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.

First Nations Child Welfare

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege, and I will do it as quickly as possible.

It is about something that happened yesterday in question period. I will come back to that in a moment. This is the first time we have had routine proceedings since yesterday's question period.

I appreciate the opportunity to present this question of privilege today.

As I know members are very well aware, the House has the power to punish contempt, which explicitly includes disobeying an order of the House.

I will cite House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pages 80 and 81, which reads:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands...

As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, even in other parliaments worldwide, including the United Kingdom, decisions have been made by Speakers in regard to this. The United Kingdom Joint Committee on Joint Parliamentary Privilege also attempted to provide a list of some types of contempt in its 1999 report. One of them that I will cite is “without reasonable excuse, disobeying a lawful order of the House or a committee.”

Wednesday, December 11, the member for Timmins—James Bay rose to present a motion that passed and provided clear direction. The motion reads as follows:

That the House call on the government to comply with the historic ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordering the end of discrimination against First Nations children, including by:

(a) fully complying with all orders made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as well as ensuring that children and their families don't have to testify their trauma in court; and

(b) establishing a legislated funding plan for future years that will end the systemic shortfalls in First Nations child welfare.

It was adopted unanimously by the House.

Quickly referencing the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, “call on” can also be defined as a demand, which constitutes clear direction, and the definition of “comply”, again in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, is to act in accordance with a command, regulation, etc.

Parliament called on the government to comply with the rulings of the tribunal, which wrote:

...that Canada’s systemic racial discrimination...resulted in harming First Nations children living on reserve and in the Yukon Territory who, as a result of poverty, lack of housing or deemed appropriate housing, neglect and substance abuse were unnecessarily apprehended and placed in care outside of their homes, families and communities and especially in regards to substance abuse, did not benefit from prevention services in the form of least disruptive measures or other prevention services permitting them to remain safely in their homes, families and communities. Those children experienced pain and suffering of the worst kind warranting the maximum award of remedy of $20,000...Canada is ordered to pay $20,000 to each First Nation child removed from its home, family and Community between January 1, 2006...

The direction is very clear.

In question period yesterday, the government response showed a willful disregard of the direction that was given by the House, both outside and inside Parliament.

First, CBC News online quoted the Minister of Indigenous Services saying that the government had no plans to drop the court challenge. Then yesterday in question period in the House, the Minister of Indigenous Services said “our commitment to implementing other orders from the CHRT or reforming child and family services has not changed in any way.” Nothing changes. In effect, in reply to a question from the member for Timmins—James Bay, he said the government was simply not changing its fashion of proceeding.

This is unprecedented, I would submit, and is a procedural grey area. There is no jurisprudence or Speaker's ruling that specifically covers such a situation, and we certainly went many decades back late into the evening last night. The closest equivalent was from Speaker Milliken on March 8, 2005, in relation to Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, bills that proposed creating a department of international trade separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs. In that instance, despite seeing legislation enabling departmental reorganizations defeated in the House, the government continued with its plan to split the departments.

In that ruling, Speaker Milliken ruled that no breach of privilege had occurred, in large part because Parliament had, in terms of order in council, provided direction to the government. He also cited the main estimates. In other words, there was ambiguity about the direction that was received from the House. Also, the Speaker mentioned that the comments were outside the House, so he questioned the validity of those comments and the accuracy of the quotation. In this case, we rely on Hansard and the quotes are very direct and present in this House.

However, Speaker Milliken expressed serious concern. He stated, “That is not to say that the comments, if reported accurately, do not concern me. I can fully appreciate the frustration of the House and the confusion of hon. Members, let alone those who follow parliamentary affairs from outside this Chamber.” Speaker Milliken then asked, “How can the decisions of this House...be without practical consequence?” That is from page 53 of Selected Decisions of Speaker Milliken, on a decision rendered on March 23, 2005.

There is ambiguity that needs to be carefully regarded and decided upon by you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the House of Commons is supreme and has issued direction to the government. The government has stated in the House that nothing has changed, and I submit that this is in breach of the privileges of the House. However, as you know, ultimately it is up to the House to decide if its privileges have been infringed upon and if the government is in contempt.

As you well know, the role of the Speaker is to determine whether this matter warrants further discussion in this chamber. I would ask that you find a prima facie case of privilege, and allow space for members of this House to determine whether this warrants being reviewed by the procedure and House affairs committee. Particularly in a minority Parliament, this is of fundamental importance.

You will be studying my submission and perhaps other members would want to weigh in, but the reality is that the government has the ability over the break to fix what was, to my mind, a clear contradiction between the direction set by the House and the government's response. I certainly hope it does so. If that is the case, I would be more than pleased to withdraw this question of privilege.

The fact remains, and Canadians understand, that in democracy the voters make a decision. They choose who fills the House, and then we make decisions. The government then, when there is a clear direction, should have the understanding that the clear direction should be followed. There is no doubt that on Wednesday the House directed the government and on Thursday, less than 24 hours later, the minister indicated in the House that nothing had changed.

I submit that the House should be charged in this matter and if, after careful study, you agree, I am prepared to move the necessary motion, Mr. Speaker.

Criminal Code

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for two days in a row I have had the pleasure to reflect on Bill C-65 and now Bill C-64. The government claims these bills to be representative of what Mr. Cadman, the former hon. member for Surrey, was trying to accomplish during his tour here.

As I said yesterday with respect to Bill C-65, Bill C-64 has been altered with a few words that reflect the mushy, soft on crime Liberal attitude. The bill probably will be supported by my friends to the left, the softy Bloc. The Liberals have watered down both bills because they appear to be too harsh for their souls to comprehend.

Many years ago Mr. Cadman recognized how serious auto theft had become. It is a major problem in many cities all across Canada. Close to 200,000 vehicles are stolen every year. This bill is supposed to make it an offence to alter, or remove, or obliterate vehicle identification numbers, or VIN, on motor vehicles. That was the purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill, which he presented quite some time ago in the House. However, in the opinion of the Liberal government and other softies in here who support being soft on crime, the bill was too harsh.

