Debates of Feb. 8th, 1995

Department Of External Affairs Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[John Manley, Liberal, for the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today in support of Bill C-47, as amended by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the official opposition and the Reform Party for their co-operation in improving the bill by suggesting certain technical changes. This is what I enjoy about Parliament, when parties can work together to improve a bill.

This bill contains housekeeping measures related to the Department of External Affairs Act. As I have previously stated in this Chamber, the government made a commitment to Canadians to change the name of the Department of External Affairs to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This change in name reflects the accomplishments and independence of Canadian foreign policy since World War II and Canada's maturity from a colony to a dominion, to a sovereign nation. It embraces the contemporary mandate and responsibilities of the department. The changes to the Department of External Affairs Act contained in this bill are not substantive. The bill changes the legal name of the department, titles of the minister and titles of senior officials.

Under this act the Secretary of State for External Affairs will become the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The title of the Minister for International Trade will remain unchanged. The title of a junior minister, the Minister of External Relations, will change to become the Minister for International Co-operation.

The official opposition had some concern with that, why have that position if it is not filled? The government would like the flexibility in case there is a need to appoint such a minister in the future.

The titles of senior officials, including the term under-secretary, will reflect the changes made to ministerial titles. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs will become the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The amendments passed by the committee following second reading of Bill C-47 were housekeeping measures as well. Clause 7, for example, was amended at the request of committee members of the official opposition to more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the minister as they related to aid and trade. This was done.

Government members sponsored amendments to clauses 18 and 19 of the bill. Clause 18 of the bill was amended due to a technical error in the drafting of the bill. Clause 19 was amended so that it would concur with amendments that have been passed by Parliament to the French version of the Financial Administration Act.

Bill C-47 makes no substantive changes to the structure of the department. Rather, the change in name contained in this legislation reflects the current mandate of the department and the modernity of the Canadian statehood as reflected in the government's response to the special joint committee reviewing foreign policy that was tabled here yesterday in the House by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and also by the Minister for International Trade.

Both of these reports highlight how important foreign policy and this department are to Canadians. At home and abroad the employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade serve and promote the interest and values that Canadians hold dear. Let us join together in congratulating them on many years of excellent service and their continuing commitment to Canada and Canadians.

The Governor General this morning at his installation complimented and praised our peacekeepers and the good they are doing and the positive image they are giving Canada around the world. I would like to take this opportunity to give the same recognition to our foreign service members who work abroad, all of them, whether it be in the external affairs section or international trade, because Canada does have an excellent image. Anywhere you travel around this globe or in speaking to the diplomatic corps here in Ottawa, you will hear nothing but the highest praises for Canada.

We all can take some credit. The people representing Canada around the globe especially deserve a lot of credit for the kind of

image building, for the spreading of Canadian values and interests around this globe. Hopefully through our example people around the globe will have better lifestyles.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today, in third reading, Bill C-47 to amend the Department of External Affairs Act. This is a bill of very little substance, containing almost nothing but changes in wording. It is not very innovative, and does not drastically change the way the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade operates.

All in all, this is a bill of little significance, which fits in nicely with the general level of the bills introduced by this government so far, since the opening of the session, in January 1994. Like the GATT agreements implementation bill, Bill C-47 makes cosmetic changes. It is therefore without much enthusiasm that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill which, after all, rejuvenates somewhat the old Department of External Affairs Act by giving it a more modern name.

However, the government could have taken this opportunity to make changes that could have had the merit of eliminating grey areas and clarifying certain aspects related to the purpose of Canadian foreign policy. We would have liked the new legislation to streamline the department's corporate structure by removing a few positions that have remained vacant since the Liberals came to power and which cannot be all that crucial if they have not been filled. I am referring to the positions of minister responsible for international co-operation, associate deputy minister, and co-ordinator for international economic relations.

I believe the position of Minister for International Co-operation is totally useless, since the current government does not deign to attach enough importance to international development to include in a piece of legislation the mandate and the principles governing the responsible agency. Why appoint another minister, or leave that possibility open, if that minister is going to be accountable to another department? Canadians no longer have the means to afford illusions. The government does not want to abolish positions which are deemed useless since they are currently vacant. Is its insistence that these positions remain in the act due to the fact that it wants to preserve its authority to make discretionary appointments? Do the Liberals have friends looking for jobs?

It is true that, considering the social program reform which they want to impose to Canadians, the Liberals probably do not wish to see their friends out of work. On a more serious note, I will try to show that the government missed a great opportunity to clarify its objectives in the context of official development assistance.

The day after the government tabled its foreign policy statement, it is appropriate to remember that there are three key objectives that will guide the government's activities on the international scene: the promotion of jobs and prosperity; the protection of our security in a stable international framework; and the sharing of our values and our culture.

Among the values that the government wants to promote, the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred, in his speech here yesterday, to generosity, compassion and co-operation. As well, the majority report of the joint committee reviewing Canadian foreign policy proposes that the government set the reduction of poverty in the world as the first objective for official development assistance.

That being said, how are we to interpret clause 7 in Bill C-47, and I quote:

The minister may develop and carry out programs related to his powers, duties and functions for the promotion of Canada's interest abroad, including the fostering of the expansion of Canada's international trade and commerce and the provision of assistance for developing countries.

In committee, the clause was split in two: A and B.

How can a foreign policy focus on promoting Canada's interests and at the same time claim that eliminating poverty is to be the goal of its official development assistance?

During the foreign policy review, many witnesses and experts stressed the need to clarify the objectives of official development assistance. The joint committee also reminded the government that it was not CIDA's role to promote trade. Unfortunately, clause 7 appears to maintain these inconsistencies. We would have liked to see another amendment to the existing legislation, specifically on international development. The official opposition in this House has already suggested that a specific legislative framework was needed for the Canadian International Development Agency. We believe that Bill C-47 could have provided for these changes. In fact, in our dissenting report on Canada's foreign policy review tabled last fall, we recommended such changes.

