Debates of Dec. 1st, 1999

Canadian Tourism Commission Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see a quorum. Resuming debate.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Several of my colleagues have already explained the Bloc Quebecois' view of the bill. The bill can be summed up as follows.

It creates a sort of crown corporation, to be known as the Canadian Tourism Commission. If we look at the summary which appears at the beginning of the bill, and again in clause 5, we read that the commission's objects are to:

a

) sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry;

b

) market Canada as a desirable tourist destination;

c

) support a cooperative relationship between the private sector and the governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories with respect to Canadian tourism; and

d

) provide information about Canadian tourism to the private sector and to the governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories.

Since 1995 Canada has had a tourism commission, although it was not formally instituted like the one proposed in the bill.

The commission will have the same mandate it always did, which is to develop, direct, administer and implement programs to increase and promote tourism at home and abroad.

For the present government, any and all means are acceptable when it comes to fighting Quebec sovereignty. Or, to put it another way, anything goes. The end justifies the means.

Never before, as far as we can remember, has Canada worked so hard at gaining visibility, at selling itself, as it has since the Bloc Quebecois arrived in Ottawa.

It is not much of a stretch to then conclude that one of the unavowed objectives of this bill is to encourage and enhance the visibility of the Government of Canada, and to bolster the spirit of national unity it holds so dear. There may be some laudable intentions behind this bill, and these are expressed in the preamble to the bill proper.

For instance, the Government of Canada announces its intention to “work with the governments of the provinces and the territories and the Canadian tourism industry to promote the interests of that industry”.

However, the majority of the “whereases” set out in the preamble are of such a nature as to give me pause as far as the real intentions of the Government of Canada are concerned. Every time it gets a chance it repeats over and over again that it wishes to respect provincial jurisdiction, but here we have in writing:

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and cultural identity and integrity of Canada;

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry makes an essential contribution...to the economic objectives of the Government of Canada

With such “whereases”, what about Quebec's cultural identity? What might happen if the economic goals of Canada and Quebec differ?

Why such a bill, when the provinces, especially Quebec, already have their own infrastructure, their own well developed tourism network, and their own strategy, which is better suited to the needs and characteristics of their respective territories?

How could the needs of each province be better served by a Canadian tourism commission that will be expected to promote several competing products? How will the commission allot its promotion budget among various tourism products?

Let us have a closer look at the bill.

First, clauses 7 to 14 provide for the organization of the board of directors, which will consists of not more than 26 directors. The Deputy Minister of Industry is, ex officio, a director of the commission. The chairperson, who will hold office on a part time basis, and the president, who will hold office on a full time basis, will both be appointed by the governor in council for a term of not more than five years.

With the approval of the governor in council and on the advice of a committee established by the board of directors, the Minister of Industry will appoint 16 private sector directors for a term of not more than three years. Nine will be private sector representatives and seven will be tourism operators and represent the various regions. The appointment of the latter will be done in the manner prescribed in the act.

It is stipulated that there will be two from the maritimes, one from Quebec, one from Ontario, one from British Columbia and the Yukon, one from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and one from Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

The same process will be used to select private sector representatives who, before being appointed by the Minister of Industry, will first be designated by the provincial or territorial ministers responsible for tourism. These directors will either be deputy ministers or the equivalent or heads of provincial or territorial agencies.

What is surprising in this part of the bill is clause 11(5), which gives three definitions. It is obvious that the bill was drafted in a hurry. I would like somebody to shed some light on this for me some day.

I would now like to look at the three definitions in clause 11(5): private sector director, tourism operator and private sector representative. These three expressions are defined and clause 11(5) specifies that “The definitions in this subsection apply in this section”.

I have read these three definitions over and over again but I could not make anything out of them. I do not possess the necessary philological knowledge to make an expert comment on this text, nor the expertise to compare the French and English definitions. Perhaps members can follow me as I go through these extraordinary definitions.

A private sector director is a tourism operator. A tourism operator is an owner or a manager of a private sector tourism business. The private sector director is a private sector representative. Why use two terms that mean the same thing?

I am really surprised. La Palisse himself could not have done better, and he was the expert on truisms. A private sector director is a private sector representative. Is this not obvious?

What is the owner or manager of a business if not a private sector director? Again, I do not have the answer, because this is the definition given. The bill says that the director is an operator and that the operator is an owner or a manager of a private sector tourism business.

The third definition is that of the private sector representative. This is quite the find: the private sector representative is a tourism operator. Can anyone tell me the difference between a private sector director who is a tourism operator and a private sector representative who is a tourism operator? How will we distinguish between the two on the board?

This is a new element that will open the door to arbitrary decisions and political patronage. I must say that the English version of that definition sheds a different light, since it specifies that the person to be appointed will have to have the expertise required to satisfy the board's needs. This means that the person appointed may be someone who is really needed and not a person who is being rewarded for political reasons.

When the time comes to conduct a clause by clause review of the bill and to propose amendments, it would be appropriate for the government to take a serious look at clause 11(5) and to make the necessary changes so that the definitions are, as the Prime Minister likes to say, very clear, very precise and mutually exclusive. Dictionaries exist to provide definitions which are usually mutually exclusive.

This is not a dictionary of synonyms. It is a series of definitions to define which people will sit on the commission's board and what their duties will be. Perhaps the legislator intends to have vague, imprecise, obscure and mutually inclusive definitions to be in a position to appoint friends of the government, regardless of their qualifications.

The government has its work cut out for it, because it has a bad habit of refusing any suggestions for amendments, however brilliant, from the opposition parties. It will therefore have to go back to the drawing board if we are to know exactly whom it has in mind.

Clauses 15 to 28 cover the other features of the bill, such as the duties of the chairperson and the chief executive officer, head office and meetings, remuneration and fees, and compensation. Clause 26 specifies that:

26.(1) The Commission may enter into an agreement with the government of any province or territory to carry out its objects.

Then, beginning with clause 29, the bill launches into a series of transitional provisions for transferring the activities of the former commission to the new one. The last four clauses contain the consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Financial Administration Act and, finally, the Privacy Act.