The government has taken Chuck's bill and added a few words. Section 377.1 states, “everyone commits an offence who wholly or partially alters, removes, or obliterates a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse”. Chuck Cadman's bill would have made the onus on the person indicted. It would not be up to the Crown to try to justify the altering of the VIN in any way, shape or form.

The government added, “and under circumstances that give rise to reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle”. That sentence destroys the entire purpose of Chuck Cadman's private member's bill. It has changed his bill completely, even to the point that a number of people who were very supportive of his initial bill are not supportive of this one.

Members of Chuck's family and his campaign team back in Surrey are livid with Bill C-64. I understand that letters have been written by the campaign chairman of his committee to editors of various newspapers. Those people are livid that the government would dare change these things, water down the bills and say that Bill C-64 is in memory of Chuck Cadman. By making these alterations, the government has strongly dishonoured his memory by saying that this is Chuck Cadman's bill when in fact it is not.

It is pretty clear in people's minds that Bill C-64 will put the onus on the Crown to prove someone caught with an altered VIN intended to conceal the identity of a motor vehicle rather than to explain themselves, which was Mr. Cadman's original intention. That is a very strong point.

I was here during Mr. Cadman's tenure. Over the years Chuck fought so hard for these kinds of bills and amendments. The government consistently rejected any form of mandatory licence prohibitions similar to the type that Chuck constantly proposed.

The government ignored the recommendations related to VINs. It ignored the recommendations related to street racing. It continued to soft pedal on all of these efforts to confront crime. Mr. Cadman was definitely committed to seeing that crime fighting efforts were made law in this great country to bring more emphasis to the value of victims rather than constantly seeing perpetrators receive a lot more attention.

Today in question period even the answer that I received regarding the constant idea that the rights of perpetrators seemed to override the rights of victims in all cases indicated that there was an imbalance and that there were efforts to do something about it. When a bill on some very stringent issues regarding Chuck Cadman's ideas is watered down, that is just the opposite. Once again the focus is on the predator and not the victim. The government needs to wake up and realize that is the case.

What is even more disturbing is if this bill were amended, if it passed and became law, where would it go next?. I am really disgusted when I look at some of the things that have happened in regard to decisions that are made in the House of Commons. Let me provide some short examples.

Last week, while visiting my constituents in my riding, I ran across three people who were suffering from hepatitis C. One of them does not have very long to live. I believe some time around April the House concurred in a motion put forward by our health critic, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, that would implement the recommendation in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health that called for compensation to all victims of hepatitis C. It was passed in the House and all victims of hepatitis C were to receive compensation.

When these three people asked me when they would get their money, I was shocked. I knew it had been approved long ago by this place. What is going on? The House of Commons made a decision that all hepatitis C victims would be compensated, yet to this date they have not been. In other words, the government of the day is refusing to take any action. It is ignoring the decision of the House.

Let me talk further about that to illustrate my worry about these kinds of bills that may pass, and even if they are amended, but do not go anywhere.

Bill C-2, the child exploitation act, has been approved by the House of Commons. It has gone where it is supposed to go. It is supposed to be implemented and become law. This is about child exploitation. Where is it? It is my understanding it is still sitting on the Prime Minister's desk and is not going anywhere. The House of Commons passed that law and it is supposed to happen. Why has it not?

We need answers to these kinds of questions. The decision on hepatitis C was unanimous. Nobody voted against it. Everybody in this place was in favour of giving the victims of hepatitis C a cheque. Today they still have not received them, and I would like to know why. After eight months, the government cannot achieve that? Are the Liberals waiting for everybody to die and then they will not have to bother with it? That is extremely disturbing.

On November 30, 2004, the House approved another motion by the leader of our party which called upon the government to take appropriate measures to sell 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose lands were expropriated to build the Mirabel airport. Guess what? The government has refused to comply with the wishes of the House. It has not done that.

On April 5 the House adopted a motion by the member for Red Deer, concurring in a committee report disqualifying Glen Murray's appointment as chairman of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Today, Mr. Murray still continues to chair the round table. Once again, the government completely ignored the decision of the House of Commons.

On February 15, Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 were defeated in the House of Commons. The trade minister shrugged off the defeat of these two bills that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs. He said that the two branches of government would continue to operate independently, even though Parliament did not give its blessing to do so. Even though they were defeated, the two bills were implemented. I find this amazing. Bills that are defeated are implemented and bills that are passed are not, because they do not suit the attitude on that side of the House.

Bill C-2 on child exploitation was approved and is laying dormant. Will the Liberals get on with it? Is it too harsh? It might be.

I was at committee on Tuesday and one of the witnesses was from the justice department. Guess what one of his statements was when the department objected to a private member's bill, which had been brought forward by my colleague, regarding the penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime? What did the official of the justice department say loud and clear? The bill was opposed because it was cruel and undue punishment. The punishment was too severe for people who would dare break the law in the commission of a crime using a gun. Yet the victims of these crimes never get to cry out about the harsh impacts on their lives from the actions of these perpetrators.

There is way too much of that going on, and it is no wonder. Every time a bill is brought in like Bill C-64, the outfit over there has to water it down because it is too harsh on the perpetrator. Never mind the guys who lose their cars to theft. Let us not get too harsh on those who steal them. How nonsensical can they get? Common sense does not prevail anywhere in the House of Commons. Decisions do not prevail in the House of Commons. It does not matter whether a motion passes, it does not get done.

I do not know if members would like more examples, but I have a ton of them, examples where the Liberals refuse to accept the decisions of the House. I do not know contemptible they can get.

Our health critic also had a motion in regard to the funding required to fight cancer and a few of the other serious diseases we are facing. He introduced a motion calling on the government to fully fund and implement a Canadian strategy for cancer control in collaboration with the provinces and all stakeholders. That was approved by the House, but there has been no action. Nothing is happening. The government refuses to give any effect to the motion. Why?

