Bill C-31 (Historical)

Department of International Trade Act

An Act to establish the Department of International Trade and to make related amendments to certain Acts

This enactment establishes the Department of International Trade and makes related amendments to certain Acts.

Department of Foreign Affairs Act

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to raise a question with the member. I agreed with many of his comments, not all of them, but that will not surprise anybody.

As one of several foreign affairs critics in the House, I was extremely disappointed that the government chose to introduce Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 while not only the Minister of Foreign Affairs was abroad on an exceedingly important and sensitive mission to the Middle East, but all of the foreign affairs critics were away as well. Although I do not think the Conservative foreign affairs critic accompanied the mission, it is true that the former foreign affairs critic for the Conservative Party acquitted himself extremely well as a member of that mission.

I am disappointed not to have heard the previous debate in the House. I have not been able to fully catch up with what other points of view were presented in debate having just come home yesterday from the Middle East.

I was interested in hearing the wrap up comments from the Conservative member who just spoke, in which, if I understood correctly, he suggested that perhaps Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 were good bills in that they would give us a chance to look at how the foreign affairs' functions of the government were discharged and in what ways it may make sense for us to introduce improvements.

If I understood his comments correctly, I wonder if the member could address two questions. Does he not find it troublesome that we now find ourselves with after the fact legislation in front of us? It is now close to two years since the government separated foreign affairs and international trade. Those two departments have been functioning under that new arrangement pretty much ever since because of an order in council that allowed the government to do that before any such debate took place in the House.

We now find ourselves basically being asked to rubber stamp something that has already happened. If we stand in the way of this, it will be suggested that we are being obstructionists and that we do not get it. It will ask us why we do not just get with its program. The government has done this without any parliamentary authority and it wants us to put up or shut up.

Is it not also equally problematic that, at the very time the government purports to be in the process of launching a major review of Canada's foreign policy, we are faced with such legislation? At the very least one could say that the government appears to have put the cart before the horse when it went ahead and separated these two departments without allowing the rationale for doing so to be fully divulged and fully understood, let alone the opportunity for there to be meaningful input from the Canadian people who are about to be invited, which is what we have been told, to give meaningful input into Canada's future foreign policy for the country.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32. The purpose of the bill is to enact the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and other acts as a consequence of the establishment of the Department of International Trade. DFAIT is splitting into two departments. There has been thorough debate on Bill C-31 dealing with the issue of international trade. I wish to take this opportunity to speak about the Department of Foreign Affairs.

In this Parliament I have had the rare privilege to be the associate critic of foreign affairs Asia Pacific, as appointed by the leader of the Conservative Party. In that period of time I have taken the opportunity to learn a little more about Asia Pacific. It strikes me that there are many ways Canada could be doing a far better and more creative job with respect to foreign affairs than it is presently doing. This comes about as a result of three particular incidents that I would like to report to the House.

First I should say that we as Canadians still have the aura, we still have the leftovers, as it were, of Lester B. Pearson. Those leftovers are really wonderful because he and the people of that era gave Canada a particular reputation. It is unfortunate that we are only able to trade off of that reputation today as opposed to being able to expand our influence in Asia Pacific and in other parts of the world.

I have experienced some frustrations. When I and other Canadians who carry the title of member of Parliament, Speaker of the House, or senator go into an international forum, we do so with an unbelievable amount of goodwill preceding us as we go through the door. As I said, we are trading off of Lester B. Pearson and the wonderful work that Canadians of that era did, particularly as peacekeepers.

Unfortunately the situation now with the Department of Foreign Affairs is the Liberals, who have been in power since 1993, are timid in the area of foreign affairs. There is goodwill as we enter the door but then the people with whom we are going to be conversing say, “Okay, now what are you up to? What is Canada up to at this particular point?”

We have done away with our great nation's tremendous history of involvement as a leader in the world community. We have done away with our ability to trade off of our strengths. We are followers rather than leaders. Let me give some examples.

I would like to draw to members' attention the situation as it respects the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China with Taiwan. We have ended up in a position of timidity in the face of rather bellicose belligerence on the part of the PRC. We have permitted the People's Republic of China to bully foreign affairs into taking very timid action.

I will give a chronology of six recently denied visits of Taiwanese high-ranking officials to Canada.

In July 2001 Canada rejected the visit of Dr. Ming-liang Lee, minister of health of Taiwan. The reason given was that it was not convenient.

In August 2002 Canada rejected the Taiwanese prime minister's stopover visit. He was on his way to Central America. This was just a stopover on a normal trade route of our airlines.

In September 2002 Canada denied a visa to Taiwan's foreign minister, Eugene Chien, for his private visit to Canada because it was inconvenient.

We note that at the same time Canada welcomed General Chi Haotien, China's defence minister, who was the operational commander at the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Chi also met with then prime minister Jean Chrétien.

Taiwan's foreign minister came for a private visit to Canada. He was not permitted to be here because it was inconvenient, yet the PRC defence minister was.

In June 2003 Canada denied a visa again to Taiwan's foreign minister, Eugene Chien for his private visit to Vancouver.

In August 2004 Canada denied a transit stop in Canada to democratically elected Chen Shui-bian on his way to Panama.

In September 2004 Canada denied a visit to Taiwan's foreign minister, Tan Sun Chen, for his private visit which did not include meetings with any Canadian officials.

This is a timidity that is unbecoming of a sovereign nation. This is a timidity in the face of belligerence on the part of the PRC. We are not talking about the recognition of Taiwan as a nation. We are simply talking about the fact that there are elected officials who from time to time want to make private visits to Canada, or who are simply in transit, who should be permitted to land in Canada.

It shows a timidity unbecoming of a sovereign nation. I introduced a motion in the House which was supported by all members of the House, including many people who at present are on the front bench of the Liberal Party of Canada. They voted in favour of a motion to recognize Taiwan as a health entity at the World Health Organization. Those same people who were backbenchers and who are now on the front bench, without a doubt under the direction of the foreign affairs department would vote against the same motion in the House. It is a timidity unbecoming of a sovereign nation.

I am also very familiar on a first-hand basis with some of the goings on in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a misnomer if I ever heard one. The people of North Korea are in a very precarious situation. They are under the most severe repression in the world. There is no nation in the world that has a tighter rein on its people than the regime in North Korea.

When Lloyd Axworthy as our foreign affairs minister decided that he was going to recognize the DPRK, we had an opportunity at that particular point to show some real strength instead of timidity and to carve out a course of action that would have been independent. As I recall it, the recognition by the former foreign affairs minister happened fully two years prior to the North Koreans' announcing that they had nuclear weapons. The question is very much in the news today, but it is still a question, do they or do they not have nuclear arms?

We had the ability at that point to become players in that particular game. We are on the cusp of a potentially serious world situation. Canada could have been, would have been and should have been right at the centre of that simply by showing some strength of character and engaging the people of North Korea. They do not see us as being a threat to them in the same way that they would see the United States as being a threat. They see Canada as having the ability to influence the U.S. and to have contact through Canada to people in the western hemisphere and yet we have been timid.

NGO after NGO have gone into North Korea and are there in a very strong relational way with the decision makers in North Korea. They have far more influence than our great nation of Canada, all because of the timidity of our foreign affairs policy.

Last month I had the privilege of working in concert with the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont on an issue of political prisoners and on an issue of human rights in the nation of Vietnam.Through the interventions of the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, Senator Mac Harb and myself, we had an opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue with the regime of Vietnam. The regime of Vietnam was going to be releasing under a political amnesty 8,000 prisoners.

We had an opportunity to speak with the officials of Vietnam who were trying to become a part of the world community. We had a very constructive discussion with them. As a consequence of that, we were directly involved in the release of certain prisoners.

How many people in Foreign Affairs Canada, who are involved on a day to day basis, have that opportunity? I suggest not many because there is a timidity on the part of Foreign Affairs Canada.

Whether we are talking about Taiwan, North Korea, Vietnam or about the relationship between Canada and South Korea and, in turn, its relationship with the six party talks and their relationship in turn with the North Koreans, we have a place in the world community that we are presently not exerting.