I drew the House's attention to the fact that one act has again been omitted; every time a commission or agency is established, we want to see a specific reference to the Official Languages Act. Once again, the government has left out this piece of legislation. We might once again see that translated into facts, when the advertizing fails to point out that tourism in Canada can be done in French or in English, depending on where the tourist registers.

Some will claim that mentioning that act in this bill is not necessary since Canada is officially a bilingual country, but I really wish that an amendment along those lines be seriously considered at committee stage.

Now that we have a fairly good idea of the bill's contents, let us see what kind of a political impact it could have. With the establishment of this commission, the government provides itself with a parallel organization that will allow it to escape accountability. Of course, the commission will report to Parliament like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada do.

Having an organization reporting to Parliament is very useful: all the scandals occurring are overlooked. A report is produced and someone opposite rises in the House and says “I have the honour to table, in both official languages, this report”. But accountability is really avoided. Parliament will be informed through the commission's board of directors. But the minister will always find a way to walk away from ministerial responsibility.

We are witnessing the implementation of a new way of managing public assets and funds. This time, a commission is created; last year, it was agencies: the Revenue Agency, the Canadian Parks Agency and the Agri-Food Agency.

What distinction does the government make between a commission and an agency? I did not find the answer. It is as if the country were asking a third party to monitor all the actions of its politicians. A commission or an agency is almost the equivalent of a contracting out system. Who will account for the actions of the commission?

The bill provides that, within the limits of the Financial Administration Act, the commission will be given greater leeway to purchase the goods and services necessary for the programs established by the board of directors.

The new system will make it easier to contract out consulting and advertising services. One can readily see that it will be easier for the commission to act from outside a department rather than from inside. Easier to operate also means easier to elude the control of the House.

To understand the Bloc's opposition to this bill, one must realize that, for us, Tourism Canada is a duplication of Tourisme Québec, which is already in place and functions very well.

In several speeches made by its members and in the throne speech, the Liberal government promised to withdraw from provincial jurisdictions. This bill shows today that visibility comes first, regardless of the cost.

Can the vision of the federal government in terms of tourism development really compete with the diversified and positive vision of Quebec?

Will the goals of the commission and the actions it will take support the strategy put forward by Tourism Quebec? Can we trust that this commission will work at consolidating the tourism centres of Montreal and Quebec City when we know an agreement could not even be achieved on the expansion of the Palais des Congrès in Montreal? Yet it is the driving force of the tourism strategy in the greater Montreal area. How can we rely on this new commission?

The greater Montreal area and Quebec City play a strategic role in the Quebec tourism industry. They are showcasing the province of Quebec for the benefit of foreign markets. Montreal's international reputation is based on its economic and cultural strength. Tourism has greatly sustained and promoted this strength.

Quebec's distinctive culture has been the focus of our tourism strategy for many years now. Quebec has been able to successfully feature its cultural uniqueness through many of its attractions and events. Will the commission continue on that track?

Quebec is known for its distinct culture in North America. Quebec's tourism policy is based on this characteristic. Tourism Quebec is one of Quebec's main engines in promoting its distinctiveness on the world markets. Will the new commission be able to do the same?

Instead of pushing for the federal government to get involved, would it not be better to financially support the provinces that, especially where Quebec is concerned, have proven quite successful in this area?

The Bloc will vote against this bill mainly because it duplicates what is already being done, and quite successfully, in the provinces and because, on the face of it, this bill looks like a new propaganda tool for the Liberal government to gain more visibility.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's intervention and speech.

First of all, I would like to touch on the issue of accountability because that has come up a number of times in debate. This comes under the Financial Administration Act. By doing that, it will come under the ambit of the audit of the auditor general. I wonder why the member dismisses that. The auditor general is fairly well respected by parliament. In fact, he just gave a report the other day, accounting a number of areas, some of them not all that complimentary to the government but at the same time giving us, as parliamentarians, the ability to look into these organizations and recommend changes that would improve their efficiency and effectiveness and basically be of value to the taxpayers of Canada.

First, I want to ask the member what more accountability she would like to see. Does she not respect the auditor general? Does she think the auditor general is not doing an effective job?

Second is the issue of duplication. I understand Tourisme Québec is a very effective organization in bringing tourists to Quebec. Surely the member would respect the concept that when people travel to other countries, they often want to experience a multiplicity, a multifaceted experience when they visit those areas. While we are a huge geographical country, it seems to me that if people come to Ontario, they would also like to go to Quebec. The same thing when we go to the maritime provinces, we would like to experience Quebec.

When I travel to Europe, I do not just go to France while I am there. Since I expended such a great amount of money to get there, I like to also go to other European countries. I have done the same thing in Africa and India. I would assume that tourists coming to Canada would like to experience the same thing.

Why can the member not see tourism, a crown corporation, being a major benefit? It is not a duplication in the sense that all those people that would have come via Tourisme Québec would also come from Tourism Canada. They are identical people. In fact, Quebec will benefit by the fact that there is another marketing tool out there, whether it is in Europe, Asia or the United States. It can only be a positive thing for Quebec and for the rest of Canada that we complement each other in our tourist ventures and that we try to increase our economic well-being, whether it is in Quebec or Ontario, or anywhere else in this country.

I wonder why the member has such blinders on and sees this as a fence around Quebec and that only Quebec could possibly enjoy the tourist trade of people coming to Canada.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment and his questions. But I would like to come back to certain aspects based not on theory but on experience.

Often, when we ask questions of the government, it tells us it cannot answer a particular question because it is a matter for the board of directors, whether we are talking of Telefilm Canada, the CBC, or another corporation.

For those crown corporations, agencies or commissions that have boards of directors, this is the board's primary responsibility. There are crown corporations like Telefilm Canada, for example, that escape the scrutiny of the auditor general, unlike the CBC, where the auditor general has the legislative mandate to conduct an audit every five years. This is not the case for Telefilm Canada or for the National Film Board, and they somehow escape the scrutiny of the auditor general.

It is not enough to say that, where public finances are concerned, reference is made to very specific legislation. We must go beyond that. If we want to make absolutely sure that the auditor general will be able to take a close look at the commission's finances, it must be spelled out in the bill. Otherwise, he could very well not be able to do so.