There would have been a number of advantages to adopting enabling legislation for CIDA. Separating Canadian official development assistance, once and for all, from any involvement in international trade is a prime example. In fact, the confusion today within the Department of Foreign Affairs about interests and objectives as they affect international development exists because there is no separation between trade and aid. The Auditor General made that clear in his latest report.

We certainly do not want to give the impression that it is wrong to promote Canada's trade relations. On the contrary. We too are aware of the fact that over 20 per cent of jobs in Canada are tied to our exports of goods and services. What we do not

agree with is the government's refusal to separate what should be separated, thus making official development assistance dependent on commercial interests. This is no doubt why the government made no commitment either in its policy on the gradual elimination of tied aid, despite the recommendation of the joint foreign policy review committee. The same recommendation was made by the development assistance committee of the OECD.

The official development assistance budget is suffering in all this confusion. Too many Canadian businesses are currently benefiting from CIDA funds that should go instead to international development, because of the ambiguity surrounding this issue. The priorities of the aid program simply cannot be linked to the objectives of Canada's trade policy. It is vital that CIDA be protected from the influence of the various departments it regularly deals with, often to the detriment of the aid itself.

CIDA's mandate should also have been clarified in a constituent act. However, we understand from the government's recent statement on Canadian foreign policy that such an act is not one of its objectives.

Yet the special joint committee responsible for reviewing Canadian foreign policy recommended, in response to pressure by Bloc Quebecois members of the committee, that Parliament pass a bill establishing the fundamental principles of development aid. It also recommended in its majority report that such development aid provided by the government be subject to regular review by committees of the House and of the Senate.

The response of the Canadian government was that, while the intention was noble and justified, the government did not intend to pass such a bill on the grounds that it would not necessarily serve the goals of aid and would reduce program flexibility. In other words, the government was of the opinion that legislation on development aid would be too restrictive.

By clearly establishing the goals of development aid and the mandate of the agency responsible for carrying out international cooperation programs, the government would evidently be forced to follow strict rules of conduct. It would probably no longer be possible to promote international trade via development programs or, at least, this would be somewhat awkward for a government which prides itself on being in charge of one of the most generous countries in the world.

Small gestures most often reveal the underlying agenda of a government, and, in this regard, clause 7 is quite revealing. Although the ministers of this government make speeches about eliminating poverty and reducing the gap between rich and poor countries, when bills are tabled in the House of Commons, other considerations always take precedence over Canadian and Quebecois values, even though the government claims it wants to promote them.

This comes as no surprise, considering that, in its February 1994 budget, the government cut the official development assistance budget, tightened unemployment insurance eligibility and forgot to address the inequities in the tax system that the official opposition had been pointing out for months.

It was with the same agenda that the government claimed to go ahead with social program reforms, while its real goal, which was finally announced by the Minister of Human Resources Development, was to cut the social program budget by $15 billion over 5 years.

Therefore, the government's method is the same whether it is dealing with domestic or foreign policy: it says one thing, but does another. Thus the meaning of the slogan of the foreign affairs committee's former chairman is becoming clearer: foreign policy reflects domestic policy and domestic policy reflects foreign policy.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois criticizes the government for not having clarified in this bill where it is going with its aid programs for the poorest countries of the planet. Instead, it satisfied itself with simply changing the name of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Instead of checking into a spa to rejuvenate and revitalize, it preferred to slap on more make-up. We can only wait for the next attempt.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and some degree of surprise that I rise in the House today to debate Bill C-47, an act to amend the Department of External Affairs Act.

I would like to tell the House why I am surprised to be speaking today. It is because I was not told until 4 p.m. yesterday that the bill would be up for debate. The government did not bother to tell our House leader's office until 3.30 p.m.

Is it another example of how the government wants to act in matters such as this one? It possibly handles the country like this as well. Even more surprising, Bill C-47 was not an upcoming government bill on the House of Commons Order Paper for Monday.

Only yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader attempted to lecture my esteemed Reform colleague from Peace River and myself on a point of order about how hard the government was working to give us advanced warning of upcoming events.

If less than a day is what the government considers to be plentiful warning time, I suppose the member for Kingston and the Islands was right. However, with the bill going into third reading the government has no real reason to spring it on us.

I would ask the government to give us an informal call in the future so that we have a fair chance to prepare ourselves. After all, if we cannot have serious, well prepared debates in Parliament, Canadians will not be getting the service they deserve.

Getting to the issue at hand, Bill C-47, the Reform Party will be supporting the bill. It modernizes the Department of Foreign Affairs. Although Bill C-47 will not bring about major changes in substance to the way the Department of Foreign Affairs is operated, it shows an evolution of the department to reflect the needs and values of Canadians in the 1990s.

I would like to highlight what I think Canadians expect from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Many people do not even realize it is of much importance to them. My constituents will ask why we are spending so much time working on that committee and in that area. I could ask them what they watch in the newscast at night, what their jobs are or what many of their jobs are related to. In my constituency we have a large petrochemical industry, almost 90 per cent of which goes to foreign areas. We have agriculture, a great deal of which goes to the United States and other places. When those matters are mentioned they realize the importance of foreign affairs in their everyday life.

As a result we have hopefully encouraged more interest in foreign affairs. At least now I am asked on occasion: "What is happening in foreign affairs?" The modernization the government is undergoing in Bill C-47 provides an opportunity to highlight the directions in which we think foreign affairs should go as the people of Canada are telling us from a grassroots level.

Canadians want to think of us as a middle power, as being in a middle power position. They want to be proud of Canada. In many cases we are a bit laid back when it comes to talking about how great our country really is. Only when they travel outside the country and talk to others about Canada do they realize what sort of country we have and what sort of profile we have. We need to use that profile to develop a far thinking foreign affairs policy to help us utilize not only opinions from outside but what we have going for us on the inside.