I would hope, in taking a look at Bill C-32 and in taking a look at the reorganization, that at the same time we would see our current Minister of Foreign Affairs begin to exert a more imaginative and outward-looking posture in the world, that we would begin to see our defence minister doing the things he needs to do so we can be taken more seriously as a nation of nations, and that we would regain our strength and our position in the world community.

Although Bill C-32 is fundamentally a housekeeping bill, it gives us the opportunity to take another look at how we as a nation relate to other nations in the world.

I would say that what we need as Canadians is more of a backbone and less of a wishbone.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House to speak on Bill C-32, to separate the functions and responsibilities of the Department of Foreign Affairs and that of the Department of International Trade.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to speak on Bill C-31, whose purpose is essentially the same. It is important to mention, however, that our discussions and debates in this place can only be conclusive if other debates are held down the line, particularly regarding the order that was made and which the Governor in Council general passed in December 2003.

What we are doing here today—and I tend to agree with my hon. colleague from the NDP—is debating an issue which, really, was settled on December 12, 2003, when an order was passed. All this bill has done, although it may not be mundane, is to start a discussion on issues that had already been settled and incorporated into a bill that was tabled on December 7, 2004.

It is important to ask ourselves what the government's real motivation is in bringing Bill C-32 up for debate today. The hon. members and ministers across the way would have us believe that this is a purely administrative and technical bill, with no substance, and no vision in terms of the issues and concerns of the government opposite.

Quite the contrary, what this Parliament is about to pass is not mundane at all. Basically, it puts into action a vision to separate a number of rights with respect to international trade. At a time when globalization can no longer be achieved in isolation, and when management by silos is rejected around the world in favour of a greater integration of the protection of rights—be it human rights, labour or environmental rights—into globalization mechanisms, we have in front of us a government which is trying to get us to pass a bill designed to undo something that is internationally recognized.

The Department of Foreign Affairs underwent a number of reorganizations in the past. In 1971, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was integrated. In 1981, another reorganization took place, and also in 1982. The latter sought to integrate and transfer the activities relating to CIDA, industry, trade and commerce, and the trade policy, to the department.

Twenty-five years ago, when our exports accounted for barely 20% of Canada's GDP, such a decision might have been justified. However, we are now in a context of new markets and greater liberalization, with the result that our exports now account for more than 40% of our GDP.

At the same time, there is a global debate on the importance of integrating environmental protection, human rights and labour laws in our governments' decision-making process.

At a time when, in Davos and at international forums, civil society groups are trying to be heard to ensure that these concerns are reflected in trade rules, this government wants to split the role of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We cannot sign international conventions and, at the same time, not take these concerns into consideration.

A few minutes ago, I was listening to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I understand why he supports this bill. It is precisely because he is in favour of this splitting between Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He is hoping that projects such as the missile defence shield are implemented before the review of Canada's foreign policy has even begun. It suits him that this distinction be made between trade and our foreign policy. He is even hoping that a similar distinction will be made between Canada's foreign and defence policies, so that this silo approach can be perpetuated.

On this side of the House, we see things quite differently. For example, my colleague opposite, with whom I was on a mission in Ukraine in December, mentioned, by way of example, the importance of dividing the departments. However, since Canada has recognized the independence of Ukraine, one of the fundamental aspects has been its trade rules and its trade with Ukraine, which is the cornerstone of our trade.

When Ukrainians were fighting for the restoration of democracy, the government was trying to have us believe that commercial interests must not weigh in the balance in such a process. Do they think that, when societies are trying to restore the voice of democracy in their country, trade between them and Canada is not a consideration? I would think so.

China is the best example. That country is currently experiencing an important economic boom and vigorous growth and development, which will most probably expand trade between Canada and China. Is the government opposite, trying to tell us that politics and human rights considerations must not be a factor in the kind of trade we will have in the future with China? On the contrary, we must incorporate these international trading activities and decisions in Canadian foreign policy.

This is all the more true since trade has evolved in recent years. We must not forget the role of International Trade Canada, which comprises three main elements: the promotion of international trade, investment promotion and partnerships, and commercial and economic policy.

Promotion of international trade goes without saying. However, I would like to draw your attention to two other aspects of the mandate of International Trade Canada: investment partnerships. It is as if, on the other side of the House, investment was real and visible based solely on what we have accomplished in the past 10, 15, or 20 years.

However, new concerns are emerging with regard to investments. In recent years, we have seen the emergence of what is known as “socially responsible investments”. Before investing, potential investors seriously consider if the rights of workers and social rights are being respected. In my opinion, this is an integrated vision of investment partnering which, quite often, is developed by visionary small businesses wanting to ensure that these human rights are respected.

If groups within civil society or individuals believe in socially responsible investing—personally, I do—we should expect the government to have just as much faith in it. The way to clearly express this would have been to maintain and not divide foreign policy and international trade.

There is another aspect. The third aspect of the mandate of International Trade Canada relates to trade and economic policy, as if trade and economic policies remained the same and were not in constant evolution. We want to remind the government that fair trade—not trade for the sake of trade—means trade based on the creation of added-value products where the human element is integral to each product and its value. It is as if this did not exist, in the government's eyes. If the government truly believed in fair trade, it would maintain the conditions needed for these small groups to succeed. No, the decision is made to say trade is trade.

Biodiversity is another such example, since Canada has decided not to ratify the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Its failure to ratify this protocol means it does not want to distinguish between products with GMOs and traditional products. So, it does not want to distinguish between the different products on the market.

To ensure a policy that ensures and that should ensure consistency, we must reject this bill which, in my opinion, clearly fails to make effective use of human resources and is clearly inconsistent in terms of services. This decision is, as I mentioned earlier, completely inappropriate and above all unjustified. For these reasons, we will be voting against this bill.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-32. As has been mentioned before, Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 are companion bills, which we will be dealing with over the course of time.

In my role as CIDA critic, I have had the opportunity to take part in a few foreign affairs committee meetings recently while our critic from Halifax was travelling on business related to the committee. It was interesting to hear my colleague from the Liberals say there was no necessity to have international trade as part of the foreign affairs committee.

I was glad to hear my colleague from the Bloc mention that in just the last week, in the only meetings I have attended, we were dealing with issues of trade, specifically Bill C-25 and RADARSAT. That certainly very much was commercialization; that was what we were talking about. It was a commercialized agreement made with the U.S. on dealing with images that come through RADARSAT.

Just as a note on that one before I get into my real discussion on Bill C-32, it was interesting to find out at the meeting that the Government of Canada had given a company $430 million to put RADARSAT in place. The company invested $92 million and said, “Here is a deal”. We thought Joey Smallwood made the best deal in Newfoundland for the sale of power from Churchill Falls, but let me tell members that the government proved it could come up with a better deal. From the Government of Canada, from the taxpayers, $430 million, and from the company, $92 million, so let us guess who owns it: the company that put in $92 million. Let us guess what else: Canada is going to pay for the images. Is that not a deal? As well, if that satellite happens to fall out of the sky and creates some problems, we cover the liability. What a deal for us.

Let me say that we do not want these people negotiating too many things on our behalf. I was shocked. I thought I had heard it all, but it actually gets better. I hope we will have a chance to discuss it more when we debate Bill C-25, but if Canadians want some real fine tuning, they should pay attention to it and ask some questions about that bill when it comes before the House.

Just to get back to Bill C-32, because this is an important issue, I think it is important that I read out exactly what Bill C-32 does.Canadians probably do not realize exactly how a bill comes before us. We get a piece of paper with the name of the bill on the front and it tells us pretty much what the bill will do. Inside the bill there is a recommendation. Here is what the recommendation on this bill states:

Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.

I want to specify what “the appropriation of public revenue” is, because there is no question that what we are dealing with here is an additional cost to the Canadian taxpayers. There is no question about that.

This is happening at a time when we have a situation in our country in which the government, despite having a surplus, has taken more and more dollars from numerous programs. As a result we do not have, in my view, enough money in old age security for our seniors. We have taken dollars from the EI fund, so there is not enough money for EI benefits. We have issues with child poverty. There is not enough money to address that. We do not have a national housing policy. There are huge shortages of housing around our nation. They are huge in the first nations communities in my riding, and there are absolutely appalling conditions. There are shortages all over the country, not just in first nations communities.