So it seems extremely important to me to consider all these questions and to find the necessary answers that will guarantee the kind of transparency we want, so that the commission can have all the credit it will certainly deserve if it helps Montreal get a bigger convention centre.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must inform the House that, starting now, the length of speeches will be 10 minutes.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are bills that are introduced in the House the purpose and even the necessity of which is easy for all to see. With other bills, we have reservations on a few points or even fundamental differences, but at least we can understand their purpose and significance. In this case it is exactly the opposite. Let me explain. It is easy to understand.

This bill is based on the first four paragraphs of the preamble. I will go through them, and members will see that, as a matter of fact, it is based on next to nothing.

I will explain. Here is the first paragraph in French:

—que l'industrie touristique canadienne est essentielle à l'identité et à l'intégrité sociale et culturelle du Canada;

Did members get that? The tourism industry is vital to the Canadian identity. What happens if the tourist industry disappears? Will the Canadian identity disappear too? Should we infer that it could not survive? This is not a mistranslation. I checked the English version, because I suspected a mistranslation. I could not believe anybody could write that the tourism industry was vital to Canadian unity, so I checked the English version. Here it is:

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry is vital to the social and cultural identity and integrity of Canada

Without the tourism industry, will the social and cultural identity and the integrity of Canada disappear? Come on. This does not seem very serious. I cannot believe that it is so fragile and so dependent on foreign visitors. In other words, if foreigners do not come to see us, Canada no longer has a cultural identity and social integrity.

Hon. members will admit that whoever wrote this probably had a bad night and was somewhat out of his or her mind. It is unthinkable to find a whereas as hare-brained as this one, if I can put it that way, at the beginning of the bill. Let us get serious.

I looked at the second whereas, absolutely convinced that I would now find something substantial. This is what it is said:

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry makes an essential contribution to the economic well-being of Canadians and to the economic objectives of the Government of Canada;

This is true, but not only of the tourism industry. Does this mean that we have to create a Canadian commission for every industry that makes a major contribution to the economic well-being of Canadians and to the economic objectives of the Government of Canada?

That is what the whereas is all about. It is one of the reasons this bill is before us. If this is so important for the tourist industry, would it not be equally important for any other? I have to say that I do not believe we could name a single industry that did not make a vital contribution to the economic well-being of the people who derive their livelihood from it, the people of Canada or of Quebec.

Let hon. members name one industry that we could do without because it has no importance. I agree the importance of some may be relative, but the importance of tourism is certainly considerable. Yet how many more are also of great importance to the economic well-being of ordinary people? Are we to have a commission for each?

That is the second whereas in the preamble, and hon. members will agree with me that it is pretty weak. It could apply to anything at all, not just the tourist industry in particular. Who in heaven's name wrote this? Who is the one that had this brilliant idea? It makes no sense.

Perhaps the third whereas will offer us some clarification and will show us that this bill is really a serious one, that there are really pressing reasons for it to be passed.

It reads as follows:

Whereas the Canadian tourism industry consists of mainly small and medium-sized businesses that are essential to Canada's goals for entrepreneurial development and job creation;

Most jobs in Canada and in Quebec are in small and medium sized business, not just those in tourism. For instance, neighbourhood convenience stores are important. Are they going to create a Canadian convenience store commission? How about getting serious here. This third pillar is being presented as a fundamental argument in support of the bill. This pillar is just as far off as the first two.

Only one pillar is left, now—the fourth one. Let us examine it.

Whereas it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment to Canadian tourism [—]

Whereas it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment? Is it really desirable to do so? This is an unwarranted affirmation; or I am missing something.

I have looked. Perhaps it was explained on the preceding page why it was desirable; perhaps. But there is no explanation to be found in the recommendation or in the summary. Who said it was desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment to Canadian tourism? Who made this statement? Where does it come from? Can anyone explain why?

I do not want anyone to get me wrong. I think tourism is an important industry in the economic fabric of Canada and Quebec, and in my own riding I am an ardent proponent of tourism. As a matter of fact, money spent promoting tourism produces the biggest, and the fastest, bang for the buck. And, in my riding, investments in this sector have paid off handsomely.

But does it necessarily follow that it is desirable to strengthen Canada's commitment? If Canada wants to use my tax dollars and those of the average Canadian to help the tourism industry, it does not need to establish a commission. It seems to me this is only common sense.

This bill rests on four pillars; four extremely fragile pillars that make no sense. I do not know who wrote these four “whereases”. Obviously, the person did not examine the matter seriously. It does not come across as serious; neither I nor anyone else is convinced.

But there is one thing in the bill that struck me—the fact that there will be a board of directors. And that, to all intents and purposes, the directors will be appointed by the Prime Minister.

Then I began to see the light. The four pillars just mentioned, the four “whereases”, are not the important thing here. The important thing is those 16 persons who will be appointed to the board of directors. That is the important issue.

Let us get serious. The tourist industry has been developing quite well for a long time now both in Quebec and in Canada. Quebec has created institutions, developed tools. Municipalities, urban communities and agencies have all worked hard to promote the tourist industry.

If the federal government, with our tax money, wants to support the tourist industry, I am all for it. But if the federal government wants to do some window dressing just to reward its friends, then I have to be against it. Tourism is much more than that; it is more important, much more important than this useless creature.

This bill insults our intelligence; it is an insult to taxpayers and to all Canadians and Quebecers. This bill should never have been introduced. It should never have been drafted. It should be withdrawn.

I will of course vote against it; I know all my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois will do the same and I encourage all members in this House to vote against it. I see my time is up. I thank all members for their attention and I hope they will agree with what I said.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Treaties Act

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

moved that Bill C-214, an act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons when treaties are concluded, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce Bill C-214 providing for the participation of the House of Commons when treaties are concluded. I would like to ask all members of the House of Commons to support this bill so that it can one day become law.

A vote for this bill would give a new voice to all members, would confer increased legitimacy on treaties and finally would democratize the process by which the state assumes international obligations.

As I speak, the 135 member states of the World Trade Organization are gathered in Seattle to launch the millennium round of negotiations and start international trade negotiations that will end in the signing of many treaties.

