Debates of Feb. 10th, 2005

Patent Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

The House resumed from February 9, 2005 consideration of the motion that BillC-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.

Department of International Trade Act

[The Speaker]

The last time that this bill was before the House, the hon. member for Joliette was speaking. He still has nine minutes left in the time allotted for questions and comments.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary had asked me a question which I did not have an opportunity to answer. I will start by replying to him.

It was actually a very interesting question that enables us once again to clarify the role that the Bloc Québécois plays in this House. The parliamentary secretary was wondering how it was that a sovereignist party could be interested in this question of the separation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two entities, namely Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It is interesting to note, by the way, that in this case it is the governing Liberals who are the separatists while we are trying to the contrary to suggest that there be some consistency between two key functions of a department.

When we are here in Ottawa, we not only defend Quebec's interests but we also promote a concept of the responsibilities of a country, a nation and a government. We do not think that it is in Quebec's interest to divide in two the missions of international trade and foreign affairs. We would not like a sovereign Quebec to take an approach like that currently proposed by the Liberal Party of Canada, by the current government. It is an approach that means that Foreign Affairs cannot use trade policy as a tool to help fulfil its international obligations.

We are therefore here both to defend Quebec's interests and to promote responsibilities that should be shared by all nations and all sovereign countries throughout the international community.

So this is the answer that I wanted to give the parliamentary secretary. Unfortunately, he is not here now, but I know that he is an avid reader of Hansard. He will therefore have an opportunity to see my answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, during question period I had an opportunity to examine the bill we are looking at today. Basically, it is a matter of dividing up the activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs and of International Trade.

I was struck by the fact that here we are at a time when there are more and more rules on globalization, when world trade is multiplying, wanting to separate these two entities. The government is trying to convince us that the bill it introduced in December 2004 is nothing more than a housekeeping bill, a technical bill with the purpose of dividing up functions.

I would like to ask my colleague whether he does not think the bill also contains a vision that is likely in the end to reduce the protection of human rights in the world. There cannot be any distinction made between trade and foreign affairs at a time of burgeoning foreign investment, trade intensification, when people believe that ethical investment must play an increasingly important role and we on this side of the House believe that fair trade must play an important role as well.

Does he think that the bill to divide the two entities is liable to reduce the protection of human rights?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his most relevant question.

I would like to cite a few figures here. He was saying that trade is intensifying. One of the indicators of that fact is that Canadian exports, as a percentage of everything we produce, are increasing phenomenally from decade to decade. In 1971, for example, 18.2% of what we produced was exported from Canada, Quebec included. In 1980, the figure rose to 24.6%. So nearly a quarter of Canadian production was exported. At the moment it is 38%, that is, almost 40%. The figure for Quebec is even higher.

Indeed, we can no longer separate from our production processes our responsibilities for human rights, union rights, environmental rights, social rights and cultural rights. Since 40% of everything we produce goes abroad, we must keep in mind that this is production on a planetary scale.

Unfortunately, yesterday we were reminded that this reality is quickly catching up to us. The closure of the Wal-Mart in Jonquière fools no one. It is an anti-labour move, which we are obliged to denounce here. However, if we have no action outside Canada and Quebec to denounce anti-labour activities, we shall find ourselves isolated. In any case, within North America Quebec is already fairly isolated in this regard. This Wal-Mart incident is going to be a common occurrence here, just as this sort of thing happens every day in Mexico, Honduras and pretty much all over the world.

I completely agree with the hon. member that the division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two entities will weaken Canada's capacity—even though, at the moment, that capacity below what is expected of Canada—to establish a trade policy that serves foreign policy, and what the hon. members across the way like to call the promotion of Canadian values.

In that sense, this division is politically harmful to Canada, and indirectly, to Quebec. What is more, it is economically harmful, because the current foreign affairs function plays an important role in promoting our export interests. This is true for Canada, but also for Quebec. As a result, everyone will lose. The only winner in this situation will be an economist vision of globalization that jettisons everything to do with the environment, culture, social rights and union rights.

In closing, I would add that the civil society groups very rightly defending these causes will find themselves shunted back and forth between the department of Foreign Affairs, which will say that Canada's trade policy and international economic relations are the responsibility of International Trade, which in turn will say it deals with international trade only, and so matters to do with the big international conventions are the business of Foreign Affairs. Thus these groups will find themselves in no man's land with even less of an audience. They will no longer be able to put pressure on this government, which is already extremely weak in terms of its planetary social responsibilities. Such pressure will be even less significant, and we shall see drift, something that has already begun with this decision by the Prime Minister.