I am glad to see two or three Liberals here. I hope they are listening closely. Do they know of all the decisions that they took part in making but are not being done? Do they not care about the fact that hepatitis C victims are not being compensated, even though those people over there had a voice in that and voted yes to having it done? Does it not bother those members a little bit that people living in their ridings who have hepatitis C are not being compensated? Are they not bothered that the House is being ignored by whatever little group of individuals who do not care about decisions made here and that they will do it anyway?

Does it not bother those members that two bills designed to split a department were defeated and yet the government went ahead and created the two departments? Does it not bother those members the slightest little bit that these undemocratic, dictatorial decisions are going on right under their noses? Does it not make them squirm in their seats just a wee bit? If it does not, then it ought to make it really hot to sit in those seats. It is absolutely shameful.

And to hear the answer to my question today, that the government realizes there is an imbalance in our law and order and fighting of crime. That was the government's own admission in the answer. Why are we not doing something about it? We have an opportunity to get tough on crime. When we have a chance to get tough on street racing as Mr. Cadman wished, on the stealing of automobiles and the removing of VINs, why do we not do it?

When the Liberals make a statement that there is an imbalance, why does more favour always go toward the predators rather than the victims? This is constantly happening. When they make those statements, why do they allow it? Why do they want to amend those bills to make that happen again?

Why do the Liberals not fess up and look to the people in their ridings? How many people in their ridings are happy that we have a law in the land which says that adult men can have sex with 14-year-old girls? How many people in their ridings are happy about that? About 99% of the people in my riding are not happy about that at all, but that is the law and there is not the courage to change it because somebody over there does not want it to happen. Some soft, mushy idealist over there says that it would be too harsh, that we could not do it because it would make it difficult for those adult men who like to prey on young women who are kids. Like it or not, 14 year olds and 15 year olds are still kids. They are young girls just coming to the point of life where they can enjoy things, yet we dare allow the possibility of endangering them.

I know that questions are going to come up after this speech but boy, I would like some answers to come out of the mouths of those people over there before they ask the questions. I would like them to explain to me why they do not honour democracy, that when a decision is made in the House it is done. If they doubt it, I will give them a copy of the 14 things I know about that have been decided on but which have not been accomplished. They could take it up in the Liberal caucus if they wanted to, but it would not make any difference because they are puppets of a regime that refuses to honour the decisions of the House. That is what has to stop.

Then above all things, the most absolutely ridiculous, the most undemocratic decision I have ever heard of was to stifle the opposition by coming back in the fall and saying that there will be no opposition days. What a shameful, undemocratic disgrace the government brings to the House of Commons.

The Liberals ought to be apologizing to their constituents on a daily basis for their inaction on decisions made here and for their unwillingness to come down hard on criminals and help victims to a larger degree than they ever imagined. That is what a Conservative government would do and I would love to be part of that.

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the address by my colleague, the hon. member for Peterborough. He listed an enormous number of things that the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development of Canada presumably will be able to undertake, if this legislation is passed. That is what we kept hearing. I guess, if that is true, it speaks to how many wonderful things the department has not been doing so far. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek because the department has been doing most of those things thus far.

We have already seen the division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade under Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, similar to what we have with the legislation in front of us, which the government undertook a year and a half ago, and it was of absolutely no consequence whatsoever with the government. When it was finally implemented by the counterpart legislation for foreign affairs, it was defeated, yet the government forged ahead with the division in any event. It did not make any difference.

Are we not wasting our time today debating this, since it seems to have little consequence to what the government actually does?

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 17 by the hon. opposition House leader concerning remarks made by the Hon. Minister of International Trade in relation to the defeat of the motions for second reading of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, the bills that proposed to create a Department of International Trade separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The hon. opposition House leader contends that these remarks represent a contempt of Parliament.

I would like to thank the hon. opposition House leader for raising this matter, as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast and the hon. government House leader for their contributions when the issue was raised. I also want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Government House leader for his intervention on March 8 and the hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. opposition House leader for the responses to his comments.

The hon. opposition House leader in his original statement objected to comments made by the Minister for International Trade on the day following the defeat at second reading of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. He pointed to articles in the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen which quoted the minister as saying that the two departments would continue to work independently even though Parliament had voted against the bills that proposed to split the two entities, the former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The hon. opposition House leader alleges that the minister's words suggest that the passage or defeat of legislation was inconsequential to the separation of the departments and, in so doing, showed disregard for the role of the House of Commons. He argues that this shows such disrespect as to constitute, in his opinion, a contempt of the House.

There are two issues in the presentation made by the hon. opposition House leader. The first issue is the current status of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade given that on February 15 the bills containing the proposal that it be split into two departments were defeated at second reading in the House. The second issue is whether actions taken or statements made by the minister in the wake of the defeat of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 constitute a contempt of the House of Commons.

Let us consider the first issue, the status of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

On December 12, 2003, a number of orders in council were made under the authority of several statutes, including the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Ministries and Ministers of State Act.

I draw the attention of the House, for example, to order in council numbered 2003-2052 designating the Department of International Trade as a department. Other orders in council in this series address ancillary issues related to that designation, while the existence of the positions of Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Minister of International Trade both existed pursuant to the Salaries Act prior to that day.

The Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act provides that the government, by order in council, may reorganize existing functions of government for which Parliament has voted funds. In short, existing statutes grant the government considerable leeway in proceeding with any reorganization it chooses to pursue. The Canadian custom has been to complete or confirm such rearrangements by way of legislation.

The House will note that these are some of the very points which were emphasized by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader when he spoke to this issue on March 8, saying, in part:

In reorganizing or organizing a cabinet and making use of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, the government does not create new statutory authorities or powers. Rather, the government rearranges pre-existing authorities that have already been created by Parliament and does so in accordance with a legislative mechanism that has also been created by Parliament.

It would appear to the Chair that in general the power of the government to reorganize, and specifically this latest reorganization, is not very well understood. The House will recall that as far back as March 2004 questions related to the reorganization were surfacing in the House.

