Bill C-32 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment 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.

Department of Foreign Affairs Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-32 members of the Conservative Party will vote against the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-32.

[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.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to contribute to the introduction of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I think that this measure will definitely help Canada produce a more balanced and more consistent foreign policy as we enter the 21st century and will thus ensure a more certain and more prosperous future for all Canadians. I agree with my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, and I invite all members to support this bill.

I have no intention, of course, of repeating the minister's remarks; rather I will describe the proposed changes in more detail and provide some context.

As has already been mentioned, a year ago the Governor General signed an order in council separating the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two distinct departments. The order in council created the two departments and integrated them into the legislative framework governing all departments.

The order was made under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, which enables the governor in council to transfer any portion of the public service and powers and duties from one portion of the public service or from one minister to another. This act also gives the governor in council the power to reorganize the administration, which is essential to give the government sufficient latitude, but not the power to give or increase powers without the prior approval of Parliament.

The bill at hand only codifies the changes to the operations of the former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in accordance with the order in council regarding the Department of Foreign Affairs. In actual fact, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of International Trade have been operating as distinct entities for nearly a year.

This bill is being studied in parallel with the bill creating the Department of International Trade. That said, I shall limit myself to a brief review of the amendments it proposes to make to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act.

Bill C-32 simply gives official status to the responsibilities given to the Minister and Department of Foreign Affairs by the December 12, 2003, order in council. Broadly speaking, the proposed amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act consist in erasing references to international trade.

Because of the creation of the Department of International Trade, the reason for these changes is obvious. Therefore, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act will become the Departmentof Foreign Affairs Act and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will simply be called the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The changes will allow the minister and the employees of the department to use the new name in their official and legal correspondence.

The bill confirms that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will remain the head of the department whereas any mention of the Minister of International Trade as additional minister will be removed. However, it still mentions the Minister of International Cooperation, who supports the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his duties concerning Canada's international relations and has access to the services and facilities of the department.

However, there are now only two foreign affairs associate deputy ministers instead of three, the minister having the power to appoint one of them as deputy minister for political affairs. The bill eliminates reference to the associate deputy minister for international trade, which can now be found in the International Trade Department Act.

The powers and duties of the Minister of Foreign Affairs remain unchanged with the exception of his responsibilities over international trade which will now be under the purview of the Minister of International Trade.

For example, the section which describes the duties of the Minister of International Trade is totally removed as is the mention of international trade development. I want to underline that the international economic relations coordination function has been changed to reflect the general mandate given the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the administration of the foreign policy and the coordination of international relations.

Of course, the bill stipulates that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will no longer have the power to develop or implement trade development programs. The bill also adds on a section on allocation of funds stating that the funds authorized by Parliament for the Department's capital expenditures that are not used before year-end become obsolete at the end of the following year, unless otherwise stated in an appropriation act.

It goes without saying that the bill also provides for the addition of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the schedules of the Access to Information Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Privacy Act and the Public Sector Compensation Act. The bill creating the Department of International Trade will remove all reference to the former DFAIT in both pieces of legislation.

The powers and responsibilities of the Minister of International Trade will henceforth be set under the Department of International Trade Act, which will also amend certain other acts to replace “Minister of Foreign Affairs” by “Minister of International Trade” or to add reference to the “Minister of International Trade” if needed.

This measure is not expected to have any repercussions on the daily activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Consular services and passport services for the public will not be affected, and Foreign Affairs Canada has promised to maintain these services for all partner departments in missions.

On an operational level, all the major aspects of the separation should soon be in place. As I was saying earlier, the two departments already operate independently and coordinate their activities. The division of resources and personnel is a complex matter, but I am sure that if it is well managed, the two departments will be able to focus on their respective main mandates and Canada will be able to follow its chosen path, reinforcing its place in the world and giving itself a 21st century economy.

As the parliamentary secretary has already said, our entire foreign policy and the Department of Foreign Affairs itself, should be in step with globalization. This requires more than one department or internal agency, not to mention the provinces, to have a presence abroad. It is important to lay out a consistent strategic framework based on partnerships to achieve this.

