Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade to speak to Bill C‑228. This bill, which I think is very important, seeks to strengthen transparency and parliamentary oversight around trade agreements. Ottawa's lack of transparency in these matters is downright monarchical.
I have been here for six years, and as my colleagues have said, not once have we voted on a trade agreement. We have always voted on bills to implement agreements. This means that it is virtually impossible to amend them and they are always tabled under very tight deadlines.
I also find it somewhat ironic to hear people saying that we have a policy on treaty-making. Apparently, because we have had this wonderful policy since 2008, everything is fine. I find it ironic to hear that today considering that the policy was violated just a few days ago. This policy, which is not a law and is therefore non-binding by definition, normally provides for a 21-day period between the announcement of the content of an agreement and the introduction of a bill. However, the bill on the protocol on the United Kingdom's entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership was introduced after only 15 days, so I find it very funny to hear today that this policy is perfect when it was not even respected just a few days ago. In other words, perhaps they need to find a better argument. Let us get the message across to them.
Whatever the issue and whatever the political leanings of the government, Ottawa does not appreciate its opponents scrutinizing its actions too closely. When it comes to trade agreements, secrecy is the name of the game. Canada is living up to its monarchical tradition by keeping the agreements it signs under wraps, no doubt for fear that they would fall apart under scrutiny, much like a vampire exposed to the sun.
As a member of Parliament, I experienced this in December 2020. I was on the Standing Committee on International Trade and we were asked to study the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom but without seeing the text of the agreement. Who would have thought that possible? We heard from witnesses, senior officials and representatives of organizations. Their recommendation was to adopt the agreement, despite concerns about this thing or that. At one point, I raised my hand to say that I had not read the agreement. I asked the witnesses if they had information I did not have. One by one, they each told me that they did not know, that they had not received any information. Is that not unbelievable? It really was a theatre of the absurd. Only in Canada could such a thing happen.
When Canada's foreign affairs department was created in 1909, the minister was supposed to table before Parliament an annual report on the department's operations. This report would logically include an overview of Canada's international discussions and commitments. This was somewhat of an attempt to demonstrate the beginnings of a desire for transparency. In 1995, at the height of globalization, the department's act was amended to give the minister a freer hand by granting him jurisdiction over international trade, to the detriment of Parliament. The 1909 annual reporting requirement was abolished in 1995.
I will take another look back in time. In 1926, the House of Commons passed a resolution stating that “...before His Majesty's Canadian Ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.” That is what was passed, but in actual fact, this practice was applied unevenly for 40 years until it was finally abandoned in 1966. A parliament worthy of the name should adopt procedures aimed at increasing the level of democratic control over agreements.
My political party, the Bloc Québécois, introduced seven bills on the procedure for reaching agreements between 1999 and 2004, requiring the minister responsible for the ratification of an agreement to table it in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, within a reasonable time frame, and requiring the approval of members of Parliament before any ratification. As a result of the Bloc Québécois's efforts, it is now policy that an explanatory memorandum be submitted within a reasonable time before an agreement is ratified by elected members, but no government has ever had the courage to create binding legislation. As I said, this policy was violated just a few days ago, yet they have the gall to use that as an argument today. It is unbelievable.
As a result, the government can act arbitrarily, as the Liberals have just done once again. We are certainly not a British regime where Parliament is supposed to have partial veto rights over ratifications. While fundamentally desirable despite being ridiculously inadequate, this policy consisting in asking members what they think after the fact could be a means of controlling Parliament. Rather than really involving members in the drafting of international agreements, this policy is merely an instrument to sound out the opposition parties' position, since they are presented with a finished product that is all ready to go.
Some parliaments around the world even consult elected members before starting negotiations to obtain mandates on sectors to be promoted or protected. That is vastly different from what we have here. The United States, for example, has a law that protects the sugar sector, while the European Union frequently holds votes to ask its members what they would like to see protected, promoted or, conversely, removed from the table. The principle makes sense. Members of Parliament are elected by the public to represent the interests and values of their constituents. Given its lack of transparency before, during and after trade negotiations, Canada has a long way to go when it comes to involving members of Parliament in the process. It also falls far short when it comes to involving the provinces. However, this is another issue that the current bill does not address. Nevertheless, it shows how ridiculous Ottawa is when it comes to democracy and transparency.
The way the process works in Canada can be summarized as follows: First, cabinet unilaterally adopts the mandate and keeps it secret. Second, the Canadian negotiators report only to the federal executive branch and are not accountable to anyone regarding the status of discussions. When they appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade, they tell us next to nothing, regardless of whether the meeting is in camera or public. Third, the government alone ends the negotiations and signs the final text before sharing it with anyone. Fourth, public debate can only begin once negotiations have concluded. At that point, the signed text is impossible to change. Parliament is essentially relegated to the role of rubber-stamping the treaty. It never votes on or debates the treaty itself, but rather an implementation bill. Ultimately, we can change next to nothing or nothing at all. We end up with an implementation bill that is a few pages long for treaties that can sometimes be 5,000 pages long.
Parliament simply adopts the changes to the laws that will allow the treaty to come into force. During the study of the bill, any amendment that would affect the draft treaty is ruled out of order because it is only the implementation bill. I find it unfortunate that our Conservative friends are opposed to our bill, as far as we know, because virtually all of their proposed amendments to the free trade bill with Ukraine were rejected and ruled out of order. I voted against the Conservatives' proposed amendments, because I disagreed with them. However, each time they were ruled out of order, I still voted with the Conservatives in committee to challenge the chair's decision, because it seemed logical to me that these proposals should still be debated and put forward.
Today, the Conservatives are defending the same policy that prevented them from changing anything back then. What a brilliant move. Ultimately, Parliament ends up doing its job with a knife to its throat, and that is what—