[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.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it touches on what is at the heart of this debate. We know this was all done on the sly and they are trying to make this a fait accompli. We know the decision was made a year ago by a little known order. However, I do not believe that separating the two entities will make them stronger, on the contrary.

I will give you a single example. Currently, an ambassador is evaluated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as the Minister of International Trade, on both missions. This will no longer be so. In the future, under Bills C-31 and C-32, ambassadors will be evaluated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs based on diplomatic performances. That is very good. I have nothing against it. However, the Minister of International Trade will no longer have any evaluation to make and ambassadors will be less inclined to look out for Canadian economic interests.

Furthermore, under Bill C-32—I can never remember the clause number—coordinating international relations will no longer be the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If this coordination had been left to a single minister, then that might have made up for creating two separate departments.

However, the coordination of international relations—and I will close on this note—has now been entrusted to the Minister of International Trade. As a result, both missions will be weakened to the detriment of Canada's political position and Quebec's interests.

[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.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I am partly in agreement with a member opposite. However, today I agree in part with the hon. member's presentation on our trade with the United States and Mexico. He is right when he says that we are doing business with these countries and that there is a huge import and export market. However, he would be well advised to inquire about the impact of all these imports and exports.

We have been debating Bill C-31 for a few days and I keep getting back to the issue of the maquiladoras, in Mexico. It is the best example, it is at the core of our discussions. I hope the hon. member has already done some research on this issue.

The maquiladoras are free trade zones where Canadian businesses, among others, have settled and are making big bucks. These companies are not required to reinvest anything, whether it is in terms of labour or infrastructures. Wages are very low and working conditions are terrible. These companies would rather invest in buses to pick up workers and bring them to their workplace, thus ensuring that they are indeed at work doing their job, than invest to provide these workers with decent living conditions. There is no infrastructure. The water is literally undrinkable, except on the company's premises. The ground is polluted all around the plants. Human rights are not respected. These companies just focus on trade.

The hon. member talked about competition, productivity, competitiveness and trade relations. He never said anything about the impact on the population.

In light of these facts, I have a question for him. Does he realize that trade relations that are strictly based on competition totally ignore the development or the protection of human rights? Can the hon. member tell me whether Bill C-31 includes a guarantee that human rights will be protected?

[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.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about creating jobs, I should point out that, in Mexico, there are currently 2 million people working in maquiladoras, except that these people are losing their jobs, precisely because companies like General Motors Canada, which had opened plants there, are closing down their operations and moving to China, with the assurance that their costs will be lower in China. Canada is opening doors for these businesses in China.

On the environmental front, the businesses which operated in maquiladora areas have contaminated the land in northern Mexico. It was contaminated by lead, and the businesses are not even required to decontaminate.

At present, wages are low. In the future, even larger numbers of people will be living in poverty because they are migrants who travel from the south to the north of Mexico to work in plants opening up trade between Mexico, Canada, and the United States. These people are living in shanties, because these are Indians from the north or from the south who migrate to these businesses.

My hon. colleague would be well advised to get the facts.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is totally out to lunch. She talks about loss of jobs. I got into the computer business in the early 1970s, and there was this fear that jobs would be eliminated, that they would not longer be needed. Receptionists and typists jobs would be gone. It was nonsense.

We have seen what has happened in the past 20 or 30 years. There was a job loss for maybe for those secretary-receptionists who used manual typewriters. The jobs today are high tech. Secretaries have the ability to use various word processing facilities and databases. They are multi-diversified, multi-talented and multi-experienced. They are no longer “good morning, how are you, thank you, type a note” jobs. They have more skills to offer.

There should never be fear that because we are moving to another site, jobs will be lost. For every action there is a counter reaction. We have found means and ways over the years to recreate, reinvent and come back on the human rights side, as she so stressed, on the environment, et cetera. Canada at least knows where it stands. If we have the opportunity to go out there and compete through trading initiatives, we know that we will have the other side to present, not just the dollars and cents.

We have an obligation to this world called earth to try to protect it. We have supported Kyoto. We have invested in our environment like no other country has, our clear cutting in terms of our forestry. We have done our job.