In yesterday's statement I was disappointed in not seeing emphasis being put on the use of more of our multicultural benefits, our people who are trained, who know, who have relatives and understand other countries. I was also disappointed that we did not make more use of our foreign students and Canadians we send to universities around the world. They are a great asset we do not keep track of and we do not utilize.

I hear on the streets that CIDA needs to become more accountable. Certainly people want a transparent agency. They are not prepared to hear about the terrible mistakes made in that agency or about the ridiculous projects that are funded such as the underwater breeding of water buffalo in Thailand. They do not particularly want to fund projects unless they see some value to them for the people they are trying to help.

There has to be accountability. There has to be a reporting mechanism to Parliament. There has to be a greater utilization of NGOs in that whole area. One of my colleagues will be talking about that later. We certainly need to target what we have to do. We cannot do everything for everybody, and we recognize that.

In looking at the bill, we should be concerned and asking questions about administration from the top. We should be asking if the minister really needs under-secretaries. Do we really need the deputy positions? At this point in our financial crisis we need to be asking: Should we not be cutting from the top instead of doing it the easy way by cutting from the bottom? Often we cut from the bottom up instead of from the top down. We should emphasize to the minister that we want it to be different in the Department of Foreign Affairs. We should be examining under-secretary and deputy positions long before we talk about cutting people in the field.

As far as world organization is concerned, I agree with the hon. member opposite who said that our foreign service is doing an excellent job. I have had the opportunity to visit a number of our foreign consulates and will continue to visit them. We have some great leadership out there and people who are doing the job for us. I will come back to that point in a minute. The world is now divided into three units. It consists of the EU, developing and working together, becoming a very important economic, political and in some cases military unit.

The second unit is the Asia-Pacific region. It started out with one tiger, then two. Now there are seven tigers that are really moving forward in the world. We must recognize that and learn how to deal with them.

The third unit is the Americas, which have been ignored by us, with the exception of the U.S., for a long time. Now we are starting to look at these countries, at Mexico and Central and South America. They become the third major unit of the world with which we will be dealing.

It is important that we put into place our role in the Americas. It is important that we become a leader. When talking to people in some countries, particularly in South America, they say: "We want Canada to be our mediator, to be between us and the elephant. You are used to sleeping beside that elephant and dealing with it. We want you to take a leadership role in helping us to know how to deal with the U.S." They are looking for us to

show leadership. At this point they are basically saying that they have not seen us take that role as strongly as we might.

I mentioned peacekeeping. That is a very important area and one in which Canada has a high profile. It is important that we thank all those peacekeepers for the fantastic ambassadors they are to the world. I believe we all agree on that. As well, we must recognize that we need to know where we are going and what we are doing when it comes to peacekeeping. We just cannot be everywhere. Therefore, we must develop criteria.

The old threat of the cold war is gone. Now we have a much more difficult threat to our security. We have all kinds of things like health problems, the AIDS epidemic and many other health problems that threaten our country.

We also have environmental problems. Countries like China are proposing to build coal generating plants which could affect the environment around the world. We need to be leaders in that area and show that leadership to other countries of the world.

Immigration, migration and refugees are also problems we have to deal with.

We are concerned that 80 per cent of trade is with the U.S. We realize we must diversify. Unfortunately, a great many people say: "Okay, I deal with the Americans. They speak the same language, they understand us and it is very easy". However when times get a little tough, companies start looking offshore for trading arrangements and then as soon as times get better in the U.S. they drop those connections and go back to the U.S. Industries must be encouraged to change.

I have had an opportunity over the last year and a half to meet a lot of different people. I recall some members here met with a Kuwaiti group of MPs. The one question we had from the Kuwaiti MPs was: why did Canada not get more contracts? Obviously we were there and we tried to do our share in that whole situation in Kuwait, but we did not get the contracts. We were there to do everything else but we did not get the business contracts for the rebuilding of the country. Why? There was one answer which was that we are not aggressive enough. We are too passive, too laid back. We do not push this country they way we need to.

I met with the ambassador to Chile and received much the same message: Why are you not more aggressive? Why do you not take more action?

This summer I was in London, Sweden and Paris and I asked the question: "How could we do more business? What more should we do?" I was told: "You need to become more aggressive". That is the message the world is giving us. As MPs we must then carry that message and certainly foreign affairs has to get that message out.

Foreign affairs is important to Canadians. It now represents a couple of million jobs in this country. It represents 30 per cent of our GDP. Therefore when we talk about its importance we should not have any trouble convincing anyone.

The new arrangements replacing GATT with the World Trade Organization will go a long way in helping us market our products. I really believe this will be a forward moving process for us as Canadians.

The expansion of NAFTA obviously is of significance, something that the Canadian government should greatly encourage. It should be part of any foreign affairs policy and one that should be greatly emphasized.

We cannot underestimate the importance of the Americans. They have largely been responsible for our becoming the seventh largest trading nation while we are only 31st in population. While Canadians strive to diversify their trade, we must continue to emphasize the importance of our relationship with the U.S. Therefore the trade aspect of foreign affairs is extremely important.

In the embassies I have visited I have found they now put more and more emphasis on the trade aspect. It must be encouraged and continued. We have to be a little careful as well because someone in France raised an interesting point with me. We have about $6 billion in trade with France and about $6 billion in trade with Korea. But 60 per cent of the trade with France is in sophisticated fine tuned instrumentation. With Korea about 95 per cent is raw materials.

Before we change the whole emphasis of foreign affairs and get rid of our European connections to go rushing to the new markets of South America and the Orient, we have to be a little careful and look at what we are selling. We will run out of raw materials. That is not where the jobs are. That is not the area we should be emphasizing. Trade is an important part of foreign affairs. The Canadian people expect it to be an important part.

