Bill C-31 (Historical)

Department of International Trade Act

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

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

Department of International Trade Act

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-31, which would create a department called International Trade Canada.

I am the critic for my party for emerging markets. The parliamentary secretary just gave an eloquent speech on how emerging markets are important for Canada. I have absolutely no bone to pick on why emerging markets are important for Canada. As he said, Canada is a trading nation. Over 40% of our GDP is based on trade. Over 80% of our trade is with our southern neighbours but we are looking at new and emerging markets offering us opportunities that we need to grab.

However what we are talking about is Bill C-31, a bill that would divide one department into two departments. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would be split into two departments. On that aspect we do have some concerns.

My colleague, the member for Newmarket--Aurora, our trade critic for the Conservative Party, spoke very eloquently to this bill some time back and expressed the concerns the Conservative Party has with this approach.

Being the trade critic involved here for a couple of years and being on the foreign affairs committee, let me go back and give my observations.

Canada's international relationships are run by two departments: the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, which takes care of the aid aspect; and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was joined together by the former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau because he thought there would be a cohesive policy from Canada that would take Canadian strategic interests into account when dealing with foreign issues, which at that given time was thought to be the right approach to take.

However I now know for a fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs was following the same thinking and the same approach in reference to CIDA and it wanted to take over CIDA. From the time when I was an international trade and development critic I know the mandarins in Foreign Affairs felt that if CIDA were brought under their umbrella they could again move into a more cohesive approach dealing with foreign aid, human rights issues and all these things, and make policies in Foreign Affairs that would reflect Canadian values.

However over a period of time the government resisted CIDA going under this umbrella for the simple reason that it was using CIDA as a department which it could “buy influence” overseas in countries where it went to work for Canada, and most important, we have records showing that CIDA was used as an agency that rewarded Liberal businesses very well.

I have been around the world and I have seen CIDA. CIDA officials are different from Foreign Affairs officials and trade officials. CIDA officials do not coordinate their efforts with others. CIDA marches to its own tune as does Foreign Affairs and yet we say that we have a cohesive strategy and that we work together for the interests of Canada. That is not true.

Let us take the example of China. CIDA is still today giving foreign aid to China when the parliamentary secretary just stood up in the House and said how good China was doing, 8% annually. If China is doing so well, why is CIDA giving it money? It did the same thing for India.

No, there is no cohesive policy out there when it comes to international relations. We now have the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. What we are wondering is why and how the Prime Minister of Canada decided that he needed to break these two departments and make them separate. We do not know. Nobody knows. He just decided to do it, despite the fact that this was a functioning department. What is the benefit? What is the cost analysis? Has anyone done it?

Where does CIDA fit into this picture? We now have CIDA and the new departments of trade and foreign affairs. How will they coordinate one policy for foreign affairs? The Prime Minister said there would be a foreign policy review. One would think that the government would do a foreign policy review first before coming to this kind of a conclusion, but, no, that did not take place.

We do not know whether the foreign policy review will come or what will happen. Decisions have been made without, what we think, is a proper analysis of whether it is in the best interest of Canada's foreign policy.

We in the Conservative Party believe we should send this bill to the foreign affairs committee where it can be studied properly and recommendations can be made as to whether this is the right approach in which to go in the long term interests of Canada. That should be a logical, common sense decision but it seems to be lost on the other side.

We have the parliamentary secretary making speeches about emerging markets but what we are talking about is whether this the right approach to take.

I envision going overseas where we have these three officers, the ambassador from foreign affairs, the CIDA individual and the trade individual, sitting in separate rooms and going about their separate turf wars. Meanwhile, where would Canada's foreign policy be on the issues of interest to Canadians?

What will happen? Will we be coming back here and saying that we made a mistake and that we should bring it back? This is a very important decision and it is not one to be taken lightly.

We want to know whether this is the right approach to take. We do not know and therefore we will not be supporting the bill. We want the bill to go to the foreign affairs committee where it can do a thorough analysis of what this is all about.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have travelled with the parliamentary secretary on two trade missions and what he just said was fine. I do not think that there is any doubt about what he just said about the importance of international trade, what has happened, and how Canadian businesses are out there engaging with the new realities of international trade and emerging markets.

However, today his subject is Bill C-31 and he completely missed the point. He completely ignored the questions that have been raised in the House. Why is there a need to break up these two departments, the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade? He did not answer this question.

Was there a deeper analysis done to determine if it would be in the longer term interest of Canada if this department was by itself? He did not answer that.

When his Prime Minister came into power, he said there would be a foreign policy review. How come a decision was made before this foreign policy came about?

These are the questions and everybody is wondering if he will now leave his nice, flowery words, and get on with the business and answer these questions.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Emerging Markets)]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to stand here today and defend the bill. I am pleased to rise and support Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade at second reading.

I proudly support the Prime Minister's decision to create International Trade Canada. Therefore, I support with enthusiasm the legislation introduced in December by the Minister of International Trade to formally establish the department in Canadian law.

This will enable Canada to succeed in our global economy. Canada's economic well-being is dependent upon this external sector. One in four jobs is connected in some way to international trade, and the export of goods and services is equivalent to 38% of our GDP in our economy.

Canada's innovative capacity and its productivity is driven by our capacity, not only to open new markets and keep them open, but to access capital, technology and skills on the global platform. Investment flows are a critical element of our efforts in this respect.

The very nature of international commerce has shifted radically. Transactions occur in light speed. Business plans and business deals are developed less and less by and between single firms, and more and more through rapidly through partnerships, alliances and networks.

Production is organized through global supply chains, with research, manufacturing and distribution spread across many jurisdictions. Canada is part of this environment. Our task is challenging. Canadians are confronted with a far more complex business environment, one of opportunity, but a great deal of change and vulnerability as well.

The question is how does government integrate policies and programs to help the business sector succeed in this environment? How do we sustain the kind of success that grows our economy at home and that complements and reinforces our more specific objectives in sustaining the social progress and in strengthening the development in these regions?

One important, indeed critical dimension of this setting is the emergence of newly powerful economies. Until recently, many of these economic powers were developing countries at the margins of industrialization. Now they are growing at high rates year after year.

We often speak of these newly powerful economies in terms of China, India and Brazil. Clearly, these economies are formidable players in global growth, trade and finance. They are no longer simply sources of low cost labour and sites for the assembly of low value added goods. They are centres of growing industrial sophistication and a force in the global knowledge and the service economy.

These economies typically feature rapid urbanization and technological change, enormous energy and infrastructure pressures and rising middle classes with ever greater purchasing power. Together these economies, with their global reach, increasingly frame the competitive challenge here at home. They also raise the scope of opportunity for Canadians, the potential to create wealth for our own and for our future generations. We are a trading nation.

China alone has grown an average of 9% a year for the last decade and is already the world's fourth largest trader and the second largest investment destination. China, India and Brazil have also become significant forces in international institutions.

