Debates of Feb. 7th, 2005

Department of International Trade Act

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, as concerns human rights, I have come to the conclusion that is important for Canada to have diplomatic or trade relations with other countries, and even with those that do not respect human rights. Through constructive engagement, we can bring about changes in the rest of the world. This is our position with China. That is what we did when we visited it on a trade mission. The Prime Minister raised the issue of human rights with the president of the People's Republic of China. This is the way to make inroads in this important area.

I hope that, when all members of the government, all members of Parliament, and even all business people make commitments in other countries, they raise the issue of human rights. That is the way we can bring about changes in the world. We can be a leader in this regard, because our companies are located throughout the world. Canada is a great trading nation, and this is why Canadians can and should help the world change.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that Canada is indeed a trading nation and the lifeblood of our economy is our ability to trade.

I agree, as well, with the Prime Minister's decision to separate the departments and create an independent department to address trade so that we can further engage in the global markets.

However, beyond my agreeing with the decision, would the minister tell us the position of the Canadian companies on which this would have the most impact, the types of consultations and the responses that we have received from those Canadian companies.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will just read the list. We have support from Association Québécoise de l'aérospatiale, the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, Canada-India Business Council, I.E. Canada, Canadian Council for the Americas, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canadian Forest Products, president of Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce, Chambre de commerce de Montréal métropolitain, Conference Board of Canada, Forest Products Association of Canada, president of IT&T Trading, Quebec Manufacturers and Exporters MDS Service Support, Montreal--

[An hon. member]

The list goes on.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

More?

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Resuming debate. The member for Newmarket—Aurora.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, my question is one that comes up often in international trade circles. What kind of strategies should Canada be pursuing?

One argument is that we have a huge market in the United States which is relatively easy to access and is close at hand. It is a culture that we understand. It is also a huge and very rich market. By the same token, we have something like 86% or thereabouts of our trade going into that market. Someone in business would say that they want to diversify.

The counter argument is that we should be diversifying our trade away from the United States into Asia and places beyond to achieve that kind of diversification result.

I wonder what the member's views might be with respect to that particular point.

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I wish the hon. member good luck in getting the answers to the questions for which she has so eloquently asked. As the member knows, one of the concerns we have with the government is when takes departments apart and tries to put them back together. One example is our Coast Guard.

In 1995 our Coast Guard was part of Transport Canada. Under a program review, it was then shifted over to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which was a disaster. If she speaks to her colleague sitting next to her she will know that. He knows what an unmitigated disaster the Coast Guard was under fisheries and oceans.

The Coast Guard is a stand-alone agency now, but there is talk that it may go into the Deputy Prime Minister's portfolio.

All this discussion costs taxpayers a great deal of money, plus it worries the employees of these departments. It also sends out a signal to our allies that we really do not know what we are doing in that regard.

My question for the member is on the so-called amalgamation of foreign affairs and international trade. If she ever gets the answers to her questions, I would love to hear them.

Once of the confusions we have is this. We signed a treaty banning landmines. We supported the ratification to get rid of landmines in the world. Yet at the same time we allowed our CPP investments to be invested on the open stock markets. Those stock markets invest in companies that make landmines.

Does the hon. member see any discussions with regard to this problem? When we have an international affairs policy that contradicts the foreign affairs policy or the trade policy, what would she do to correct those deficiencies?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know that I will be able to give any stock tips as they relate to landmines today.

What we have to be concerned about is to ensure that we have not lost coherence when it comes to Canada's important role in the world, that there is coherence among the departments of foreign affairs, trade and with respect to Canada-U.S. relations.

As the structure is now, a special committee looks after Canada-U.S. relations and reports directly to cabinet. Considering this is one of our most important relationships, how Canada derives its wealth, I have a concern that the structure has lost some coherence. This is something that we will be asking about at committee.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the critic for international trade, the member for Newmarket--Aurora, for her excellent speech and the opportunity to share my thoughts today in this important area.

The member for Newmarket--Aurora brings some international experience to this portfolio. It is very important to look from where other countries see Canada's position. She is able to share that aspect with us from the vantage point of her position as manager of an international company.

I am happy to take part in this debate. I did serve as the international trade critic for about eight years for our party.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

And a very good one.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I agree with the minister. I certainly had a chance to work with a number of trade ministers on the other side, Roy MacLaren, Sergio Marchi, Art Eggleton and now the new minister. I have enjoyed my time. On balance, the Department of International Trade has been a very good department. However, I am afraid we are missing the big picture today.