We have mentioned other areas that we should discuss very briefly, certainly UN reform. The United Nations is 50 years old today. It is disappointing to look at the document we got yesterday to see a lack of any sort of forward thinking in terms of what we mean when we say that we are in favour of UN reform.

What do we mean? What are we going to do? How are we going to be leaders to change the UN? We can make many suggestions but the same terminology comes out of foreign affairs or any department of government. We must look at efficiency, accountability and effectiveness.

We hear the horror stories. People like Major-General MacKenzie talked about phoning the UN on a Friday afternoon. "We have the troops pinned down. What do we do?" He was told: "Call back on Monday". Then the system was reformed. They

put in a fax machine. We could then have written confirmation that he was in trouble. He still had to wait until Monday morning.

The United Nations needs to be reformed and it should be done from the top. We need some ideas. We need to start off. We need to force countries to pay their dues. I do not blame the Americans for not paying their dues because they are saying: "Get your act together and then we will pay our dues". We have to be in a position where we can be leaders in those reforms.

The UN needs an early warning system. My wife and I toured Rwanda and stayed in villages in 1985. We knew then a conflict was brewing and that the two tribes were having problems. We have had all kinds of peacekeepers and all kinds of NGOs tell us about the problems brewing but we did nothing. I applaud the government for mentioning in its statement yesterday that it needed to develop an early warning system. Then I noticed that the government totally forgot about the bad idea it had about the sort of UN force where we would lose our sovereignty. While that idea was floated it certainly died, fortunately for all of us.

We need to deal with international criminals. The people who commit these atrocious crimes need to know that they are going to be punished by the world. They need to know that the UN will deal with international criminals and that it will be much faster than our criminal justice system.

We need to have a whole administrative reorganization and we can be leaders there. Also, we need to examine our membership and we need to push for a much higher role in the United Nations.

As well, we should look at the reorganization of the whole Department of Foreign Affairs and, most important, our foreign missions. We are opening more and more of them but we need to examine the job they are doing. We need to set some criteria.

Last year I visited nine embassies and I asked them: "If you were on the foreign affairs committee what would you want to change?" Almost to the very last person and almost to the clerks they said: "We want a definite direction; leadership from the top; set an example and stop sending mixed messages. One day you are this way; the next day you are that way. We do not know what we are supposed to represent Canada as being because we are getting mixed messages from the top".

I am emphasizing leadership and that is what we should be getting out of the reform of Bill C-47. We should be coming up with major ideas for that leadership.

Again mentioning peacekeeping, criteria must be developed. It is so important. How long are the peacekeepers going to be there? What is it going to cost? What exactly are we trying to accomplish? We have a great many hot spots on the burner right now. Places like Burundi, Nigeria and the former Soviet Union, just to name a few, are potential hot spots where we may have to get involved. We need some very important planning.

The last couple of days we have heard a lot about grassroots public input. I get a little upset when I read in the reports that we have spent five days debating major foreign affairs issues. The problem is that we could have read the results or what was going to happen in the newspaper the day we were preparing our speeches. The decisions were released early. They came out at the United Nations. We had already confirmed we were going back to Bosnia but we were debating it.

As rookies we can probably take that, but I guess after we have been here a while we start saying: "Yes, we want consultation, but do not make up your mind until you hear it". That has to be the message that goes through when we start talking about reforming foreign affairs and the way it is handled. Listen to us. Do not make decisions beforehand.

I understand that in the next week-and we probably will not find out until the day before-we are going to be debating whether we should send our troops back to the former Yugoslavia. It would be nice to think that every member in the House could talk about that; could give their point of view on whether we should renew our return over there or has the government already decided? I hope that it has not.

When it comes to public input I go a bit further and look at the national assembly that we had, the group which met here. We invited 125 people. The only problem was that they were academics. They were the elite of the country. They were not the grassroots. They were all by invitation and it was pretty disappointing.

Why do we not use our 295 MPs to go out in their constituencies and talk to their people, give them some information and get the people's opinions? Do not just go to the elite and get that answer from them.

Canadians expect foreign affairs to be a leader, to be an honest broker for dispute resolution and effective multilateralism. We should be a respected and effective middle power. Canada can make a special contribution. Let us make sure that we do make that. Let us make sure that when we say we are modernizing the whole department we really mean that. Let us live within our means. Let us be proactive and effective in showing fiscal responsibility. In that role we can add a great deal.

In looking to the 21st century a lot of good things are going to happen. As we heard this morning in the swearing in ceremony, let us talk about some of the good things.

We in foreign affairs will have the advantage because Canada has such a good reputation. Let us use that. Let us play on that. Let us make the very best of that. Let us make Canadians start feeling better about themselves as well. We tend to be shy. We

tend to be apologetic. We do not tend to be as strong as we should in the area of foreign affairs.

I felt the committee report was excellent. We worked well together. I felt the information we gathered was of high quality. I felt the report process was successful.

However, I was disappointed yesterday because I saw things like we will some day try to achieve 0.7 of GDP. The reason I have problems with that is let us face it, today and for the foreseeable future we are probably going to go to 0.3. It is not even feasible that we can maintain 0.4 where we are approximately today. Why put in 0.7? That sends the wrong message to the NGOs. It sends the wrong message to foreign governments. It does not show leadership. I feel that is incorrect. That is a bad image and that is how we are going to tarnish that image of Canadians.

I feel as well totally ignoring the CIDA problem is at the peril of the government. People are saying cut off aid. We know that is wrong. We know that is not just. We know they do not really mean that. We have to explain it to them. What are the advantages of aid? What is the advantage of CIDA? Let us make sure that it is not just a government slush fund for the minister and Prime Minister when they travel abroad. I think that is a vital part of the selling job that should be done.

As far as culture is concerned we would really like to see business get involved in that. If it is really as useful as we say it is I am sure business will want to be involved.

The reform of the international monetary system and looking at the IMF is an area that was not touched. We have again a great opportunity to show leadership this year in Halifax in June when the G-7 meets to talk about the reform. I know that we are going to deal with that in the committee. I hope it will be looked at and thought about more clearly than our foreign affairs report was.