Given the crucial role of international trade, investment and the integration of the Canadian economy to the global economy, it goes without saying that the Department of International Trade has an important place in this collaboration. For its part, once the Department of International Trade goes its separate way, the Department of Foreign Affairs will be in a better position to focus on its fundamental mandate, which will give increasing importance to achieving consistency between international programs and programs within the Canadian government and its new partners. It will be incumbent upon the Department of Foreign Affairs to interrelate the various repercussions on foreign policy of each partner's actions in trade, defence, development, environment, and so forth, and to promote in interdepartmental authorities an understanding of the larger international context.

I will let my colleagues elaborate on the advantages this bill presents to Canada. I just want to say that it is important to pass this bill. For a year now, the two departments involved, with their partner department, have worked extremely hard to promote Canada's international program.

That said, in a nutshell, there are several fundamental messages here that Canadians should understand.

First, the legislation simply reaffirms and enshrines the mandate of the Department of Foreign Affairs to coordinate and conduct Canada's foreign policy.

The Bloc Québécois continues to raise issues that are far outside the ambit of this bill and its effect. They are valid and legitimate questions that surround the question of globalization and the integration of human rights, environmental rights and environmental protection, the protection of labourers, and so on and so forth, but as far as I am concerned they fall well outside the ambit of the import of this basic bill which gives rise to a separate foreign affairs department to coordinate and conduct Canada's foreign policy.

In effect, this is simply the codification of provisions in the 12th of December, 2003 order, and it formalizes the separation of both departments. As such, the legislation has no impact whatsoever on day to day government operations. If that were the case, we would have seen such impacts, given that we are now many months after the original separation of both departments.

There are four salient features that inform the highlights of this legislation. This reaffirms that the Department of Foreign Affairs is under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for the management and the direction of both the department in Canada and abroad. It makes explicit that this minister conducts Canada's foreign policy, and no other minister, and coordinates Canada's international relations. It removes from the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs those responsibilities that are simply related to international trade. It adjusts several federal acts to reflect that Foreign Affairs Canada and International Trade Canada are two separate departments.

This bill has to be read in conjunction with the bill establishing the Department of International Trade, and although there are valid concerns being raised by all members of the House with respect to the system which governs the global marketplace, the system which governs the protection of labour and labourers, the emerging system that is in place to protect our international and national environments, the import of this bill is a simple one. It creates a separate department.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

A number of my colleagues have addressed it over the past few days. On December 12, 2003, behind closed doors, the Governor General in Council decreed that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would be split. We are talking about an administrative decision that went almost completely unnoticed. Let me remind hon. members that December 12, 2003, was no less than the day the Prime Minister was sworn in. Now, this decision must be endorsed here in Parliament.

With the tabling earlier this week of Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade, and the tabling of Bill C-32 today, many of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois have set the tone of the debate by denouncing this unintelligible decision. Today I am, of course adding my voice to theirs.

For more than three years, I had the pleasure of working with the member for Joliette, the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade and globalization. Today, among other things, I am deputy critic for globalization. Therefore, I can say in all modesty that we know a bit about international trade and globalization. Over the years, we had the opportunity to discuss with all major organizations and to follow all the debates held in the House of Commons.

I can assure you that I agree with my learned colleague from Joliette, who stood this week and today to denounce what he called a totally absurd measure. Absurd indeed, because the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself, speaking before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on November 29, 2004, was unable to explain clearly why it was necessary to create two separate departments.

But what we understood from his testimony is that it was likely the Prime Minister himself who made the decision, against the advice of various people he had consulted. Now, who did he consult and when? It remains a mystery.

The same foreign affairs minister said that the Prime Minister, after having supposedly discussed the issue with various people, “made a different decision”. I am quoting here what the foreign affairs minister said on November 29. In other words, the Prime Minister went against the tide. It is true that he is a shipowner and knows something about boats. But the captain is going off course in this case. As we know, it is unfortunately not the first time this happens.

