply but, frankly, I think this amendment would give a little more power to members of Parliament from all parties. Should the amendment be rejected, I hope the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs will take an in-depth look at the issue raised by the hon. member.

I hope the House will adopt the motion. I realize this is a situation where we do not have the numbers required. But if the amendment is rejected here, I hope the committee can conduct a thorough review of this issue. This is an important proposal and we support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the minister, I do not think it can be claimed that an amendment such as this would change the form of the government. It would not take on the republican form he claims it would, because similar states such as Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have changed their conventional practices for the signing of treaties. But this does not mean that either Australia or New Zealand, much less the United Kingdom, have turned into republics.

Quite simply, all that is involved is changing a practice relating to the government's constitutional jurisdiction over the signing of treaties. At present, because of royal prerogative, the source of the federal government's jurisdiction in this area, parliament is not involved. This means that neither the House of Commons nor the Senate are involved in this process, which is now so very important. It is important because so many treaties impact on daily life, for instance the multilateral investment agreement or any other agreement that impacts greatly on the legislation we enact or on what people do.

Now, this is not a constitutional debate or a constitutional amendment, but rather a proposal for changing a practice that is totally undemocratic. It is not true that, under a presidential and parliamentary system like the one in the US, the government would be deprived of its means of negotiating treaties. In a system like ours, the government has the majority in the House anyway, or at the very least, in exception cases, it has to form a coalition with other parties to secure a voting majority.

So, the proposal to give Parliament a role in the signing of treaties would not in any way deprive the government of its power to negotiate international treaties with its partners or as a member of organisations or a participant at international conferences.

That is why I think that there must be a debate each time an implementation act is introduced and that is why I propose such a debate today. I am very glad to say that my colleagues from the NDP and those from the Reform agree with the Bloc Quebecois on that.

I will conclude by asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond positively to the request made by the hon. member from the New Democratic Party and to formally ask the foreign affairs committee to examine the practice concerning the signing of treaties. This could lead to changes similar to those implemented in other countries like Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, which are far ahead of Canada, a fact that can only be explained by than the refusal of the government to involve members of parliament and parliament itself in the signing of treaties, which are so important as this century is coming to a close and certainly be important in the next.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by putting again to the minister the question my hon. colleague just asked, which is would the minister agree to the suggestion made by the NDP member and refer the issue to the foreign affairs committee to ensure that in the future we have a more reality-based approach to managing this kind of initiative, since we know that parliaments based on the British tradition, such as Australia, New-Zealand, the United Kingdom, do so.

Would it not be better for all involved if this discussion could help avoid similar debates in the future and lead to some kind of compromise?

I also want to raise another point in favour of our amendment. Even though it were to be an exception, would it not be appropriate in the case of the act to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, to pass this amendment? These are major issues that concern the very future of our society and deal with very important elements.

I just want to remind the House that, under this legislation, signatories make a commitment not to carry out nuclear weapon test blasts. This is serious business, very important stuff. These are major issues that relate to our responsibilities as parliamentarians.

For this specific bill, would it not be better to pass the amendment so that the legislation can be considered, even if it means that it would then be referred to the foreign affairs committee, as was suggested by the NDP member?

[The Deputy Chairman]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Chairman]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Chairman]

All those opposed will please say nay.