Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there is enough time, but I would like to put a question back to him. What is the point of having an official policy if it is not followed?
My colleague tells us that there is no need for a change in procedure, and yet Canada's official policy made up a substantial part of the legislation that we introduced and that was unfortunately defeated. That policy can be found on the Global Affairs Canada website. I can no longer recall the exact title, but it was something like the “treaty ratification policy”. Canada's official policy involves a minimum period of 21 days between the time an agreement is announced and the time it comes before Parliament. In the case of the United Kingdom, it took 15 days. What is the point of having a policy?
It was the Liberals who adopted that policy, not me. That is the policy that they are normally proud of. It is supposed to be in force. In committee, we heard from senior officials who said that as far as they were concerned, the policy was in force, but that they had received a political directive. What is the point of having a policy if it is not followed? That is why we think that this policy ought to be made into law. Then, perhaps the government would follow it.