By taking our experiences to these countries, we will also show them the way. Yes, we must be environmentally smart, decent, proper and ethical. However, I cannot go to the people's houses and force them to do what I want them to do. I can only suggest to them. Through the international bodies and cooperation, whether it be NAFTA and other bodies, we will do our best to ensure that the right thing is done.

[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.

[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, my hon. colleague from the Bloc has raised an extremely important point. We do know this major foreign policy review, discussion and document is to come forward. Presumably all of us will have a very keen interest in it. There will be a lot of debate about it because there are some very sharp differences about Canada's foreign policy and where it should be headed. It seems inconceivable that we would be taking this very precipitous action to separate this department on the eve of when we are receiving a major policy paper on foreign policy and that the debate will take place.

We would want to be assured that what is happening with this department being cut apart will not impact on what happens in the debate, but we have no assurance of that.

The minister is taking very pre-emptive and unilateral action. There was no compelling imperative out there anywhere saying that this department needed to be sawed in half right now.

At the very least the government could have waited until the foreign policy review paper came forward and members had a chance to take a look at it and deal with that paper in the context of the bill.

However that is not the agenda of the government. It obviously does not want to have that debate, so we will deal with it at that time. It is very unfortunate that it has taken place in this manner because it means we will not have the broader context in which to look at that foreign policy review.

[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.

[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.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the bill now before us, namely Bill C-31. This gives me a chance to illustrate the total lack of consistency displayed by the Liberal government in many areas. This inconsistency is all the more noticeable in foreign affairs and international trade.

I am talking about inconsistency, because Bill C-31 is nothing less than a step backward after what a previous Liberal government, that of Pierre Trudeau, undertook in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time, the federal government decided to integrate the International Trade staff with the Foreign Affairs staff. Most of the decisions made under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau sought to integrate not only the employees, but also their efforts, the efforts of each of the two entities of the Department of Foreign Affairs, so that trade would be a tool at the service of Canada's foreign policy.

Now, the government is proposing two bills. Today, we are dealing with Bill C-31, but Bill C-32 will soon follow. Both of them have the effect of splitting the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two distinct departments. From the outset, this is a futile exercise that is pointless, since everything has already been decided and the process is already underway. Indeed, the two bills merely confirm a change that has already been announced by a ministerial order dated December 12, 2003, which is the day the member for LaSalle—Émard was sworn in as Prime Minister.

The issue of the democratic deficit was raised. The Prime Minister likes to seize every opportunity to say that he will solve the democratic deficit. However, on the day that he was sworn in, he decided alone to split a department into two entities.

What I find truly astonishing in the government's action, is above all this blatant lack of transparency. As I mentioned, the split was announced on the very day that the Prime Minister assumed his duties. The Liberals cannot in any way claim that they held consultations on this issue. The fact is there were never any consultations.

In November, at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was absolutely unable to explain the need for this separation. We are served up a fait accompli with the same arrogance this government displayed when it had a majority. I want to remind the Liberal members that they are in a minority in this House and that they better realize it as soon as possible.

It would have been interesting to see the government use some logic in its approach. I mean that it could have used the foreign policy review as a chance to consult the public, NGOs, and parliamentarians in order to get their view on international policy. Unfortunately, there will be no foreign policy review. It is highly likely that the interested parties will never be consulted.

We also learned last week that the Prime Minister was not satisfied with the work of his officials and that he asked for the international policy review to be drafted by an Oxford University professor. Just imagine.

In the meantime, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation has come forward and expressed a strong desire to intervene and make its point known to the government, but to no avail. Any request to the Prime Minister to this effect falls on deaf ears.

Let us talk about the foreign policy review. It would have been a good idea to hold a consultation in which interested parties could have participated. The parties could have explained some basic things to the government. Unfortunately they will slip under the radar should these two bills be passed.

I am talking about human rights. We are living in a world where 11 million children under the age of five die each year from easily preventable diseases; where close to 1 billion people do not have access to safe water; where many girls and women do not enjoy the same rights, and dignity, as boys and men; where environmental degradation is both a cause and a symptom of poverty.

In light of this, in September 2000, at the United Nations, world leaders subscribed to an ideal of global justice for the 21st century, promising to achieve the millennium objectives to reduce poverty by half by the year 2015. All subscribed to the principle that, to achieve better living conditions for the people, their governments had to be stable, predictable and fair, and their values had to be able to guide social, political and economic behaviour. That is when the notion of governance started to emerge as a key to development. This is why, in international instruments, governance is taken seriously.