These treaties will create international obligations for the states that are parties to them, and will have to be implemented through legislation the House of Commons will have to consider, the same way it had to pass implementing legislation for the agreements reached during the Uruguay round, which preceded the current millennium round of negotiations.

Other negotiations are in fact going on, whether on bilateral treaties on social security or investment protection, or on multilateral treaties on disarmament, human rights or trade.

These negotiations will also lead to international treaties that will have a significant impact on people's lives, on businesses and also on government institutions. The number of such treaties is constantly increasing.

During a study that I conducted in 1992 for the Commission des questions afférentes à l'accession du Québec à la souveraineté, I found 1,388 treaties that were in effect in Canada on April 30, 1991. From 1992 to 1998, at least 644 other treaties came into effect, and we must now add the 84 treaties for which measures were taken in 1999.

While globalization has something to do with the increase in the number of international legal treaties, it should not diminish the legislative sovereignty of the House of Commons and deprive it of its authority to look at the content of these numerous treaties.

Such a power is necessary for important treaties, those which are likely to have a significant and lasting impact on our country.

This is why clause 7 of Bill C-214 provides that no treaty shall be ratified by Canada unless the House of Commons has first approved the treaty by resolution.

Such approval would be necessary for important treaties, as defined in clause 2 of the bill that I am tabling in the House. An important treaty includes any treaty whose implementation requires the enactment of an act of parliament, treaties creating international institutions, treaties on international trade and many other treaties listed in the bill.

As set out in clause 7(2) of this bill, approval by the House of Commons would not include the power to amend the text of a treaty, because the approval would be on the text of a treaty already signed. This would preserve the government's margin of manoeuvrability in negotiations and would allow it to sign treaties without fear that the House of Commons would subsequently reject terms that had already been validated by signing.

The purpose of such a clause is, moreover, to restore—and I stress this, to restore—a parliamentary practice whereby major treaties were approved by resolution of this House, a practice first implemented in 1923 at the instigation of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, and confirmed for treaties in general, and treaties relating to military and economic sanctions in particular, in 1926.

Prime Minister Mackenzie King stated, moreover, that the practice meant that “with the exception of treaties of lesser importance or in cases of extreme urgency, the Senate and the House of Commons are invited to approve treaties, conventions and formal agreements before ratification by or on behalf of Canada”.

The last instance of a treaty deemed important was back in 1966, when the House of Commons and the Senate approved the Auto Pact, on January 16, 1966 and January 30, 1966 respectively. Since that time, the Government of Canada has not submitted any treaty to this House for approval, although it has implied in certain documents, certain memoranda from the Department of Foreign Affairs, that such a practice is still in effect.

Despite their importance, neither the Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada, nor NAFTA, nor the recent treaties on landmines and disarmament, were approved by this House before the government expressed its consent to be bound by them. Thirty-three years have elapsed since parliament really had a say in the process leading to the signing of treaties and when it could make a detailed examination of the treaties subject to its approval.

Bill C-214 also provides, in clause 8, that the tabling of treaties be based on legal requirement instead of being left at the discretion of the government of the day. Inspired by the British Ponsonby rule, but based on no particular legislative or constitutional rule, the tabling of treaties in the Parliament of Canada was done sporadically and interrupted without explanation in 1990. Even extradition treaties, which had to be tabled pursuant to section 7 of the Extradition Act, were not tabled. In this case, the government clearly violated a legislative obligation to table extradition treaties.

Following my remarks on this subject after my election on June 2, 1997, the practice of tabling has resumed: the Minister of Foreign Affairs forwarded to the Clerk of the House of Commons, on January 8, 1999, seven extradition treaties, accompanied by a list of these treaties and a letter indicating that they were being tabled pursuant to Standing Order 32(1).

I must add, however, that section 7 of the Extradition Act has been abrogated. The obligation to table treaties was abrogated by Bill C-40, in spite of my strong opposition and my attempt to amend section 8 of the bill during its examination on November 23, 1998 by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, by replacing its wording with the wording of section 7 of the old act.

In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs tabled, on April 13, 1999, the treaties concluded by Canada in 1995-96, accompanied by a list of these treaties. Only a few days ago—and I guess they did it in anticipation of today's debate—on November 26 and 29, treaties signed in 1991 and 1992 and in 1989 and 1990 were tabled by the parliamentary secretary. We are still waiting for the treaties signed in 1993 and 1994 and in 1997 and 1998, not to mention the 84 treaties on which measures were taken this year, none of which has yet been tabled in the House.

Canadian parliamentarians should not be subject to the arbitrariness of the government in this regard and should be informed of all international treaties signed by Canada, through their being tabled in the House.

To make these treaties easier to understand, they should include as an attachment explanatory memorandum containing, as provided under clause 8(3) of Bill C-214, a statement of Canada's obligations under the treaty, a summary of any legislation that must be enacted by parliament in order to implement the treaty and other relevant information.

By adopting this provision, the House of Commons would not be innovating, since three other Commonwealth parliaments, namely those of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the mother of all the Commonwealth parliaments, adopted similar rules and explanatory memoranda were sent to all parliamentarians.

Bill C-214 also includes provisions requiring the government to publish treaties rapidly and to post them as quickly as possible on a government website.

The purpose of clauses 11 and 14 is to ensure that treaties are published within certain time limits, that is, in the

Canada Gazette not later than 21 days after being ratified, in the Canada Treaties Series

not later than three months after being ratified and in an electronic version even more rapidly, as would be necessary, that is, not later than seven days after being ratified.

The current publication practices are so inadequate and there is so little transparency that no treaty is reproduced in the

Canada Gazette except for extradition treaties and that only 32 of the 34 treaties on which measures were taken in 1999 were published in the Canada Treaties Series

. I checked this a few hours ago with the Library of Parliament, and none of these treaties are on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, with the exception—and I also checked this as of today—of the North American free trade agreement, which is mentioned under the heading “Regional and Bilateral Agreements”.

This bill would correct an obvious deficiency, allowing ordinary citizens as well as parliamentarians to have access to international treaties.