They are not alone. Other regions, such as central and eastern Europe, southeast Asia and South America, are becoming more powerful. Countries such as those I recently visited in the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula, with the hon. member for Calgary East, are advancing rapidly and presenting both Canada and our competitors with remarkable opportunities in oil and gas technology and services, in engineering and construction and in education.

Others, such as Korea and Mexico, while hardly what we would call emerging markets, are deeply integrated within regions of expanding opportunity which success reflects a regional reality.

I believe our businesses can succeed and they have been succeeding. However, whether it is in the high tech field, in the manufacturing sector or in the service industries, or whether it is in energy and resources or in agriculture and fisheries, Canadians must operate in a complex global setting. This environment demands hard work and much homework.

It requires government to assemble a full range of trade promotion and intelligence, policy and investment tools, each tailored to specific issues capable of being adapted and applied to specific business challenges and organized for rapid deployment.

It will require resources. Government resources must be adequate to meet the challenge of intense international competition. In our view, they are best deployed at the front line in those markets or regions that are driving global economic growth. There is a lot of competition out there for that global economic growth. If we do not step up to the plate, somebody else will.

Success in the 21st century global economy requires integrated approaches, with solutions spanning from financial arrangements, to technology partnering and skills transfer, to an ability to source inputs at competitive prices. It challenges businesses above all, but it also challenges we as a government to offer services and policy support that adds value to these dynamic environments. We cannot be successful in this new setting by just selling things from one country to another. It is not that simple.

Over the years, we have acquired a world class trade commissioner service, bringing many skills and an astounding range of business expertise and country expertise to the table. We are developing state-of-the-art client service tools, both electronically and person-to-person.

In the future, as ever more complex business partnerships emerge, we will be developing capacity to advise on sources of the best possible legal and business advice. Intelligence, as I suggested, is critical.

The effort business makes, and we support, requires real time, accurate market intelligence covering not only export sales leads but on potential investment and knowledge of partners. We have seen this on our recent trip to China, with over 280 businesses and institutions, how those tools come into effect.

For emerging markets with this blend of opportunity and risk, we need a well-crafted and targeted set of promotional and policy instruments. With investment so critical to positioning, we need agreements to protect our investment abroad. We need to be able to offer the best advice possible in ensuring intellectual property is safeguarded. We need to overcome regulatory constraints that impair our ability to compete effectively in trade or investment.

In some markets, our efforts to tap expanded travel and tourism will benefit from expanded air service accords and perhaps by looking at visa rules and procedures, and by working with all levels of government on issues of critical infrastructure. It is a multi-faceted approach from all different departments.

It is this diversity of requirements that we face and the integrated solutions that businesses need that makes this new Department of International Trade so valuable in present times.

We now have a department that would handle not only trade policy and trade promotion, but also investment, science and technology and integrated service delivery to Canadian businesses through regional offices across this country.

Beyond trade disputes and trade negotiations, and beyond trade promotion, the new department would incorporate a vigorous investment function by expanding marketing of Canada abroad and reinforcing the capacity of communities in Canada to attract and retain investment.

In addition the department will complement efforts at home to build a 21st century economy and to act on the international dimension of innovation. It will work to build knowledge partnerships that work to build productivity at home while showcasing Canadian excellence abroad.

These regional offices will ensure opportunities are learned about and expertise is brought to bear in communities across this country. When we travelled on our last couple of missions, we had companies and institutions from every province.

Moreover, through the legislation, we would be in a position to lead and coordinate the entire federal government in matters of international commerce. We would speak for Canada internationally on all trade matters and we would work to build a coherent, whole Canada approach through international commerce engaging all levels of government, the business community and other stakeholders outside both government and business.

Particularly in reference to emerging markets, I would note that one of our unique Canadian advantages is the cross-cultural skills of our communities right across this country.

Contrary to the fears of some, the legislation neither precludes nor impairs coordinated approaches in the international sphere. During my recent trip to the Middle East, I saw exceptionally talented and dedicated people from all programs at our embassies in the region. They are all working well together for a common purpose. We saw them in Qatar and in the United Arab Emirates. We saw them in Yemen and we also saw them in Syria, and other posts that we travelled to.

In my view, the new department is now uniquely positioned to work closely, not only with other international departments, but also, with gathering credibility, with our economic policy departments. This is not something new. This is happening in other countries. France and other European countries have separated their trade from foreign affairs. The United States is in its own silo; it does its own thing. It has a direct link to the White House. That is how important trade is for trading countries.

In this way the legislation would offer the Government of Canada and the people of Canada a chance to construct a valuable bridge between the pursuit of our goals at home and the opportunities beyond our borders. Domestic prosperity, from the perspective of the fisherman in P.E.I., the farmer out west, a manufacturing or engineering firm or a high tech startup, is reliant on international trade and investment, both to sustain and to grow in the future. When we were in China, we saw many deals signed. We even saw the Wheat Board sign a deal to sell grains to China.

I urge all hon. members in the House on all sides to support Bill C-31, and ensure it receives speedy passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. It was very nice of her. The matter is very clear to us. This division does not make any sense because foreign policy and the overall administration of foreign affairs are currently being reviewed. That does not make sense.

Also, since there has been no consultation with those more familiar with the community, it is clear that we are opposed.

In the area of international trade, the minister says that it is great, that it is fun, that it is appropriate to create jobs outside Canada. Clearly, there is a lack of consistency on the part of this government in its international trade policies and in its administration per se. We have seen this in several areas, including at the Treasury Board.

There are regulations which are supposed to prevent the squandering of public money. Still, it is allowed to go on, and we have cited several instances.

While the government ran a $9 billion surplus, the number of children living in poverty and of homeless families in Canada still grew. Government policies lack consistency. Bill C-31 provides another example of the government's inability to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

As critic for my party, I oppose this bill, as does the NDP caucus. Debating this bill while foreign affairs is undergoing a review makes no sense. It also makes no sense for the minister to say that it is good to create international trade jobs outside Canada. It is very clear that there is a problem there, and it has to be resolved.

For all these reasons, we are opposed to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, as planned and agreed to by the leaders of the parties in the House, I will take the few minutes that were granted to the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to continue my presentation, which was interrupted by adjournment on Monday.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-31 and continue the intervention that I started on Monday. In giving a bit of the history around the bill at that time, I mentioned the fact that in 1982 Canada's Trade Commissioner Service was integrated into what was then called the Department of External Affairs. It took about 15 years for that integration to actually be effective.

In the mid-1990s that integration succeeded after both Conservative and Liberal administrations had some difficulty with the integration. That is why we were surprised when we saw Bill C-31 being presented. After integration having finally succeeded after a 15 year period, we are now wrenching apart those two ministries.

I mentioned at the time that a number of comments, questions and concerns had been raised in the community by people who understand vividly the importance of having an integration of international trade and other aspects of foreign affairs.