Statements on poverty reduction, prosperity and peace all deal with enhancing governance. Good governance is interpreted as being both a development tool and a development objective, involving a broad range of elements in the fight against poverty, including public sector workings, democratic institutions, the political leadership, civil society, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

I would like to read an excerpt from an Amnesty International report dated December 2004, which states the following:

Canadian companies span the world. Resourcecompanies drill for oil and dig for minerals in isolated, far-flung corners. Telecommunicationsfirms do business on every continent. Foreign investment flows in and out of Canada like never before. As global trade expands and the reach and impact of corporate Canada grows, it becomes increasinglyimportant to ensure that Canadiansdo business in ways that safeguard and promote fundamental human rights and do not directly or indirectly lead to human rights violations.

We believe that to establish a completely separate Department of International Trade will not prevent rights from being violated because, who, then, will keep an eye on how Canadian companies take human rights into account?

In this world of free trade, we clearly see the emergence of various economies, indeed, a number of powers in direct competition with our economy. Although it is wonderful to see countries succeed, I am greatly concerned by the realization that some countries are doing so at the expense of the fundamental rights of their citizens. Quebeckers have always strongly defended human rights, and the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that any review of Canadian foreign policy must refer directly to this.

Last week, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation contacted me to say that, during the meeting of donor countries in Colombia, Canada was preparing to take a dramatic backward step on human rights. In the first half of 2005, Canada is chairing the group of 24 donor countries providing aid to Colombia.

So, we would expect Canada to take advantage of its role and strongly insist that Colombia take concrete measures to comply with the recommendations of the UN High Commission for Human Rights for a reform of human rights there. It is common knowledge that Colombia currently has the highest number of human rights violations.

However, the Canadian government allowed—this is important—donor countries providing aid to Colombia to relax their rules on granting international aid. This means that they did not consider human rights, they did not consider the climate in Colombia. Business comes first. Human rights are set aside.

Canada was the chair at that meeting and should have insisted with the Colombian government that the situation in its country be recognized, a situation the world recognizes and the UN recognizes, the existence of an armed conflict and a humanitarian crisis. However, Canada did not assert itself. It caved, no doubt—we may think—for a few dollars. It put the issue of respect for human rights on the back burner. Yet, of all the countries in the Americas, Colombia has the highest number of human rights violations each year.This is an extremely sad example of this government's vision, which puts the economy above fundamental values such as human rights and the fight against poverty in developing countries.

It is obvious to me and my colleagues that the structure prior to the December 12 order in council, allowed the government to more easily and more effectively incorporate its human rights concerns into its trade policy. At least, we could expect good governance would be incorporated in this regard. Unfortunately, now it has created a distinct Department of International Trade, which has the sole objectives of promoting trade, investment partnerships and trade and economic policy, who, then, is going to ensure that the objectives of promoting human rights will be considered?

I repeat. All these arguments should have been expressed and presented as part of the Canadian foreign policy review. Evidently, the Prime Minister is having trouble delivering the goods he promised, because that review has been a long time coming. Now, looking at what is going on, I wonder how much he really wanted that review.

Moreover, when I was describing the government's inconsistency, earlier, I was also thinking about the current discontent in CIDA concerning Canada Corps or Solidarity Canada. This apparently will likely be the umbrella organization for CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, which concerns itself with such things as human rights, and would coordinate Canadian projects abroad. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister travelled around. He met people who were supposedly in international solidarity and promised them a distinct agency. He created Canada Corps or Solidarity Canada, and gave it $15 million in operating funds. However, he did not make certain that Canada Corps and CIDA would work together.

We recently attended a fine briefing by CIDA officials, who told us, “We don't know what to do with Canada Corps. It was created by the Prime Minister. It is a promise made by the Prime Minister, and we don't know what to do with it.” It is a good example of the improvisations that make the NGOs more than a little worried. It causes real discontent in a number of organizations that cannot see how the functions of the various government instruments for international aid will work out in practice.

We are seeing so much improvisation within this government that I think I have got a handle on how its decision-making process works. The PM draws the country's international and trade policies on the corner of a table and then submits them to Cabinet. They adopt without turning a hair and without consultation. Scandalous.

