Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-47, an Act to amend the Department of External Affairs Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for his excellent remarks. As he pointed out, the purpose of Bill C-47 is to change the name of the department from the Department of External Affairs and International Trade to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In fact, the purpose of the Bill is to update the name of the department and of some of its officers with respect to the existing administrative structure.
With your permission, I would like to recall a number of historic reasons for making what we feel is an appropriate change of name.
From 1867 to 1909, Great Britain retained overall responsibility for Canada's external relations, and it was Great Britain, as it were, that declared war on behalf of Canada in 1914, as Canada did not have its own ambassadors at that time.
In 1909, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, Canada's own Department of External Affairs was created. It was headed by a secretary of state for external affairs, a position that had already been created in 1868. But actually, the prime minister continued to be largely responsible for this department. It is interesting to note, incidentally, that when it was created the department had five employees and, in 1911, no more than 15.
On April 1, 1912, the Department of External Affairs was placed under the direct jurisdiction of the prime minister; it concerned itself essentially with the Canadian government's relations with other dominions of the British Crown, whence the use of the term "external" to describe something that was not completely foreign. And this is the term that has remained.
Just before the outbreak of World War I, Canada was represented abroad, outside British dominions, by one office in Washington, with a staff of nine, one high commission in London, with a staff of eleven, and one general commission in Paris, with a staff of eight.
After the war, Canada's international status gained recognition through battle exploits of Canadian troops at Vimy for example. In 1923, Canada signed its first treaty as an independent state, the Halibut Treaty, and sent diplomatic representatives abroad. In 1931, as we know, Canada officially became an independent state under the Treaty of Westminster, which conferred complete independence to Canada.
The 1935-39 period is considered as a period of growth for the Canadian foreign service and one during which several countries established diplomatic representation here in Ottawa. In 1939, it is as an independent state that Canada declared war upon Germany and other Axis powers.
The foreign policy of Canada, one of the founding members of the United Nations, enjoyed new growth after the Second World War, particularly in 1946, with the appointment of the first truly independent secretary of State, and the passage of the Canadian Department of External Affairs Act. The same legislation is still
in effect today, except for minor amendments made from time to time since then.
During the 1960s, efforts started to be made to bring the various programs relating to trade and commerce under the purview of External Affairs. In 1983, the position of Minister for International Trade was created as well as that of Minister for External Relations. Over the years, various programs such as that of the export market development board came under the jurisdiction of the Department of External Affairs, while others, like that of the Grain Marketing Office, were transferred to other departments.
Today, we have before us in this House Bill C-47, a bill which, as I mentioned earlier, changes the name of the Department of External Affairs for that of Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
As we speak, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade employs over 4,000 Canadians and nearly 5,000 locally-engaged staff around the world. Thinking back to the rather modest beginnings of the department that I described earlier, we can see that it has come a long way.
Naturally, we intend to support this bill because, as the hon. parliamentary indicated, we believe the time has come to update the name of this department because, in its present form, it evokes the dominion status Canada had for so many years. The wish could also be expressed to see the government go ahead and eliminate the last traces of this colonial era by abolishing plainly and simply the other place, an institution which is a glaring anachronism and does not suit the Canadian reality at all. The government of Canada could also have used this opportunity to make progress on the political and constitutional status of Canada.
I think that this bill is also appropriate, given the foreign policy review aimed at updating Canada's present one. We, however, have three reservations about this bill which are far from trivial, to say the least.
First of all, we deplore the fact that the minister did not take this opportunity to put some order into all the positions that have not been filled since the Liberals came to office. I am referring specifically to clauses 4, 8(2) and 9 of the bill, under which the government may appoint-again, since the Liberals came to office, and even before in some cases-a Minister for International Co-operation, Associate Deputy Ministers as well as a Co-ordinator, International Economic Relations when these positions are vacant.
In fact, the positions that remain unfilled would allow the government to distribute them as it sees fit. If these positions are useless, they should simply be abolished. Such is the case with the position of Minister for International Co-operation, formerly the Minister for External Relations, which is now vacant. If the government does not find any use for it, it should simply abolish it instead of putting it aside for highly partisan appointments.
We also think that CIDA, whose mandate is rather vague, should have its own constituent act governing its activities as an independent body. Such an act would give the minister responsible for CIDA a clear and unequivocal mandate. It would, of course, also prevent financial and human resources from being wasted.
My third reservation concerns clause 7, subsection (3). If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will now read this clause: "The Minister may develop and carry out programs related to his powers, duties and functions for the promotion of Canada's interests abroad, including the fostering of the expansion of Canada's international trade and commerce and the provision of assistance for developing countries". We think it is inappropriate for the minister to link Canada's commercial interests with development assistance so explicitly and so directly in the same clause.
We recognize, of course, that development assistance provided by Canada works in favour of Canada's political interests at the international level. But keeping development assistance together with international trade in the same clause can be confusing and suggest that the government again intends to continue to favour tied aid. In this regard, I think that we cannot allow these two items to be together in the same clause of the bill.
In conclusion, of course we will support this bill, bearing in mind that we have these three very serious reservations which we would like the government to take into consideration in the process leading to the adoption of this bill. As I just said, this bill is part of a historical process which unfortunately has taken too many years.
I think it was high time for the Canadian government to update the name of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of International Trade to make it a real Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Unfortunately, as I just said when I was talking about our reservations, we regret that the minister did not take this opportunity to make some adjustments that would have made the department even more up to date.
I think that the goal which the government is pursuing with this bill is bringing this department up to date. So it is rather disturbing and surprising to see that the government wants to keep in this bill some positions of questionable usefulness, given that they are still vacant even as we speak.
I end my remarks here. We will certainly have the opportunity to talk about them again in subsequent debates.