Today, we are faced with a fait accompli. Fortunately, we still have the possibility of voting against this bill and I take this opportunity to invite all my colleagues from other parties to seriously consider this issue. Others have done so, for example, the members of the Retired Heads of Missions Association. This association is made up of nearly 300 former ambassadors, consuls and high commissioners, who wrote to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, last December, to tell him that they are against those two bills.

I quote from the letter.

[...] we were forced to conclude that our foreign service is on the verge of being dismantled. [...] we believe that the decision to split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in to is a regrettable one and it is a step backward.

For the past 30 years, foreign affairs and international trade have gone hand in hand; indeed, the latter has become a tool to promote the former.

The Liberal government now wants to ditch all of that, while we, members of the Bloc Québécois, have been advocating for a long time a globalization with a human face, a notion we will apply when Quebec becomes a country. The Liberals are creating a two-headed hydra: each head will be ignorant of that the other does.

The Department of International Trade will deal exclusively with foreign investment in Canada, investment abroad, and the development of trade. When issues relating to human rights, the environment or labour law will be at stake, we will wash our hands of it.

On the other hand, the Department of Foreign Affairs will make international commitments on behalf of Canada without holding the reins of international economic relations. Everybody will pass the buck with regard to human rights, labour law or the environment when Canada invests abroad, for example.

We all know Export Development Canada, one of the tools used by the government to enable exporters and investors to gain access to about 200 markets in the world, including about 100 in developing countries.

If the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is split in two, we wonder how the Minister of International Trade will ensure that EDC respects democratic rights and that Canadian projects in those developing countries are in compliance with, for instance, the International Labour Organization conventions and those relating to the environment.

The minister's response will be to put the ball in the foreign affairs minister's court. This minister will then toss it back to the international trade minister, saying that henceforth he will not address international economic relations issues.

Bill C-32 clearly takes the coordination of international economic relations away from the foreign affairs department. This is clearly spelled out in paragraph 7(2) of the bill.

This situation will be all the more catastrophic since EDC already has a special status. At times, we wonder whether it is not a secret organization. It is not subject to the Access to Information Act or the Environmental Assessment Act, and it is not regulated by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions .

It will be even more difficult to keep tabs on EDC. We will not know if our values and priorities are going to be respected in projects financed by the crown corporation in foreign countries. With Bills C-32 and C-31, of course, the government strips its foreign policy of its economic and trade leverage. But, as I said, the two are completely indissociable, no matter what the Liberals think. The Liberals should remember, however, that their own leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, went to China recently. Every time our head of state goes to China, what do journalists ask him? Two things: essentially, if he discussed human rights issues with Chinese leaders and, obviously, if he signed any trade deals. These are the questions that our leaders are always asked when they visit, in particular, developing countries and countries were human rights are partially or totally abused

China is frequently mentioned because of all the economic problems it might cause. Obviously, there are not just problems. It is good to do business with countries such as China. This is a very compelling example. China is a country with which we are developing trade ties. Despite the harm it has done to our clothing, textile and furniture industries, to name just a few, we must obviously draw maximum advantage of this huge market, which is now open.

Okay for trade, but what about that country's human rights record? No one here is unaware of the human rights abuses and medieval working conditions in China. With the creation of two separate departments, the fear is that trade will take precedence over humanitarian issues.

Tying trade to human rights has been standard practice for over 30 years. Today, more than ever, a country's foreign policy is closely linked to its trade policy. How can we better the lives of Chinese workers—I am using China as an example, but it could just as easily be another country, such as Bangladesh—if human rights are no longer part of discussions on trade? I would really like the government to explain this secret decision to us, which it has yet to do, as was said earlier. In any event, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not satisfied us that he himself was convinced of the merits of the decision.

There are two major problems with Bills C-31 and C-32. With respect to the first, as I said, trade is an essential tool for countries in determining foreign policy. With respect to the second, human resources are currently managed consistently at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, since all employees posted abroad answer to the same administrative unit. Separating the two entities would only lead to inconsistent management of human resources.