In conclusion, as I have said we are going to support this motion. We are supporting this bill because it is a modernization. We hope it will also go much further to really get into what Canadians are thinking and to really put forward a new approach going from this century into the next one. I am sure that will make Canada an even greater country than it is today.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-47, a bill to change the name of the Department of External Affairs to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We have no opposition to this bill at all and therefore no position to oppose it whatsoever. It does not change the resource allocation within it, nor any significant restructuring. However, as we broker no opposition to it, let me talk about some concerns I have about the department and let me give some hope and constructive suggestions we have to perhaps change its focus somewhat, making it an even better organization than it already is.

I preface what I am about to say by reaffirming what my colleague said, that we have only had a few hours to address this bill. We hope that in the future the government will give us more time to do that.

First and foremost, if we are to have a Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade it must be one that lives within its means. Currently, as we know, the government is spending 25 per cent more than what it takes in. The department must, as all departments must, make an effective cut to its budget.

As I said before, the government is now spending over $40 billion more than what it takes in. If the department of foreign affairs were to make at least a 25 per cent cut, then we would have a department that would be able to live within its means.

The joint committee had an ideal opportunity to go ahead and do this. It could have given the Minister of Finance a hand by putting forth some constructive suggestions to do this. Unfortunately 20 out of the 60 recommendations that were put out asked for more money, if not explicitly then at least implicitly.

This does not make any sense whatsoever. It does the department and the people who worked very hard on the committee a grave injustice. I cannot emphasize this enough. I hope in the near future the department will take it upon itself to put forth the constructive cuts required to make it sustainable in the future.

I will not put forth criticisms without putting forth some constructive suggestions in some areas of budgetary cuts. One of the areas that our party has put forth is that bilateral government to government aid should be decreased or eliminated.

Unfortunately, when we go out in the field we see that a lot of the aid Canadians and our government give in good faith to help those people who need it the most tragically does not get there. I have seen foodstuffs given by the Canadian government being sold over the counter to various areas or being bargained for arms and ammunition. This is not where the Canadian government or people want this aid to go.

Another thing we have to do and which we did not do in the committee, although we listened to a lot of NGOs, is to determine which NGOs are doing a good job and which are not. Which are giving the money they are given to the people who need it the most and which are not? We need to determine criteria that can be applied to the NGOs to tell us which NGOs are doing a good job and determine ways in which we can

measure this in the future. This has never been done but it is something we must do in the future.

Another thing we have not done as a country and that no country has done is determine which international organizations we should and should not be members of. Currently we are a member of a vast number of international organizations, in many of which there is a lot of duplication.

If we are having difficulty in being a member of these organizations, so are other countries. No country in the world has taken the initiative to try to streamline these down. Canada has a unique opportunity to do this. We ought to go ahead and determine which organizations are duplicating themselves and which are not, making some constructive suggestions to the international community to determine where we can co-opt the functions of these organizations into one or fewer. It would save us money and would therefore save a lot of other people money.

Another thing we ought to, which this bill gives, is a method to streamline the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. By changing the name perhaps we can use this as a stepping stone to amalgamate various areas within the ministry to save the taxpayers a significant amount of money.

Another area we need to address is one that I recently had some experience in, the Department of International Trade.

There are a number of exporters in this country who have spoken to me about the fact that they would like to be able to capitalize on international markets more effectively. They are not able to do this for a number of reasons.

One thing the Department of International Trade can do is inform Canadian exporters about places where our exporters can capitalize, where we have an expertise that other countries do not.

Currently the biggest problem is getting the information out in a timely fashion. As a result other countries can get contracts on the international stage that really should belong to Canadians. They are jobs that could be brought home, jobs that we can do as well or better than other countries.

I would ask that people in the department look for ways to tell our exporters in a timely fashion about opportunities that exist abroad that they can capitalize on for themselves and for Canadians.

One area that we have not used enough is our embassies. We can utilize our embassies internationally to be the eyes and arms for our exporters abroad. They are in the trenches and they can tell the department what is available to our exporters.

I will move on to a slightly different focus. If we stand back and look at the large threat that exists today we will see that the world is not a safer place in the post cold war era. Last year there were at least 120 conflicts in the world. Over 90 per cent of these conflicts were internal. Why is this so? There are a number of reasons. One essential reason is the burgeoning world population that has been out of control for decades.

From 1950 until the present, a short period, we doubled our population; a population that took from the beginning of time until 1950 to develop. In the next 25 years we will double that population again.

There are those who say this is not a problem, that we will find ways to deal with this. I would submit that right now we have no way to deal with it and there has been nothing in the recent past to prove otherwise.

Out of this expanding population will be an increasing conflict for limited resources. Out of that conflict will come a migration of people. We have seen recently on television the horrible genocide and carnage.

In the trenches all of the foreign aid and development that countries such as Canada and other principle countries put forth will go for nothing. We will wind up back at square one. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever not to address this threat to security if we continue to give aid. It has to be addressed before our development needs are addressed.

Security not only involves the military aspect, which is what we have had over the last hundreds of years, but also security involving the environment, economic and resource management. This is the single most important threat not only to foreign security but also to our own. Many people in this country would argue who cares what happens half a world away, put a fence around them, let them kill each other. This has sometimes been said about Bosnia.

If we want to argue independent of humanitarian terms, argue on what affects us, let us say that what happens half a world away will one day wind up on our doorstep. These conflicts produce a number of things, a migration of people, a demand on our resources through international trade and also on defence. It also puts our people in harm's way, our defence personnel who have provided exemplary service in the past.

There is one way to deal with this in the near future. It is something that no country has ever taken the initiative to do, but I think Canada can, the aspect of preventive diplomacy. This country has a unique opportunity to go around the world and develop a consensus to try to address these conflicts before they blow up. Once they blow up we get into the very expensive aspect of peacekeeping and peacemaking and everything it entails. On the other hand preventive diplomacy is cheap by comparison.