I would like to quote for the record from a number of interventions that have taken place and thus make sure that we as parliamentarians are all aware of legitimate concerns that have been raised about the bill and about the direction in which the government is going.

Previous speakers, as I did in my previous intervention in the House, have underlined the fact that we are now undergoing a review of the very structure of foreign affairs in this government. At the same time that we are undergoing this review, the government has already decided to wrench apart the two ministries and make one international trade and the other foreign affairs. It makes no sense that while the review is going on these two important functions would be wrenched apart. As previous speakers have mentioned, it also makes no sense to have international trade separated from important issues such as human rights, properly the focus of foreign affairs.

I want to quote what Bill Clarke, former ambassador to the Baltic Republics and Brazil said about this in Diplomat and International Canada in the January-February 2005 issue. As the federal government celebrated the one year anniversary of the announcement that the portfolios of foreign affairs and international trade would be split and henceforth go in two different directions, Bill Clarke said that “no one seems to know who made the decision--nor do they know why”. He said, “Many observers are wondering why”, adding that it is “questionable whether a good, open discussion was held”.

Bill Clarke is one of the most distinguished diplomats in the Canadian diplomatic corps. He raises very legitimate concerns about the direction in which the government was going, about the why of splitting these two ministries in half, and about whether or not there were any legitimate and appropriate consultations. He raises very legitimate concerns about this entire process.

It is important to quote for the record remarks that were made by the president of the Retired Heads of Mission Association, a group of distinguished ex-diplomats, people who have been heads of missions and understand the function of foreign affairs and the function of international trade.

The association is composed of about 270 former Canadian ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general. They are deeply concerned about the future of the Canadian foreign service. In the letter of December 8 that I will be quoting from, which was sent to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the association's distinguished former ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general said the following:

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). 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 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.

They go on to mention other concerns about the foreign service and they say that unless these developments are reversed Canada will lose an essential tool of government. At the end of the letter, the Retired Heads of Mission Association, or RHOMA, requests permission to present its concerns and recommendations to members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade at the earliest opportunity.

Therefore, we can see that concerns have been raised very widely about this particular approach, with people asking why the decision on splitting up these two ministries was made at this time when an ongoing review of foreign affairs is taking place. Why is it happening without broad consultation with people who understand the issue, who understand the essential linkage and integration between international trade and foreign policy?

The Retired Heads of Mission Association also mentioned in a previous letter that the separation of international trade from foreign affairs is another example of a measure which can only weaken the foreign service and make its management more incoherent.

An observer would wonder why the government is proceeding at this time. As previously quoted and as speakers have mentioned, it does not make sense at this time to proceed with this particular measure. To many observers who understand the situation, it does not make sense that this division, separation or partition is taking place between these two functions.

I think it is very important to underline that there is an incoherence, both when it comes to foreign policy and even more so when it comes to the direction that international trade has taken. We saw just this very morning some of the comments made by the Minister of International Trade.

I will read just brief excerpts of some of the headlines from newspapers across the country. From The Telegram in St. John's, Newfoundland: “No tears; Liberals won't complain if business sends more Canadian jobs overseas”. From the Windsor Star : “Job export is good: Minister”. From the Edmonton Sun : “Job losses to offshore labour fine: trade minister”.

Across the country, including such areas as here in Ottawa where the headline read “Grits Urge Biz to Offshore Jobs”, we have seen Canadians waking up to the fact that the international trade minister, and in fact the international trade component of our national government, is now encouraging businesses to do this. The Minister of International Trade was quoted as saying that “businesses should feel free to send work offshore to wherever it can be done most cheaply, to help boost their bottom lines”.

We have from the Minister of International Trade very clear direction that it is time to off-load jobs, that it is open season on Canadian workers and that jobs can be exported offshore. Just last week in the House, we saw the member for Timmins—James Bay raise the crucial question of the offshore manufacturing of our proudest national symbol, our Canadian flag lapel pins, which were actually being made offshore, thus off-loading Canadian jobs.

We are very proud that the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay raised that issue because this is increasingly the case. We have an international trade minister who is encouraging businesses to send jobs elsewhere. We have seen, as we did yesterday, debates in the House about the textile and clothing industry where there was a loss of 40,000 jobs. With softwood, we saw the loss of 20,000 jobs. In industry after industry we are seeing good jobs being exported, and as the Statistics Canada report from a couple of weeks ago clearly mentioned, the jobs replacing them are becoming more and more temporary or part time without pension benefits. For newer workers, those jobs are paying less and less in wages.

In this bizarre and inappropriate attempt to split up these two ministries, in this bizarre and inappropriate attempt of the trade minister to tell businesses to send their work offshore, to export those jobs and in this incoherence, this bizarre indecision and dithering of the government perhaps a pattern emerges. That pattern is: what is irresponsible is what is put forward; what is incoherent becomes government policy. It does not make sense for the main streets across the country who after 12 years of living with a Liberal government have more debt per individual family and less on their paycheque. In real terms, for most Canadian workers, their salary has slipped 60¢ an hour over the past 10 years. There are fewer social programs and fewer hospitals.

For that reason, this incoherence, this inappropriate decision and proposal will meet with opposition from this caucus. We will be voting against the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade, I would like to start by expressing my concern about the need for this division into two sectors.

In 1982 we integrated Canada's trade commissioner service into the then department of external affairs. At that time we had the integration of trade policy with our external affairs policy, foreign affairs, including our commitment to human rights. It took about 15 years under both the Conservative and Liberal regimes to actually get that integration working well. It did take some time but everyone does believe now, and comments from very qualified observers have indicated, that integrated relationship has now worked. Subsequent to finally getting it right, we are now looking at splitting them into two separate ministries. It does not make a whole lot of sense.

In the Speech from the Throne there was a comment from the Prime Minister, “Just as Canada's domestic and international policies must work in concert, so too must our defence, diplomacy, development and trade efforts work in concert”.

Subsequent to that there is Bill C-31 which will actually divide the two ministries. Therefore we are looking at less concert between those two divisions and those two important thrusts of Canadian foreign policy rather than more. Concerns have been raised from a variety of sources around this approach.

Bill Clark, a former ambassador in several senior postings, has said that many observers are wondering why this change is happening. He added that it is questionable whether a good open discussion was held before this bill was presented to the House. That was in the January/February 2005 issue of Diplomat & International Canada .

The Canadian Retired Heads of Mission Association, RHOMA, a group that could have provided very important information, a needed neutral perspective on this bill, has not been consulted. In fact the bill has come under criticism from that association as well.

This bill has been brought forward and those who should have been consulted are criticizing it. Many observers are wondering why this is happening at all because it does not make a lot of sense.

This is what is to be found in the bill and in the decision that is being proposed in the House of Commons. But this move is unjustified, because it contradicts what has been said in the throne speech.

It is hard to imagine why we should separate these two aspects of our foreign policy, international trade and foreign affairs.