By creating two separate departments, how can the government now integrate its concerns and, naturally, the concerns of Quebeckers and Canadians about respect for human rights and the resolution of conflicts, for example, into its trade policy or selection the criteria established by Export Development Canada?

We are still waiting for the foreign policy review. Even before the results of this review become available, and without holding public consultations, considering Parliament's contribution or seeking the public's opinion, the government has decided that it should separate Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We are naturally very anxious to see the changes made, because the present situation at Foreign Affairs is not ideal. I have myself had a highly negative experience, but nothing compared to what three people from my riding had to go through. They were in Thailand and got hit by the infamous tsunami. They managed to get to the Canadian embassy there, hurt, in great distress and without passports or money. They were treated terribly. The reception was cold to say the least, and one of them had to create a scene in order to even be allowed in. He could not go to a hotel because he had no money. He could not go anywhere except the Canadian embassy, which is considered Canadian territory and supposed to be a place that welcomes refugees and people from Canada who are in difficulty. That was anything but the case.

The department is definitely at fault here. Its policy in the case of disasters must be reviewed. Embassies are not there just to organize nice little cocktail parties and receive VIPs. They are also there to help people in distress. Fortunately, these things happen very rarely but, when they do, our embassies have a duty to treat Canadian citizens with all the respect that is their due.

We have also witnessed the minister's shilly-shallying about the missile defence shield, and the contradictions of his colleague at National Defence.

Then there is international aid. This, of course, has not yet reached the 0.7% of GDP mark, despite the promises made to Bono. Speaking of Bono, one wonders if he is not behind the PM's idea to split the department in two. I think not, because this is a man greatly concerned with humanitarian interests, so I do not think he would take such a position.

Those are my feelings about Bill C-32, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose both C-31 and C-32.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting that the two departments, as was mentioned earlier, came together some time ago, approximately a decade. Quite a debate was going on in the international sphere of diplomacy at that time. We had just witnessed the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the cold war had come to a close.

An essay was written at that time entitled, “The End of History”. There truly was a sense of euphoria in diplomatic circles that perhaps we had reached a certain end of history in terms of wars and we would now concentrate on economic development and trade. That is perhaps some of the logic that precipitated this move of the two departments coming together. Perhaps the theory was premature. Perhaps it speaks to a world that we will achieve one day, but events over the past decade have made it clear that we need robust diplomacy.

During my speech, I referred to a number of very Canadian initiatives. The initiative of L20 is similar to the initiative of the G-20, a concept our Prime Minister came up with, when he was minister of finance, of bringing the finance ministers of 20 countries together, not just the largest economies in the world but also regional leaders and economies in the developing world.

Canada has taken this one step further and come up with the concept of L20. We have joined along with developing democracies, countries with developing civil societies. It talks to a very different approach from our neighbours or allies to the south. We have a very different approach in bringing democracy to the world than our American allies.

The process that is bringing democracy to Iraq has been quite interesting. A number of people have been rightly suspicious. In fact, some people call it the Haliburton method of bringing democracy to the world. We take a very different approach. We believe in multilateralism. We believe in engaging the world, our allies and also countries that we believe are on the path and need to be encouraged along the path of democracy and civil society. We just heard a petition that was brought forward from the Sunshine Coast where the petitioners said that Canada should not be part of a war machine that brings war to other parts of the world.

Coming back to the example of what has happened in Iraq and the suspicions as to why that has taken place, we do not want that sort of suspicion to ever come into play when Canada plays an international role in diplomacy. There should be a separation between commercial interests and our very important work in building democracy and civil society around the world.

Bill C-32 clearly separates the two departments so when we engage other countries in the world, through concepts like the L20, people will understand that Canadians believe in the values of democracy and in bringing civil society to the world, notwithstanding our trade interests.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to made consequential amendments to other acts presented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs formalizes the continuation of the Department of Foreign Affairs, whose principle mandate is to coordinate and lead Canada's foreign policy.

This re-centering of the Department of Foreign Affairs on its primary functions is already close to completion. It would allow for greater clarity in Canada's international actions and for improved coordination among the actors involved in developing our foreign policy.