In this situation, our municipalities and our cities are fighting for infrastructure dollars, trying to get tax dollars back because they have to repair the infrastructure. We have a situation where water and sewer infrastructure is lacking in numerous communities throughout the country. We have shortages in our health care as far as trained professionals and other individuals are concerned. There are shortages of health care equipment.

There are huge issues around the country, but what is the government's priority? It is going to set aside money to have separate departments for foreign affairs and international trade. Some might argue that this would cost only a small amount of money. Even if it is $1 million or $2 million, that would be enough money to put more MRI machines where they are needed. It would be enough money to enable us to give more money to seniors. It would be enough money to give additional assistance in pharmacare programs. It would be additional money for post-secondary education. It is not okay to say that it is just a small amount of money. It is an additional cost, and there other costs as well.

I will go to another section of the bill. It states:

The Governor in Council may appoint two Associate Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs,--

And it goes on:

The Governor in Council may designate one of the Associate Deputy Ministers appointed under subsection (1) to be Deputy Minister for Political Affairs.

We are talking about a whole new bureaucracy being involved in setting up this department. In my view we do not have the exact costs here. I know it is going to be more of a cost and the question is whether we should be putting taxpayers' dollars in at this point in time, if ever.

Apart from that, Canadians need to know that it was just over a decade ago that the federal government merged foreign affairs and international trade. They were merged 10 years ago. Now we are going to spend some money and demerge them. Why are we doing this? One observer said that it was because the Prime Minister wants to. He wants to. There is no real justification for having to do this. It is, quite frankly, the opposite. There is justification for not doing this.

My colleague from the Bloc, the member for Joliette, mentioned a number of reasons. They are very valid reasons. International trade and foreign affairs are tied together. Each and every trip that I have ever gone on, when we are dealing with issues related to another country and we are meeting with the different officials from that country, there is always discussion of issues related to trade and foreign affairs.

I am pleased to say that on a recent trip we had discussions with colleagues in Viet Nam, Russia and China. We dealt with trade issues and had discussions with these colleagues. We also dealt with issues of human rights. All of this comes together and we know that it should.

As my colleague from Joliette mentioned, if we are going to deal in trade and do business with a country, then we should be able to say to that country that it has to do certain things as far as human rights, labour legislation and the protection of workers is concerned. We must talk about human rights and treating everyone fairly in that country.

We must be able to ask if there are practices in place where people do not have the right of religious expression. We must be able to say that we want people to be given that opportunity. We should be able to have those discussions.

I hope my colleagues from the Conservative Party will go a step beyond saying they will look after business and support this because it is the best thing for business and trade.

The reality is that it is not in the best interests for Canada to do business with certain countries. My colleague from the Conservatives has criticized the state of human rights in China. Does that party not think it is important that when we are dealing with trade and foreign affairs that we should be able to say to China that as a country it must make moves in this area? China has one of the most undemocratic and hostile regimes as far as human rights. Do the Conservatives not think that those things should come together? Is that not what doing business together and improving things for everyone throughout the world is about? It certainly is in my view.

My colleague from Joliette also mentioned Wal-Mart. We have seen the situation where the one unionized Wal-Mart in Canada will be closed. We can think that it is not a federal government issue. In itself it may not be a federal government issue. However, the issue is to recognize why Wal-Mart is doing that. We do not want to be promoting that kind of a position within our country. We do not want to be doing that. Canadians believe that the right of representation is there.

More and more I am seeing issues where this government is accepting the crawl to the bottom of the barrel. It is the basis on what the government is willing to accept as far as human rights are concerned. I know of various situations. I have heard of numerous cases in the United States where Wal-Mart pays the lowest wages possible so that all of their workers will be able to get medicaid. Then Wal-Mart does not have to be pay anything from the company.

I was in the U.S. at a time when a story broke where Wal-Mart had signed contracts with a company to do the cleaning of its stores, knowing full well that the company was using illegal workers. Therefore, the company could pay the workers less and, as a result, Wal-Mart paid less for the cleaning.

We do not want to be promoting that. We want to stand behind good, decent values in support of each other and decent wages for individuals. More and more I see this kind of action, saying we do not want to tie human rights with trade because somehow trade is the ultimate. Companies having the right to trade is the ultimate goal. It is not mine. It is not my ultimate goal. I do not see human beings as a natural resource for companies to make a buck off of them. That is not how I base my life and I would hope it is not how others do as well.

I went off on a bit of a tangent, but when one starts to realize what seems to be happening in one's own country, it is starting to look an awful lot like what is happening in some other countries. One wants to ensure that the government is made to face it once in a while and have its members realize exactly what is happening because so often they do not know exactly what is happening in each and every area.

I am going to have to tie Bill C-32 and Bill C-31 together because another issue in this whole discussion is the fact that the government is in the process, so we hear, of an international policy review. It is beyond my wildest imagination why we would be spending money and time on an international policy review when the report has not been finalized and been given to someone to review or had a whole scope of meetings with the country.

The government says it is in the process of an international policy review, but before getting the results of that international policy review it is going to divide international trade and foreign affairs. It seems absolutely ridiculous. We use the terminology that it is putting the cart before the horse. No kidding.

It would be the same as spending a whole pile of money on the Romanow report on health care, but before even getting the report the government would go ahead and implement new programs and do different things in health care. I guess I cannot say it is the same because there was no hope of anything being implemented in health care by the government, so I probably should not have used that analogy.

The reality with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 is that it makes no sense to be carrying out an international policy review. People in my riding from the multicultural community contact me and say they want to have some discussions on the international policy review. There are people who have been actively involved in our communities since they came to Canada. They have taken a personal interest in the workings of our government and country, and want to be part of that international policy review. What is it saying to all those people who were going to do that job quite seriously and get their input in the international policy review if the government rushes to separate two departments with no justification for doing so?

My colleague from Joliette mentioned the 270 former diplomats who think this is a crazy thing to do. Certainly they must be in the know. They are the ones who have been involved in this for years. It is really a strange situation. It has us wondering why the government is doing this. What is the great benefit? I must say that I have not heard a really good reason yet.

I want to talk about an area where the government could have moved. As the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade exists now, we have the Canadian International Development Agency and there is a minister for CIDA, but there is no legislation in this country to mandate CIDA. That is a piece of legislation we should have been dealing with, a mandate for CIDA.

It spends a huge amount of money and is supported by Canadians because we are caring individuals and value our representation, and we support what our country does for the world. Is there a mandate for CIDA spending millions of dollars? There is no mandate for CIDA. The government's priority is a piece of legislation to separate the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. There is no legislation to mandate CIDA. That is unacceptable. It is absolutely unacceptable that this would be the government's priority and not CIDA.

The issue of not having a mandate for CIDA is twofold. First, we do not know for sure exactly what CIDA is supposed to be supporting and what Canadians want CIDA to do. Most Canadians want to see CIDA dealing with the alleviation of poverty. That should be the mandate. The other area that Canadians want to see, and they want to see this in all aspects of government but certainly in CIDA, is the transparency and accountability of CIDA dollars, of Canadian taxpayers' dollars. With no legislation for CIDA, how do we ensure that? How do we ensure that Canadian taxpayers' dollars given to CIDA will be followed through, and have the accountability and transparency that Canadians want?

I say to the government and to all my colleagues in the House not to accept these pieces of legislation. There is absolutely no urgency to do it. It is unconscionable to be accepting these pieces of legislation before the international policy review. I hope the people in all of our communities will come out and say to us that it is not okay to be doing this, it is not okay to be spending taxpayers' money. If the government is going to do this then it should forget the international policy review because there is no point. It is a farce. It is slap in the face. The government does not care what people have to say. It is going to go ahead and do this first. It is not acceptable.

If my colleagues want to really have a priority, they should give CIDA a mandate. Canadians have shown what kind of people they are during the tsunami disaster. They came out wholeheartedly and wanted to help out. We need people to help out on a continual basis and we need taxpayers' dollars, stable funding, and funding that we can tell year by year is going to meet the needs of our assistance in the world. We need a mandate for CIDA far more than we need Bills C-31 and C-32.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely mind-boggling to listen to the parliamentary secretary. If he were at the Davos Economic Forum, he would be taken for an ultra-right guy. At this very moment, the forum is focusing on social issues and democracy than on commercial issues. Globalization is about opening markets but also about standing up for democracy and promotion rights, namely union, democratic and environmental rights, as well as cultural diversity rights. If the member still does not get that, he is 30 years behind.

