Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate at second reading stage of Bill C-214, sponsored by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
This bill deals with the Canadian practice with regard to the conclusion of treaties, an important element of the Government of Canada's prerogative.
First of all, I must tell the House that the government does not intend to support Bill C-214 for the following reasons.
This bill seriously affects the division of powers in Canada and questions certain priority aspects of Canada's foreign policy.
Today, the international context has a direct impact on the daily lives of Canadians. They are increasingly mobile and travel around the world to work and do business. Since an increasing number of problems go beyond traditional boundaries, countries adopt more and more a concerted approach to solve these problems, whether they relate to the fight against crime, the promotion of peace, disarmament, environmental protection, sustainable development or international trade.
This concerted approach leads to an ongoing international dialogue and to an increasing number of international agreements, as evidenced by the fact that Canada signs about 100 treaties each year. At this moment, Canada is party—and our colleague mentioned some figures a few moments ago—to nearly 3,000 bilateral and multilateral instruments.
To inform Parliament of the obligations stemming from these treaties, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade already tables in the House—and I did so myself in the last few days—as well as in the Senate the text of all treaties that have been implemented and do not require special legislation.
Moreover, all these treaties are also provided in electronic format to both Houses and to the Library of Parliament for consultation by all MPs and senators. Not only do parliamentarians receive all this information, but they play an active role in the implementation of treaties that Canada wishes to ratify.
Canadian constitutional law clearly establishes that the negotiation and the signature of a treaty, that is the act by which Canada wishes to be bound by a treaty, is strictly the purview of the federal executive branch. However, the legislative branch is still responsible for implementing the ensuing obligations.
If a treaty results in changes to current laws or in the enactment of new ones, the lawmaker alone can take such action. Depending on the jurisdiction, implementing legislation must be passed by parliament or provincial legislatures.
This role is essential because, in the absence of any participation from the legislative branch, the international commitments made by Canada would never be followed up on for lack of internal enactments.
Because of this implementation power, parliament is regularly required to study and discuss treaties. We need only think of the bill to implement the land mines convention, which banned land mines and provided for their destruction, the bill to implement the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, which I will deal with later, or the Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act that gives effect to the OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions.
I would also like to highlight the fact that while we believe that legislative changes are not necessary, in practice the role of parliament in treaty making continues to evolve. The hon. member is aware that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and its subcommittee examined and made recommendations to the government on the multilateral agreement on investment, on the WTO and the FTAA negotiations. They make recommendations prior to the conclusion of any agreement.
Another example would be that parliament last spring debated Bill S-22, implementing legislation of an agreement with the Americans, prior to the conclusion of the agreement, in order to give parliament greater latitude in determining what powers Canada would provide American customs officers in Canadian airports.
Therefore, parliament does play a role, not in every case, but in many important cases prior to the conclusion of an agreement.
With regard to treaties dealing with areas under provincial jurisdiction, constitutional law already requires that the Government of Canada secure the support of provinces before ratifying an international treaty requiring implementation through provincial legislation.
For example, the federal government consults provincial governments in relation to Hague conventions dealing with private international law and in relation to the development of the Canadian negotiating position on environmental protection conventions. Provincial representatives are sometimes part of Canadian delegations, when treaties concerning the provinces are negotiated.
Bill C-214 creates nothing new in that area, but it imposes a tight framework on the Government of Canada for consulting its provincial partners.
Also, Bill C-214 refers to the royal prerogative of Her Majesty in right of a province with respect to the negotiation and signing of treaties. It is clearly established in Canada that no such provincial prerogative exists and that the prerogative with respect to the negotiation and signing of any international treaty lies exclusively with the Canadian federal executive branch.
Furthermore, Bill C-214 adversely affects Canadian foreign policy. Crises throughout the world must not be used for partisan purposes on the national political scene. The Government of Canada, which is accountable to parliament, is responsible for the country's foreign affairs. In order to be heard and to be perceived as a leader, it must have a single voice on the international scene.
For example, the partisan decision of the U.S. Senate, with its Republican majority, not to sign the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty stunned Canada and the whole international community, dimmed the hopes for peace and international stability generated by the treaty, and dealt a serious blow to the United States' reputation, even though President Clinton himself openly supported ratification of the treaty.
This show of disunity by our American neighbours is a clear illustration of what happens when sterile party politics find their way into the conduct of a country's foreign affairs. Canada does not wish to undergo such a drastic change in the conduct of its foreign affairs.
Moreover, Bill C-214 would slow down the treaty ratification process and prevent Canada from being a leader in the development of international conventions. Here is an example of obstacles that Bill C-214 could create.
The land mines convention, which was signed right here in Ottawa, is an international priority for Canada. We were the first country to sign that treaty, in December 1997. However, if Bill C-214 had been in effect at the time, that would not have been possible.
Canada must have a treaty ratification process that allows it to achieve its foreign policy objectives and to deal quickly and effectively with changing and urgent situations. The current process meets these imperatives.
Let me give the House an example of the flexibility provided by the current Canadian system that serves the interests of Canada.
To promote business in the air transport industry, for instance, the government regularly signs air transport agreements with other countries. Under these agreements, commercial carriers from one signatory state can use the airspace of another signatory state, which increases the number of destination points the carriers of both countries can offer.
Quite often, these agreements are implemented even before the countries can have them officially ratified, so that the carriers of both countries can benefit from the terms of the agreements as soon as possible. If we were to abide by the process and the restricting delays stipulated by the hon. member in his bill, we would not be able to implement the agreements on a temporary basis.
In conclusion, I think Bill C-214 provides for an overly complex and inefficient procedure to replace a treaty negotiation process that, so far, has well served Canadians, parliamentarians, and Canada throughout the world.