Why Canada? As our new Governor General mentioned this morning in a very eloquent speech which I thought was one of the few speeches that brought us together and concentrated on our similarities rather than on our differences, we are one of the few countries in the world that has managed to bring together a truly historic mosaic of people in a peaceful setting.

That reputation should not be undersold by anybody in the House because it is internationally renowned. We may not realize it, but people in countries around the world look to Canada as the example of a country that has managed to merge different people from different walks of life, different colours, different religions and different ethnic groups into a peaceful and relatively harmonious mosiac.

We can and we must take the initiative to act as the honest broker to bring together NGOs, academics, politicians, the United Nations and international financial institutions to determine a series of reproducible measures that we as the international community will enforce when conflicts are about to blow up. This is fundamental to international security in the future and, as I said before, cost effective.

Finally I will concentrate on a few specific issues I have had recent experience in and, as I have seen before, cause a great deal of tragedy. One is the trafficking of small arms. People may not think it is much of a problem, but I was recently in a third world country where the destabilizing effect of small arms is dramatic. I was in areas where an AK-47 could be bought for as little as $20. In these areas resources are depleted, populations are growing and small arms are proliferating. The result is a pot ready to boil over and an area that is very unstable.

We must act as a world leader to develop an international consensus on how we are to go about severely restricting the production, sale and movement of small arms. Canada should act as a leader in banning two things: first, mines and, second, anti-personnel devices. These weapons have absolutely no place in warfare. They are meant merely to destabilize a civilian population and are meant to kill civilians. I have seen it with my own eyes.

Unfortunately, when a so-called war is over, because of the proliferation of the aforementioned a country is unable to get on its feet for decades. The cost to the international community is in the billions of dollars. It is one of those things we can pay now or pay later. I would submit it is a lot better to get involved in this early than late.

I hope the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of International Trade will take these suggestions into consideration in their future endeavours. I know people on this side of the House are prepared to work toward furthering those suggestions.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member who just spoke. Because of his experience in being abroad and seeing some of the firsthand work our money is doing around the world, I wonder whether he has any insights to share with respect to how we can produce some long term results in some of the countries in which we are putting money.

What could we do that would finally make these people independent and contributing members to the world society instead of drawing from it?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. If I had that answer it would certainly be wonderful.

There are a few things, I would submit in my humble experience, we could do. One would be to address the international security aspects. We cannot get a country back on its feet until the security aspects are dealt with. As I said before, that involves freeing the country of mines and putting in place a strong judicial system, as well as the necessary foundations of democracy to have a populace with confidence in its government. We are a democratic country, one that is well respected for our democratic institutions. We can and have done a lot to help these democratic institutions.

Another fundamental aspect is how we channel our aid. I think we will find a lot of agreement in the international community that international aid must go through NGOs as opposed to through governments. Much aid in the past has gone directly into the hands of foreign governments and in turn has become parts of personal bank accounts in Switzerland and other countries, or has been used to build people's personal empires through the purchase of arms and bribery. That is completely wrong and is not where our international moneys were meant to go.

As I said before in my speech, we need to look at the NGOs to determine which ones are doing a good job and which are not. We have to determine a set of criteria. We have to determine an end point that we want to address through committee reports. That is something the government agrees on. We wish to help the poorest of the poor. We can do that but we have to determine which NGOs are doing a good job and which are not. Once we do so, we can determine where we are proportioning our money.

It is an interesting and an exciting project, one that I hope the government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of International Trade will take up. If we can do that, we can effectively channel the aid money Canadians give to other countries.

I will finish by saying that many people in my riding and other ridings ask: "Why are you giving money to people half a world away?" If we want to argue purely on selfish grounds, the economic impact in a positive way to our exporters is very great because we are generous on the international stage. We take part in international organizations in an effective fashion and we bring forth to the international community some sense of peace, stability and sensibility.

If we continue to do so we will have on the international stage a clout far greater than what our population would normally give us.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a fairly quick question.

One point is on the saleability of foreign assistance and why it is necessary. The member struck on a very important point. It is becoming increasingly difficult to convince people that we should be spending increasing amounts of money on foreign assistance. Yet, for some of the reasons the member mentioned, it is still important.

Could the member comment in general terms on the advisability of increasing spending on primary education in the third world as part of our aid package as opposed to university education?

One report I read mentioned that basic education in the third world decreases the number of children in a family from an average of four and a half or five to three or three and a half. The reason is that a basic education allows a person to get a job, to understand basic birth control methods, to expand their horizons in business and so on.

As opposed to a very costly university education that we support around the world, does the member think we should emphasize or spend more of our money on the basic education aspect?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague hit on a very important point. We do get more bang for our buck by investing in primary education versus expensive post-secondary education.

We cannot have a stable country without a stable populous. We cannot have a stable populous unless the populous has a vested economic and social interest in the country in which it lives.

One primary way of doing it is to enable the people to have the rudiments of an education: give them some literacy and give them the ability to take care of themselves. If we give them the knowledge to take care of themselves we have helped to create a sustainable situation.

It is also more difficult for individuals to sway a population for their own illicit gain if the population is educated. It is easier to reason with a population that has the rudiments of education than one that is living in a primitive state of affairs. That has borne itself out time and time again.

As my hon. colleague just mentioned, one of the great benefits of providing primary education is that we see a population reduction. We see a reduction in the number of babies born. It gives women control of reproduction, which is fundamental in enabling them and their families to get control of their economic and social lives.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby-gun control; the hon. member for Davenport-Bill C-62.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent, after the consultation I have had with the two opposition parties, for the following motion:

That from 5:30 p.m. today until the time of adjournment the House will not entertain any adjournment or other dilatory motions.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-65 which makes an attempt at reorganizing and dissolving certain federal agencies. The one I will be talking about is ACOA.