Besides, he argues that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade does not deal with commercial matters. The sole fact that the committee decided to study simultaneously Bill C-31 establishing the Department of International Trade and Bill C-32 on the Foreign Affairs Department proves that this the member is wrong. The matter was not referred to the sub-committee on investment and international trade, because it was thought that it was about foreign affairs as well as international trade and, therefore, had to be addressed by the committee itself.

We are presently studying Bill C-25 on remote sensing satellites. This bill is about international trade, since the Canadian industry hopes to sell images throughout the world, but also about foreign affairs because we do not want those images to work against the military and trade interests of Canada.

Members will understand the point I was trying to make about the partition of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Department. It is the result of a retrograde vision of international trade and foreign affairs.

The parliamentary secretary should know that at least 60% to 70% of our foreign affairs are about trade policy and that the best way for Canada to promote its values and vision is to communicate its ideas through its trade policy.

The comments of the secretary parliamentary only served to reinforce my belief that this decision goes against common sense and modernity. I am more convinced than ever that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill and I invite all members to vote against those two bills.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 is an act respecting the Department of Foreign Affairs. The bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and other acts as a consequence of the establishment of the Department of International Trade.

The bill takes account of changes of responsibilities held by the Minister of Foreign Affairs following the establishment of the now separate Department of International Trade. It also makes brief reference to the relationship of the Minister of International Cooperation to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Most changes appear merely to make adjustments in language as a result of the severance of the responsibilities of the Minister of International Trade from the package of responsibilities formerly conducted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

However, the present text needs clarification or expansion at several points. As it stands, it leaves the impression that the combined Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade remains, when it will not upon the passing of Bill C-31. The devolution of certain responsibilities upon another minister is apparent rather than concrete, these being the responsibilities of the Minister of International Cooperation.

The bill codifies the December 12, 2003, order in council, as has been said, separating the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two departments.

By introducing the legislation, the government is formalizing the changes made last December. Since then, Foreign Affairs Canada, FAC, has continued to coordinate and conduct Canada's foreign policy, providing the services to Canadians travelling, working and living abroad. The creation of separate Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will, it is hoped, enable both departments to better focus on their core mandates, with separate budget building capabilities and distinct lines of authority, or so the theory goes.

The act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act codifies the changes made in the order. Specifically, it is supposed to reaffirm that FAC is under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for the management and direction of the department both in Canada and abroad. The bill sets out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which largely mirror those set out in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, minus those responsibilities related to international trade. It also adjusts several federal acts to reflect the appearance that FAC and International Trade Canada, which is now known as ITCan, are two separate departments. They are separate, but maybe they are not.

We need to ask for clarifications of certain ambiguities. The language produced for a revised section 1, subsection 2(1) provides that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is continued under the name of the Department of Foreign Affairs, over which the Minister of Foreign Affairs, appointed by the Commission under the Great Seal, presides. If the combined department, DFAIT, still lives as one body, how can its minister not be master of the whole body? Thus, it appears that the separation of the Department of International Trade from DFAIT is apparent, not real.

The Minister of International Cooperation likewise appears to have only subordinate authority. That minister is described as carrying out his or her responsibilities with the concurrence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, while using the “services and facilities of the Department of Foreign Affairs”.

A further ambiguity surrounds the description of associate deputy ministers. While the foreign affairs act provides for three associate deputy ministers, the proposed legislation provides for only two. Was the missing third responsible for international cooperation? Were that officer's responsibilities those now performed by the Minister of International Trade?

Exact responsibilities for the associate deputy ministers are not provided, but it is stated that the governor in council may designate one of the associate deputy ministers appointed under subsection (1) to be deputy minister for political affairs. What is the force of this word “may”? Is it intended to create this office or not? What are the contemplated responsibilities of the other associate deputy minister?

The official opposition must just not swallow everything that comes from the government side. We in the past have criticized governments for the practice of multiplying ministers of the Crown. The opposition has regularly maintained that lines of responsibility for governmental policy and action must be rigorously defined for the purpose of ministerial accountability. Multiplication of persons answering for shared government policies complicates the business of securing authoritative answers in the House on behalf of the people of Canada.

There has also been no statement as to the estimated costs. Government suggests that this exercise will be cost neutral, but that is really unrealistic. Talk to any public middle manager going through this exercise and he or she will tell us there are a lot of costs.

Implementing this so-called separation will inevitably entail costs in reassignment of personnel, changes in facilities, titles, names of offices and officers, attendant requirements for communication and budget building. The whole thing will be quite expensive.

Questions about such details should be asked at both committees. Comprehensive estimates are required to justify the main case.

The government is proposing this move, but has it really made its core case to do so? What is accomplished by having ministers without ministries? Is this a pattern: magnifying the titles of deputy ministers; creating ministers of second rank without ministries; complicating chains of responsibility; causing opposition critics to chase down responsible ministers for questioning in the House? The same obstacles are presented to journalists and commentators and the rank and file of citizens who seek information about public programs and decisions of government.

The government must offer in committee answers to remaining questions, particularly the matter of the continuing existence of DFAIT. The minister should explain to us in detail what authority he will have or will continue to have over the Minister of International Cooperation, and why this ministerial position exists without its own full separate department.

Some questions come to mind about the bill. There were good reasons to combine in the past. Were all those reasons in the past wrong?

What were the real problems which preceded this decision to separate? Did the initiative come from within external affairs? If so, what problems were they trying to solve by making this proposal? What is the substantive background justification for the move?

Has any research been done into the reasons that were used at the time of the combination of the two departments?

Certainly the chain of command which is envisaged following the creation of the new ministers and the deputy ministers needs to be clarified. Will the new ministers and deputy ministers continually answer to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or will they become separate entities?

Who is being served by this move? What are the improved end product results identified that will make a difference to Canadians? How will the voters be better served? How will our Canadian national interest be enhanced? Will it make the government any faster off the mark in dealing with the legal challenge, for instance, on the Byrd amendment regarding softwood lumber? Those are the kinds of issues we should be dealing with, not reorganizing our own offices.

Parliament is not the government. Parliament is where the government comes to get permission to tax and spend the people's money, and to get legislation passed by the people's representatives. The government proposes, but Parliament is a separate entity that must vote and pass the legislation and vote the money. Government must make its case to Parliament. The question remains open if it has made that case with this bill.

The government has danced all around the central question of why and for whom. When all is said and done, maybe it is nothing more than a payoff to a political buddy, so that Liberals can hook their thumbs in their lapels, smile and turn to the world and say, “I am a full minister. I am a somebody”. Sadly, this seems to be the Liberal way.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint my hon. colleagues in the House of Commons in what will be a very interesting debate, I am sure. We will be able to demonstrate quantifiably why Bill C-31, along with Bill C-32, both acts that require and codify the order in council which took place in 2003 to split the Department of Foreign Affairs from international trade, indeed has attributes worthy of the consideration and support of the House of Commons.

Today I have the pleasure of speaking to the legislation amending the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act. This means that the government is now codifying in law the December 12, 2003, order in council with respect to this department. The Minister of International Trade has also introduced legislation in the creation of this department.

By formalizing the separation into two departments of the former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the legislation reaffirms that the Department of Foreign Affairs is under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for the management and direction of the department, both in Canada and abroad, and the conduct of the external affairs of Canada.

It does remove from the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs those responsibilities related to international trade, which are now covered in the new International Trade Act.

Finally, it amends several federal acts to reflect the fact that International Trade Canada and Foreign Affairs Canada are indeed two separate departments.

I would like to draw a picture of the overall context of this bill and what it will help us achieve.

Nowadays, events that happen around the world can affect Canadians, and their impact is growing. This is so because Canadians who are active around the world can be affected and may then need consular services or other forms of assistance in an emergency. In other instances, it is our interests, such as our security interests, which might be compromised by global terrorism or other threats. Or, our values come under attack, as in the case of the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. The huge outpouring of support from Canadians for the victims of the tsunami in Asia has revealed the full extent of their deep concern for the well-being of those who share this planet with us.