For example, I remind hon. members of the question of privilege raised on March 10, 2004 by the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl with regard to the form of the main estimates for 2004-05. I refer hon. members to the debates for that day at pages 1310 and 1311.

I also refer hon. members to the text, Organizing to Govern, Volume One, by the Hon. Gordon F. Osbaldeston, former Clerk of the Privy Council, who explains at page 24:

For a variety of reasons--ministerial preference, better organization fit, and other reasons...--governments may decide to rearrange their organizations. The chief legislative tool for accomplishing this type of organizational change is the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. Orders in council pursuant to this act are used principally for two purposes:

transfer of organizational subunits...from one organization to another...

transfer of responsibility for acts or parts of acts from one minister to another...

On page 25 he goes on to confirm:

Strictly speaking, these tools are meant only to reorganize existing functions of government for which Parliament has voted funds--any new activities must be authorized by Parliament.

So, too, in the case now before us, whether or not the House is convinced of the case for reorganization, the government nonetheless has at hand the tools to execute those plans; legislative measures like Bill C-31 and C-32 merely complement them.

I trust that the background I have just presented will assist the House in better appreciating the current situation. Here, existing functions, notably international trade, are being reconfigured and those rearrangements have been carried out by orders in council. I should say that this is what distinguishes the current situation from the one cited by the hon. opposition House leader on which Speaker Fraser ruled in 1989. In that case, a new tax, the GST, was being proposed by the government of the day, but enacting legislation had not yet been adopted in the House.

In the opinion of the Chair, the authority to begin the process of separating the departments rests on the series of orders in council adopted December 12, 2003 pursuant to existing statutory authorities granted to the government by Parliament. That authority is set out in the law and it is not for me to judge whether it is sufficient in this case.

Following a search of our precedents, I am unable to find a case where any Speaker has ruled that the government, in the exercise of regulatory power conferred upon it by statute, has been found to have breached the privileges of the House. Indeed, the hon. member is not arguing that. He seems to be suggesting that the minister's comments amounted to a breach of privilege, but if the minister was stating the legal position, it could hardly constitute a breach.

To recap then, since I promised the hon. member for Halifax that all would be made clear in this ruling, statutory authority, namely the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, already exists to proceed with the changes that were originally made in December by orders in council pursuant to that act. When the government introduced legislation, specifically Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, since, as explained the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, it was as a complement in keeping with “...Canadian practice...to confirm major changes in government organization through legislation”. We can think of these bills as similar to the miscellaneous statutes amendments bills that come before Parliament from time to time.

From a reading of the bills, it appears to me that they enshrine in statute the new names of the departments and ministers and spell out the mandate of international trade, not in the cryptic language of the order in council but in the more Cartesian vocabulary of legislative drafting. Furthermore, Bill C-31 appears to create a new post of associate deputy minister of international trade.

Thus, as the House well knows, on December 7, 2004, Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade and to make related amendments to certain acts, and Bill C-32, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, were introduced and read a first time. These bills were debated at second reading in early February, each coming to a vote on second reading, that is to say a vote on approval in principle of each bill, on February 15. Both bills were defeated at second reading.

Where does that leave matters?

The procedural consequence is clear. Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 will not proceed further in this session.

The legal consequence is not for me to address. The Chair is unable to determine what future legislative measures the government may bring forward to complete or confirm the division of the two departments. That is for the government to determine.

As my predecessors and I have pointed out in many previous rulings, where legal interpretation is at issue, it is not within the Speaker’s authority to rule or decide points of law. This principle is explained on pages 219 and 220 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

—while Speakers must take the Constitution and statutes into account when preparing a ruling, numerous Speakers have explained that it is not up to the Speaker to rule on the “constitutionality” or “legality” of measures before the House.

If the Chair cannot pronounce on the legality of government action, it is up to the Speaker to examine the situation and to weigh the arguments of the hon. opposition House leader to determine from a purely procedural perspective whether the privileges of the House have been breached.

I can only assume that the minister, in stating his intention to continue with the establishment of the Department of International Trade, is planning to proceed for the moment under existing authorities.

In a similar vein, the Chair has noted and draws the attention of the House to the form of the main estimates for 2005-06. Those documents present separate budgets for foreign affairs and for international trade, though the formal name Foreign Affairs and International Trade is still invoked.

Is there cause for concern, however, that the privileges of the House are breached where the government continues with its departmental reorganization by orders in council after confirmation of these initiatives was not approved by the House? Am I to find here a prima facie breach of privileges of the House?

It seems to me that in making the statement outside the House, which gave rise to the point of privilege of the hon. opposition House leader, the minister might only have meant to indicate that the reorganization by orders in council continue to have legal effect. If that was the intent of the minister's remark and the actions taken are legally valid, which I must assume is the case, it is difficult to find this comment offensive to the dignity of the House and therefore a prima facie breach of privileges.

That is not to say that the comments, if reported accurately, do not concern me. I can fully appreciate the frustration of the House and the confusion of hon. members, let alone those who follow parliamentary affairs from outside this chamber. The scrutiny of legislation is arguably the central role of Parliament.

The decision of the House at each stage of a government bill determines whether or not the proposal can go forward. How can the decisions of the House on these bills be without practical consequence?

We appear to have come upon a paradox in Canadian practice. Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 aimed to confirm executive action, action already taken pursuant to statutes by non-legislative means, and the House of Commons has refused to give that confirmation. It leaves the government and the House in a most unfortunate conflict on the matter but, on the information I have, I cannot find that this constitutes a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House.

At the end of all this, it seems to me that what we have here is an unfortunate incident that has impacted upon the working relationship between the House and the government. The hon. government House leader has said that the government is reviewing its parliamentary options. The Chair would encourage the government, during the course of that review, to have further consultations with all parties in the House to clarify events and restore the central working relationship to its usual good form.

Privilege

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the very same point, I would have to say it is a rare occasion in which I agree so wholeheartedly with the position expressed by the Conservative caucus. There is a certain sense of relief that I am able to do that on one or two occasions.