It is incumbent upon us today to give a solid legal foundation to those who have been working toward this goal for a year now. To do so, we are being asked to make a number of amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, which dates back to 1982. It is a matter of removing references to international trade from the act of 1982 in order to reflect the new reality of a department that has been operating in this manner since the order in Council of December 12, 2003, with great success, as we have seen.

The first years of this millennium have been marked by events which have reverberated around the world and have had an impact on Canada's international obligations and vision. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or of March 11, 2003, the war in Iraq, various regional crises in Darfur, Haiti, or the Ivory Coast, the move toward democracy and civil society, whether in Ukraine or Somalia, all of these event affect Canada. They affect our interests, conflict with our values, and call out to our common humanity. Such tragic events necessitate well considered yet resolute action on our part.

International problems and crises provide opportunities for Canada to find solutions. The Government of Canada and more particularly our Prime Minister and our Minister of Foreign Affairs have recently met with considerable diplomatic success. I am referring, among other achievements, to the inclusion in the report of the UN high level panel on threats, challenges and change, of the concept of the L20, a group bringing together leaders of developed and developing countries and the concept of the responsibility to protect. These successes, which emphasize Canada's influence in the world, were made possible through the dedication and professionalism of foreign service officers.

More than ever, our country must assert the role it wishes to play on the international stage. A Department of Foreign Affairs will now allow our diplomacy to focus on its foremost tasks: to promote the interests and values of Canada abroad; to develop its unique expertise, the product of over 80 years of remarkable history; to strengthen its international networks with a spirit of dialogue and collaboration with other government departments and actors on the international stage, International Trade Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of National Defence, of course; but also the many other federal and provincial departments and agencies which, with the proliferation of exchanges and the need to apply truly global solutions, have seen their perspectives extend beyond our borders.

It is a fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade no longer claims a monopoly on Canadian action beyond our borders. Today, it is unthinkable for foreign policy and domestic policy to operate in isolation. Ever more complex issues and parallel improvements in means of communication have led the actors of domestic policy to become increasingly interested in what is happening around the world. It goes without saying that many global challenges can only be faced with a coordinated response. That is why federal departments and agencies are ever more involved in Canada's international policy.

Foreign Affairs Canada will remain more than ever the main architect of Canadian international policy, but that policy will have to be pan-governmental, involving the engagement of all federal departments and agencies having international interests, with a special contribution by CIDA, International Trade and National Defence. This role as coordinator and integrator thus requires that the Department of Foreign Affairs focus on its own activities.

A Department of Foreign Affairs separate from that of International Trade does not mean the two distinct departments will cease working closely together to face future international challenges. To the contrary, these challenges will help Canada introduce a new diplomacy with an integrated approach that will take into account all Canadian actors involved on the international stage.

I want to emphasize that the act introduced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not affect the status of the management of consular affairs, which remains with the Department of Foreign Affairs. More than any other service, consular affairs directly interacts with Canadians.

The citizens of our country are great travellers. Wherever we go, whether in Latin America, Asia, Europe or Africa, we meet Canadians. Some have chosen to work abroad, whether for private institutions or NGOs. Others travel for pleasure, curious to discover the world. Just think of all our fellow citizens heading south at this time of year. For example, from November until March up to 15,000 passports will be issued every day and 8,000 a day during the other months of the year.

Still, consular services are much more than issuing passports. Every year Canadians make over 100 million foreign trips. Consular services are there to help Canadians plan their trips, whether for business, school or pleasure and to help them during their time abroad. The consular services of the Department of Foreign Affairs are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, through Canadian offices set up all over the world. Canada has offices in over 270 cities located in some 180 foreign countries to serve our fellow citizens, as well as an around the clock consular operations centre here in Ottawa.

The Department of Foreign Affairs will continue to provide the consular services at our missions abroad all the support they need to effectively carry out their foremost mandate, which is to serve Canadians.