Bill C-214 also contains four clauses on the negotiation and the conclusion of treaties that I would like to bring to the attention of this House.

While recognizing the respective jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments regarding the conclusion of treaties in areas under the exclusive authority of either level of government—I must mention at this point that we consider the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine in this respect to be in accordance with the Canadian Constitution—clauses 5 and 6 of the bill are aimed at fostering co-operation between the federal government and the provinces when the treaties being negotiated are joint treaties in an area under the authority of both the federal and provincial levels of government. Treaties of this kind are numerous.

In fact, clause 5 of the bill provides that the federal government will have to enter into an agreement with each provincial government on the manner in which it will consult the provincial governments.

In fact, the premiers asked for this kind of agreement during their annual conference that was held in August. Clause 5 reflects the desire of 10 provinces which want to see an end to improvisation in this respect, and the federal government commit, in a formal and permanent manner, through an agreement among governments, to involve the provinces in the negotiating process and the conclusion of international treaties that have a significant impact on provincial governments and legislatures.

Before I conclude with the presentation of Bill C-214, I want to thank my parliamentary intern, Mr. Gibran van Ert, who helped me to draft this bill last spring and got so interested in this field that he has decided to address this issue in the master thesis he will be working on this year at the University of Toronto, highlighting some of the work of two renown internationalists, Mr. Alan Gotlieb and Mrs. Anne-Marie Jacomy-Millette.

I also want to thank my parliamentary assistant, Éric Normandeau, for all the preparatory work he did on this bill every step of the way and for his continued support and loyalty. Lastly, I would like to thank legislative counsel Louis-Philippe Côté who put Bill C-214 in perfect legal form.

In conclusion, I advocate changes to the treaty process and I want to convince the federal government and the parliamentarians, even those in opposition, that the time has come to reform the obsolete process being used by the government. The process has been changed elsewhere in the Commonwealth, but not here, in the House of Commons.

As elected representatives, we have to change the process in order to give our fellow citizens the opportunity to express their views on international treaties. In the short term, we need to change the process used in the House of Commons and I intend to advocate changes to the role the House of Commons plays in negotiating and implementing international treaties.

As we move into the next century, is it not our duty, where treaties are concerned, to meet this democratic challenge?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-214, an act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons when international treaties are concluded.

I support the bill. I encourage everyone in the House of Commons to support it. There is a real lack of consultation and approval in the treaty making process. I wonder if people watching and listening to the debate today realize how much the House of Commons is cut out of the action when it comes to international treaties.

We get a chance to vote on an odd treaty which comes before the House, maybe a free trade agreement, but between 1994 and 1999 during the life of the government it has signed 470 international treaties and has ratified 295 treaties.

Most members of the House of Commons have never seen them and know almost nothing about them because the government handles them behind closed doors. The negotiations take place behind closed doors. The signing takes place behind closed doors. I do not even know who signs them. We do not even know who negotiates on our behalf. The government takes a group of NGOs, a big group of bureaucrats and a whole bunch of other people, and they all head over on a big bus to sign the deal. Then we do not learn about it until we read about it in the papers.

This is what the bill is meant to address. It is a perfect redress to this lack of democracy. What is happening right now has happened for too long in the House of Commons. Too much power has been vested in the Prime Minister and in his cabinet and not enough power is spread around to other members of the House.

The bill properly addresses the requirement of the government to be part of international agreements and negotiations but to come back to the House for consultation and approval. This is a good balance for the government and the House of Commons when assembled together.

The Reform Party believes that Canadians have a right to be consulted about international treaties. We believe it should happen through their duly elected representatives in parliament. We also believe that public debate, public discussion and public input are ways to improve treaties and to improve public participation in our democratic process. This is not something to be feared or something to be hidden or something to run from. The bill adequately addresses those points.

Canadians expect the House of Commons to advance solutions. Not just the bureaucrats, not just the government, but the entire House of Commons should put our minds and our best ideas together on all issues, certainly on international treaties which affect all of us in our day to day lives. Presently that expectation is not being met.

Bill C-214 sets out to change the problematic process of hidden negotiations. There was the problem which the government faced last year concerning all the rumours surrounding the MAI. Concerns were expressed about what the government was negotiating and proposing. What was our position in the negotiations? When it comes back, will we have a chance to ratify it before we are signed on to an agreement that will affect everyone in Canada?

The bill would ensure that it comes back to the House to be debated and talked about. We will approve it as an entire House. The government may decide to push it through with its vote, but at least we would have a debate and at least we would have a vote. Then Canadians would have a full hearing and a full airing of these important discussions.

The bill provides that all important international treaties must be tabled in the House of Commons for approval by resolution. No treaty may be ratified unless approved. This is a good balance between the necessity for the government to negotiate, to do fine work on behalf of all Canadians and through their representatives in the House of Commons to put a final stamp on it showing that we think it is a good idea.

The bill also provides that every international treaty shall be tabled for 21 sitting days prior to ratification. In other words, we will all have a chance to look at it. We will all have a chance to go through it with a fine tooth comb if that is our wish. Very importantly, an explanatory memorandum accompanies the bill, something which explains why it is in the best interest of Canada, whether there are tax implications, how it will affect Canadians, whether there are estimated expenditures to which the government might be obligating Canada, and all such things that Canadians expect us to keep an eye on. Under the current system they do not get the opportunity. This bill does not stop the government from doing its job; it just entitles all Canadians and all of us who are duly elected representatives to scrutinize these 400 or 500 international treaties that Canada has signed on to.

This bill proposes that the government not be permitted to ratify or modify a treaty without House of Commons approval, after the treaty has been tabled for 21 days. That would provide a good opportunity to go through the details.

Reform agrees with the provisions of the bill, but we would like the legislation to go even further. Before I explain that I would like to state our policy on treaty negotiations. Our policy book states that parliament should be asked to approve all agreements or declarations before they are ratified as Canadian positions. We think it is a good idea to include parliamentarians early on in the process.

I wrote a dissenting opinion following the foreign policy review in 1994. I wrote 40 or 50 pages which I am sure the Speaker has in his library. I wrote about the dismay that many of us felt when the government continued to sign agreements. In one case, the hon. André Ouellet announced Canada's support for a United Nations standing army, even while the standing committee was reviewing Canada's foreign policy.

