Madam Speaker, I want to welcome everyone back to this place, including Canadians who are watching at home. I am pleased to rise on our first day back to contribute to this debate on Bill C-228.
I want to start by thanking my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague who introduced this bill.
The context for this bill is important, because it concerns how we, as parliamentarians, understand our role in relation to international commitments that can bind Canada for decades, shape domestic law, and affect the lives of Canadians in very real ways. It is particularly timely as Canada seeks to forge new relationships during a precarious time in international affairs, development and trade.
Bill C-228 proposes a new statutory framework for parliamentary scrutiny of treaties before ratification. It would require treaties to be formally tabled here in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, before Canada can ratify them. It would establish a mandatory waiting period of at least 21 sitting days between tabling and ratification. It would define major treaties and require them to receive additional review and advice from our committees. It would also impose additional transparency obligations, including publication of treaties and related documents, while allowing for limited exceptions in urgent or exceptional circumstances provided that Parliament is informed afterwards.
These are significant proposals, and they raise important questions about balance: balance between efficiency and accountability, balance between executive authority and parliamentary oversight, and balance between Canada's need to act decisively on the world stage and Parliament's responsibility to scrutinize commitments made in Canada's name before they happen.
One strength of this bill is its attempt to bring clarity and consistency to a process that often feels opaque. Canada's current treaty policy, enacted in 2008 and updated in 2020, requires that treaties be tabled not before signature but only before ratification. This policy provides some visibility to the House but little formal influence. Ultimate authority remains with the Prime Minister and cabinet. This policy is known as the Ponsonby rule, and it was adopted from the U.K., where it has been in place since 1924. It was codified there into a law not dissimilar to this bill by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
The information provided here when treaties are tabled varies, and the opportunities for meaningful debate are often limited by time or by competing priorities here in the House. Our current process does not provide Parliament with much of a say, let alone a veto. The executive branch, through the Prime Minister and cabinet, retains authority to make, really, all the decisions. The goal of giving Parliament a chance to have more input and debate is therefore worthy. Transparency is not an abstract principle in the world we currently live in. It is the foundation of democratic consent, particularly when treaties affect domestic law, public spending or regulatory authority.
This really matters at a time when many Canadians feel the government is very far away and makes decisions without consulting them, and where some treaties are seen as limiting our sovereignty. Transparency builds trust, and trust is essential to governance. We seek to ensure that parliamentarians, and by extension Canadians, are not simply presented with a fait accompli.
This bill tries to distinguish between routine agreements and those that are truly consequential. This reflects a common-sense idea. The more significant the commitment, the more rigorous the scrutiny should be, but the way “major treaty” is currently defined in this bill is so broad that it risks capturing nearly every treaty Canada enters into, along with amendments. At the same time, it excludes memorandums of understanding, which can have huge consequences for Canada despite not being classified as treaties under the bill.
All of that having been said, the bill should not be dismissed out of hand. There is value in examining whether current practice reflects modern expectations of privacy and accountability. Codifying aspects of existing practice, as the U.K. has done, is not radical. Bill C-228 is well intentioned. It reflects a genuine desire to strengthen democratic oversight and public confidence in Canada's treaty process. As drafted, however, it raises real concerns about feasibility and balance.
I look forward to continuing this debate when time permits.