Ziad Aboultaif
Edmonton Manning, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is promising 500,000 homes every year. According to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 homes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even though houses will be built, the new Liberal agency Build Canada Homes will add only 5,000 homes per year.”
“We know that such things should not be allowed to happen again, but there is nothing in our laws to ensure that. Bill S-228 would fix that. It proposes to clarify one section of the Criminal Code to bring an end to a legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism that disproportionately, but not exclusively, affects indigenous…”
“In the early part of the 20th century, a movement arose that had a flawed concept of human dignity and what it meant to be authentically human. The idea was that we should strive to create perfect people, which meant those who were considered to be imperfect should not be allowed to have children.”
“It is a simple change, but an important one if we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings.”
“Additionally, section 45 of the Criminal Code of Canada protects individuals from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation if it “is performed with reasonable care and skill” and is reasonable based on the person's state of health and other circumstances.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize from the outset. This is not a speech that will soar to oratorical heights, castigating the government for its many failures and its apparent inability to understand the needs of the country. There is a time for that, but it is not now because this is not a partisan issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 285 lines we hold for Ziad Aboultaif, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Thankfully, such crimes are rare in Canada, but they do occur. When they occur, families are thrown into a legal system that can be overwhelming. Frequently, it seems weighted in favour of the accused and the convicted killer with the rights of families forgotten.”
“Mr. Speaker, the public is used to hearing politicians talk about importance of victims' rights, especially when a horrific crime is committed. What we have before us today is not just talk about protecting the victims of crime, but to actually do something. Bill C-243 is designed to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that in the case of an offender who is serving a sentence for first-degree murder or second-degree murder, parole is reviewed in accordance with the statutory time frames instead of an application by the offender. This would be done after the parole board has decided not to grant day or full parole to the offender. It is a simple change, but one that would have a profound effect on the families of crime victims. Most of us will never know the pain that comes with losing a loved one to murder.”
“Mr. Speaker, the first question that comes to mind regarding the need to build homes is this: Who builds homes? It is builders. People build homes, but they need a way to be able to build them. They need the government to get out of the way and municipalities to facilitate it. All these conditions have to be provided by the authorities to make sure that homes are built on time, with productivity levels in place and with the numbers and efficiency needed. We do not need another bureaucracy to stand in the way. Another layer of bureaucracy is definitely going to slow down production and productivity, and that is the wrong path. I would like the hon. member to understand that and comment on it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true. People in the beef and pork industries are not happy with this. The government could have negotiated better to get this because, again, this is a golden opportunity to do something better, and if that is missed, the industry will be hurt. It will be affected by it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Green Party and I were together, more than once, to meet with these pensioners who, we believe, have been treated unfairly. I believe that there is still a chance for Parliament to ask the government to push for that. This could be the second time that we miss such an opportunity, but it would be great if we could do it. It would be historical. We would help a lot of people, and it would be an act of fairness to all these people who deserve it the most.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government does its job, no one has to do anything, but the government is not doing its job. The hon. member knows that. The Liberals have failed to come back to Canada and deliver on their promises. It has been one deadline after the other, and we still have not seen a result. If the government is suggesting that people should sit around, do nothing and not stand for Canada, then that is the member's problem. It is not our problem. I believe that we should never politicize this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that, in life, that we do not get what we deserve; we get what we negotiate. I believe that the government has failed to negotiate well to finally resolve this issue, which costs the Canadian economy close to $500 million a year and made it unfair for some of the pensioners. They deserve to get a fair shot out of their investment for life, especially as seniors. Negotiations could and should have been done better. This is an opportunity we have missed for the second time, and the government could have done a better job.”
“However, I think we can all agree that Canada needs more trade and more diversified trade. We have seen the results when we put too many eggs in one basket. Could this bill have been better? I think that is true of any trade agreement. Sometimes compromises are made to allow an agreement to move forward. That may be the situation we find ourselves in here.”
“procurement opportunities undertaken by bodies governed by public law, including schools, universities and colleges, national museums and galleries, and national park authorities. This is good news for Canadian business. Yes, the government failed to address some of the issues that should have been a priority when it was negotiating this agreement. Our beef and pork industry will still have complaints about the inequity of treatment compared with how U.K. producers are treated in Canada, and those U.K. pensioners living here will continue to be treated as a second-class citizens, unfairly, by their government because Canada's Liberal government did not do the right thing and stand up for fair treatment. I am sad that our government did not take a more principled stand.”