Jeffrey Simpson wrote a column. I would like to read part of it into the record:

New governments like things that are, well, new. Newness and a political desire to be different often blind them to reality. Foreign affairs and international trade, joined together in one department in 1982, had their problems, but none had much to do with the fact of being together. Rather, their problems largely arose from a systematic dilution...of the assets needed to protect Canada's interests and project its values through diplomacy, defence and aid. Money, not structure, was the fundamental problem. New governments, however, are sometimes tempted to seek the wrong solution for the wrong problem, because it creates the impression of action, newness, fresh approaches. Empty action can sometimes camouflage a discouraging reality.

Mr. Simpson added that it is not possible, in the real world, to separate trade from foreign policy. When the trade minister complains about the lack of legal protection for investment, a trade matter, he is also raising a political question about how China views its obligations as a member of the international community. He concluded by saying:

Stripped of responsibility for trade, deprived of control over foreign aid, tussling with defence, bowing to other agencies for national security, helpless with immigration, and now subservient to central agencies for Canada-U.S. relations, Foreign Affairs is trying to determine what's left and how to do their job. So Foreign Affairs will soon announce another internal reorganization to do foreign policy better--which, of course, it cannot do now that international trade has gone away.

That was in the Globe and Mail just a couple of weeks ago.

This is the difficulty that we are encountering. We have a bill that is being put forward, that is being criticized by those who know best in the community. At the same time we do not see adequate justification for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks at our next sitting.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-31 today. It is somewhat difficult to do so without also referring to Bill C-32. However, I agree that if we decide to split the department in two and if we want to consolidate the terms of the order made on December 12, 2003, it is necessary of course to table two bills.

Today, we are debating the bill introduced by the member for Willowdale. Later this week, or next week, we will likely discuss the bill that, possibly, will be introduced by the member for Papineau.

It is important to look at the history of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This was not the department's original name. When I read the documents that were provided to me, I noticed that, over the years, the department's overall approach has changed. This should not be a concern or a surprise.

However, until recently, the main thrust of that change had been the budget. As the succeeding governments quickly got into debt, the department's role and the responsibilities of the various other departments were redefined. The basic premise was always the same: how can we restructure the departments to reduce costs and ensure that the deficit does not get too high? Even though the various governments did not have much success in reducing the deficit, with the exception of this one—and I will explain why later on—the fact is that the budget was always the fundamental reason for change.

The department was created in 1909 and, of course, at the time, it had very little influence. If we look at the budgets over the years, we notice that the main periods of deficit and national debt began during the 1980s. The department underwent constant change. For example, in 1971, under the Trudeau government, it integrated all the support staff for people who worked outside the country, to create a sort of coordinating committee to ensure some logic in the management of human resources.

We go on until we reach the 1980s. We are just starting to experience deficit problems. Through a number of different policies, it is announced that the whole of the department must reviewed, assessed, and redesigned. This goes on until 1992, the penultimate year of the Conservative government. Once again, for budgetary reasons, it is claimed that the department absolutely must be changed. It is “back to the basics“. Indeed, this is the type of language used. Senior officials met before the budget to attempt to return to the department's fundamental activities while lowering costs at the same time.

Then along comes the new Liberal government of 1993, together with the first wave of the Bloc Québecois, of which I am very proud, as are all my colleagues. In 1993, the only move made by the government, through the then Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, is to state that all is well with the structure of the department. However, it changes its name to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The government then claims that this change of name underscores the importance of the fundamental approach, and the department is thus encouraged to concentrate on what it does best, promoting Canadian interests abroad.

With one thing leading to another, over ten years the Liberal government has been taking this approach. Now that it is having fewer problems with the budget, the reform is no longer determined by its effect on the budget, but by the new international and foreign policy the government should be adopting. So it goes until a changing of the guard in Ottawa and a new Prime Minister takes office. We think his first move is more than bizarre.

The day of his swearing-in, he tables an order in cabinet, for the Governor in Council. And it reads as follows: “Order Transferring Certain Portions of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of International Trade: --on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, pursuant to paragraph 2(a) of the--

Here is what is being transferred:

a) transfers to the Department of International Trade ... the control and supervision of the following portions of the public service in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade:

(i) the International Business Development Branch,

(ii) the Trade, Economic, and Environmental Policy Branch ...

(iii) those portions of the Communications Bureau and the Executive Service Bureau ...

(iv) those portions of the International Academic Relations Division relating to international business development,

(v) those portions of the Arts and Cultural Industries Promotion Division relating to international business development...

And so on and so forth.

When I was saying that it seemed odd to us, it is more than odd. It is nothing short of a full about-face in the federal government's foreign policy. One wonders why.

This comes from the very same prime minister who would say: “You know, in Canada, we are facing a serious democratic deficit and I am saying to all Canadians that I will change that”. He was the one saying that. The first thing he does upon becoming prime minister, without any consultation whatsoever, is to have this order approved by Cabinet.

We must use legislation to amend the Prime Minister's decision. However, we can question his intention. We can also wonder about the various policies that we have been awaiting in this House for years.

Will there be a new foreign affairs policy. Will there now be an international trade policy that is completely divorced and separate from what foreign affairs was doing? We could wonder about this.

We are also awaiting the new national defence policy and probably the new international trade policy. That should be coming too. Two separate entities will have a role in international forums—since they are both international—but without consulting one other or coordinating their efforts.

One may wonder what the point will be. I will give the House a purely hypothetical example. I hope that no one will recognize themselves in this example. For example, the Prime Minister goes to China and he wants to talk about shipyards; he has an interest in it. So he says he has come to talk about shipyards. At the same time, the Prime Minister of China is a bit uncomfortable, because he knows that the working conditions in Chinese shipyards are not very good and that the quality of life of Chinese workers is not very good. Perhaps there are even children working there, which is not very good.

However, the meeting is not about human rights but international trade. Is this what the Prime Minister wants, collusion with the Canadian billionaires' club?

I was listening to the Minister for International Trade in response to my colleague's question, earlier, on human rights. The minister replied that when the billionaire went to China or wherever, he would ask questions about human rights. Is there room for doubt? Will he be interested in finding out that he employs children and perhaps pays workers $2 per day? No.

What will interest the billionaire going to China is international trade, the benefits to his company and if he can pay a few millions of dollars less for his ship—to use the example I just mentioned—than if he had it built in Canada. That is what will interest him.

Furthermore, if I were him, after having my ship built, I would arrange to have it fly the Libyan flag so as to avoid paying the exorbitant taxes. This shipbuilder can no longer be competitive if he has his ship built elsewhere and does not fly another country's flag, because otherwise his taxes will be much too high.

I am not sure if my example is far from the Prime Minister's sad reality.

It is really a shame to notice that this was the first thing the Prime Minister—this Prime Minister who said it was important to correct the democratic deficit—did, probably without consulting anyone, except a few people close to him who share his interests, on the very day that he was sworn in.

