Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill before the House and one that is worthy of debate. I want to put a few comments on the record with regard to this treaties bill, an act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons when treaties are concluded.
The key word is “concluded”. I do not think we want the House of Commons or elected members, although we want to be part of the process, involved in the negotiations and this bill clearly sets that straight from the outset. It is not talking about day to day negotiations but being involved once the treaty is concluded. We do understand the importance of government and leadership in government and the need for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries to negotiate treaties on behalf of the Government of Canada. That obviously means the people of Canada. However, at the end of the day it has to be put before the people of Canada right here in the House and that is what this bill does.
I just want to bring a few points forward which I think should lead to interesting debate on this bill. The summary of the bill states:
Under this enactment, Canada shall not, without first consulting the provincial governments, negotiate or conclude a treaty
(a) in an area under the legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces; or
(b) in a field affecting an area under the legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces.
Nothing in the Act in any manner limits or affects the royal prerogative of Her Majesty in right of a province with respect to the negotiation and conclusion of treaties in an area under the legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces.
Here is a key phrase which I think is worthy of some more thought on behalf of the member who wrote this bill. The bill further states:
This enactment provides 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 that House.
That means this House, the House of Commons.
The key phrase in that is “important treaty”. The member designates that in Bill C-214 as an important treaty and then goes on to define an important treaty, and I think it is important that we step through the definition of “important treaty”.
For the purposes of this enactment, “important treaty” means any treaty
(a) whose implementation requires
(i) the enactment of an Act of Parliament,
(ii) that Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada be invested with new powers, or
(iii) the imposition of a tax by Parliament;
(b) imposing a substantial financial obligation, whether direct or conditional, on Canada;
(c) concerning the transfer of a part of the territory of Canada or any change to the boundaries of Canada;
(d) under which Canada undertakes to impose economic or military sanctions, whether direct or conditional, against a State;
(e) concerning the territorial jurisdiction of Canada, including jurisdiction by Canada over any area of the sea or air;
(f) concerning international trade or investment or Canada's place in the world economy; or
(g) concerning the participation of Canada in international institutions, including the transfer of jurisdiction to such institutions.
This leads me to conclude or deduce where that would leave us in terms of the land mines treaty which was negotiated by the Government of Canada. I think every party in the House has given the government a lot of credit for doing this, the credit going in particular to our foreign affairs minister.
Under the definition of important treaties, that very treaty would have been left out of this bill. I think that is one which should have been debated in the House more than it was.
The other one is the international law of the sea. Where does that leave us? It does mention it, but I am not sure if, under the confines of this particular bill, that definition would fit into what we consider international law, respecting our obligations as a nation on the high seas beyond our 200 mile limit.
I think the member has to take a look at that. It is something which should be referred to committee for further study. It could be an omission but we have to have some expert opinion on that.
If we listen to what is going on in the world today in terms of the refugee problem or crisis and Canada's obligation, where does that leave us? In a sense these are treaties. They are negotiations which take place at the highest levels, expecting Canada to do something.
I am just wondering whether or not that falls into the definition and whether or not it would exclude that type of debate taking place in the House.
Witness the Prime Minister in the Middle East now, making policy up as he goes along. Is that an example of what we should be debating here in the House? We are not sure.
We do not want to condemn everything the government does but we do think that some of those important issues should be debated here on the floor of the House of Commons. We do not want to make it up as we go along, which appears to be happening today.
In the world of globalization, Canada wants to be a player and wants to be involved. This is the place where it should happen.
The other point which has to be made is that there is no mention of the other place, the Senate of Canada, and the role it plays in this bigger debate. That takes us back to a debate which is going on in the other place this very moment in terms of the clarity bill. The admission of the senate in this bill, which obviously upset many senators, did not receive too much criticism here in the House because of that admission. That is one of the issues which has to be resolved that I do not see in this bill.
We look forward to the debate. I am sure the member is going to get the kind of support he needs, on this side of the House at least, to move this forward. We look forward to the member's comments. We look forward to moving this to at least the committee stage for further investigation.