Marc Garneau

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2014]

Just attack us.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker program has tripled since the current government took over. Nothing much happened until it became visible. The first big incident that occurred was the story about RBC hiring many employees from India to help it with its accounting. The government said it would do something about it. It always likes to come out and say it will take swift and decisive action. My hon. colleague has used those words several times today to say the government would fix the problem.

The next incident that occurred was dealing with a coal mine in British Columbia. When it became apparent that temporary foreign workers were being used instead of Canadians in this coal mine in British Columbia, the government again said it would take swift and decisive action.

Then there was the incident that occurred with McDonald's recently. Again, we are hearing that the government will take swift and decisive action to fix the problem.

Apart from that, the Conservatives attack the opposition members for anything they have ever said before.

I ask my hon. colleague this. When is she going to come up with a plan so that we do not have to resort to swift and decisive action again and again in the future?

[Petitions, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this petition drawing the attention of the House of Commons of Parliament to the following: that Canada and the international communities' actions are not attending the level of severity, cruelty, and impunity of the human rights crimes perpetrated by the President of Venezuela, President Maduro, nor the ongoing massive protests in Venezuela.

They are requesting an emergency debate at the Organization of American States to discuss the Venezuelan crisis and the activation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, among a number of other requests.

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this has to do with whether a treaty has been properly tabled. Its implementation plan is Bill C-31. I will continue where I left off.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you may wonder whether an intergovernmental agreement such as the one I have talked about counts as a treaty. While I know it is not the Speaker's place to adjudicate on points of law such as this, I will quote to you briefly from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom on the matter of treaties, wherein the House of Commons reports:

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties...defines a treaty as:

“an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation”

Only a minority of such agreements have “treaty” in their title. Other common names include “convention”, “protocol” and “agreement”.

That is the case here. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is also the case for Canada. This agreement is indeed a treaty, and is even housed in the “treaty” section of the Department of Finance's website.

With a treaty before us, our attention turns to the Government of Canada's “Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament”. I turn the attention of the House to part 6.2 of that policy, which states in part (b):

For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession...the Government will:

Observe a waiting period of at least twenty-one sitting days before the introduction of the necessary implementing legislation in Parliament...

I have made a search of the Journals and I am unable to find any notice of this treaty being tabled before this body prior to 21 days before the introduction of Bill C-31. This leads me to believe that the government may have sought to use the exception to this part of the tabling policy, but that stipulates:

If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification.

That is from 6.3, part (b), of the government's “Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament”.

In this regard, I am unable to locate a statement from the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding this instrument. While I am well aware of press statements released in February from the former finance minister and current Minister of National Revenue regarding the signing of this agreement, it appears Parliament was never informed of this agreement, nor apprised of its contents. As such, I believe these portions of the bill are neither properly before this body or before the finance committee as they do not adhere to what has become the practice of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention the Journals of Monday, January 27, 2014, wherein during the tabling of documents, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs laid upon the table no less than five international instruments, many of which deal with trademarks and are now being implemented in Bill C-31. This, I believe, reflects what has become the practice, that treaties are tabled for a period of at least 21 days prior to the government seeking implementing legislation.

It is important to note why 21 days has become the so-called magic number. Here, I cite from the United Kingdom's select committee on procedure's second report from 2000. It says:

The Ponsonby Rule is a convention whereby almost all treaties which do not come into force on signature are laid before Parliament for 21 days before they are ratified. It was first stated by, and derives its name from, Mr Arthur Ponsonby, former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In a debate in the House in 1924 Mr Ponsonby affirmed that—

“It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to lay on the table of both Houses of Parliament every treaty, when signed, for a period of 21 days, after which the treaty will be ratified...In the case of important treaties, the Government will, of course, take an opportunity of submitting them to the House for discussion within this period. But, as the Government cannot take upon itself to decide what may be considered important or unimportant, if there is a formal demand for discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party, time will be found for the discussion of the treaty in question.”

I cite this passage because the government's policy reflects British parliamentary practice and I believe this has become the practice of Canada's House of Commons as well. Indeed, our own Library of Parliament has noted:

The way in which Canada negotiates, signs, ratifies and implements international treaties is a constantly evolving process....Today the House of Commons has been granted a louder voice prior to official ratification. This enhanced role for Parliament is an important one...

I believe, if we search the annals of this place, we would find the practice of treaties being tabled well in advance of votes thereupon. Certainly there have been exceptions and the policy itself foresees such situations, yet the House being informed is still a prerequisite to debate. I believe the time has come for clarity from the Chair on whether this policy has indeed risen to the point of custom such that a violation, as appears to have occurred in this case, creates a legislative defect that must be cured prior to its passage.

Arguably, as a matter of principle, the government should explain why it has not respected its own policy in regard to the tabling of treaties before Parliament. As a matter of policy, we should not debate matters that parliamentarians have not been given adequate time to review and study. However, as a matter of practice, the House has established and operated on this custom of tabling for five years as formally enshrined and much longer than that if one looks at historical practice whereby governments have routinely informed Parliament of international agreements signed and ratified.

While I and the Liberal Party of Canada have strong and profound disagreements with FATCA and its implementation, particularly as it infringes on privacy rights and the charter, forces the Canada Revenue Agency to do the IRS' dirty work, and infringes upon our sovereignty, I will save that for a debate for another day. My concern giving rise to this point is that proper procedure has not been followed and the customs of the House have been infringed upon, thus creating a procedural irregularity to be remedied.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, the proper remedy, if you agree with this point, would be to remove those clauses from Bill C-31 that implement this treaty until such time has passed after either the treaty in question is tabled or the Minister of Foreign Affairs informs the House that an exception to the tabling requirement has been sought and the reasoning for this exception. As the matter is before committee, I believe it would be in your power to interpret the committee's mandate relative to the bill as encompassing only those matters that were properly before the House upon its introduction, thereby precluding consideration by the committee of a treaty of which the House was never informed until its accompanying implementing legislation was introduced.