Speaking before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 2004, the minister currently responsible said that consultations were continuing. Really, what consultations? Which workers or individuals in the riding of Saint-Jean are aware today that consultations are underway concerning the importance of dividing foreign affairs and international trade into two departments? I do not think that very many people are aware.

We therefore have huge concerns. We can certainly not support this bill, because international trade is a very important foreign policy tool. When we make representations abroad, people are interested in trading with us. If they are interested in trading with us, perhaps they will be willing to improve or change aspects of their behaviour which are unacceptable to a free and democratic society such as ours. That is absolutely terrible.

It must come as no surprise that, from now on, when various ministers or the Prime Minister travel abroad to make international representations, the issue of human rights will no longer be brought up, because that would cause an impediment to international trade. And that is what is being promoted here, international trade. The economic and trade vision just took over Canada's foreign affairs policy. It is that simple. It was not very strong to begin with, and it is still not very strong. In fact, in closed doors meetings, the Prime Minister keeps telling us that he has done his part. One can seriously doubt that such is the primary concern.

In other words, what goes on in China regarding working conditions and quality of life is of no importance to the Prime Minister. What he is interested in—and the proof is that he presented this order in council the day he was sworn in—is international trade and watching the billionaires' club get richer. At the same time, to the great dismay of Quebeckers and Canadians, factories in Canada are shutting down. However, that will make our friends richer. Instead of textiles being produced in Huntingdon, Saint-Jean or Drummondville, they will be produced in China, and we will be able to pay them less, so we hear. Still, the social cost will be very high very soon, because people in Quebec are now out of work.

We consider it really scandalous for them to divide this department. As I have said, we are depriving ourselves of the most persuasive tool our people in the international field have had. They must respect the quality of life of their people and trade practices must not be unacceptable. That is not what the bill before us proposes; it is quite the opposite. It dissociates trade from the question of human rights. I think that in his heart and mind, that is what the Prime Minister wanted.

Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. Why? Because employees posted abroad enjoyed some consistency in the management of human resources. In fact, the department looked after them, and everyone found themselves under the Foreign Affairs umbrella. As of today, that will no longer be the case. What will happen in the embassies? To whom will people report? Will walls have to be built separating the two parts? Because that is what the government is doing by dividing these two. Things will happen in human rights and in international labour tribunals. On the other side, there will be international trade. International trade will be the star, no matter what the consequences for people in Canada, Quebec, China, Korea, India or Pakistan. The important thing will be the billionaires' club can go wherever it wants without worrying about peoples' living conditions, as long as the billionaires' bank accounts keep growing.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had two important missions. People worked closely together and could say that if they met the prime minister or any minister of that country tomorrow, they would try to tell him there was a balance of trade in their favour with Canada.

They will be told “Well now, we know you have more money in the trade balance than we do, and we are okay with that. But we would like you to make some changes as far as human relations, and working and living conditions are concerned. Can you do that? If not, we will be required to take the step of doing less trade with you.” I am not saying everything must be stopped, but with these two possibilities within one department, trade and international relations, this can be done.

From the time it becomes two entities, with a kind of partition within a consulate or embassy, and people doing distinct jobs without any coordination—I do not need to give any lectures on interdepartmental coordination within this House—there is none now, nor will there be any in the future.

So we have just deprived ourselves of a fundamental tool for improving the human condition. This is a pity, because I feel that Canada has earned a degree of recognition for the importance we place on human rights. We have, however, continued to see things deteriorate in recent years. International trade, the economic and commercial way of looking at things, are gaining ground over human rights.

What we have before us today is the final chapter of all this. We will see it when the Minister of Foreign Affairs tables Bill C-32. From now on, his responsibilities will be just consulates, embassies, passports, paperwork, a bit of immigration and of human rights matters, but rather low key.

On the other side, there is the whole trade and industrial machinery, the financial machinery, which will be concerned solely with making more profit. I am sure the major Canadian exporters will be thanking the government for dividing the one department into two.

The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, has different interests to defend. We defend the ordinary workers who have just lost their jobs. We defend human rights as well. We show no hesitation about raising that subject when we are abroad. For us, international trade is far from the priority. I am not saying that we have no interest in it, but what is of primary importance for the Bloc Québécois is the fundamental concept of human rights.

That is the reason we will not be in agreement with the bill the hon. minister will be introducing today. Nor will we be any more in agreement when his colleague from Papineau introduces his later on this week.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to add a comment and ask a question of my colleague from Peace River, whose comments were very constructively critical. I know of the interest he has shown in this area over the years.

He kept referring to the considerable amount of work that needs to be done, and we agree. He said that “Canada is not taking the leadership that it needs to on the international trade side”. He referred to the work that needs to be done under NAFTA, on the taxation side and on investment.

He is absolutely right. Maybe that is why this initiative is so important, and also given what happened globally after 9/11. We have had the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We can look at other nations and see how they have in essence had separate departments, with the trade and investment side and of course foreign affairs setting a foreign affairs policy per se.

This is a very important move. I also listened very carefully when the member for Newmarket—Aurora spoke and referred to 20 years ago, the Trudeau era, and then today's era with the current Prime Minister. Surely, I would say to my colleagues, we know that the way things were done 20 years is not the way they are being done today. Things must change in order for us to be competitive. That is why Bill C-31 is so important.

My colleague from Peace River is probably aware that there is a subcommittee on international trade and investment that is working very hard. We are addressing our NAFTA and emerging market concerns and the BSE and softwood lumber issues that are very important to us. The subcommittee is focusing on this issue while the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is focused not on this issue but on other foreign affairs issues. Does he think this subcommittee should become a full standing committee in the House of Commons today?

[Belinda Stronach, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of priorities we have to look at how Canada derives its wealth. Over 42% of Canada's wealth is derived from trade, so trade is a priority. Of that, over 80% is with our neighbour to the south, the United States. Therefore, we must ensure that we have the appropriate resources allocated so Canada can prosper and benefit from that relationship.

However, the issue at hand is Bill C-31. We have to examine how Bill C-31 can be in the best national interest of Canada and how it can serve our business community better so we can export more.

However, there are many unanswered questions with respect to Bill C-31. Why break up the department? How is business better served? What is the purpose? What is it to achieve? When will the effects be realized? If the government really intends to give a priority to trade, why does it not also give the appropriate trade remedies to the department? Why does the administration of trade remedies still rest with finance?

These are some of the questions that need to be asked to ensure that the new proposed structure is in the best interest of Canada and in the best interest of Canadian business.

[Belinda Stronach, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Peace River.

I am speaking today to legislation that appears to have multiple personalities. On the one hand, Bill C-31 is government housekeeping that would simply give legal form to a bureaucratic process to split apart the Department of International Trade from the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is clearly how the government would like us to see the bill.