The Prime Minister made a major policy address on the need for UN reform two weeks before the committee reported its findings to parliament. That undermines and undercuts the role of parliamentarians and places all the power and influence in the Prime Minister's hands. In this bill the Prime Minister would have a role, the cabinet would have a role, but the House of Commons would also have a role in the making of international treaties.

We only have to look at what happened in Seattle these last couple of days to see how important people feel international agreements have become. They are in many ways more important than the day to day business we do in the House because the hundreds of treaties that are signed by the government on our behalf make commitments on behalf of all Canadians on issues like trade, human rights, women's issues, family issues and the environment. They commit the House and Canada to billions and billions of dollars and legislative responses on any number of issues and Canadians do not have a chance to see them first. They should have that opportunity.

In our recently released foreign policy review, which was released by our foreign affairs critic a week or so ago, there is a four point proposal. The review goes into some detail, but I will quickly say that parliamentary ratification would be needed for all treaties. We would require an impact statement similar to the one outlined in this bill. We also ask that these international agreements work to strengthen co-operative federalism. If an agreement affects provincial jurisdiction, the provinces should be brought in early to make sure they understand the impact it will have on the provinces. That is one way to improve federalism. Perhaps it is a solution the Prime Minister should be thinking about.

All of these discussions and debates would help to better inform the public of what it is that Canada is doing on the international stage. Canada does a lot of good work. Most of these treaties would be routinely endorsed, but Canadians need to know about them. The best way to let them know is to have debates in the House of Commons.

I support this bill, and happily so, but I urge that we consider in the days to come even more ways of increasing the accountability of international treaties. We would like to see a national interest impact analysis, very similar to the one proposed in this bill's explanatory memorandum, but we would also like to see a family impact statement. How would this affect the family? Would it have tax implications? How would it affect children? Those things should be discussed and debated. The government should table them in the House when it tables the bill.

Our foreign affairs minister said earlier this year in New York, when he was talking about the security council, that we want to make the council more transparent, more democratic and more open. The trends have been going the other way. Our job is to express our concerns and introduce alternate options.

More transparency, more democracy and more accountability are what the bill will bring to the House of Commons and I am happy to support it.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate at second reading stage of Bill C-214, sponsored by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

This bill deals with the Canadian practice with regard to the conclusion of treaties, an important element of the Government of Canada's prerogative.

First of all, I must tell the House that the government does not intend to support Bill C-214 for the following reasons.

This bill seriously affects the division of powers in Canada and questions certain priority aspects of Canada's foreign policy.

Today, the international context has a direct impact on the daily lives of Canadians. They are increasingly mobile and travel around the world to work and do business. Since an increasing number of problems go beyond traditional boundaries, countries adopt more and more a concerted approach to solve these problems, whether they relate to the fight against crime, the promotion of peace, disarmament, environmental protection, sustainable development or international trade.

This concerted approach leads to an ongoing international dialogue and to an increasing number of international agreements, as evidenced by the fact that Canada signs about 100 treaties each year. At this moment, Canada is party—and our colleague mentioned some figures a few moments ago—to nearly 3,000 bilateral and multilateral instruments.

To inform Parliament of the obligations stemming from these treaties, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade already tables in the House—and I did so myself in the last few days—as well as in the Senate the text of all treaties that have been implemented and do not require special legislation.

Moreover, all these treaties are also provided in electronic format to both Houses and to the Library of Parliament for consultation by all MPs and senators. Not only do parliamentarians receive all this information, but they play an active role in the implementation of treaties that Canada wishes to ratify.

Canadian constitutional law clearly establishes that the negotiation and the signature of a treaty, that is the act by which Canada wishes to be bound by a treaty, is strictly the purview of the federal executive branch. However, the legislative branch is still responsible for implementing the ensuing obligations.

If a treaty results in changes to current laws or in the enactment of new ones, the lawmaker alone can take such action. Depending on the jurisdiction, implementing legislation must be passed by parliament or provincial legislatures.

This role is essential because, in the absence of any participation from the legislative branch, the international commitments made by Canada would never be followed up on for lack of internal enactments.

Because of this implementation power, parliament is regularly required to study and discuss treaties. We need only think of the bill to implement the land mines convention, which banned land mines and provided for their destruction, the bill to implement the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, which I will deal with later, or the Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act that gives effect to the OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions.

I would also like to highlight the fact that while we believe that legislative changes are not necessary, in practice the role of parliament in treaty making continues to evolve. The hon. member is aware that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and its subcommittee examined and made recommendations to the government on the multilateral agreement on investment, on the WTO and the FTAA negotiations. They make recommendations prior to the conclusion of any agreement.

Another example would be that parliament last spring debated Bill S-22, implementing legislation of an agreement with the Americans, prior to the conclusion of the agreement, in order to give parliament greater latitude in determining what powers Canada would provide American customs officers in Canadian airports.

Therefore, parliament does play a role, not in every case, but in many important cases prior to the conclusion of an agreement.

With regard to treaties dealing with areas under provincial jurisdiction, constitutional law already requires that the Government of Canada secure the support of provinces before ratifying an international treaty requiring implementation through provincial legislation.

For example, the federal government consults provincial governments in relation to Hague conventions dealing with private international law and in relation to the development of the Canadian negotiating position on environmental protection conventions. Provincial representatives are sometimes part of Canadian delegations, when treaties concerning the provinces are negotiated.

Bill C-214 creates nothing new in that area, but it imposes a tight framework on the Government of Canada for consulting its provincial partners.

Also, Bill C-214 refers to the royal prerogative of Her Majesty in right of a province with respect to the negotiation and signing of treaties. It is clearly established in Canada that no such provincial prerogative exists and that the prerogative with respect to the negotiation and signing of any international treaty lies exclusively with the Canadian federal executive branch.

Furthermore, Bill C-214 adversely affects Canadian foreign policy. Crises throughout the world must not be used for partisan purposes on the national political scene. The Government of Canada, which is accountable to parliament, is responsible for the country's foreign affairs. In order to be heard and to be perceived as a leader, it must have a single voice on the international scene.