The control and management of information are crucial issues of the 21st century. For a department like foreign affairs, the effective management of information and knowledge, for both internal use and public dissemination, are of vital importance. Innovation in the development of information technology is key to transcending the limitations of time, bridging cultural differences and overcoming the often great distances that separate Ottawa from its missions abroad.

The modern, well-defined Department of Foreign Affairs, as outlined in Bill C-32, can count on a very effective communications network to help fulfill its mandate.

To conclude, I believe it is important for us to enable those who represent Canada abroad to continue their valuable work. The legislation will do just that.

[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.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-32, as I did Bill C-31, to condemn this totally unacceptable operation on the part of the government, which consists in splitting the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two entities, namely the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.

I am pleased to do so, because I really feel that I am fulfilling the role of the Bloc Québécois, which is to protect the interests of Quebec and also to show Quebeckers how a sovereign Quebec would promote its values and political interestsand to use its trade policy to meet these objectives.

Unfortunately, Quebec's interests are still being defended by Canada. Therefore, we must ensure that Canada has the necessary means to adequately protect Quebec's political and economic interests at the international level. However, this will not be the case with the splitting of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We often hear from the Liberals, and I imagine the same is true for the Conservatives and the NDP, that Canada's foreign policy and commercial policy must promote great Canadian values. I agree with this. As a Quebecker, I hope that in a sovereign Quebec, the Quebec nation will base its foreign policy, commercial policy and international representation on promoting the values of Quebec society.

Unfortunately, I think the proposal being put forward by the government does not meet these objectives. Accordingly, as defenders of Quebec's interests and promoters of Quebec's sovereignty, we will oppose this bill.

As I was saying, this bill, which is associated with Bill C-31 totally lacks transparency, and I would even describe it as anti-democratic. I will come back to that. It is totally backward and goes against Canada's approach to foreign policy for the past 30 years whereby commercial policy was used as a lever in Canadian foreign policy and aimed, in an awkward and inadequate way, I agree, at promoting the great, so-called Canadian, values of democracy, social justice, fairness and social and economic progress.

It is a decision that will set us back 30 or 40 years. It is illogical on every level. I will come back to that. Finally, this decision to split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is harmful to Canada's economic and political interests and likewise to Quebec's interests.

Obviously, faced with something so undemocratic, non-transparent, backward, illogical and harmful, the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-32, just as it will vote against Bill C-31.

I want to remind hon. members that on December 12, 2003, the Governor General in Council passed an order in council under the Public Services Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, separating the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two departments: Foreign Affairs Canada, and International Trade Canada.

What is extraordinary is that this order was handed down the same day the current Prime Minister was sworn in. I have said it before, but I want to say again that we are a little surprised by the speed with which the new Prime Minister was able to make such an important decision about splitting a department that, since the early 1970s, had merged these two missions: foreign affairs and international trade. We are not used to having the Liberal government act with such speed.

I can give the example of changes to the Employment Insurance Act. Since 2000, the Liberal government has been announcing, in election campaign after election campaign, a major overhaul of employment insurance to take into consideration the difficulties facing unemployed workers in seasonal industries who experience the black hole. Women and young people are not eligible for EI because they have to accumulate 910 hours of work before they can get benefits. The benefit level is insufficient, thereby creating child poverty, which the federal government is constantly condemning.

However, child poverty exists because parents are poor. And who made the parents poor? The current government did.

The government has been announcing an overhaul of EI since 2000, and we are still waiting. Obviously, we hope that, in the February 23 budget, the unemployed will see some solutions to their problems. However, this is the year 2005, and the decision still has not been made.

The same goes for the aerospace industry. During the election campaign, the government was able to announce a half a billion dollars for the auto industry, which is primarily if not almost entirely located in southern Ontario. A policy for the aerospace industry, which is primarily located in the greater Montreal region, is still under consideration. Without a decision, there can be no such policy.

The list goes on and on, and includes areas such as the clothing and textile industries. In April 2003, the Standing Committee on Finance tabled a report containing numerous proposals. The government waited until December, when there was a crisis that led to the closure of six textile mills in Huntingdon, before following up on this report. However, since June 28, the government could have taken the necessary actions to help the clothing and textile industries, which are currently experiencing a very important transition.