I must emphasize that the deep interest of Canadians in world affairs is well known by the government. That is why we have allocated more than $400 million to help the victims of the tsunami. It is also why the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not here in person today. As the hon. members know, he is currently in the Middle East, analyzing how Canada could help ensure that the recent peace overtures made in that troubled region are built on.

In an increasingly complex world, we must do more than just react. We must be in a position to prevent problems from arising, to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves and, where appropriate, to respond to crises more efficiently and in a more timely fashion than in the past.

This new legislation will bring us closer to these objectives. It is an integral part of this government's commitment to renew Canada's international role. A key factor in this renewal process will be the strengthening of Canada's international departments. These are essential tools, if we want to play an effective role on the world stage. For our tools to remain effective, however, we have to fine-tune and adapt them to the challenges facing us on the international scene.

The legislation would help us accomplish, in my view, this task. The new international trade department would allow Canada to focus on growing trade and investment opportunities around the world, increasing our ability to remain competitive, as well as other measures. Foreign affairs will continue to work closely with the new trade department in advancing Canadian interests.

For foreign affairs, the legislation would reaffirm the way forward for the department. Foreign affairs, I know doubt need to tell the House, has a very proud history: from Lester B. Pearson's Nobel Prize winning invention of peacekeeping to the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel landmines and the International Criminal Court, foreign affairs has helped Canada lead internationally.

The department recognizes that there are many more players involved in international affairs today and that many new issues are of course now only coming to the fore. The department will continue to have a central role in Canada's international effort and it stands ready to meet the new challenges brought forward by a changing world environment.

I should point out that these challenges are many. They include North America. Our friendship with the United States has never been more crucial, from defence and security, to environment, to management of our joint economic space. It is a relationship not only of vital importance in this continent, but to our role globally as well.

As the Prime Minister has stressed, we need more sophisticated management of this partnership. The department will take steps to place new emphasis on this goal, as well as accelerating expansion of our growing partnership with Mexico.

We know, with the presence here of President Vicente Fox, that much of the relationship that we have with that country is now far more pronounced and more involved in ways that were probably not conceivable 10 or 15 years ago.

Another area is international security. Security threats, from terrorism to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to failing states, all of these have become much more complex and interwoven. The department will lead in developing integrated policy to address them together with more effective and, indeed, faster means to respond to crises and to build lasting security.

Global issues as well constitute another area of change. The issues that matter to Canadians and the world are increasingly and ever-increasingly interconnected. We can think of climate change, the depletion of ocean resources, SARS and poverty in the developing world. It is clear that no one country can deal with these issues. Only through international cooperation can we progress.

However, the UN, which remains the cornerstone of our multilateral policy and other multilateral bodies, needs our help to meet the challenges. As such, foreign affairs will target as a primary goal more effective, flexible multilateral action to tackle these important global issues.

Another area is the strengthening of our bilateral relationships. Although Canada must be anchored in North America, our interests, values and diverse ethnic make-up, and the growing impact of global issues on us, demand we be a global player too. However we cannot of course be everywhere. We have to make choices. While retaining our global reach, the department must refocus, emphasizing regions and countries growing in importance through and through. Integral to this will be the development of country and regional strategies involving all interested departments.

To achieve important foreign policy objectives, the Department of Foreign Affairs will play the role of integrator and defender of Canada's international effort. We will apply a unique and coherent Canadian position. This objective is especially important when we consider that 15 federal departments, 6 federal agencies and 3 provincial governments host our missions.

The department will continue to manage an efficient global network of 174 foreign missions and thereby ensure that Canada is represented in every region of the world. The department will try to renew the linguistic capability of its foreign service, in particular for difficult languages such as Mandarin or Arabic.

The department will continue to improve its consular services—I am sure of it, since I know this area well—and its passport services for Canadians, who are increasingly active internationally thereby increasing the need to help them ensure their safety. As we saw during the tsunami, Foreign Affairs has a vital role to play in helping Canadians in distress, wherever they may be.

The department will continue to apply a well-defined public diplomacy strategy, so that Canada's voice, ideas and innovations are heard, seen and understood by all, and so that we can form coalitions with people from other countries, which we need to achieve our objectives.

In all these fields, the Department of Foreign Affairs will work in close collaboration with its partner departments, in particular National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and International Trade, as well as with other departments including Health and Public Safety, the provincial governments, of course, Parliament, and a wide variety of Canadians. Foreign Affairs will be the lead department that will provide consistency in Canada's relations with the world.

The base for this renewed activity is the bill before us today. By reaffirming the department's mandate, it establishes new foundations so that Canada can proudly retain its place and continue to exercise its influence in the world.

I have had the opportunity to hear a number of interventions and I look forward to a very fervent debate with all members of the House of Commons on the significance of these two bills, but in particular this bill which would create a new foreign affairs department.

I can readily say, given the work that I as a member have done in the area of consular affairs, along with a very dedicated and devoted first class group of people who work for us overseas and who work to help Canadians day in and day out, that the world has changed.

As much as we stress issues like humanitarianism and talk about new ways in which we begin to trade with each other, we also recognize that Canada's policy in terms of foreign affairs is extremely important.

To put things in their proper context, two year's ago the government undertook the most comprehensive study on the opinions of Canadians. It engaged in town hall meetings on a macro scale to get ideas and opinions from Canadians that took into account and took stock and inventory of the changes that were taking place in Canada's perspective of our work in the rest of the world.

I can say with some certainty that Canadians do believe we have to get it right but, more important, that we need be able to say that the Department of National Defence, where it is needed, is different from the Department of Foreign Affairs, and that the international trade component, which is growing by leaps and bounds with our trade relationships with so many countries around the world, the very successful missions by the Prime Minister and, very recently, with Asia, although they are important and are integrated, they are nevertheless distinct and separate.

In our time in this Parliament, perhaps the most significant international event is the one we witnessed about a month and a half ago with the disaster in Asia with the tsunami. That crisis was a foreign affairs response and the response had to be working to coordinate our best resources to ensure that Canada could react and react swiftly. I believe all of us in the House believe that a job was done that puts our efforts first on the map and puts us in a situation where we can fairly say that we have extremely competent people working for us in the department.

However we cannot, in the case of the tsunami, say that foreign affairs and international trade are linked. I heard the hon. member from Rosemont a little earlier say that human rights would be forgotten if international trade and foreign affairs were split. Human rights are human rights.

The hon. member from the Bloc Québécois took a position in favour of human rights and humanitarian issues. Still, he thinks there is an issue here, with respect to which trade is important in order to continue to maintain our position on humanitarian issues. That does not make sense.

I would argue in the reverse. What the hon. member should be stressing is that there are issues that devolve from foreign affairs which have been around for some time. I was very surprised to hear one member from the Bloc Québécois say in the committee a few month's ago that he did not know the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was about to be separated.

Although this was done as a result of an order in council going back to December 2003, we did not hear a word from members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The sky did not fall. However we were able to create a more pragmatic division that works to help, on the one hand, international commerce by allowing them to focus on the ever-changing world and, to be sure, pressures of globalization, but at the same time allowing foreign affairs to concentrate on its efforts.

The Prime Minister created a role for consular affairs that allows us to immediately to respond to the concerns of Canadians. Many countries around the world are reflecting on the reality that commerce and foreign affairs are not always going to agree. They are not always part of the same agenda. They may have very different and mutually different ambitions, all of them to be sure to help Canadians abroad, but from different perspectives.

From time to time it is important for us to understand that we have to get this right. We have to modernize our thinking that is consistent with a changing world. The cold war is over. The legislation to bring these departments together was first promoted in 1981. I was in my first year as a budding politician working for a cabinet minister back then. It was a very different world. Terrorism was not the concern that it is today, and certainly not in North America. The notion of potential and emerging markets and trade opportunities were not the kinds of concerns that were readily expressed back then but are very important, indeed vital, to maintaining the jobs that the New Democratic Party thinks are disappearing overnight.

I do not see how it would be possible for us to continue having two departments under one when in fact both departments can do their work very effectively. International trade, in terms of our opportunities, in terms of exporting our technologies and our environmental technologies, are certainly there. Canadians understand that there is wisdom in us proceeding as we are today with a commitment made by the Prime Minister. We went through a federal election on this.

