Madam Speaker, former prime minister Stephen Harper established a new policy on the tabling and ratification of treaties through a ministerial statement in 2008. That policy remains in place under the current government.
Under that policy, treaties are tabled in the House of Commons 21 sitting days before ratification by the minister. Treaties that require changes to domestic law go through an additional process before ratification, which is when the enabling legislation has passed in Parliament. This procedure has served Canada well. The Conservative Party supports the practice of ensuring that Parliament is fully informed and consulted before binding action is taken with regard to any major new international treaty. Transparency is something that the Canadian people expect of all of us.
Bill C-228, though, is not about transparency. An act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act regarding the prior review of treaties by Parliament does not increase transparency. Instead, it would restrict the power of the minister. The bill, should it become law, would constrain the royal prerogative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs by requiring a committee review and report back to the House and by requiring the advice of the House before ratification. This would, to put it simply, make it more difficult to ratify treaties. Is that something we want to do? Is that something we should be doing?
I may not be a fan of the policies the government proposes. I may think it is mismanaging the affairs of the country, but I do not question its right to govern as it sees fit. It seems to me this is an attempt to remove that right.
If the bill were to become law, it would impose three requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs. First, it would require the minister to table major treaties along with an explanatory note in the House of Commons prior to ratification. That is already a policy and practice, but the bill would make such a tabling a legal requirement. Second, it would require that a committee of the House of Commons review the treaty and report back to the House prior to ratification. Third, the minister would be required to obtain the advice of the House prior to ratification.
The bill states that a “major treaty” is one that:
(a) requires for its implementation
(i) the enactment of an Act of Parliament,
(ii) the conferment of new powers on His Majesty in Right of Canada, or
(iii) the imposition of a tax by Parliament;
(b) imposes a significant direct or conditional financial obligation on Canada;
(c) concerns the transfer of part of Canada’s territory or any change to Canada’s boundaries;
(d) requires Canada to impose immediate or conditional economic or military sanctions on a state;
(e) concerns the territorial jurisdiction of Canada, including its jurisdiction over a maritime area or airspace;
(f) concerns international trade or investment or Canada’s position in the global economy; or
(g) concerns Canada’s participation in international institutions, including a transfer of jurisdiction to such institutions.
That covers a lot of territory. We can think of the number of proposed trade deals on the table at this time. We can think of our participation in the various international organizations we are a part of. About the only things that are not major treaties are memoranda of understanding.
This legislation does not seem to take into account the realities of Canada's place in the world and the complexity and scale of our international agreements. During the past 15 years, over 500 treaties have been signed by the government, which is a rate of more than one treaty tabled per sitting week. The level of oversight proposed by the legislation would require a significant increase in the workload of the House of Commons and its committees. Oversight of treaties would displace other business.
If the bill merely sought to codify the practice and procedure that has been in place in the House since 2008, I would have no problem with supporting it. It is the other aspects of the legislation that concern me, especially that it would add to the workload of our committees.
We are all aware that resources are limited. We are trying to serve the people of Canada in a cost-effective manner. Every committee I have served on in my more than 10 years in the House has struggled with the limited time available to it. Inevitably, there are topics and studies that many members would like to address that cannot move forward due to the limitations on time and committee resources. Can we, in good conscience, add to that workload? How long does it take to comprehensively examine a treaty, bring together witnesses and discuss its pros and cons? How would such a procedure delay the implementation of the treaty? How would this process be viewed by our international partners, who would see months or perhaps years of negotiation delayed, even after an agreement, by what they would see as unnecessary bureaucracy?
I would not be surprised to find that the bill, if passed, would lessen Canada's standing among the community of nations. We want to be known as a country that is easy to deal with, that can make deals and treaties quickly and that does not get bogged down in the process. We do not want to have a reputation as a nation that cannot make up its mind or that does not stand by its agreements.
I suspect that if this legislation were to pass, it would quickly be seen as the burden it is. In the interest of expediency, committees would, instead of reviewing the treaty, merely rubber-stamp it. They would call no witnesses and have no discussion. In which case, what would be the purpose of passing the legislation before us?
As someone who believes in the historical value of Parliament as the people's voice, I understand the intention behind someone wanting to ensure that the House of Commons would have a say in Canada's treaty process. However, there are some things that are just not practical. There is a difference between providing oversight and micromanagement. Though well intentioned, I think the bill might stray across the line from one to the other.
One of the things we must take into account when considering legislation is how easily it can be implemented. Passing new laws is the easy part; putting them into practice is an entirely different matter. It seems to me that Bill C-228, while it does have some good aspects, is one of those bills that would be easy to pass and extremely difficult to implement. We could pass it. We could also pass a bill to repeal the law of gravity. I think both have about the same likelihood of successful implementation.