“Bill C-13 , if passed, provides immediate duty-free, quota-free, unlimited access to sweet corn. There is no volume limit, as there was under the previous agreement. It provides more liberal rules of origin for Canadian agriculture export interests, including meat, processed foods, sugar-containing products and pet food. It will provide enhanced protections for investors and their investments in the U.K., with greater predictability and transparency. Canadian investors will also have access to arbitration for resolving disputes related to U.K. measures that breach CPTPP investment provisions. These are positive outcomes. As well, there will be guaranteed access to U.K. procurement opportunities at all levels of government, including regional and local contracting authorities, as well as guaranteed access to U.K.”
“The Liberals missed the opportunity to address this issue when they negotiated the Canada-U.K. Trade Continuity Agreement. They missed it again when it was not included as a part of the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP. The U.K. is Canada's third-largest single-country trading partner for goods: $39.4 billion in 2024. It is also the third-largest single-country trading partner when it comes to services: $21.6 billion in 2024. In the last decade, bilateral trade in goods and services has increased by 52.9%. Working to increase trade with someone we already have a strong relationship with would seem to be a good thing. The U.K. is also Canada's second-largest investment partner. Inbound direct investment to Canada totalled $97 billion in 2024. We want to see that number increase.”
“The Government of Canada has made multiple representations to the U.K. government over the years with the aim of negotiating a social security agreement to end this discriminatory policy, but there has apparently been no willingness on the part of Britain to have such an agreement. The CPTPP was a perfect opportunity to revisit the issue. After all, the British policy comes with a cost to Canadian taxpayers. It has been estimated that this policy costs Canada about $470 million annually. Canada's social security pensions are indexed, increasing the purchasing power of our citizens wherever they choose to live in retirement and ensuring they have sufficient funds to live. In failing to provide reciprocity, the British government is relying on Canada to provide for its citizens if they should find themselves in need.”
“Mr. Speaker, the U.K. is Canada's third-largest trading partner and ally, and with this new relationship, I can see the opportunity for increased trade. However, there have been missed opportunities, and not only with pork and beef. Like many members of the House, I have met with representatives of 127,000 British state pensioners living in Canada, who have raised the issue of their pensions with me. Those state pensions are equivalent to our Canada pension plan. They and their employers made payments for years before retirement. However, unlike the CPP, their pensions are frozen at the rate they were at when first received and do not increase with inflation. This has been British policy for decades. That does not seem fair to me, because British pensioners are fully indexed in other countries, including the United States.”
“It is worth noting that the Canadian Cattle Association and the Canadian Pork Council have both indicated opposition to the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP due to that country's non-tariff barriers to Canadian pork and beef producers. The U.K. is Canada's third-largest trading partner and ally, and with this new relationship I can see the opportunity for increased trade. However, there have been missed opportunities, and not only with pork and beef, but I will finish my speech after question period.”
“This is indeed good news for Canadian business. It is also good news that the U.K.'s accession would provide broader services access for construction, legal and veterinary services and longer visa durations for business visitors and investors than were set out in the Canada-U.K. Trade Continuity Agreement that was negotiated following Brexit. It is not good news that the Liberal government has failed to address some of the outstanding trade issues with the U.K. The CPTPP would provide limited practical gains for Canadian beef and pork exporters who want to access the U.K. market. Canada secured additional duty-free volumes for pork and beef into the U.K. over the previous agreement, but Canadian export volumes are unlikely to increase, given the U.K.'s non-tariff barriers relating to sanitary measures.”
“The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, is a free trade agreement enforced between Canada and 10 other countries in the Indo-Pacific region: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. In 2023, CPTPP parties signed an accession protocol with the United Kingdom. The CPTPP will enter into force for the U.K. once all the CPTPP members and the U.K. complete their respective ratification processes. Bill C-13 is a part of the ratification process. Once the agreement is fully implemented, Canada will have duty-free access to CPTPP countries for 90% of Canadian agriculture and agri-food product exports, 99% of Canadian industrial product exports, 100% of Canadian fish and seafood product exports, and 100% of Canadian forest product exports.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure in the history of Canadian Parliament there have been bills with longer names, but we have to admit this one is a mouthful: an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is a very long name for a trade agreement. This does not flow easily off the tongue. I should think some bright staffer could have come up with a snappier title, something like the “let the U.K. join the club act”. I guess we will just have to refer to it as Bill C-13 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from Canadians who are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.”