For example, the partisan decision of the U.S. Senate, with its Republican majority, not to sign the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty stunned Canada and the whole international community, dimmed the hopes for peace and international stability generated by the treaty, and dealt a serious blow to the United States' reputation, even though President Clinton himself openly supported ratification of the treaty.

This show of disunity by our American neighbours is a clear illustration of what happens when sterile party politics find their way into the conduct of a country's foreign affairs. Canada does not wish to undergo such a drastic change in the conduct of its foreign affairs.

Moreover, Bill C-214 would slow down the treaty ratification process and prevent Canada from being a leader in the development of international conventions. Here is an example of obstacles that Bill C-214 could create.

The land mines convention, which was signed right here in Ottawa, is an international priority for Canada. We were the first country to sign that treaty, in December 1997. However, if Bill C-214 had been in effect at the time, that would not have been possible.

Canada must have a treaty ratification process that allows it to achieve its foreign policy objectives and to deal quickly and effectively with changing and urgent situations. The current process meets these imperatives.

Let me give the House an example of the flexibility provided by the current Canadian system that serves the interests of Canada.

To promote business in the air transport industry, for instance, the government regularly signs air transport agreements with other countries. Under these agreements, commercial carriers from one signatory state can use the airspace of another signatory state, which increases the number of destination points the carriers of both countries can offer.

Quite often, these agreements are implemented even before the countries can have them officially ratified, so that the carriers of both countries can benefit from the terms of the agreements as soon as possible. If we were to abide by the process and the restricting delays stipulated by the hon. member in his bill, we would not be able to implement the agreements on a temporary basis.

In conclusion, I think Bill C-214 provides for an overly complex and inefficient procedure to replace a treaty negotiation process that, so far, has well served Canadians, parliamentarians, and Canada throughout the world.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to congratulate the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for the good job he has done on this issue. It is one the Bloc Quebecois, particularly the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, has been addressing for years. Why? Because it has to do with the whole issue of respect for federal and provincial jurisdictions.

We should bear in mind that what goes around, comes around. We have had an opportunity to be at the helm a few times and we will no doubt have an opportunity, as a political party, to be at the helm in the near future.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry pointed out that the two parties that have formed the successive governments since Confederation have basically taken the same approach to treaties.

That having been said, I think there is a need to evolve. In the case of very specific treaties with a major impact on the life of Canadians, elected representatives should have a much greater say not during the negotiation phase, but before they are ratified.

Earlier, the millennium round at Seattle was mentioned. Considering today's technology, it is preferable to let people know before they decide to go and get the information themselves. I think it is necessary to do so for the sake of public peace.

Although I am not a procedural expert, what I can say about this bill is that we should bear in mind two things when we talk about it being divided into two bills.

First, about the role of Parliament. From the outset, parliamentarians must be involved. The parliamentary secretary gave the example of ratification after 21 days in the case of the airline industry. But these treaties are not part of the description or the philosophy of an important treaty. It is a cinch; international trade agreements are not listed as important treaties, by tradition. The examples given by the parliamentary secretary were not good ones.

In connection with Bill C-214, the parliamentary secretary said “But the provinces were consulted on the implementation measures”. I hope that they were because it is their responsibility. But that is not being taken away by Bill C-214. The whole matter of implementation of treaties is still there. What is being called for is for parliamentarians to be consulted before ratification of a treaty, so that they can give it some examination. There would then be no surprises, because they would be familiar with it.

If I am to believe the hon. parliamentary secretary, the government is so good that the members of parliament will just look at the treaty—without being able to change its wording—and will surely support it, because generally treaties signed by the government are perfect. Afterward, we will go to our ridings to be like ambassadors testifying to the good job this government is doing internationally.

We could serve the cause of the party in power by approving every international treaty. The parliamentary secretary could make use of the opposition. It might be a good thing.

That said, in connection with parliament, Bill C-214 is incomplete, and I do not mean that as a criticism. It is highly complicated, nevertheless. As for all the consultation, all the negotiation between provinces and the implementation, the decision has to be made on how this will be handled. Will it be limited to the standing foreign affairs committee or will a new committee be established? Will it be a Senate committee? What will the role of the Senate be in all this? Nevertheless, the aim of Bill C-214 is to say: “With everything that is going on, could we not see to it that parliamentarians are involved?”

The parliamentary system we are living under—and I want to get back to the example given by the parliamentary secretary with respect to what happened in the United States—is quite different from the United States' political system. As we saw today, more often than not the parliamentary system allows the government to create an alliance on a particular issue and get a majority.

In the United States, there is a republican, bicameral system where the houses are renewed one third at a time over the years, which can lead to some imbalance.

In spite of all its flaws, our parliamentary system has one quality: it provides political stability to the party in power.

Therefore, the government should not be afraid. Historically, and the same goes for provincial legislatures, more often than not, the government in power is a majority government.

We do not want to make the government fall over an international treaty; rather, we want to be informed. We cannot change them, but we can understand them. And this should be done quickly. Transparency and involvement at the international level, this is what it is all about.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is not asking to negotiate for the government. This is not what we are asking for. We say: “when the negotiations are over.” This was a very short time, because 21 days is not long. The land mines treaty, for instance, could have been signed faster. The signing was to take place in Ottawa. It had to suit the ministers' schedules. The weather had to be nice, not too cool and not too hot. The signing was held up so all the guests could be present. If the government is capable of being polite and open to guests, could it be open a little to parliamentarians, the representatives of the people? That is how it works when treaties are being signed.

Ask the directors of ceremonies in the various departments. They wait. They can put off a signing for several months because the minister is not there. It would be possible to have 21 days or a few months or just a few weeks to look at them together.

On Bill C-214, this is self evident. The government has picked up bad habits. The two parties that have taken turns in power certainly have. That does not mean they cannot be fixed so that we can go in the right direction.

What concerns me most is that portion of the bill that deals with the provinces. I understand and I do not understand. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is much more knowledgeable and experienced than I am in this field. However, I hesitate a bit on this issue, because we know that increasingly, with changes in society, the issue of jurisdiction is becoming increasingly grey.