What is more, the measures announced in December are clearly not enough. From the questions we asked of the Minister of Industry, we have the clear impression that the government has no intention of doing any more than it announced in December. The Canadian Textile Institute itself feels these measures were inadequate and incomplete. We are still waiting for action.

The same goes for what we are discussing today. In two throne speeches, February 2004 and October 2004, new directions for foreign policy were announced. We are still waiting for them. The Minister of Foreign Affairs told the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that he planned to do so in December. Here we are still, nearly mid-February, with no indication as to when the minister or the government plans to make these foreign affairs directions public.

This of course has an impact on the work of the committee, and in fact we are incapable of planning our work in any useful way for the coming months. We will need to consult Canadians and Quebeckers on these directions, which I repeat have been announced in two throne speeches by this government.

The Prime Minister reached a fast decision, the very same day he was sworn in. Whom did he consult? We do not know. Certainly not the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, nor the major organizations concerned by such issues, such as those involved in international solidarity or international cooperation, nor even the major coalitions of exporters or groups concerned with defending economic interests. So we are told, anyway. Who, then, was consulted that the government moved so quickly to try to split up Foreign Affairs and International Trade?

The Minister of International Affairs has given us a few ideas. When we asked him what the decision to split up the department was based on, he could not come up with an answer. Between you and me, the minister is not too thrilled with this decision by the PM. He was probably not consulted either.

Nonetheless, because he is a good soldier, the foreign affairs minister said, and I quote:

Consultations are still going on. The government has always kept communications open with large associations of exporters and other representatives of economic groups.

Later on, he added:

This time, after discussing the issue with various people, the Prime Minister decided otherwise.

What the minister is telling us is that consultations are always held. Each meeting or chat the foreign affairs minister or the international trade minister has with somebody probably qualifies as a consultation. I guess this is the kind of discussion we are dealing with here.

As I mentioned earlier, these are certainly not structured consultations. We are being told the Prime Minister has discussed this issue with various people, probably in his own entourage, and probably even before he was sworn in, since he has been able to move very quickly.

The foreign affairs minister's remarks are quite interesting. He said that, after discussing with various people, the Prime Minister decided otherwise. It means that even people in his inner circle advised him against splitting the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He had made up his mind, but on what basis? We do not know. This decision has no analytical or political basis whatsoever. It is probably a concept that is dear to him for whatever obscure reasons that, to this day, we do not know, and that nobody has been able to explain. This is not a transparent and democratic decision. It did not draw on the usual parliamentary mechanisms.

We find ourselves faced with a fait accompli. This order in council in December 2003, followed by the tabling, a year later, of Bills C-31, An Act to establish the Department of International Trade and to make related amendments to certain Acts, and C-32, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is an attempt at setting a done deal in front of Parliament, namely the partition of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of International Trade into two separate entities. That is profoundly anti-democratic.

I would like to remind the House that Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail was calling out for Hercule Poirot, that great detective and character invented by Agatha Christie, whose books you have probably read, imploring him to come to Ottawa to investigate whose absurd idea it was to slice up the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It is a non-democratic, non-transparent and unfounded decision.

It is a step backwards, which is my second point. I would like to quote once again, because I think it is not well enough known by the public and the media, a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, dated December 8, 2004, from the president of the Retired Heads of Mission Association. The first paragraph says it all:

Our Association, which is composed of approximately 270 former Canadian Ambassadors, High Commissioners and Consuls General, is deeply concerned about the future of the Canadian Foreign Service. Recently, we have had to come reluctantly to the conclusion that our Foreign Service is being gradually dismantled. One clear manifestation of this happening is the recent decision to split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT).

I am not the one who says this: it is the association of retired heads of mission. The letter concludes with this:

As former diplomats and officials of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Commerce, Immigration and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), our members have personally experienced the difficulties of integrating coherently these two crucial sectors of Canada's foreign policy. Thus, we believe that the decision to partition DFAIT is unfortunate and a step backwards.