I have to say that the response given by the government member simply adds confusion to an already confusing situation. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, and I am not trying to anticipate your ruling, that there may not in the strictest sense be a contempt of Parliament here in the ham-fisted way that the government has handled Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, but it certainly is a case of colossal arrogance and colossal incompetence at the same time.

One has a very difficult time, particularly in a minority government when I think we all share a sense of responsibility to try to make this place work, make Parliament and its committees work, to have a situation where the government has introduced two bills after the fact. Yes, there is legislative authority that allows for the rearranging of transfer of duties prior to there being legislation brought in. Having described the necessity of doing that as an urgent matter, the government then bypassed a spring session of Parliament where the appropriate legislation could have been brought in, and bypassed a fall session of Parliament when the legislation could have been brought in. Then when the government finally brought in the legislation, after it was voted down by Parliament the government decided that it did not really need to do it anyway. I guess the bottom line, although this was not said quite so explicitly, would be that the government's intention is to go ahead and ignore the fact that there is no such legislation.

At the very least this shows no respect for the time of Parliament. Why would we spend time being charged with legislation that the government says it does not need and that if we vote against it the government will do it anyway? Also, in a minority Parliament, surely there is an onus on all of us to try to come to some sensible agreement about what is a priority for us to deal with and at the very least, Liberals should not be wasting our time with this.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we will get some direction from you in regard to this practice of bringing in legislation, actually two sittings of the House after it could have been brought in if it was any kind of an urgent matter in the first place, and then when it is voted down by a majority of members of the House to have the government say that it is going to do it anyway. If it is not contempt, it certainly is arrogance of the worst kind and extreme incompetence to have wasted the time of Parliament in the manner that the government has.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a tremendous contradiction by the member who just tried to defend that what the Liberals are doing is contrary to the vote of this Parliament. If in fact what he said is true, then it would have been totally redundant to have brought Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 to the House. If the government could do it without parliamentary approval, then it should not have brought in the bills.

The government did bring in the bills. Parliament debated. We contemplated the issues. It was clearly a decision of Parliament that the process the government was embarking on was ill advised. Parliament, in its collective wisdom among all the members, decided that this was not to be passed because it was not the right decision to make. So Parliament, being asked by the government to make the decision, did make it and now the Liberals are basically thumbing their noses at Parliament. They are saying that notwithstanding what Parliament decided, they are going to do it anyway.

I think what you heard, Mr. Speaker, was a really weak presentation by the government, like a little child caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar, trying to explain why it is that he or she is doing what he or she wants to do anyway.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the dignity and the authority of Parliament by making sure that the vote of this Parliament is upheld by the government of the day.

Financial Administration Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat stymied by this third reading of Bill C-8.

During the debates held in the House at second reading, we discussed Bill C-8 extensively. At the time, we raised a number of questions that have yet to be answered by the government, but that are very valid questions regarding the purpose of this legislation and the objectives of the government. Since the bill is now at third reading, we can assume that, indeed, these considerations and questions have been left unanswered.

Bill C-8 illustrates once again the scenario that we had with other bills proposed in this House. Indeed, with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, we saw that the government had implemented administrative changes without consulting those who are most affected by these changes, and without putting in place a plan to develop those administrative changes.

As regards Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, since there were no plan or justification with respect to these changes, the House rejected these motions. In the case of Bill C-8, even though we said at second reading that we had some concerns and fundamental questions regarding this legislation, we still reviewed, in the hope, of course, that these questions would be answered, and that some objectives as well as a plan would be defined.

Unfortunately, as I said, our questions were not answered. I should point out that this is an issue of particular interest to the NDP. Indeed, we have always believed it is important that the government maintain good relations with public servants. Unfortunately, over the past several years, we have seen that those who spend their lives in the service of their country, Canada, to ensure that we have an effective public service and to maintain and even increase services provided to the public, we have seen that all these public servants who do so much to support programs, services and Canadians, were not consulted when the government decided to make the latest changes. Here, one week. There, the next.

We saw this recently during the surprise announcement of the single window for government services. So documents and information were leaked. We learned a few days ago that the government was planning to make some major changes, once again without consulting the public and the workers, the people devoting their lives to maintain and increase services for Canadians. There are no consultations. An announcement is made. We know that major changes are coming, once again, in the form of a single window, in the absence of planning and the implementation of all administrative procedures.

Unfortunately, I suspect that, once again, the Liberal government is deciding to make all kinds of promises of job offers here and there, without any plan to ensure the provision of services throughout the country. British Columbia, where I come from, is under-represented in the public service.

It is extremely important to people in British Columbia to be able to say that access to the public service corresponds to our demographic weight in Canada.

However, putting something like that in place requires a plan. There really have to be consultations with Canadians and public servants so we can a plan in place that will work. We know that this government has a tendency to make plans similar to those of the official opposition—sketched on table napkins—plans strung together with bailing wire that are not properly or sufficiently thought out, and ultimately, we end up with something that does not work.

We saw this with the Kyoto protocol; the government had in fact promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was supposed to reduce them by 20% by 2010. It is now 2005 and in actual fact greenhouse gases have gone up, not down, by 20%.

We have also seen other plans, including an anti-poverty plan. The NDP member for Ottawa Centre introduced a motion in the House in 1989. With the agreement of all members of this House, we adopted a plan whereby child poverty would be reduced by the year 2000 with a view to its total elimination.

Now here we are in 2005, and, tragically, there has been an increase in the number of children living in poverty in this country. They now number over one million. Among aboriginal children, 40% are poor or living in poor families, and liable to end up homeless. We know that 30% of families with disabled children are in the same situation.

This 12 year Liberal idea of a plan has once again resulted in failure. There has been a failure as far as the environment is concerned. A failure as far as housing for the homeless is concerned. The surprise announcement of a few days ago leaves us once again with a plan that has been cobbled together without consultation, without any clear objectives. This one will have a considerable effect on the Canadian public service, and that is most regrettable.

Now, if we look at Bill C-8, we see once again that it dates back to a year ago, after the decisions had been reached, without any connection between the two or any consideration of the impacts.