I understand and acknowledge that parliamentary practice has evolved in the realm of treaties and is indeed still evolving. I believe, however, that we have now established a new custom and practice with respect to the tabling of such instruments and that it would be appropriate for the Chair to give expression to the legitimate expectations of members of this place that they be informed of treaties and their contents prior to debate on implementation, as well as to accord Parliament its proper place in the debate on international instruments such as included in Bill C-31.

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2014]

I would like to get my point of order out, sir, because I believe that it is very important to—

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relative to Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

To contextualize my point of order, the bill includes in it the Canada-United States enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act, legislation implementing Canadian legislation under U.S. legislation known as FATCA.

I am not rising to debate the merits of FATCA, as that would not be a proper use of a point of order. Instead, I rise to seek your ruling as to whether this is properly before the House and now properly before the finance committee, given that Bill C-31 seeks to implement a treaty that has not yet been tabled for the requisite amount of time.

This violates Canada's policy on tabling of treaties now become custom of Parliament. While relatively new, the expectation of conformity with this policy reflects an evolution from the Chair. Indeed, this notion is reflected in the first standing order, which reads:

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.

To elaborate further on the particular context for this point, Bill C-31 has, in part 5, implementing legislation for the “Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada to improve international tax compliance through enhanced exchange of information under the convention between the United States of America and Canada with respect to taxes on income and on capital”.

Forgive the length of the title; I did not write it.

The text of this agreement is included—

[Foreign Affairs, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, considering the tragedies that are occurring on a daily basis in the Central African Republic—some 140,000 people have already died—does the government plan to support in any way, other than through financial humanitarian aid, the United Nations resolution to create a peacekeeping mission that would include 10,000 soldiers and 2,000 police officers?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 8th, 2014]

Right on.

[Infrastructure, April 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we all congratulate the new Premier of Quebec, Mr. Couillard, who has promised to restore infrastructure funding in his province. Autoroute Henri-IV, for example, will qualify for the new building Canada program. Unfortunately, the federal government just cut the program by 87% this year, with no increase over 2013 funding levels until 2019.

Why is the government jeopardizing our country's infrastructure?

[Privilege, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to the question of privilege raised by the MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, a riding adjacent to my own riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie.

In essence, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine argued that I have infringed upon her privileges as an MP by placing an ad in a weekly newspaper that announced that I would be holding a meeting in a coffee house and that I was welcoming citizens from both my riding and her riding to join me for coffee. This would have been on January 25.

More specifically, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine argued that the ad I prepared for publication was trying to make it sound as though I was actually the MP for her riding.

I should point out a number of things that are relevant here.

First, the ad in question was placed in the NDG Free Press weekly newspaper. This weekly newspaper's distribution straddles both my riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie and the neighbouring riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Second, while my riding is called Westmount—Ville-Marie, it actually includes approximately 45% of the population of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. When the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine stated yesterday that she represented the vast majority of NDG, she was wrong. Approximately 30,000 of my constituents live in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I am perfectly entitled to notify them of an upcoming meeting by placing an ad in a newspaper inviting them to join me.

Third, the MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine accuses me of trying to present myself to her constituents as their MP. The ad very clearly identifies me as the member of Parliament for Westmount—Ville-Marie and nothing more. I believe it is a reasonable assumption, on my part, to say that her constituents know very well what riding they live in and that my ad did not confuse them in any way.

Finally, given that our ridings are adjacent, it is also reasonable to assume that we share some common preoccupations. One example is the plan to build a third rail line for the Montreal AMT train service, a public transportation service that crosses both my riding and a good part of the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I have been very active on this file and have organized meetings with citizens impacted by this major infrastructure addition to public transportation. As the MP for Westmount—Ville-Marie, I consider it acceptable to invite all those who might be potentially impacted by such a project to join me for a coffee, and I always make it very clear that I am the MP for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

This is no different from my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine getting up in the House of Commons a little while ago for a member's statement and telling everyone that the NDG Food Depot, which we both support because it is a good cause, was in her riding, when in fact it is in my riding.

Both of us care deeply about the work done by the NDG Food Depot, which serves both our ridings, but the fact remains that she was wrong when she said that it was in her riding.

Am I upset? Are my privileges undermined? No. I made nothing of it at the time, because it was not, in my opinion, worth doing that.

My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and I both work with a number of organizations that serve both our ridings. Some of these organizations are based in my riding while some are based in her riding. I do not consider this a cause for partisanship, since in the end, the interests of our constituents should be our common priority.

It did not occur to me for one minute that when she was meeting with organizations based in my riding that serve her riding she might be passing herself off as the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. That would be very petty on my part.

I do not want to say much more about my colleague's question of privilege other than to state that it is a frivolous question of privilege. It is a frivolous question that has been clearly raised because the NDP is trying to distract from its abuse of mailing privileges in the ridings of Bourassa, Toronto Centre, Brandon—Souris, and Provencher during the recent byelections, ridings where it used taxpayers' money to mail literally hundreds of thousands of NDP documents designed to identify votes and partisan fundraising in ridings, possibly during the writ period. It is no wonder that the Board of Internal Economy has taken the unusual step of referring the matter to the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to rule quickly on this frivolous question of privilege and put this matter to rest.