The attempt in the bill is to reduce the number of board members from 18 to 7. I want to talk about whether or not that is truly effective. Another thing I want to talk about with respect to the bill is patronage, about which we had a long discussion yesterday.

My hon. colleague from Burin-St. George's said yesterday that there will always be patronage. Whilst the Liberals main-

tain that there will always be patronage, perhaps there will be people whom we know to be competent who should go into certain jobs. I call into question whether or not patronage is appropriate in some positions. I have for a long time been rather outspoken about patronage appointments to the Senate. The Reform Party has been rather clear about a triple E Senate, which is elected, effective and equal.

We have seen time after time Liberals and Conservatives putting their friends in the Senate where they are paid until age 75 and live rather well on the backs of the taxpayers. It is time to give up on those kinds of patronage positions which give your friends truly a more advantageous position in life than those who are equal and even perhaps more qualified for the positions.

Look at the recent Senate appointments which fly in the face of the vast majority of Canadians. There were five Senate appointments made by this Prime Minister to the Senate. One of them indeed was a sitting member of Parliament. I question the anti-democratic move of doing that. This individual was elected in his own riding and now the Prime Minister just fetches him out of it and says: "I am going to run one of my buddies in here and see if we can get him in as well".

That flies so much in the face of what people believe. I cannot believe this government is reproducing what the Conservatives did. And the Liberals yelled and screamed about that when the Conservatives were the government. Even the Governor General's appointment is basically patronage today. That speaks for itself.

I have had a great deal of experience with refugee boards which are again political appointees. They make a pretty good salary and make what really amounts to life and death decisions. Some of the decisions have been far from credible. Some of the individuals on those boards are far from credible and do not meet the qualifications, skills or abilities in some cases.

Yet we still have patronage. Members from the opposite side say patronage will always be. I have to question the logic of that. Many people are questioning the logic of it and what we get is more patronage.

I have to question the patronage in parole boards. I have to question the patronage of immigration adjudicators, the patronage in harbours, boards, commissions across this country. Why can we not publicly advertise for these positions and take people based on their qualifications, skills and abilities?

There is a recent patronage appointment that we complained about two days ago. We would have complained about it again today but we could not get it on in question period because we only had five questions and it was number six.

Let us look at the individual who was most recently appointed to the CRTC. The Prime Minister stood up in the House yesterday and talked about that very position. He talked about the need to look at people for skills and abilities and so on.

When we checked on that appointee we found there were problems. In fact the Prime Minister said himself that if we found certain problems with this perhaps the government would not make that appointment but it has made the appointment. We find problems with it. If we really dig deep in a lot of these positions it sways, it gets away from skills and abilities and qualifications. That is wrong for government.

We have to look at the damage that creates in the parole board, in refugee boards, and so on. We have to look at the victims and the common ordinary citizens who by the way never get this opportunity unless they have been a member of a Liberal campaign committee and so on and so forth. What opportunity does the average law-abiding Canadian citizen get for these kinds of jobs? It does not happen.

Let us look at the cost of these positions: $85,000 and $90,000 for some of them. Why not advertise for these positions? Why not do what any other corporation does? Crown corporations do it.

I really want to talk about ACOA. It is my favourite thing to look at in this country. I was glad to hear the minister today announce that he is doing away with grants altogether. I would not give the minister much credit for that. The announcement was made subsequent to when we disclosed all of the bad grants in ACOA. While it is nice that the minister did that we will take credit for it in the House of Commons and throughout this country.

Now to reduce the ACOA board in members only is actually laughable. Just think about this. The minister says that what is going to happen is that ACOA will no longer give grants. It will basically be giving loans. They will not be forgivable loans but repayable loans as far as I understand it from yesterday's discussion. It is venture capital basically.

FBDB does the same thing. Why is it we are just reducing the number of boards? Why can we not just collapse this organization, get rid of its administration and allow FBDB to do the job?

I asked that question yesterday of the member from Halifax. On December 8 I asked a question in the House about FBDB versus ACOA. I did not get a satisfactory answer from the minister so I asked the same question last night in what we call the late show. I put the question clearly and distinctly.

What I received from the member for Halifax who answered the question was a two minute speech, your basic Liberal rhetoric on issues about ACOA, but it did not answer the question. Therefore, I am going to come back to that and I am

going to ask it again and again and again. Hopefully the member for Halifax will not be answering because I do not think she knows much about it.

The question has to be: Why are we reducing the number of board members in ACOA? Why are we not eliminating ACOA? What we are doing here in C-65 is surface scratch. One does not have to go very far with this Liberal government to look at surface scratch. One only has to look a little at the Young Offenders Act.

The majority of people in this country are concerned about the Young Offenders Act. They talked, we talked and many people talked about lowering the age, about advising citizens out there of sexual offenders and so on. The Minister of Justice came up with a ridiculously weak, limp act for young offenders.

Gun control was the same thing. In trying to address crime the government went to gun control. The budget was the same thing. The Liberals did nothing on the budget last year and they are still spending money like Mad Hatters over there. We demonstrated that today in some of the ridiculous research grants.

Bill C-44 did all but nothing in immigration because in the final analysis they will not be removing the bad guys anyway. That is what I call surface scratch.

When somebody brings in a bill like Bill C-65 which states that the number of board members is going to be reduced from 18 to 7, I ask what is wrong with these folks across the way? Why can they not go out and do the job fully? Why are we surface scratching?

We have to look at a new vision here. There are a lot of documents now that mention a new vision. In his book the leader of the Reform Party talks about a new vision. Lots of documents refer to a new vision in Canada.

What we have here is a traditional party entrenched in an old vision. So old is that vision that when they tried to come up with something new in HRD with the social programs, it collapsed. They stand in here today and have the gall to try to tell people that is what they want. We heard it all across the country. They said that is what they want, no change, which is exactly what they received with this government because this government lacks vision. It is vision that we need.