This is a question of understanding that the machinery of government is quite separate from the discharge of doing an effective job abroad. It does not confuse our missions. I dare say it does not confuse those who have worked in our embassies and do very good work on the consular front, and, at the same time, understand that even within our consulates and various missions around the world, will be a number of other priorities. Of course, those who will discharge the responsibility of Canadian priorities on the international level will remain the Minister of Foreign Affairs and of course the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I say to those who are somehow suggesting that this is without a basis should remind themselves of the rather exhaustive and extensive consultation which took place. The question has been raised on the subject of international policy review. We have done a very comprehensive and exhaustive study, requiring the input of many departments that will be working and that want input to ensure that the document we put together, like the one we had in 1995 as a government statement then, is also one that will meet the test of the options we have as a government, as a country and as a people. It is clear to me that we have to be united in our approach as to how we see Canada's priorities evolving.

I look forward to some of the things that will be discussed. It is important for us to remind ourselves of the core mandates of each of these departments and that, while we are proceeding with legislation at this time, the two departments have been operating in a way that is mutually interdependent but also with their own priorities and establishing their own routines. Commerce is not like foreign policy at all turns and we certainly do not want to give the impression that some of the work that we have done in the area of consular and in the area of human rights should somehow only be likened to whether there are opportunities for us on the trade side.

We can work together cooperatively, as we saw with the tsunami and as we have seen with our involvement in Ukraine. There is no trade dimension. This is really an outpouring of the pure thought of interaction and treaties between countries meant to build a better world, to ensure the global village continues to survive, and that Canada takes a pragmatic approach to its policies that are prepared to change with the changing times.

Department of International Trade Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with my colleague's second point first.

I think a lot of people will be weeping if this policy, or what appears to be a policy, continues. It is now called outsourcing. What a word. People's jobs are being taken away. Their jobs are being sent to corporations that feel they can get a better deal and do something at a much lower cost. The Minister of International Trade had the audacity to tell us that this would be good for workers and good for Canada's economy. If this were not so serious, we would be amused, but it is pretty serious because it does have a real impact. Many people will be weeping at the end of the day when they see their jobs being shipped out of here.

The importance of this department having a comprehensive policy around trade and foreign policy was absolutely critical to developing a program to protect Canadian interests and Canadian jobs and to work in the global economy in the international community.

This is further evidence of one minister running off and doing something while another department is espousing broad human values, which seem to be so contradictory. We are trying to raise some of those contradictions in the House. We want to know why one minister is telling us that the loss of jobs and outsourcing is a good thing, while the Prime Minister is running around the globe talking about human values and human rights. Those things are working against each other. That is another reason that the department should not be split apart.

On the member's second point, I have seen several years of the B.C. Liberal government creating chaos. One has to wonder whether the government has ever considered the impact its decisions will have on the people who work in those departments? It seems to me that the public service is maligned. It is an easy target for the government to take on, whether it is through cuts or reorganization, and yet most often it is the people within those departments who know what works, what produces results and what produces value but they are often never heard.

We know there was no consultation done with respect to Bill C-31. Thousands of people work for this department. They have invested a lot of time and professionalism to it. I bet they never had the opportunity to give their input on this. It is a shame because that creates real instability for people.

That is not the central question but it is a consideration. It would have given everyone more assurance if there had been proper consultation before this bill came forward.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for a very eloquent presentation on the reasons why Bill C-31 is inappropriate. I thought some of her comments were very pertinent to the debate.

Being a fellow member of Parliament from British Columbia, the hon. member and I have seen the actions of the B.C. Liberal government over the last four years with a constant restructuring, pulling apart and tossing together of ministries. I would like her to comment on that.

Another comment she made that was extremely relevant and pertinent had to do with the outsourcing of jobs. She mentioned the member for Timmins—James Bay who brought forward the Canadian flag lapel pins that were being manufactured offshore.

We heard the Minister of International Trade this week actually encouraging corporations to employ people outside the country. He said that we would not weep if there were lost Canadian jobs. However a member of the government earlier in the debate said that he thought, in some sort of weird physics lesson, that for every action there was an equal and opposite reaction.

If that were the case we would not have seen the 40,000 lost jobs in the textile and clothing industry under the Liberal government's watch. We would not have seen the 20,000 lost jobs in the softwood lumber industry under the Liberal government's watch. We would not have seen the constant degradation in the quality of jobs that we have seen in this country over the past 12 years where there are fewer and fewer workers having access to pension benefits and fewer people having full time jobs. Jobs are becoming increasingly temporary.

I would like the hon. member to comment on those two things, the administrative chaos that she has lived through as a member representing British Columbia with the provincial government, and second, the comment that somehow jobs are not being lost when we know for a fact that they are.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her very clear and very substantial speech.

I would like to ask her if she thinks it is logical for the government to have decided to have this debate on Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 when it has been announced that, in a few weeks the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be presenting new directions concerning foreign affairs. Mind you, we have been hearing that this was coming for over a month.

All things considered, is this debate not somewhat irrelevant, at a time when we should be focussing more on substance instead of talking about splitting up a department without any foundation in terms of content? I totally agree with her analysis about this being harmful to the economic and political interests of Canada. From a logical standpoint, however, does she think there is any point in having this debate before the foreign policy directions have been discussed?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the House to Bill C-31.

I want to recognize the work of my colleague from Burnaby--New Westminster. He has done a terrific job in putting forward the NDP's very serious concerns about this bill. I want to begin by speaking about what this bill means and what its consequences are, and then move to some of the specific concerns that we have.

The first thing that strikes me since we came back last September is that the work of the government has been almost completely characterized by a housekeeping agenda. We have seen ministries pulled apart. We have seen new ministries created. We had a bill that was to create Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, which had already happened a year ago and finally the bill caught up with it. We have seen another bill that created the new Ministry of Human Resources and Skills Development, and on and on it goes.

For us in the NDP, it raises a very serious question along with the feedback that we get from our constituents because it belies what the agenda of the government is all about. Every day in the House during question period we raise extremely serious questions that are the reality of what Canadians are facing, whether it is job losses or the fact that working people are making less money now than they did a decade ago.

One would expect that in this chamber we would be debating these kinds of issues, that we would have a plan from the government to deal with these real questions facing Canadians, yet what have we seen? We have seen this very ho-hum legislative agenda. We have before us today another bill pulling apart another department. For what reason? Is there any logic to this?

We do know that there has been very little consultation. In fact, there has been no consultation on this. It has not been studied in committee. It is not known where these recommendations might have come from, but here it is. It is put forward as some sort of housekeeping initiative. Pulling apart this department and separating out Foreign Affairs and policy on foreign affairs from trade issues is something that will have enormous consequences, both in a policy sense and in the international arena.

As members of the NDP, when we took a look at this bill, we immediately knew instinctively that this bill was the wrong way to go. Now we are hearing some of the commentary that has come out, for example, from retirees from the foreign service who have written to the committee, to the minister, and who have communicated with us. We can see the kinds of serious concerns that are within the professional service. We should be listening to those people.

These are individuals who have invested their professional lives and careers in the foreign service, in DFAIT. When they say to us that they do not understand why this department is being split apart and they do not understand why this bill is coming forward, then it is incumbent upon us to hear what they have to say and to respond to the genuine concerns that they are putting forward.

The fact is that Canada is a well respected middle power. It is a role that Canadians want to see us play in the international community. We are not one of the superpowers, but people see us as an independent nation with an agenda that speaks in the international community, that hopefully has integrity and principle, and is based on the values of protecting people's human rights, and protecting and promoting fair trade values.

It only makes sense to have a department, and presumably it did make sense because we have had this department for 15 years or more since it was created, that was able to bring together these different, very fundamental policy initiatives within government, so that Canada, in terms of its place in the international community would have a policy basis from which to deal with these very important questions. On the one hand it could speak about and maintain the values of human rights and Canada's place in the world, but also recognize that in the context of trade. To us, this initiative is something that is very illogical.

The Prime Minister recently returned from China. There have been other initiatives to other countries. In fact, we have a Prime Minister who likes to be more away than he is at home. We have a Prime Minister who is trying to make us believe that he has this very noble and honourable international agenda for Canada's role in the world. Again, why would we then take a department that has dealt with these two key issues and break it apart?