At the same time, it is a rather deceiving bill because it cuts to the way we support our national trade objectives. In this sense it is not as dry as it seems and has real implications.

The most important aspect of the bill is whether in fact it will help Canadian business to better compete in this global trading system. Ultimately, the bill will be judged against that test.

It is critical to the ability of our country to maintain its quality of life that the government gives national priority to trade. Trade is our national lifeblood so how we do trade is important.

Judgment of the bill will come later because there are many unanswered questions. If the government believes that its decision to carve up the country's foreign and trade policy apparatus could simply be presented as a fait accompli before a sleepy Parliament with no interest in the implications, then it is wrong and underestimates this House.

Bill C-31 is a curious legislation. The bill would simply give effect to a management decision taken over a year ago and to the bureaucratic process of splitting the departments that was started without the approval of Parliament and is still ongoing. It is the original decision that is important, not this specific administrative bill.

Whether the government agrees or not, we are being asked to support or oppose the original decision by the Prime Minister to form a separate Department of International Trade, not just provide a pro forma stamp of approval. If the House were to oppose Bill C-31 it would be overruling the original decision of the Prime Minister.

To further complicate matters, the bureaucratic split has already taken place. The couple has separated and divided the assets under forced circumstances but now someone else is asking the court to approval the formal divorce without having heard from the parties.

We know from noises inside the Lester B. Pearson Building that the separation is not going so smoothly. It is much more complicated than the architect of this decision anticipated.

To oppose the legislation would mean in effect to reverse the process and re-amalgamate the two departments. The government might be hoping that since the train has already left the station, the perceived costs of such a move would be seen as prohibitive. Therefore the House has been presented with both a fait accompli and a game of chicken.

This is neither an appropriate approach to this House nor an effective conduct of public policy.

On behalf of the Conservative Party I am recommending that we allow Bill C-31 to proceed to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade so that we might be able to have a much closer look at its origins, implications and costs.

Through the good offices of the Minister of International Trade, the Prime Minister will have to make a much better case to this House about how exactly Canadian business will be better served by decoupling trade from foreign affairs. Maybe it is a good idea; maybe not. There are certainly enough voices on either side of the issue. However it is not good enough to simply say that it is so and that we should sign the divorce papers.

The Prime Minister's predecessor, Pierre Trudeau, as iconic a figure for Liberals as can be found, burned up a lot of political capital through the 1970s to accomplish consolidation and integration of the foreign affairs and international trade functions in 1982. The Prime Minister drift in the polar opposite direction now pales in comparison to the compelling case made two decades ago for consolidation on foreign policy tools.

The circumstances surrounding the origin of that decision to split the departments are rather mysterious and like a desert mirage.

Who asked for this change to an integrated international policy structure that has served Canada for the past two decades? We know it was not the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, one of the leading voices for Canadian business.

The CME told the new Minister of International Trade in July 2004 that the business community did not request the split and that CME members were quite pleased with DFAIT as it existed and with the integration of trade, economic and political relations. The CME went on to express concerns that the scarce resources not be diverted to managing the divorce to the detriment of business.

We know it was not the national association of retired Canadian ambassadors, who are squarely opposed to the split.

In my consultations with experts interested in international trade outside the Department of International Trade, I have found precious few supporters of the original idea and decision.

We will need to open the usually closed windows of the Langevin Building and get a better idea of why and how this decision was made. With whom did the Prime Minister consult to ensure that his decision was in the best national interest? Where was the unending public consultation the government usually employs when it wants to slow issues?

The decisions and therefore sister Bills C-31 and Bill C-32 are also profoundly out of sync with the government's own long awaited review of international policy, now downgraded to a statement on international policy. They are out of step both in terms of substance and timing.

One can only imagine what the implication of a demotion from “review” to “statement” might be in terms of what to expect from the exercise.

The objective should remain the same: to present a unified strategic assessment of Canada's national interests around the world and a plan on how to advance those interests.

The separation of international trade from foreign affairs would certainly act in the opposite direction from a comprehensive Canadian foreign policy that deploys all the assets at our disposal in a coordinated way. There is a public policy disconnect.

It is quite possible that the separation of the departments has already contributed to the inability of the government to produce its international policy review. Why would we be debating a bill to break up the structure of Canadian international policy before the international policy review was completed?

Will the quality of advice to Canadian business people be better than before? Will it be more valuable in a practical way? Will that advice cost more? Will the split mean that in the future we will not find ourselves as a country consulting on a China strategy or an emerging market strategy 10 years too late? If the answer to any of these questions can be shown to be yes, then the Conservative Party is all ears.

Many questions surround the decision of the Prime Minister and his advisors in the Langevin Building to break up the old Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We have doubts about the effectiveness of the decision and the process by which it was reached but we will proceed to committee on Bill C-31 with an open mind.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the minister's speech. As a former critic for international trade, I look back at the problems we faced four years ago and what I see is that we are facing the same problems today.

I had a look at Bill C-31. What this bill really seems to be about is splitting the department and spending a whole lot of money with a whole lot of process. After the government has been in power for 11 years, it is facing the same problems and the same battles today that it did 11 years ago. The productivity gap is widening. On this side of the House, obviously, we agree with more free trade and the global economy, and it is coming at us, yet the government seems to be failing us on so many fronts and not dealing with this issue.

That was a wonderful speech that the minister gave, but he did not really address the costs that are associated with splitting this department. How is this going to help address these problems? After 11 years the government has failed to address them, so how is splitting this department going to be any different? How is it going to help the Canadian taxpayer? How is it going to help businesses abroad succeed? Why are we still facing the same problems 11 years later under the same government? The same ministers who have been trying to address these problems for so long are still sitting on the front bench.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

moved that Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade and to make related amendments to certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I have the great pleasure of rising to speak on the legislation that would formalize the establishment of the Department of International Trade. In this work, I am very pleased to have the assistance of the parliamentary secretary for new and emerging markets.

On December 12, 2003 the governor in council passed an order separating the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two separate departments.

The legislation before us today would codify the changes made by that order. It would mark a milestone in the creation of the departments which have been functioning independently since the Prime Minister's announcement more than a year ago.

The purpose of the new department is simple: international trade and wealth creation for Canadians.

International policy is an extremely complex and multi-faceted area, bringing together aspects as varied as human rights, development, diplomacy, defence, international security and trade.

In this new century, Canada's active involvement in the global arena must rest on integrated strategies that take into account the relationship between these various aspects. In our department, however, our priority is obviously international trade.

