The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Introduction of Government Bills: bill that implements an international treaty; Government policy on tabling of treaties

May 12, 2014

Debates, pp. 5220–1

On April 28, 2014, Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie) rose on a point of order to draw attention to the fact that a treaty that would be implemented by Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, had not been tabled. He contended that parliamentary practice was to notify the House at least 21 days before the introduction of the legislation that would implement it. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) confirmed that there was a policy on tabling of treaties. However, he said that it is not a product of the Standing Orders, nor is it a practice of the House; rather, it is a Government policy that is not under the jurisdiction of the Speaker. After hearing from another Member, the Deputy Speaker (Joe Comartin) said that the Speaker would take their observations into account when he came back with a ruling.^[1]

Resolution

The Speaker delivered his ruling on May 12, 2014. He said that the policy belonged to the Government, and thus it was not up to the Chair to intervene in ministerial affairs or to determine whether the Government had complied with its own policies. He added that it could not be considered a practice adopted by the House, given that the tabling of treaties is not mentioned in the rules and practices of the House. He concluded that the matter raised by the Member was not a point of order and that the study of Bill C-31 could continue.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 28, 2014, by the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie regarding the procedural acceptability of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

I thank the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for having raised the question, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House Leader for the Official Opposition for their comments.

In raising the point of order, the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie contended that Bill C-31 is not properly before the House nor the Standing Committee on Finance since, prior to its introduction in the House, the Government failed to table a copy of a treaty included in the bill, namely:

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.

In his view, the Government’s routine tabling of treaties at least 21 days prior to introducing implementing legislation, pursuant to its Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament, has evolved into a parliamentary custom and is therefore a prerequisite to debate.

While recognizing that the policy allows for exceptions, the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie argued that in this instance the Government had violated its own policy, thereby infringing upon a custom of the House and creating what he described as a legislative defect.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons replied that the process governing the tabling of treaties is in fact a Government policy and thus is not found in the rules or practices of the House, nor is it under the purview of the Speaker. He cited numerous Speakers’ rulings in support of this position. In addition, he noted that the policy does provide for exceptions, and thus that what is being done in the case of Bill C-31 is in fact consistent with the provisions of the policy.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons added that since the treaty was being implemented through legislation, opportunity existed for the House to debate it and vote upon it before it is ratified.

In raising this matter, the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie made reference to what he considered to have been procedural irregularities. It is important to understand in this case what type of procedure, departmental or House, is being referenced. As well, the Member asked the Chair for clarity on whether the use of this policy on treaties has become regular enough to deem it a parliamentary custom such that any deviation from it has a procedural impact. In other words, is this a matter of parliamentary procedure, one over which the Chair has any authority?

It is clear to me that the policy in question belongs to the Government and not the House. It is equally clear that it is not within the Speaker’s authority to adjudicate on Government policies or processes, and this includes determining whether the Government is in compliance with its own policies.

In a recent ruling, on February 7, 2013, I reminded the House of this at page 13869 of Debates:

It is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or to get involved in Government processes, no matter how frustrating they may appear to be to the Member.

The Chair has nevertheless reviewed the sequence of events described by the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie to ascertain whether there are procedural grounds, as opposed to departmental directives, to support the idea that treaties must be tabled in the House, let alone debated here.

Not surprisingly, the review revealed that many Standing Orders and statutes deal with the tabling of documents, and House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, on pages 430 and 609 actually enumerates the types of documents that must be tabled in the House. These include certain returns, reports, and other papers that are required to be tabled by statute, by order of the House, or by standing order. Treaties are not mentioned. In fact, the rules and practices of the House are silent with regard to the tabling of treaties.

This leads the Chair to conclude that the manner in which the Government has usually chosen to interpret its own policy on treaties cannot be construed as the House having adopted that policy as its own. As always, the rules and practices of the House must emanate explicitly from the House itself. That is not to gain the merits of receiving essential information before considering legislation. However, the distinction between governmental procedures and House procedures remains and must be acknowledged.

Therefore, the Chair cannot find evidence to support the Member’s contention that Bill C-31 is not properly before the House because of what he has characterized as a deviation from what he contends is the usual practice.

[Accordingly, I cannot find that the point of order is well-founded or that the normal progression of Bill C-31 throughout the legislative process is flawed in any way. As such, the House’s study of the Bill may proceed in the usual manner.]

I thank all hon. Members for their attention