This way of doing things is scandalous. I will go still further. I question the motives of the Prime Minister. We know that his family still owns ships. And we are well aware that he is capable of changing legislation to benefit businesses owned by himself, those close to him, or his little millionaire or billionaire friends, so is he not capable of trying to relieve the business he owns of any foreign policy that would limit trade with a certain category of country where there is no respect of human rights?

Or yet again, is he trying to weaken Canadian foreign policy in order to ensure that polluting businesses, with which he has close connections, can get around the rules on environment? These are all reasons for which the Bloc Québécois is going to oppose the bill we have before us.

I will just state in closing that when I see the way the federal Liberals make use of power, particularly as far as international relations are concerned, it makes me dream of a future sovereign Quebec and what it could accomplish.

That Quebec will be an alterglobalist Quebec, one that respects human rights and will take steps to promote human rights worldwide.

That Quebec will be in solidarity with the workers of the third world, who have such difficulty making a living.

I allow myself to dream and to think that Quebec will soon become a country, very soon I hope.

[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—Coquitlam, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, Drug Strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today. I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville on her speech on this matter. She has been waiting for several days for the opportunity to voice her opposition to a bill that is aimed at separating and dividing responsibilities between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of International Trade.

For some time, several months in fact, since this bill was introduced on December 7, 2004, the government has been trying to convince us that it is nothing but an administrative and technical bill intended just to regularize an obvious situation.

I understand that on December 12, 2003, the government enacted an order via the governor in council, which divided responsibilities between two departments, and that this bill is to make that order official. But it is not true that this debate must focus only on an administrative reorganization.

Anyone trying to approach the debate and discussion on that basis fail to see the interrelationships between the mandate and vision of a foreign affairs department and the role an international trade department ought to play in this regard.

By clarifying and dividing these two departmental entities, by splitting responsibilities between two departments, by taking away from International Trade the mandate for foreign affairs, and the related powers and responsibilities the government is ignoring debate that is of great concern to the people of Quebec and Canada.

It concerns our view of the role our governments must play in the context of increased globalization, opening markets and economic interrelations. This is what we want, of course, but having our rights protected as well. Rights are fundamental for those of us on this side of the House. I am talking of workers' rights, which must be protected fully, of environmental rights, so often challenged in one court or another in the name of free markets. I am also talking of human rights, which must be protected and which are very frequently the victims of a system focussed solely on free markets.

By dividing up the roles of the Department of Foreign Affairs and of International Trade, the government is endorsing this vision. It enshrined it with its order in council of December 12, 2003, and is enshrining it with this bill. We need to keep in mind what the role of the Canada Department of International Trade was: promoting international trade, investment partnerships and trade and economic policy.

We need to realize that there are new concerns and new paradigms emerging, not only in Quebec society, but in this changing world. They are intended to develop new trade and a new type of investment.

First, fair trade has taken off in the past few years thanks to people who want to have goods, products and merchandise on the market that respect workers rights.

It seems essential in processing products that we be able to establish basic ethical rules. When we look only at trade, we forget these important aspects. When we talk about International Trade Canada and investment partnerships, we forget that a new type of investment is emerging, what is called responsible investment. These are aspects that could have been integrated into a foreign affairs policy. Unfortunately, the Canadian government has decided to divide the department in two.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has been reorganized many times, beginning with changes made by the Trudeau government in 1971. Then, in 1981 and 1982, there was a reorganization that integrated a range of activities from those of CIDA, to industry, to trade and commercial policy. The Department of Foreign Affairs became the Department of External Affairs and International Trade.

My colleagues indicated clearly that this bill to divide the entities presents two fundamental drawbacks. First, there is the problem of consistency. How, by dividing two activities that should be integrated, will this situation improve consistency in terms of the management of human affairs and, especially, efficiency?

As for the second drawback, I want my colleagues to explain the attempts we so often see in this Parliament. In fact, the government has introduced the bill we are considering here before it has even undertaken this essential review of Canadian foreign policy.

The federal government is behaving the same way about international trade as it about the missile defence shield project. In both cases, no consideration is given to the issues related to national defence and international trade in an integrated foreign affairs policy in Canada. It prefers to make decisions the wrong way round, when we should, as the government committed to doing several years ago, already have reviewed Canadian foreign policy, which is essential.