Bill C-65 is not a new vision, it is traditional. They are talking about saving money but it is surface scratch. There is hardly any money in this.

If you want to get rid of an organization, get rid of ACOA and save some money. The administrative travel expenses within ACOA are a national disgrace. It is all over the country. Everybody knows about it. There is nothing touched in it. They just reduced the number of directors.

Let us not talk about surface scratch here. Let us talk about new vision. We had an admittance yesterday that the Liberals have practised "corrupt patronage". That is a quote in Hansard and came from a Liberal member by the way. I believe it was the member for Burin-St. George's.

I would agree with that. You only have to look at some of the patronage appointments. I will refer to the Globe and Mail . I think everybody across the country has read this by now and are shaking their heads about patronage appointments.

Look at this: A tax court judge was an MP. Here is an individual, former provincial candidate in Mississauga, southern Ontario. Here is a fellow, a candidate in Quebec in 1993, one from Calgary Northeast and a three time candidate in Edmonton. On and on and on it goes. It cannot be a coincidence that all of these past candidates in 1993 have the skills, abilities and qualifications for the job. That cannot be the case. This is clearly padding your friends and it is totally wrong.

In 1992-93 ACOA wrote off in excess of $53 million. I would like to ask members opposite what the difference is between a repayable loan that is written off so that the borrower does not have to pay, and a grant.

[An hon. member]

There is no difference.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

There is no difference between a grant and a loan that is never repaid. If ACOA is now into repayable grants many of which are written off, then collapse ACOA. Fold it. Do not just get rid of the directors, get rid of ACOA. Save the taxpayer a whole bundle of money. Save them $50 million in write-offs for certain and then let FBDB take its place, or the banks. Has anybody ever thought of dealing with the banks?

Yesterday another speaker opposite said that we already have a very efficient government. I have to ask, if the Liberals think they have an efficient government then they are really out to lunch. That is what the change is all about. That is why the last party from Jurassic Park sits with two members here. That is exactly the mentality that is going to have this second party join Jurassic Park in the next election. The assumption that it already is an efficient government is totally erroneous.

I cannot say much more about this because I could run down all of these other reductions in boards and institutions but they are basically all the same. This is surface scratch. The government does not really intend to save a lot of money here. It is just taking out a few things to make it look good. It has done it time and time and time again in the last year.

The question is: Who does the government really think it is kidding over there? There are people actually watching and they

are a lot smarter today than they were before. Bill C-65 is surface scratch. It is Liberal do nothing legislation, much like Bill C-44 was.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if in questioning the hon. member whether he would consider the appointment of the National Parole Board, for instance. The new chair of the National Parole Board is a career civil servant with no political connections. He came through the ranks, was appointed on the basis of his qualifications after being interviewed. I wonder if he would recognize that as something the government has started, and is that what he considers to be a patronage appointment?

Does he want us or the government to leave the Senate completely dominated by the Tories, holding back the Pearson airport deal as an example? Is that what he expects to do?

Also, does he not recognize that in some of the appointments the Prime Minister is making, such as Ed Broadbent and so forth, that there are no pensions, no double dipping, that with any new appointments by the Prime Minister people like Ed Broadbent are being asked? Does he not realize that Roméo LeBlanc, a man for all seasons, a fair, honest Acadian, a person who fits the Prime Minister's style was a good appointment?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when making so many patronage appointments, the obvious thing has happened with governments over the past decades. They make some that are good, naturally; they even make some from other parties, I suppose. That covers them for making the majority, or many of them, their friends.

Look at this list. A member of Parliament's campaign manager in Vancouver Centre was executive assistant to the ministers of justice and energy, mines and resources in the eighties; assistant to a former Nova Scotia Liberal leader; assistant to various Ontario MPPs. These are Liberal Party hacks.

Of course some will be made based on qualifications, skills and abilities so exactly what has happened here can be done. A member stands up and says: "Look at this one; let me identify this one; what do you think of it?" That particular individual may be good based on qualifications, skills and abilities. I do not know the particular individual and his qualifications, skills and abilities, but I do know there are many people on parole boards who do not have the qualifications, skills and abilities.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Answer the question.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

I think I just have. He asked me if this particular person on the parole board had the skills and abilities. I do not know that particular person. My answer is there are a lot who do not. I can tell the hon. member that.

The next question I believe the member asked was on the Senate. He asked whether-it is a wise thing I suppose-there should be more Conservatives than Liberals in the Senate. I think he has missed the point. We are talking about the ability to have an elected Senate so that perhaps the senators could be neither Liberal nor Conservative; what a novel idea, not a party hack.

That is the problem. It is like firing your brother or your sister. They get them into the Senate. These governments are not going to change. As soon as the Liberals got in the whole country new darn well they would start putting Liberals into that Senate. The only way to stop that is to get a party into this government with no friends in the Senate, none at all, so we will not be marrying off: "We need some to offset the Conservatives and the Liberals in this Senate". Talk about traditional thinking, that is traditional thinking. What is wrong with a triple E Senate?

I am sorry, I am not sure what the third question was.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Roméo LeBlanc.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Roméo LeBlanc, the Governor General. That position is considered by most as the highest plum on the plum tree. Whether or not his skills and abilities fit the job, I am not really sure what his skills and abilities are.

I will say right now I am not in favour of having a Governor General position in this country, nor am I in favour of Lieutenant Governor positions in this country. That is why I was not at the session today nor the party tonight. Whether or not the individual has the qualifications it is just tradition.

I was asked today why I was not there. I said that I really did not intend to think like these traditional good old boys here. Maybe we should be questioning whether there should be a governor general or a lieutenant governor. The individual I was talking to said that is tradition. I told him that is what is wrong here. What is wrong with questioning this good old tradition? What is wrong with questioning the fact that this government wants 50 per cent or more of the Senate to be Liberals?