It must be pointed out that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre works tirelessly both in this House and outside to protect the public service and to ensure that its members are taken into consideration when the government plans to do something. I would like to congratulate him on the work he does. He is a new member like myself, but one with a long history in this place. He is new only in that his riding, Ottawa Centre, is a new one for him, but he is already hard at work, not only representing that riding, but also defending the interests of those who make such a great contribution to the running of our Canadian governmental services and the federal government's outreach in this country. The member for Ottawa Centre is making a remarkable contribution.

Let me point out the problem. We have Bill C-8. We have had questions raised in the House. Those questions have stayed there without a definitive response from the government. We know that morale is very low in the public service. We know of the surprise plan that was thrown out there, a one stop shop thrown out on the backs of the public servants who have contributed so much to this country.

Again we see a government proceeding without a plan, going from photo op to photo op, without considering the implications of each decision that is made. We saw with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 how little forethought had actually been given to these decisions that the government was throwing forth to the House. At second reading we asked those questions and did not get the answers we wanted to hear.

We see very clearly that there has not been a consultation process with the people who are most concerned about this: the public sector workers who have contributed so much and yet receive so little consideration from the government. Last summer, after a real decrease in public sector wages of 10% and a salary gap in many sectors of 20%, as we saw with table 2, we saw the government, rather than engaging in meaningful negotiations, basically push through a settlement that of course public sector workers had to ratify after that.

What we see is a lack of respect for the public service. We do not see a change in attitude toward public sector workers. We do not see a change in responsibility. We do not see this government working with public sector workers and trying to engage in meaningful consultation, not relying on the strength of public sector workers who contribute in every community of this country, small or large, giving their hearts and souls, giving their efforts and their labour to make sure that we have the best possible services at all levels.

The responsibility for any concerns people have about public service and the state of public service in this country remains with the government, this government that does not consult, that refuses to recognize public sector workers as the assets they are for our country, that shows the same lack of respect for public sector workers we have seen it show to students with this recent budget. Students are not taken into consideration, nor are farmers. We see the same lack of consideration for people with disabilities and for poor Canadians. As well, in my area of greater Vancouver we have seen a threefold increase in the number of homeless. This is due to a lack of a housing strategy or policy.

We have seen, as I mentioned, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. We have seen an increase in smog and toxic pollutants across this country, yet we saw the government last week actually vote against the NDP motion that would have set mandatory emission standards in this country and thus actually address the issue of increasing smog and pollution and the deaths caused by that.

We saw the Liberal government and the Conservative Party voting against that simple measure. Now we see the Liberal government and the Conservative Party voting for a budget that does not address housing and homelessness issues. It does not address the issues around the poor.

It does not address the crisis that we are facing in post-secondary education. As my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax, has said so often and so effectively, we need to address the crisis in post-secondary education. There is nothing in the budget for students.

There is also nothing in the budget for people with disabilities, even though we know that four million Canadians live in the poorest conditions and with perhaps the lowest quality of life of all Canadians.

There is nothing in the budget to address aboriginal issues.

There is nothing in this budget that addresses those important issues, except the lack of respect for Canadians generally. The Liberal government and the Conservative Party in opposition are still going to support this budget, so who does get the respect if public sector workers do not get it, if students do not get it, if seniors do not get it with that tiny buck a day increase?

We know who gets the respect. It is the big corporations, with a $4.6 billion tax break. It is the wealthiest of Canadians, who actually see the cap on RRSP contributions lifted for those who earn more than $100,000 a year. They get respect. It is wealthy people, big corporations and the banks. We heard them lobbying to have the foreign content limit, that cap of 30%, lifted. That lobbying paid off for them.

Banks, big corporations and the wealthy are the ones that get respect from this government, not public servants. That is why I again raise concerns about Bill C-8 and the fact that the government is not showing proper respect for public sector workers. The government has shown this pattern consistently over the months that I have been in Parliament and certainly in the years before I came to Parliament. We have seen a consistent pattern of a lack of respect and a lack of consultation.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the bill. The concerns remain.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, we see the old Liberal arrogance coming back. It is as if the government did not understand the message of June 28, 2004. What we saw that with the introduction of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. There was no plan or consultation.

The Auditor General has clearly indicated that we need to have this oversight provision to ensure we see value for money, for Canadian public funds, on foundations. However, the government simply seems to refuse to allow that to happen. To compound the refusal, a few months ago the government withheld funding for the Office of the Auditor General. It took intervention from the other three corners of the House, led by the New Democratic Party caucus I should add, to push the Liberal government back and to ensure the Auditor General's Office was adequately funded.

We again see the old Liberal arrogance creeping up. I believe it will be up to the other three corners of the House to ensure that we put the government on the right road, which includes no more hide-and-go-seek with public funds, no more refusal to have adequate vetting of public expenditures and no more secret buddy-buddy agreements with Liberal appointees. We saw a repetition of the sort of serial nature of these agreements where Liberal appointees would have bottomless expenditure accounts that supposedly met Treasury Board guidelines. We saw that with Canada Post and the privacy commissioner, high-flying Liberal nominees and appointees not subject to prudent and appropriate use of public funds.

Unless we in the three corners push the Liberals in the right direction, we will see what we have seen over the last 10 years, which is the quality of life of most Canadians going down while the Liberals seem to be engaged in a feeding frenzy to ensure their friends get public funds, and that would be a shame.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the situation with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. We voted in the House and rejected that plan. Once again, the government wanted to move forward to split two departments, spend taxpayer dollars and have Parliament rubber stamp it. I know the opposition parties got together and voted against that.

The member drew the similarity with what has taken place with these foundations. Could the member expand a bit further on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa Centre has been extremely impassioned to ensure that the public service does not become another victim of the old Liberal arrogance coming back.

In this corner of the House we are appalled by the fact that there has been no consultation for this plan, a plan that was thrown out or leaked a few days ago, and apparently may be in the budget tomorrow. Again, there has been no consultation with the public service or with people, who have in mind the best interests of the country, to ensure we provide adequate services. It is the same situation we saw with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. Things were tossed into the middle of this Parliament without appropriate consultation or without appropriate development of a plan.