“It seems to me that the bill is not about arms exports so much as it is about bringing an end to an enduring partnership that has benefited Canada. To do that does not make sense to me. It is important that the House send a clear message that this piece of legislation is not acceptable. I encourage all hon. members to vote no.”
“While the Liberal government may be vacillating on the number of new F-35 fighter jets it will ultimately purchase, we are committed to purchasing some, spending millions of dollars. The decision to select the F-35 comes with benefits for Canadian industry and Canadian workers, as some of the components of the plane are being manufactured here. What do we tell the workers in Winnipeg making horizontal tail assemblies, who could lose their jobs if the bill passes, or workers making weapons bay door inserts in Lunenburg? The F-35’s engine sensors are made in Ottawa, while outboard wing assembly is being done in Delta. Will those jobs remain in those communities if Canada shows itself to be an unreliable partner?”
“The bill would bring the U.S. under the provisions of that act by removing the current exemption. This would result in a ban on Canadian defence exports to the U.S. if those exports are re-exported to another country on which Canada has implemented a defence export ban. In essence, the bill is an attempt to impose Canadian foreign policy on our closest ally, with those working for our defence industry paying the price. Certainly, if Bill C-233 becomes law, it would create problems in the Canada-U.S. relationship. How could the U.S. not see this as a significant threat to its defence and security sector? Why would we want to put Canadian jobs in jeopardy? Why would we want to tell the Americans that we are a less than trustworthy defence partner?”
“What would be the ramifications of the passage of this bill on the Canadian industry, Canadian jobs and our country's relationships with our closest ally, the United States? (1125) It is popular in some segments of society to maintain that the relationship between the United States and Canada is at some point irreparably broken. Some people are willing to cast aside more than two centuries of friendship and partnership because they do not like what they hear coming from Washington. I would suggest that this is short-sighted. Canada and the United States have far more binding us together as peoples and as nations than things that divide us. Our common, undefended border is a tribute to the closeness we have. At the present time, the United States is the only country subject to exemptions under the Export and Import Permits Act.”
“We need to support our defence industry, which provides the means to keep all Canadians safe. Canada's defence industry is tightly integrated with the U.S. defence industrial sector. That makes sense. Our militaries have been working together for years. Our soldiers have fought and died together in the First World War, the Second World War, Korea and Afghanistan. Our troops have served together in countless UN and NATO missions. We are partners in NORAD and numerous training exercises. With the government's commitment to increase defence spending, significant growth is expected. It is only to be expected that with that growth, our relationship with the United States will continue to be important. That is something important to consider.”
“We hope that our presence will allow time for a cessation of hostilities. Our desire is to create a buffer zone that can lead to talking instead of fighting. With this in mind, with that image of Canada as a peacekeeper, we do not see ourselves as manufacturers or importers of weaponry. The truth, though, is that we have a thriving defence industry. The defence industrial sector in Canada was worth about $14.3 billion in 2022, roughly one half of 1% of the GDP. As members can imagine, a lot of that involves supplying the United States with Canadian technology and expertise. We live in an ever-changing world where, sadly, hostilities seem to be on the increase. It would be foolish to not examine how we can better defend ourselves from outside threats. Defence is a primary responsibility of national government.”
“I wish we lived in a world where there was no war, where there was no need for military or the weapons to arm them. I grew up in a nation at war. It was a bloody 15-year battle from which the country of my birth has not fully recovered, even with the passage of decades. We now live in a world at war. Bombs are falling in Iran and Ukraine. Conflicts are going on in Yemen, Sudan and Gaza. There are other smaller conflicts around the globe, ones that rarely get noticed. If there were no weapons, maybe those conflicts would not happen, or maybe people would still kill each other with sticks and stones. If those were not available, they could use their bare hands. Since the Suez crisis in 1950, Canadians have thought of ourselves as peacekeepers. We see ourselves as standing between those in conflict, keeping warring armies apart.”
“The bill would change the current legal framework by: (a) clarifying that parts, components and technology necessary for the assembly or use of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are included in the meaning of those terms; (b) preventing exemptions from the Export Control List for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war based on their country of destination; (c) preventing the issuance of general export permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (d) preventing the issuance of general brokering permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (e) enhancing the considerations that the Minister must take into account in issuing a permit to export or broker arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (f) providing that the Minister must require end-use certificates from the government of a country to which arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are being exported if doing so would sufficiently mitigate a substantial risk of war crimes or violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law; and (g) requiring the Minister to prepare and table in Parliament an annual report on the export of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war and Canada’s compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty.”
“Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill that would amend the Export and Import Permits Act, which governs Canada's defence exports. If passed, this bill would see the removal of allowing exemptions for specific countries.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister , food prices have skyrocketed by 7.3%. Canada is now the food inflation capital of the G7. This is a made-in-Canada problem. Seventy per cent of all food is produced domestically. We produce 80% of our processed foods. Conservatives have a food affordability plan to remove hidden Liberal taxes on food, such as the industrial carbon tax on farm equipment, fertilizer and food processors. Let us get rid of the fuel standard tax on farmers, truckers and those who bring our food. Let us dump the food packaging tax, which costs Canadians $1.3 billion annually. Our plan reduces taxes affecting the price of food. It restores nutritious, affordable meals for Canadians. Will the Prime Minister work with us to achieve this goal? Canadians want to know.”
“Mr. Speaker, the petition I am tabling has received 245 signatures on behalf of the Kurdish Canadian community to draw attention to an urgent humanitarian and international security matter that directly affects the community. In northern Syria, Kurds, Druze, Alawite and other minority civilians are facing sustained attacks and systematic deprivation. Petitioners respectfully urge the Government of Canada and the governments of the free world to consider the following actions: urgent humanitarian access, protection of civilians, and accountability on international law, ISIS detainees, security, political rights and future governance. They respectfully ask for leadership to ensure that Canada does not remain silent at this critical moment.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the system that we have for our democracy, I believe that Parliament should keep the government in line. If we need to add layers and layers to keep the government in place, then what are we doing here? Why are we here? We are here to represent the people and defend their rights, and I think Parliament should have the power to do that, not another new bureaucracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last decade, the government has not negotiated a single treaty with the indigenous community. That tells us a lot. There are 70 groups right now negotiating with the government. They are going to continue to negotiate and negotiate, but no one, especially the government, is showing any results. The government is not showing us the truth of what it is doing. Unless we reach that point, it is really pointless to continue developing bureaucracy after bureaucracy. I believe the community is looking for action. It is looking for results and that is where the Conservative Party is standing on this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the debate here is between delivering results and showing signals that really do not deliver anything to the people. The community wants results. It wants more action. It wants to see that things are progressing properly, and some of the issues the community is facing need to be resolved. That is what the community is looking for. How to approach that, in our opinion as the Conservative Party of Canada, is that we need to see results and we need to make sure that the people responsible for these files, the minister and the department, do their jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is appointing bureaucrats going to do? There are no results being delivered by the government as far as this file goes. There has been nothing done and no progress made in the last 10 years. What is the point of appointing someone? It is just to add another bureaucracy. I do not think the community is looking for that. The community is looking for action and looking for results, and unless those results are delivered, there is no point in adding another bureaucracy.”
“We should not need a new level of bureaucracy to make sure that, as a nation, we keep the agreements we sign. The Auditor General has pointed out where we are failing in our treatment of indigenous peoples. Years are going by, and problems are not being solved. No wonder reconciliation seems no closer than it was a decade ago. Rather than demanding accountability from “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals are proposing to create a new layer of bureaucracy, which of course means spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it. There is no need for the bill. Rather than create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, why do the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiation and implementation not do their jobs?”
“Since 2000, all modern treaties have included provisions for self-government. The federal government and modern treaty partners co-developed Canada's collaborative model treaty implementation policy in 2023. Conservatives support the treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. We recognize that more needs to be done to advance those rights, which include self-determination and self-government. Conservatives, under former prime minister Harper, negotiated five modern treaties in the span of six years. In more than a decade, the Liberals have negotiated none with the 70 indigenous groups currently negotiating with the government. True reconciliation comes with meeting our commitments to Canada's first nations.”
“We should not need a new government department in order to do that. It is important to note that the proposed commissioner would deal solely with the modern treaties between Canada and our first nations. The modern treaty era began in 1973, after a Supreme Court of Canada decision that recognized indigenous rights for the first time. The decision led to the first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975. Since then, Canada has negotiated and signed 26 treaties with indigenous groups in Canada, 18 of which contain self-government provisions or associated self-government agreements. Before 2000, modern treaties were negotiated in the form of comprehensive land claim agreements, and only a few modern treaty partners negotiated self-government agreements separately.”