On this side of the House, we believe that this bill is premature and hasty. We could have had a debate on this. It would have been healthy and would have allowed us to examine the role the Department of Foreign Affairs will have to play in the future. Why are we not considering its role in the context of emerging markets and globalization? That would have been an interesting public debate, on Canadian foreign policy. Instead, this decision was made in December 2003, resulting in the bill before us.

The same is true with regard to the missile defence shield project. Decisions are made about national defence, although we have yet to review foreign policy.

The government's public decision-making technique, which consists in making decisions in silos instead of using an integrated approach, will result in shameful inconsistency. This inconsistency will not only hurt Canada internationally, but also as regards the various issues that come under federal jurisdiction.

So, we condemn this inconsistency in human resource management, and the fact that this decision was made precipitously. We also condemn this decision because it violates an internationally recognized principle, which is to increase human rights protection in the world.

We know that, in the coming years, the opening of markets will increase trade including, among others, with countries such as China, which is experiencing strong economic growth. This means that countries like Canada—as we found out in recent weeks with the textile issue—may have to expand their markets. This will lead to increased trade. However, this trade must not focus only on the exchange of goods, it must also include the protection of human rights.

Currently, exports account for 40% of our gross domestic product. This was not the case in the 1980s, when they only accounted for 24%. So, we need a policy that will integrate the protection of human rights.

As I said before, trade should also include emerging new types of trade. A new type of trade that is emerging is fair trade, which integrates a foreign affairs policy. There are new investments of course, and these are called—in case the government party opposite does not yet know it—responsible investments. These investments are not only motivated by economic and commercial imperatives; they also take into consideration the protection of the rights of workers. This is an added value that cannot be calculated in dollars alone, because it also includes human value and the respect of those who are involved in the processing of these products.

It is wrong to say that WTO rules are the only ones that should apply to trade. There is an added human value and it is important to take it into consideration.

So, for all these reasons, we are opposed to this bill, which is unacceptable to us. Again, it is unacceptable because it reflects one of the countless decisions on international relations that have been made by the government since the new Prime Minister has been in office, without a true review of Canada's foreign policy.

That is why we will not be supporting this bill. We wish that, under different circumstances, decisions would not be made in silos. Instead, we should be looking at the direction Canada wants to take in terms of human rights and how it plans to make its contribution to international assistance. It is incorrect, however, to say that we will support a bill designed to dissociate international trade from foreign affairs.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my two hon. colleagues on their excellent speeches, which were both very clear and very informative. I would like to ask the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie if he believes that splitting the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two distinct departments would make his job easier, as the Bloc Québécois critic for the environment, when it comes to the follow up concerning Export Development Canada, formerly the Export Development Corporation, as hon. members know.

There is one aspect in terms of the environmental auditing of projects supported by Export Development Canada which is in fact the only hold we have to ensure that the operations of this crown corporation are consistent with Canada's international obligations.

Will this splitting of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade make his job easier with respect to the environmental monitoring of decisions made by Export Development Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, in order to make a good investment decision,one needs to have entry points in foreign lands and good connections with respect to the actual welcome awaiting various projects.

I did not say much about it in my presentation, but in my opinion, there is a problem with ease and consistency in human resources management. There was very good interaction with the consular offices, with the various services abroad, that enabled us, among investors and among consular services, to have a good interaction. What the government is trying to do is to divide these sections, no more, no less.

When one needs to obtain a certain number of visas, one must deal with the consular offices. Economic development and foreign investment should go hand in hand with international relations. Thus we must aim to have significant integration among the various departments. The same example holds for immigration.

If it were decided to completely sever this kind of relationship between the immigration department and the foreign affairs department, it would cause some problems, because the consulates abroad have the lion's share of responsibility for issuing visas.

Thus, when there is interaction, either in international trade or in immigration, we must ensure that the services provided by the foreign affairs department abroad can be provided to the various services.

It is clear that, in the case of exports, this separation between the Department of International Trade and the Department of Foreign Affairs is a long way from facilitating investments while respecting human rights.

It is clear that it does not facilitate things environmentally either. We need to have all the information. Many crown corporations often try to avoid their environmental responsibilities. We will probably see changes in the future to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but it is clear than when so-called housekeeping changes are made, as we see today, it has a direct impact on the environmental assessment of various projects to be carried out abroad.