We have been raising the question of our outrage about the sell-out of Canadian jobs in the House. It has included the possible foreign takeover of Noranda by China, foreign investment, and the lack of any kind of policy review about foreign investment and takeover. The issue that flared up just last week raised by our member for Timmins—James Bay stunned the House in regard to the little Canadian Maple Leaf on a pin. He said to people, “Why is it that Canadian jobs are being exported and being sent overseas? Why are we supporting a race to the bottom? Why are we supporting an economic agenda and a trade agenda that is based on no value of human rights?”

People were stunned and we saw the government scramble. In fact, the minister that day really did not have an answer for the question that was put in the House. He was very much taken aback. However, several days later the government found a loophole and it found a way for the little Maple Leaf flag pin to be made in Canada. It was a very symbolic thing. It spoke to a central issue that has concerned us in the NDP and has concerned Canadians right across the country and that is the future of our economic prosperity, the future of Canadian workers and Canadian families. That may seem distant from this department, but this is a very related question.

I suggest again to members of the House and to the minister that it is a serious mistake to move ahead with this kind of legislation. I know the next piece of legislation that we will be debating is to create the new foreign affairs department. Therefore, we will have these two separate departments.

I have been on so many committees where no matter what party one is a member of members would express frustration about how government departments operate in silos. Whether it is social policy, economic policy, environmental policy, agriculture or whatever it is, we can hear the frustration of government backbenchers too. There is frustration about how difficult it is to deal with some of these complex issues that we face and the studies we might undertake in a committee because we deal with these different departments that never speak to one another. They do not communicate.

We have these ministers who perhaps at a cabinet level have some communication, but very often within the real world of this federal bureaucracy, especially when there have been so many cutbacks in the public service, these departments become very territorial. I have participated in committees where the whole committee has said, and a word was invented, “horizontality”. What a word, but it was invented to speak to this issue of needing to ensure that departments were working together in a much more comprehensive, constructive, and holistic way to deal with complex policy issues.

That has been a thrust over the seven years that I have been here, whether it has been on issues around employment insurance, social policy or housing. Even in the housing field, a whole secretariat was set up interdepartmentally. I know the minister responsible for housing is very proud of that, that a secretariat was set up to ensure that the different departments that were involved in one way or another on the question of affordable housing were actually working together.

Here we had a department that was actually bringing together these two essential components and now it is going to be broken apart. That is really a very unfortunate thing. It is something that we should expose as a short-sighted move. We should expose it as being very unprofessional. This is evidenced by the letters that we have received from retirees in the foreign service. We should expose it for something that will downgrade Canada's ability to operate in the international community in a very complex world.

It is a move that will lose us credibility as we move forward. We need to have a keen nuance about foreign affairs policies and development, and trade issues.

From the point of view of the NDP and the work that our very able critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has done in speaking to this bill, and I know our foreign affairs critic, the member for Halifax, has been very involved in this area, it is a real mistake to bring forward both of these bills to split DFAIT. I think it is something that we will regret in the long run.

People work in that department and have a lot invested in terms of the different portfolios. We have seen numerous reorganizations in British Columbia. Every department has been turned upside down and inside out. New departments are created and put back together again. They give people different ministers and different subsets and junior ministers.

I always think that when that happens it is a real sign that there is a real structural problem. It is a sign that there is a real problem and a vacuum in leadership. People at the end of the day do not know what to do, so they start moving the blocks around. It strikes me that this is what we have been getting into with this government. There is no agenda. There is no vision about where we are going. There is no vision about protecting Canadian workers. There is no vision about protecting Canadian jobs in Canadian companies. It seems like everything is up for sale.

Bill C-31 is a part of that. It is not the critical part, but it is a part of that larger problem. For those reasons, we in the NDP will be opposing this bill and the break up of DFAIT.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member had to say. I think the key to her question was how we in these initiatives address the human rights violations of child labour laws, for example.

I asked this earlier and I will repeat it. What would the member prefer? She talked about the area being horrible and that people really had nothing. She talked about the effects on the population. They were already bad.

I will not refer to the area she did, but let us say there is an area with no infrastructure, water, nothing. Should we abrogate our responsibility and say that we will not be there? We can go back to when NAFTA first came into being. We talked about cheap labour in Mexico. I guarantee that if the member were to ask workers today how they are compared to 10 or 13 years ago, I am willing to bet, and I am not a betting man, dime for dollar that they would say they are better off today. Back then they were earning nothing, but now they have jobs.

The member brought forth concerns about human rights. My view was, is and will continue to be this. I would rather be there so I can have the opportunity to address it, but I know Rome was not built overnight. I do not have the ability to go in there tomorrow and tell them to change. It is a gradual process. By being there, we not only create economic activity, thus prosperity and opportunity for all concerned, but we also relate our ways, our Canadian approach, which is respect for human rights, dignity, et cetera. That is another part of Bill C-31. It might not be as tangible as they want to present it, but it is tangible and it is there.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my presentation, I would like to respond to the previous speaker when he said that it is a fait accompli, that it has been done in the back rooms. That is not the case. As we saw, he was on his feet a minute ago expressing his views. I am on my feet expressing my opinion. Yesterday we were debating Bill C-31. The Minister of International Trade and the parliamentary secretary a couple of days ago were doing the same thing. I refuse to accept the comment that this is being done behind the scenes.

Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 will be voted on in this House. We all know the numbers. We do not have a majority government but we certainly know that if we present good legislation, the opposition members would not dare not vote in favour of it, because in essence, they would be telling Canadians that they do not want to do what is good for the country. Nothing is being done in the back rooms. Everything is above board and transparent. That is why I take this opportunity to talk about Bill C-31 at second reading.

Bill C-31 establishes the Department of International Trade. I have said before and I will say again that I support this initiative, which was introduced back in December by the Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister, to create this new department. It enhances our ability to improve our trade and economic position nationally and internationally, but mostly it addresses some of the concerns that were expressed by the previous speaker and other members.

The government's decision to establish a separate Department of International Trade and to add to it the investment functions from Industry Canada is a recognition of the importance that these two functions work in close collaboration with each other in shaping a strong 21st century economy for Canada.

One of the key priorities of the new department and this government is to continue to further secure and enhance our access to the United States. Most of my comments will be primarily as our trade activities relate to the U.S. and Mexico. Of course, as we have heard repeatedly from other speakers, the United States is our major trading partner and I want to reflect that in my comments. At the same time I want to add some comments on how the Minister of International Trade is very proactive in trying to expand our horizons and secure future opportunities for Canada.

Canada and the United States share a unique and vital relationship which is driven not only by our social and cultural similarities with respect to our history, but also our economies primarily are intertwined. This serves as a model to the entire world. The importance of this relationship can never be overstated. We have heard that stated repeatedly. Earlier today in the House of Commons there were questions about our beef industry, our softwood lumber industry, energy, and the list goes on.

Canada and the United States share the largest bilateral flow of goods, services, people and capital between two countries in the entire world. Approximately $1.8 or $1.9 billion worth of goods and services move across the border each day. Canada and the United States are each other's largest customers and biggest suppliers. For example, in 2003 Canada exported $330 billion in goods to the United States and imported $240 billion in return. When members do the adding and subtracting, they will see where we stand.

The largest and most reliable source of energy was exported from Canada to the U.S. in 2003. The value of this exported energy was $42 billion U.S. The relationship is very important to Canada because over 80% of Canadian goods and services exports are destined for the United States. These exports represent approximately 30% of the value of our GDP.

Canada is the number one foreign market for 37 of the 50 states in the United States of America. Although the U.S. buys more goods from Canada than from any other country in the world, its exports to Canada represent only 1.8% of its GDP. When we compare the numbers, the percentage of GDP, 30% to 1.8%, we can see why we try to do our best to maintain an excellent relationship.

Earlier today we heard in the House that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is meeting with his counterparts in the United States. This government and the Prime Minister have been continuously working hard with the President of the United States to make sure that we have access to that market with respect to our beef industry. While trade is highly integrated and mutually dependent, the fact that we depend more on the U.S. market than the U.S. does on us is very clear.

NAFTA is the cornerstone of our trading relationship with the United States and Mexico and has served us extremely well. Under NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Canada has expanded two-way merchandise trade with the United States by over 8% annually.