If it comes out tomorrow in the budget, we will oppose that portion of the budget in the same way we will fight for the interests of Canadians to ensure the budget is a budget for Main Street and not another budget for Bay Street.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, was in question period when I said that the government was presently considering other parliamentary options to present to the House. Presently, both departments are working under the parliamentary sanction of the appropriations act.

More specific, I would draw to the hon. member's attention that in the 2004-05 main estimates, again the estimates voted by Parliament, there is specific moneys earmarked for the specific function of the two ministers and those two departments. The moneys were voted specifically for their function.

I would just draw the member's attention both on the general summary, item 10, for foreign affairs and international trade; foreign affairs, which is money appropriated for that purpose. Item 17 in the general summary, again, international trade, dollars were voted for by this Parliament specifically for the continued operation of those two departments.

I would not at any point in time want to suggest to the House, nor to my colleagues, that the defeat of both Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 are in any way being disregarded. They are not.

I clearly stated in question period that we were presently looking at other parliamentary options to bring back to this House. In the interim both departments are operating based on moneys appropriated by this Parliament and voted by this Parliament so both of those departments can continue to operate at this time.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs with contempt for misrepresenting and dismissing the role of this House.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 15, the House defeated Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade and to make related amendments to certain acts. The House also defeated Bill C-32, an act the amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Bill C-31 proposed to establish the Department of International Trade and Bill C-32 proposed to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and other acts as a consequence of the proposal from Bill C-31 to establish the Department of International Trade. I use the word “proposed” because, as we know, until Parliament establishes or amends an act, the act is not established or amended.

The government or the two responsible ministers have dismissed the legislative process. The trade minister is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

I was disappointed [the Conservatives] went against what they said they were going to do, but having said that, we are continuing to work head on.

The article also goes on to report:

Trade Minister...yesterday shrugged off the defeat of a bill that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs, saying the two branches of government will continue to operate independently without Parliament's blessing.

The Ottawa Citizen reported the minister as saying:

We're not going to undo all the work we have done to become a functioning department.

The minister's comments show total disregard and disrespect for the role of the House. If the House is to function with authority and dignity, then it must be respected, especially by its own members, and particularly by the cabinet which is responsible to it.

While such disrespect is not new, the severity of this case is. Speakers have warned the government in the past for its dismissive view of Parliament.

I am very certain that the government will rise, be unapologetic and claim that it has the authority to do what it is doing. However, that is not the point. Why would the government introduce legislation pretending that it matters when it does not? Then, when the outcome is not favourable to it, the government ignores the outcome. The government is making a mockery of Parliament. What is the public to think? The passage or defeat of bills does not matter. Parliament does not matter. Members of this House are irrelevant.

Is all that matters, what decisions are made in the PMO? What happened to the Prime Minister who wanted to end the practice of getting things done based on who one knew in the PMO? What happened to the Prime Minister who wanted to slay the democratic deficit? His ministers have just bankrupted democracy.

I would like to submit a ruling from October 10, 1989, on a similar matter. While it was a similar matter in comparison to the case I am presenting today, it was less offensive, I conclude. Notwithstanding, Speaker Fraser took it very seriously. The issue was regarding an advertisement put out by the government which made it appear, and I stress the word “appear”, that the GST was approved by Parliament before Parliament actually approved it.

In the case of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, there is no appearance. The government has already implemented the measures in Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. The bills have been defeated, and that outcome has been ignored.

Getting back to Speaker Fraser's ruling, the Speaker quoted the former member for Windsor West, the Right Hon. Herb Gray. Mr. Gray said:

When this advertisement--says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1, 1991,--the advertisement is intended to convey the idea that Parliament has acted on it because that is, I am sure, the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this is finally adopted and comes into effect. That being the case, it is clearly a contempt of Parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House.

As I mentioned, the case I am presenting to the Speaker today goes beyond appearance. If that is not offensive enough, the attitude of the Minister of International Trade and his intentions and the intentions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to forge ahead are grounds enough for contempt. Where is the respect for the institution of Parliament? How can a minister of the Crown, who is responsible to the House, show such disregard and disrespect?

While the Speaker in 1989 did not rule a prima facie question of privilege, he did say this:

I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.

I would argue that the situation I am presenting today is very much like the situation from 1989. The obvious difference is that it is far worse.

I do not understand why this sort of situation has not been addressed in the past. This government has a sordid past in these matters, and because the House has never dealt adequately with it, the government continues to make a mockery of Parliament. It has now gone to new heights and has taken it to a point where it can no longer be ignored.

To illustrate this point let me review some of the past disrespectful acts of the Liberal government.

On March 30, 1998, the minister of international trade sent out a press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group. At that time there was no Canada-China interparliamentary group.

The government named the head of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was even legislation to set up the foundation.

There was another case presented to the Speaker on October 28, 1997, relating to the actions of the Department of Finance.

On February 3, 1998, I raised a question of privilege condemning the government for its dismissive views of Parliament on a matter regarding the Canadian Wheat Board.

These complaints resulted in many warnings from the Chair, Mr. Speaker. One of the warnings came from Speaker Parent on November 6, 1997. It was as strong as Speaker Fraser's warning and it went like this:

--the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department of Finance are of some concern....This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices....I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

If a warning from the Speaker is to mean something, then the Speaker must be prepared to follow through with it. The Speaker's job is to ensure the House is given the opportunity to protect its authority and dignity.

I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at which time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear that Parliament did reject the parliamentary approach presented in the form of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. The government is presently considering its parliamentary options and in due course will be presenting that parliamentary approach to Parliament.

International Trade

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservative Party has been caught picking from its orchard of broken promises.

The member for Newmarket--Aurora stated in the House, “On behalf of the Conservative Party I am recommending that we allow Bill C-31 to proceed...”. And what happened yesterday? The Conservative Party voted against the motion, playing politics with yet another bill.