Increasingly, we are seeing that globalization has an impact on trial court and even supreme court rulings. Increasingly, opinion is divided and things are not clear. Let us take the example of the environment. Recently, a Bloc Quebecois member spoke about matters relating to the fishery. He said: “If the fish washes ashore, whose is it? If it is floating on the surface, whose is it? If it is on the bottom and only just got there, whose is it?” This is an excellent example.

On a jurisdictional level, there is still the problem of knowing whose fish it is. We do not need a constitutional conference to sort this out but, increasingly, in the case of an environmental treaty, there is no doubt that provincial jurisdictions are just as affected as federal ones.

I recall an attempt by the Bloc Quebecois. There was a memorable speech by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who said that Quebec could and should have a say in negotiations. We were discussing asbestos at the WTO, and Quebec wanted a place at the negotiating table. However, as I see it, there are two ways to interpret clauses 4 and 5. The bill says that Canada shall not—and here I am referring to clause 5, which provides for an agreement on the manner of consultation with the provinces—negotiate or conclude a treaty unless there is a consultation agreement.

It means that the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry admits that the federal government has the prerogative of the international negotiations and it is quite well. But in the consultation scheme, would the provinces be given the right to negotiate or to sit at the table for all important treaties?

These questions should be asked, and they are quite interesting. It goes to prove that we are open to the possibility of sharing the knowledge we have on the international treaties being negotiated by the federal government.

I realize my time is up. We are going to support Bill C-214 even if there are still grey areas. But the most important point here is that, in this Parliament, we see to it that members are respected, after all the recommendations by committees to the effect that people should be given information. We should start in this House, and at the international level.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be exceedingly brief this afternoon. On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus I wanted to be on the record on this subject. I think I should tell the House that we had another speaker lined up who has been detained at a meeting and is unable to be with us.

I listened very intently to the debate so far. I want to begin by congratulating the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for putting forward this important private member's bill and for the cogent arguments and research that accompanied it. I think it is an extremely important private member's bill.

I agree as well with the comments that have been made by the Reform Party and the spokesperson for the Conservative Party and therefore am disappointed in the remarks from the government members opposite as to why they cannot bring themselves to support this bill.

The important point for me is that the enactment of such a bill would provide that Canada may not ratify an important treaty unless the House of Commons has first approved the treaty by resolution, pursuant to the rules of procedure of the House of Commons.

I dare say that in this country or in the world there are few governments that have more power within the executive branch than in this House of Commons. Because of our system of appointing senators and other problems that we have had vis-a-vis the constitution, we effectively have very little checks and balances with which to restrain or detain the government in important issues. This would be one way in which parliamentarians could and should have a say in doing those kinds of things.

I wanted to get on the record and say that the New Democratic Party caucus supports this private member's bill. We congratulate the member from the Bloc for bringing it forward. We are very disappointed with the reaction from the government members opposite.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have some problems with this resolution and I will treat them very quickly.

There is a failure to study empirically Canadian practice and to recognize the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. About 99% of the treaties made by Canada since the war are non-self-executing. That is to say, to be implemented in Canadian law they require laws passed by parliament.

I am amazed to hear the official opposition say they do not know anything about it. Have they been asleep? They have had a foreign affairs committee. It is competent to hear these matters. Its members are competent to raise the matters when the laws come before the House. Somebody has been playing Rip Van Winkle and it does not reflect very credibly on the opposition people to say that.

In Canada we have in a certain sense fused what used to be the highly formal act of ratification with the legislative implementation. I confirm this with the land mines treaty when there was an issue we wanted to be the first to ratify because we sponsored that treaty. However, it had to wait on our legislation by parliament and we ended up, I think, number three. But, there is the fact. Every treaty made in effect comes before parliament and before the foreign affairs committee.

The second point which I will make is I am amazed again by this study of comparative law. It is the first lesson. I am reminded of what Sir Austen Chamberlain said “Comparative law is a trap for the unwary and a signpost for the guilty”. He was saying it to something else, but there it is.

How can you compare positive law snatched from one society to another society unless they are congruent in terms of their legal systems?

The Canadian system and the German system are totally different from the British, Australian and anything else. The member who introduced this bill would be horrified if he had the American, Australian or other systems in force here. Those systems establish the supremacy of federal law implementing a treaty. By the very fact of making a treaty, one gets the power to legislate. The Canadian is in the inverse and in 1957 the German court studying our experience said it would follow the same.

So every treaty for implementation requires federal legislation and, if it touches provincial powers, provincial legislation. When one gets to issues like fisheries, it will take several years of patient negotiation, frustrating negotiation sometimes, with the provinces. Let me simply make that point.

The third position I would make is simply this. It is not a good plan to seek to do by indirection what can be done by the front door. I read this very carefully and I find that article 6 of the bill on treaties either is uttered per incuriam with a lack of knowledge of Canadian constitutional law, which I do not believe, or it is an exercise in espièglerie.

Let us face the facts. There is no such thing as a treaty made by a province under Canadian law. It just does not exist. Therefore, in the interstices of a clause buried in the middle of a projected law, how can one purport to make a constitutional amendment? It just cannot be done.

So much of this is an act of supererogation, of stating what parliament already does. I look at those several hundreds hours in the foreign affairs committees on the MAI. Backward and forward, it was exhaustively discussed. There was the landmines treaty with input from the official opposition and others, which the minister acknowledged.

I would have said that apart from clause 6, this is an example of what Quintus Horatius Flacuus said, “Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus”. Briefly translated, as Shakespeare did somewhat freely, it means “Sound and fury signifying nothing new”.

I am also tempted by the suggestion that it was perhaps an interesting exercise in doing by the back door what should have been done by the front door. It is an interesting exercise.

I would advise the hon. member, whom I respect for his qualities and his sense of humour, to come back again with a better draft. I would also suggest putting students to exercises more fully rooted in sociological jurisprudence. That is to say, he should make sure the societies they study are cognate before taking away their positive law. Comparative law is not an exercise in butterfly collections as one has here, with one monster butterfly from one society and one from another. There has to be a certain relevance.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.)