NAFTA was a visionary trade agreement when it was signed and is still a model for the world. It has succeeded in stimulating growth, raising standards of living and delivering competitive prices for customers. Most of all it has created jobs and growth for Canadians right across our country. Our enterprises have been embraced. The new opportunities created by the NAFTA market have become stronger, more competitive and more export driven.

This of course has helped Canadians reach a very high level in the G-8. Today among the G-8 proudly I say we are looked at as the number one country in terms of no deficit, tremendous growth and job creation. That is not to say, of course, that we have been over the past many years recognized continuously as the best country in the world in which to live. That does not happen and people do not say that without a reason.

Since January 1, 1998 virtually all Canada-U.S. trade has been tariff free, fostering increased trade and investment among the various partners. Between 1993 and 2003, two-way trade in goods increased an average of 7.6% per year. Canada receives about 11% of the total stock of U.S. direct investment abroad, which amounted to $192 billion U.S. in 2003.

In turn, Canadian companies have also invested in the United States. In 2003 they invested approximately $127 billion U.S., accounting for 41% of Canadian direct investment abroad and employing 534,000 people in the United States. In economic terms we are truly integrated and vital to each other's economy and of course security.

We built on the already strong foundation of the Canada-U.S. relationship during President Bush's visit to Canada last November. During that visit the Prime Minister and the president committed to deepening cooperation in North America and the world as a whole. They agreed to work bilaterally to address Canada-U.S. priorities and to continue close cooperation with Mexico on issues of trilateral importance. They also announced the new partnership to lay out an agenda designed to increase the security, prosperity and quality of life of citizens on all sides of the borders.

Through the new partnership, Canada and the United States committed to continuing joint efforts on the smart borders accord to secure the safe movement of people and goods in North America. FAST, which stands for free and secure trade, and NEXUS are two examples of joint Canada-U.S. programs which have been expanded under the smart borders initiative. It has often been said that post 9/11 not just our country and the United States have changed, but the world as a whole has changed and is still changing.

That is why in cooperation with our neighbours to the south, the United States, we have been working to find the means, ways and systems not only to move goods and services expeditiously but more so to move goods and people in a secure way. FAST and NEXUS are the two systems that have been implemented to facilitate that.

The FAST initiative is designed to make cross-border commercial shipments simpler, cheaper and subject to fewer delays. Something we have been hearing about continuously is how to eliminate delays, how to expedite, how to prevent pile-ups at the border, at the Windsor crossing for example, while being cognizant of the fact that we must maintain security. FAST is currently operational at 12 land border crossings. It is anticipated that all land border crossings will be FAST capable in the near future.

The NEXUS program facilitates the movement of pre-approved travellers moving between Canada and the United States. As much as I talked about our goods moving across borders by trucks for example, we also must keep in mind that there is a tremendous number of people who frequently fly to different destinations in Canada and the U.S. for pleasure or for business, daily or on a weekly basis. The NEXUS program helps to alleviate some of the anxieties and delays that people have experienced in the past. I am sure that even now people are experiencing some.

Through this new partnership we have also committed to secure the borders through a land preclearance initiative, and make strategic investments in border infrastructure at key crossings, such as Detroit-Windsor, to ensure that physical limitations do not hamper the flow of North American commerce. Our goal is to strike the right balance between ensuring effective border security while facilitating the cross-border flow of low risk goods and services. In support of this our government has already announced more than $1 billion in border infrastructure improvements.

The North American economy is already highly integrated. We need to ensure that our policies, particularly standards and regulations, reflect and complement that integration. Through the new partnership the government has committed to pursuing joint approaches to partnerships, consensus standards and smarter regulations to promote greater efficiency and competitiveness while enhancing health and safety.

In addition we have agreed to accelerate efforts on rules of origin liberalization to help reduce export related transaction costs. NAFTA rules of origin, which determine whether a product is entitled to be shipped tariff free within the continent, and other customs formalities are often complex and impose a costly regulatory burden on business.

At the July 2004 NAFTA commission meeting, ministers endorsed a rules of origin liberalization package covering a broad range of foods, consumer and industrial products affecting approximately $20 billion U.S. in trilateral trade which was implemented by Canada and the United States last month. This is significant. Work is already well under way trilaterally to explore the scope for agreement on a second group of liberalized rules of origin to be implemented in January 2006 in sectors such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber, and motor vehicles. Through this working group we can use the NAFTA framework to further enhance and strengthen our trade and commerce relations with the United States.

All these steps reflect the reality of the North American economy. Increasingly our companies, our entrepreneurs, whether they are Canadian, American or Mexican, operate continent-wide supply chains and distribution systems. Approximately one-third of Canada-U.S. trade is intra-firm, that is, between two branches of the same corporation.

Considering many Canadian production and service hubs are located closer to U.S. markets than some American sites, and are within an hour and a half drive of the U.S., it would seem natural that companies would take advantage of strong Canada-U.S. relations to examine and maximize their business potential. We are committed to doing what we can and taking the necessary steps to facilitate and foster these trading relationships as they are of benefit to all Canadians.

Canada and the U.S. have one of the most prosperous and dispute free economic relationships in the world. There have been a few bugs here and there, but the mechanism is continuously being applied, seeking through those means to ensure that we are treated fairly. Softwood lumber is one area where on many occasions the WTO has ruled in favour of Canada. The government has continuously been at the plate, ensuring that our position, without any ambiguity, is known. The rulings speak for themselves.

As I have already mentioned, Canada and the United States have highly integrated economies, and this adds to the prosperity of both nations. This has been shown over the past 11 years that I have been here. Back in 1993 our unemployment rate was around 12.7%. In 2004 over three million jobs were created, and the economy is stable.

We eliminated the deficit many years ago. We have provided surpluses over the past several years along with balanced budgets. This has allowed the government to reinvest in the economy, whether it be in health care, social programs, research chairs, et cetera. Part of that is the result of the excellent cooperation we have with the United States.

I have said repeatedly that it is important that Bill C-31 be debated in the House so everyone has the opportunity to express their views. Just as important, Bill C-31 must be passed in the House. I encourage all members to consider why we are looking at Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. Bill C-31 is important legislation that would allow the Minister of International Trade to focus on trade.

Before I went into politics, I used to run an employment agency. One department specialized in information technology. Another specialized in the medical industry. Others specialized in the legal industry and the technical and engineering industries. I used to tell my staff that if they spread themselves too thin, they would not be effective. Consultants who worked in the IT area strictly focused in that area. The same was true for the consultants who worked in the legal area and those who worked in the medical area. They would focus on those areas only. They did not cover all ground at any given time.

Once Bill C-31 is passed, it will provide the framework for the minister of trade to focus on trade and economic activity and to generate more commerce for Canadian companies and Canadians. The end result will be revenue, employment and reinvestment in our country.

I covered more so the relationship we have with the U.S. and partially the relationship we have Mexico. That is very important. We should continue to enhance that relationship. At the same time, it is incumbent upon us as the government and with the help of all members in the House to promote new partnerships, grow economies, or as they are also termed emerging economies, whether that be China or Brazil. We cannot overlook Europe and some of the new countries unfolding as well. That will broaden the opportunity to work with the U.S. and yet create other options.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my good friend. He said that by splitting the department, it would weaken it.

By splitting the department, as Bill C-31 outlines, does he not see that it will allow trade to focus on trade and foreign affairs to focus on foreign affairs policy per se? Does he not see that it will allow the department to focus on the areas about which he has expressed concern, like labour abuse, child abuse, labour laws being strengthened, et cetera? This will enhance the department's position and ability to address those concerns.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue third reading of Bill C-29, the Patent Act. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, respecting international trade and foreign affairs.

We will then proceed to second reading of Bill C-28, which amends the Food and Drugs Act; report stage of Bill C-8, the public service bill; report stage of Bill C-3, the Coast Guard bill; and report stage of Bill S-17, respecting tax treaties.

On Monday we will begin with report stage and third reading of Bill C-24, the equalization bill. If this is completed, we will then return to the previous list where we left off.

Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days.

Next Wednesday we will commence second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill.

With respect to the question on the Judges Act, that will be forthcoming in due course.