These former representatives of Canada around the world came to this conclusion based on their experience.

So, why is this backward? Why are these 270 former foreign affairs officials raising this? It is because this improv decision, until proven otherwise, the government was not able to explain the basis of this decision to us, goes against the past 30 years of integrating all elements of Canadian foreign policy within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Let us recall that in 1971, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, we started integrating functions of an external nature within the Department of Foreign Affairs. Then, in 1982, trade commissioners were included, over a ten year period. There was reflection and consultation, even though Mr. Trudeau cannot be said to be the greatest democrat in the world. It was concluded that trade representatives had to be included in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Thus, since 1982, we have had the functions of foreign affairs, international trade and everything relating to immigration, particularly to refugees, and international trade.

All that was overseen by the department, and they struggled to find a measure of consistency, synergy. Besides, retired diplomats also mention it. Indeed, it is difficult to achieve consistency and synergy in all those missions. That vision of things was maintained under the Mulroney and Chrétien governments.

Of course, this is the source of a problem, because the Department of Foreign Affairs and of International Trade has not developed harmoniously, in a straight line and free of problems over the past 30 years. It had problems. These problems were due less to administrative issues, and to the fact that four missions were combined, foreign affairs, international trade, foreign aid and immigration, particularly refugee matters, in one department. They have more to do, since the beginning of the 1990s, first with the Conservatives, then with the Liberals have cut the resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs and of International Trade.

The present Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, is one of the people primarily responsible for this operation. Clearly, since there was not enough funds, choices had to be made. Officials tried to maintain the essential missions of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. They set aside or relegated the issues pertaining to foreign aid, immigration and refugees in favour of matters of foreign affairs and international trade.

Therefore, the solution, and Jeffrey Simpson shares this analysis, is not to split a department which is trying to ensure consistency in all of the functions of Canada's foreign policy, but rather to reinvest the resources necessary for this department to be able to assume its various responsibilities.

So, this is a backward decision. It is also illogical, that is the third point, because it puts the cart before the horse. The past two throne speeches have announced a review of Canada's foreign policy. Why then proceed with the administrative partition of a department as important as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade before even debating the basis of the policy directions.

Normally, and Napoleon would agree, strategic, political decisions are made, and logistics follow. In this instance, the opposite occurred. A decision is made, and then a discussion is held on what should underlie an administrative decision. This is totally illogical. A decision is made and presented to Parliament as a fait accompli, if possible, and then a discussion of the broad directions in foreign policy will be announced.

The administrative split of the mandate of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will taint the debate. This brings us to the other point: the fact that this decision will be harmful to Canada's economic and political interests, because separating foreign affairs from trade policy is not possible.

I will remind the hon. members that today is the 15th anniversary of Nelson Mandela's release, in 1990, which spelled the end of apartheid in South Africa. I remember very well that it did not happen out of the blue. First decisions were made by civil society, and later by governments, to boycott products from and investments in South Africa. I remember clearly that my father would not buy wine from South Africa at the Quebec liquor board. The liquor board, which might have undergone a name change during that time, was forced to stop buying wine from South Africa. I also remember a boycott on Shell to get it withdraw its investments in South Africa. These trade policy pressures, combined with diplomatic pressures, of course, paved the way for Mandela's release and the end of apartheid in South Africa.

How can we separate the two elements? When the Prime Minister recently went to Asia, whether in Japan or in China, he discussed both trade policies and foreign affairs. You cannot go to China and only speak of international trade without addressing the human rights issue. When he went to Japan, the Prime Minister discussed the upcoming G-8 summit on climate change. This and the Kyoto protocol are linked both to foreign affairs and to international trade.

Splitting the department in two will weaken both Canadian foreign policy and trade policy at the same time. The ambassadors will only be accountable for their diplomatic performance. They will no longer be accountable to the Minister of International Trade. Indeed, Canada will lose on both fronts, economic and political.

For all these reasons, you will understand that we cannot support this kind of hare-brained improvisation, which will ultimately be detrimental to the interests of Canada and, consequently, those of Quebec.

[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.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, for the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.