Bill C-31 would establish a Department of International Trade headed by a minister responsible for the overall direction of the department, both in Canada and abroad. The powers, duties and functions of the minister are set forth in clauses 6 and 7 of the bill stating in particular that:

6.(2)--The minister shall--

b) conduct and manage international negotiations;

(c) conduct and coordinate Canada’s relations regarding international trade and commerce and international investment;--

(e) foster the development of international law and its application as it relates to Canada’s international trade and commerce and international investment--

1. The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements with the government of any province or any of its agencies respecting the carrying out of programs--

Behind these words lie the realities of our new global economy. It is a world in flux, with business internationalizing at a dizzying pace and carrying us along with it. Trade investment and all other elements of modern commerce fix us firmly in that economy, from science and technology partnerships to licensing arrangements, from geographically dispersed design and innovation and thousands of small and medium-sized firms through to global distribution of world renowned goods and services. We prosper as a nation because we do well in the global economy. It is that prosperity that gives us the choices that make us who we are in social programming, in culture, in sustainable economic development, and all the myriad contributors to that very high quality of life that makes Canada the envy of people around the world.

Continuing to succeed in international commerce is not a matter of chance. It is a matter of vital interest to all Canadians, and that is why the bill is before the House, to create a Department of International Trade to champion our international competitiveness through negotiations, through commercial relations and the expansion of trade, commerce and investment, through the security of a fair and transparent legal regime, and through programs delivered with our partners in the federal government, the provinces and territories, the Canadian business community and other stakeholders.

I remind hon. members that exports lie behind one in four Canadian jobs, that exports of goods and services are 38% of our GDP, or nearly a trillion dollars per year, and that two-way trade with the U.S. is running at over $1.2 million a minute. The stock of foreign investment in Canada now tops $357.5 billion and, more important perhaps, direct investment by Canadians abroad is now nearly $400 billion.

There is not one business in Canada which does not depend directly or indirectly on export sales or imported input, foreign technology, the skills of our immigrants or, in a nutshell, one aspect or the other of international trade. There is not one Canadian who does not contribute in some way to the global economy. Even in our trade with the United States, we supply them and, in turn, they supply the world.

That is how Canadian avionics ends up onboard the European Airbus. The same is true of the operation of our supply lines here, in Canada. While a growing number of businesses are turning to the foreign market, others are selling their services on the domestic market without realizing that they are contributing to the international competitiveness of their clients.

Canadian prosperity is anchored in our global economy, and that is why the government has made a priority of sustaining our international competitiveness. The last Speech from the Throne challenged Canada to elevate its economic performance to the next level through a commitment to excellence, a vision directed outward to the challenges and opportunities the world presents.

International trade and investment is one of those five key elements that were outlined. Even if International Trade Canada will not exist in law until the bill is passed, I can assure the House that we exist in fact and we are hard at work helping Canadians meet the challenges of our modern economy. We have tools for all critical business needs, beginning with the front line cultivation of leads and contacts and business intelligence for our clientele delivered to 1,200 registered Canadian business clients through the department's virtual trade commission.

The tools are only as useful as the purpose they serve. Ours serve in particular to secure and improve access to the North American market and to ensure that Canadian businesses have access to opportunities increasingly found in new economic powers such as China, India and Brazil.

We want to position Canada advantageously in global value chains through innovative approaches and through closer economic cooperation with established economic powers like the EU and Japan.

This work is not just carried out abroad. It is hard to determine the true boundaries of our economy. That is why, in keeping with the approach set out in the Speech from the Throne, we are working to ensure that no internal factor contributing to innovation and competitiveness is neglected. If we do not succeed nationally, we cannot succeed internationally.

I would like to remind the House of some of the challenges we face and some of the things we have done.

First, thanks to our continuing close partnership with Foreign Affairs Canada, and I appreciate the cooperation and goodwill of my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we have managed an important and complex transition while improving our level of service to business. The department now services our clientele from 12 regional offices across Canada and through our trade offices in over 140 cities worldwide.

We are deepening our partnerships with business, provinces, territories, municipalities, and other stakeholders. I shall personally be meeting with my provincial and territorial colleagues in Winnipeg in 10 days to exchange advice and perspectives on international commercial challenges and opportunities. This is part of our ongoing dialogue with all Canadian stakeholders.

I would add that the hon. members have been and—I hope—will continue to be independent sources of advice in the pursuit Canada's strategic objectives in international trade.

I am grateful that the subcommittee, chaired by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, will be undertaking nationwide hearings on these issues.

Our key economic partnership is with the United States and our relationship with Mexico is rapidly gaining in size and maturity.

The Prime Minister and President Bush agreed last December that we had to break the vicious cycle of protectionism that has clouded the effectiveness of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanisms in areas such as softwood lumber, but the political weight of protectionist interests will not just go away: we need to cultivate allies, to show how two closely knit economies jointly facing an increasingly competitive global environment cannot allow these aberrations to happen.

Accordingly, we have continued to increase our representation in the U.S. regions under the ERI, under which we have opened seven new consulates and upgraded two more to consulates general. This strategy allows us to extend our ability to advocate for Canadian interests, not just in the disputes I have mentioned but also on varied and important subjects such as energy or access for our agricultural commodities such as wheat, beef and swine.

This initiative will help us forge closer ties with opinion- and decision-makers across the U.S. and I plan to build on this solid base by personally leading advocacy days in key U.S. centres. I look forward in this endeavour to the active participation of parliamentarians from all parties.

Looking to the future, the Prime Minister and President announced a new partnership, a partnership for prosperity and security. The commercial component aims to expand our opportunities by making our businesses more competitive in the global marketplace. This builds on decisions by my NAFTA counterparts and me, dealing with the NAFTA work program itself.

Another accomplishment of the past year was the launch of the Canada-Mexico partnership. This provides opportunities for small and medium sized enterprises, enhances trade and investment flows, promotes links among cultural, research and academic groups, and increases our respective economies' global competitiveness, all within the North American context.

In planning for the future, we cannot lose sight of what is important today. We have defended Canada's interests in softwood lumber by taking action through NAFTA and the WTO and by working in close cooperation with the provinces and the industry. We have achieved some success. We will maintain our resolve while being flexible in our determination to find a lasting and fair solution to this problem.

We will use the tools at our disposal to defend the interests of our wheat farmers, among others, who are faced with American protectionism.

Canadians have important interests in many areas of the world, from Austria to Chile, from Russia to the Arabian gulf. I would like to speak, however, about the European Union and Japan, which are truly important economic partners for Canada on trade and investment and on science and technology grounds, to say nothing of how they, like the United States, are movers and shakers in the value networks that increasingly characterize world production.

We agreed on a framework for a Canada-EU trade and investment enhancement agreement last March to consolidate and extend the economic partnership in ways that complement the WTO's market access focus. We both now are negotiating mandates.

The U.K., Germany and France and other European states are among our most important partners and investment goals. This is a relationship clearly worth investing in. Equally important are the bilateral discussions launched with Japan to structure a new framework for enhanced economic relations.

I am also developing an aggressive new approach to positioning Canadian business in emerging markets such as China, India and Brazil, as well as other partners strategically positioned in relation to them, such as Korea. To shape this strategy and assess priorities we have conducted consultations, including recent round tables with business, academics and civil societies. This dialogue is ongoing.