“Instead of ensuring that the identified needs of indigenous communities are being met, they are now proposing to create more bureaucracy. We do not need a commissioner for modern treaty implementation; we need a government that understands the needs of Canadians and that lives up to its commitments to them. It should not take another bureaucracy or bureaucrat to ensure that Canada does the right thing. It should not take another bureaucrat to ensure that Canada lives up to its treaty commitments. Keeping our word used to be a Canadian value. Why does the government think it is necessary to invent a new bureaucracy to ensure that it keeps its word? Is it that the Liberals are so used to making promises and then not keeping them that they need someone to keep them in line? We need to live up to our treaty obligations.”
“Despite Indigenous Services Canada increasing its program spending by 84% in the past six years, there remain significant challenges in improving services and outcomes for first nations communities. For example, there are nine communities with drinking water advisories that have been in place for a decade or longer. How can this be acceptable in Canada in 2025? Whatever happened to Justin Trudeau's promise in 2015 to end drinking water advisories. Sadly, his words seem like more hollow promises, cynically uttered by Liberals to gain votes, knowing they would not deliver on their promises. (1625) According to the Auditor General, Indigenous Services Canada has made unsatisfactory progress in addressing the needs identified in previous reports; 53% of those issues are not resolved. Do the Liberals understand their failure in this matter?”
“The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called on the federal government to “Renew or establish Treaty relationships based on principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, and shared responsibility for maintaining those relationships into the future.” In order for that to happen, the Liberals must first admit that they have failed to respect the treaties between our country and its first nations. On October 21, the Auditor General released a report on first nations as a follow-up to the six previous audits done since the Liberals formed government in 2015. Those audits covered a range of programs important to the health and well-being of first nations communities, including programs providing access to primary health care, emergency management services and safe drinking water.”
“Treaties therefore form the constitutional and moral basis of alliance between Indigenous peoples and Canada. In our fact-based world, we are sometimes uncomfortable with the idea of anything having a moral basis. The idea of morality, of something being instinctively right or wrong, seems to have gone out of fashion in some circles, which may be why the Liberals have introduced this legislation, Bill C-10 , the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. By creating a new position and accompanying bureaucracy, the Liberals are attempting to deflect from the fact that they have not lived up to their moral obligations. Instead of doing what is right, they are trying to deflect attention away from what they are not doing, which is not living up to their responsibilities under the treaties signed with first nations.”
“I hope that we have learned from past mistakes and that the distrust in the relationships between Canada, indigenous people and those who came here later can be mended. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia: Indigenous treaties in Canada are constitutionally recognized agreements between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. Most of these agreements describe exchanges where Indigenous nations agree to share some of their interests in their ancestral lands in return for various payments and promises. On a deeper level, treaties are sometimes understood, particularly by Indigenous people, as sacred covenants between nations that establish a relationship between those for whom Canada is an ancient homeland and those whose family roots lie in other countries.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have a great nation. I think all of us can agree on that. We and those who came before us have worked to build a country that all Canadians can feel proud to be part of, but we are not perfect. We have not always lived up to our ideals as a nation. One area we have fallen short is when it comes to our obligations to our indigenous people. Our nation is a relatively young one. The relationship with indigenous people predates the establishment of Canada as an independent country, with first nations negotiating treaties with the British Crown. With Confederation, Canada took on the responsibility for those agreements, agreeing to hold up our end of the bargain. Too often, we have not lived up to our commitments, observing neither the spirit nor the letter of law.”
“Mr. Speaker, the situation remains fragile for members of Syria’s minority communities. The new government makes promises, but has not yet been able to provide guaranteed security for its citizens. Recent massacres targeting the Druze community around Suweida and the ongoing blockade of Kobani by HTS fighters are especially concerning. After years of civil war, the Kurdish and Druze communities want to help rebuild Syria. Their efforts are frequently being met with suspicion, distrust and violence. The Government of Syria, and indeed all Syrians, needs to ensure their actions match their words. Working together, they can build a new Syria, a prosperous, democratic state, with justice and equality for all its citizens, that can once again shine on the world stage.”
“Madam Speaker, the country is not doing well. Admitting this is not a bad thing; it is the right thing to do, because then we can at least deal with the problem. I have three questions for the hon. member. The first is, would he admit that the country is not doing well? The second is, will he take responsibility for the last 10 years of damage? The third is with respect to the CUSMA negotiations. What is happening there?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”