It seems that the member for Newmarket--Aurora has taken a page from the political style book of the deputy leader of the Conservative Party. If we cannot trust that party to fulfill its word when it comes to a vote in the House of Commons, how can Canadians expect them to keep any promises at all? It seems that party's word is not worth the napkin it is written on.

Department of International Trade Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, February 10, 2005, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-31.

Department of Foreign Affairs Act

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department of International Trade Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

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

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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days.

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

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with Bill C-14, an act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, or the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act.

We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of this bill, as we were moreover of Bill C-31, which died on the Order Paper but has now returned as the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-14.

I have had the honour of meeting with representatives of the Tlicho nation, on October 6 and then again yesterday, along with the Bloc Québécois critic for Indian and northern affairs, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I would draw to hon. members' attention that this gentleman is the first aboriginal person from Quebec to sit in this Parliament. He was a negotiator for the aboriginal peoples for many years. I will not let his age slip. I dated myself yesterday, but I will not do the same to him. I will merely say he was an aboriginal negotiator for many years and is very familiar with the issues. As native elders pass down their wisdom to the younger members of their community, he is passing his knowledge on to me, and I am very grateful to him. It is a pleasure to work with him on this.

The Tlicho who met with us have, moreover, honoured him with the name Barbe blanche. I have not yet been given a name, nor do I yet have a white beard, but I am sure it will not be long until I do.

We also received a letter from grand chief Joe Rabesca on October 22 thanking us for the way the Bloc Québécois has backed his people's claims.

I will just provide some of the background of this bill. The Tlicho agreement comes out of the failure of negotiations with the Dene and Métis nations, a process that ended in 1990. Negotiations with the Tlicho nation resumed in 1994 and concluded in 2003 with the signing of the Tlicho agreement. In this field, patience is a must. The Tlicho have been patient, and I think their patience will soon be rewarded.

On June 26 and 27, 2003, the Tlicho voted 84% in favour of the agreement. It was not a close vote for a referendum, but I will say that we would have unquestioningly accepted the result even if it had been 50% plus 1.

Thus, the passage of Bill C-14 is the final step in recognizing the land claims and self-government of the Tlicho people.

With respect to the terms of the agreement, just to remind the House what it is about, the agreement will give the Tlicho the largest contiguous block of land belonging to a first nation in Canada and will set up new forms of self-government for the Tlicho. The agreement will clarify the rights, titles and obligations of the Tlicho nation. The agreement does not interfere—and this is important—with ancestral or treaty rights of other aboriginal groups. The Tlicho government will own a territory of almost 40,000 square kilometres and it will receive slightly more than $150 million over 14 years. It will have specific legislative jurisdiction over its land and over Tlicho citizens, including those not living on Tlicho land. The most important point in this bill is that the agreement gives the Tlicho nation the tools it needs to achieve financial self-sufficiency, to protect its way of life and to improve its economic growth and the well-being of the whole community. Those principles and values are very dear to us.

The Tlicho have been waiting for 14 months now, since the agreement was signed, for self-government. The Bloc Québécois is 100% in favour of the right to self-government for the aboriginal peoples, their right to govern themselves autonomously. The agreement before us is an excellent example of self-government.

Since it first arrived on the federal political scene, the Bloc Québécois has recognized aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples. We think that aboriginal peoples have a right to their languages, their cultures and their traditions.

Aboriginal peoples unquestionably have the right to decide how to develop their own identity. Therefore, we endorse most of the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission on aboriginal peoples. They called for an approach to the concept of self-government based on the recognition of aboriginal governments as a level of government with jurisdiction over governance and the welfare of their people. We feel that this agreement reflects this approach.

In Quebec, if I can make a comparison, we have long been advocating this type of agreement, in which mutual respect is paramount. As early as 1985, René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois government in office at the time recognized Quebec's aboriginal nations. The Quebec people recognizes that diversity is not a threat, but an asset.

In Quebec, the year 2002 was also a turning point in this regard. It was once again a sovereignist government—what a coincidence—the PQ government of Bernard Landry, which signed the peace of the braves agreement and the joint agreement. The peace of the braves was signed on February 7, 2002, by then Quebec premier Bernard Landry, and the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, Ted Moses.

This historic 50-year agreement marks the beginning of a new era in relations between Quebec and the Cree. The agreement concerns the establishment of a new relationship between the two nations. It provides, I should point out, for greater empowerment for the Cree regarding their economic and community development and for hydro development projects in James Bay. It also provides for the harmonization of forest activities with traditional Cree activities.

What a fine example of nation to nation negotiations. Soon, a sovereign Quebec will also be negotiating nation to nation with Canada, and the earlier the better. During the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois reminded the federal government that the peace of the braves agreement was the example to follow. The Cree nation deserves as much consideration as the Tlicho nation. The peace of the braves has demonstrated that major development projects have to be negotiated with mutual interests in mind. The Bloc Québécois supports the first nations in their fight for emancipation. That is why we are asking Ottawa to follow this example to negotiate a similar agreement with the Cree.

As for the joint agreement, in 2002, the Parti Québécois government of Bernard Landry signed with the Inuit of Nunavik a 25-year agreement to accelerate economic and community development in Northern Quebec. This joint agreement enables the Inuit to assume responsibilities in economic and community development formerly held by the Government of Quebec.

This agreement is opening up bright new horizons by accelerating hydro development in Nunavik, promoting more control for the Inuit over their economic and community development, simplifying and increasing the efficiency of the financing for the Kativik regional administration and northern villages, and providing funding for priority projects.

To conclude, there are two historic agreements, both signed by a sovereignist government. Those who believe that we, sovereignists, want to close borders do not know what we are about. Those who believe that we do not treat our minorities right do not know what we are about. A sovereign Quebec will work in partnership with other peoples.

I reiterate the Bloc Québécois' support for the principle of self-government for aboriginal peoples. This agreement actualizes the right of the Tlicho to govern themselves. I might add that the Tlicho nation clearly indicated its desire to self-govern, and we support this democratic desire.