We are already taking measures to expand our options. The Prime Minister announced the opening of exploratory talks on a possible free trade agreement with Korea. I have already sent a team to get the discussions underway.

Last year we resumed talks with China and India on negotiations for protecting investments. In November, I headed a trade mission to Brazil. I have just gone back to China, where I accompanied the Prime Minister and I foresee sending a trade mission to India in early spring. The hon. Gar Knutson, the Minister of State for International Trade for New and Emerging Markets, led a trade mission to Central America.

As well, the hon. parliamentary secretary for new and emerging markets undertook a recent trade mission to Syria, the U.A.E., Qatar, Yemen and Egypt.

There is much more I could mention, from the World Trade Organization's Doha development agenda, to other elements of our activist trade and investment policy agenda, to the very way my department is being organized to seek out and deliver new solutions in support of various client groups such as SMEs, various drivers of competitiveness like science and technology and investment, and various challenges to be overcome on the way to success in established and in emerging economic partners.

There will be other opportunities to discuss broad strategy or specific issues such as the annual trade update. Right now I look forward to working with all members of Parliament to promote Canada's prosperity through enhanced trade and investment, and I humbly seek members' support for this bill, Bill C-31, so that the important work we are doing together might continue.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon under the business of supply.

The order of business for tomorrow and Monday will be second reading of Bill C-33, the income tax amendments; report stage of Bill C-10, the Criminal Code (mental disorder) bill; reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-37, the do-not-call bill; second reading of Bill C-31 respecting the international trade department; and second reading of Bill C-32 respecting the foreign affairs department.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day. Subject to further discussions, on Wednesday we would like to commence consideration of a bill respecting the first ministers' agreement on health care funding, after which we will resume the business already listed.

Department of International Trade Act

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade and to make related amendments to certain acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the Tlicho land claims and self-government bill. This is a historic piece of legislation and is deserving of some scrutiny by the House.

The Tlicho are the latest in the Northwest Territories to reach a land claims settlement but this is the first instance where self-government has been negotiated in an agreement at the same time. We have to be careful and take our time with this legislation. I will outline several areas where I find the bill to be deficient.

First, this is not a final agreement. The agreement contains a clause to reopen negotiations should other first nations in the Northwest Territories negotiate terms in their agreement that appear attractive to the Tlicho in the future. In this the agreement does not achieve a basic goal: to arrive at a final settlement.

Second, it would appear depending on how one interprets the text that the agreement recognizes the right of the Tlicho to enter into international agreements. It states right in the agreement that it does not limit the right of the Tlicho to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements. It also requires the Government of Canada to consult with the Tlicho nation before entering into an international agreement that may affect the right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho First Nation or Tlicho citizens.

I am concerned that this kind of language could be seen as being too broad and that it may put a restriction on what is an exclusively federal area of jurisdiction.

Third, the agreement creates a racially based electoral system which some will recall was the subject of a fierce debate in the House during the Nisga'a discussions.

Under this agreement a category of citizens called Tlicho citizens is created who are the only people who may be elected as chiefs. In addition 50% of elected councillors must come from this Tlicho citizens group. Some might argue that this is counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it is certainly something that might be open to a court challenge.

Last, the most fundamentally difficult problem with the agreement is the way in which it deals with jurisdictions. The agreement describes several different hierarchies to determine which legislation should prevail in the event of a conflict: federal legislation, territorial legislation, Tlicho law or the agreement itself. It is also not clear whether Tlicho citizens would have the protection of the charter in the event of a conflict with the Tlicho constitution.

As the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, there is another issue I would like to raise with respect to this agreement. It is the issue of matrimonial property. My colleague, the member for Portage—Lisgar, raised this in the previous Parliament when this legislation was Bill C-31. I would like to revisit some of the points he made for the record.

Let me quote from the interim report released by the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights in November 2003, entitled “A Hard Bed to Lie In: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”. This is an issue we should not ignore. The Senate report stated:

I believe that one of the basic rights we should be able to enjoy is the right to call a place, a community or a structure “home”. Home is a place where we are safe and protected by family and friends. It is our private spot, where we can lock out the cares of the world and enjoy one another. It is also the place where, as a couple, when we plan a family, we know that this is the place where they will be safe, protected and loved. As a couple, you take a structure, and with personal touches from each of you, you make this your private world. You open your private world to family and friends, making them feel welcome when they visit you. However, make no mistake, this place is your private world.

Imagine the stress on a woman who knows that, if this loving relationship ends, then her world will crumble. Imagine the stress when this woman has children, and she knows, that not only she but also her children will soon have to leave the place she and they call home, and in some cases, must leave the community.

It is not an easy choice to decide that a relationship is not working and that the relationship must end. Normally, while there is a certain degree of animosity, most couples know that they must work out a mutually agreed upon arrangement for the deposition of property, including the home.

This would not appear to be the case for on-reserve women, as they hold no interest in the family home. There is no choice as to who has to move. It is the woman and, in most cases, it is the woman and her children. What a choice: be homeless or be in a loveless relationship, maybe an abusive relationship. Is that what Aboriginal women deserve? No, it is not. Is it humane? It is definitely not.

My concern and the concern of many members of my party is that the issues of matrimonial property are not properly, fully and fairly addressed in this agreement and that, if we proceed in this manner, there is the real possibility that we will perpetuate the circumstance. There is only one place in Canada where no such property rules exist and that is on reserves. It is important that we recognize this fact and commit ourselves to take every opportunity to correct the situation.

For those of us in opposition, it is not enough for us simply to oppose, especially in a minority Parliament. We must also put forward where we stand on issues such as this one. Allow me to make a few points about where a Conservative government would be with an issue like this.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada. Settlement of all outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued on the basis of a clear framework which balances the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada.

Self-government agreements must be structured so as to ensure constitutional harmony so as not to impede the overall governance of Canada. To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government would ensure that the principles of the charter applied to aboriginal self-government.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes in giving aboriginal governments the power to raise their own revenues. Aboriginal agreements reached with the federal government must represent a final agreement in the same manner as was achieved with the Nisga'a.

In closing, I believe that the underlying principles expressed are good ones. A comprehensive land claim settlement and self-government agreement in one document is a historic achievement, one which deserves credit for its good intentions.

Unfortunately, this agreement and the bill implementing it do not measure up to the standards that should be applied in such an important document. Again, here is why: The agreement is not final. The agreement does not fully respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor does it fully respect the overarching authority of the federal government in areas of its exclusive jurisdiction. It creates substantial jurisdictional confusion between federal, territorial and Tlicho legislation as to which takes precedence and in what situation.

I urge the government to consider the words of my colleagues, especially our critic, the member for Calgary Centre-North, with regard to this bill. Before something as important as this agreement gets cemented into place with the force of the Constitution behind it, we must be certain that we are in fact doing the right thing.