The minister has brought forward a bill to the House to split the department, and maybe that will be important. Only time will bear out whether that is. I am reserving my judgment in that area. However, unless we address some of the basic problems and look at the bigger picture, splitting the department will not be as big a panacea as some might have us believe. It seems to me that we are suffering from two huge problems in this area, one being here at home and the other being internationally. I will just take a moment to talk about the international component first.

A considerable amount of work still needs to be done in international trade to advance the cause of free markets in order to give Canadian producers opportunities to access markets in other trade walks such as the European Union. There is a real need to reduce subsidies that are being used still, particularly in agriculture but in other industries as well. There is a real need to address the issues of export subsidies being used and the huge tariffs themselves. I am concerned that Canada is not taking the kind of leadership on this that we need. It bothers me that because of some domestic politics at home, maybe we are not putting our shoulders behind the wheel to the extent we need to pry markets open.

It seems to me that the case has been well demonstrated over the last 50 years, the need and the benefits that come from opening up markets and trade liberalization. I think it is pretty clear to most people. We thought we were making progress at the Doha round with the European Union and others to stop the terrible use of subsidies and export subsidies to hurt our Canadian producers. Now we see some slippage again, and it concerns me. There is work to be done there.

Work has to be done at NAFTA. The dispute settlement mechanism we have does not serve us. We know that. It is not serving us in softwood lumber. I would submit that we have been harassed in that industry for a very long time, and that is not changing. We have to advance this thing further. We have to grow our relationship with the United States and Mexico to try to open up NAFTA to benefit Canadians.

As my colleague from Newmarket--Aurora, the critic for our party said, what is this all about? It has to serve people. If it does not benefit the average Canadian, there is no point in this whole exercise. It is not an academic process. The lives of real Canadians are on the line in terms of needing to benefit and increase the standard of living. More needs to be done at the NAFTA level.

Surely we can get past the idea of countervailing and dumping being used against us so badly. It is ironic in the extreme that Canada introduced these trade laws back over 100 years ago. Now they are being used against us so badly by a number of our trade competitors. That is another area on which work needs to be done.

I reserve probably my worst judgment for what is happening here at home. I blame the Liberal government for the public policy it has engaged in for the last several years, which has not allowed our industries to take advantage and become more competitive and productive. Although the minister wants to change the department, which may be a worthy goal, unless we get things right at home in terms of taxation policy and regulation, it is all for naught because we will not grow the industry. We need to get our tax levels down. We had numerous studies at the Department of International Trade when I was there. The industry says exactly the same thing, that Canada has lost its way. We are one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world.

We are not competitive on the effective corporate tax rate with our major trading partner, the United States. There can be a debate on that. The minister has talked about whether we should look at expanding our trade with the United States or expanding it with other countries around the world. Surely we have to look at the United States as the best potential. We share a common culture, a common language and practices, but we need to give our Canadian companies an opportunity to benefit and take advantage of things that put them in a more competitive position.

I would start with taxation policy. I hope to see it in the upcoming budget. I hope the Minister of International Trade is prodding the Minister of Finance to get our corporate tax rates down.

The capital gains tax is another one. With the capital cost allowance, we cannot write our taxes off quick enough to adapt to the new realities. A certain amount of product and equipment we use goes out of date faster, especially on the information technology side. If government does not listen, we are not competitive.

Another area the minister talked about briefly was the whole area of investment now in his department. We are lagging badly behind in terms of investment. Canada's global share of direct foreign investment has been slipping for years. We are not being seen as a friendly place to invest. We have to overcome that or else we will not get the kind of investment which brings in the new technology that we need.

Canadians are finding it more attractive to invest outside the country than at home. Surely that says something. It says a whole lot about our public policy. Why can the Liberal government not get it right? For years it has been told that we are slipping in terms of our competitive edge. Our productivity is something like 84% of that of the United States. It is not because our average workers are working any less. In fact, they are working harder. It has more to do with government policy that stands in the way of workers and companies being able to take advantage of an opportunity to invest and compete where they need.

Those are limiting factors. Unless we get it right and start to address them, they will continue to hurt us. The minister has aspirations for the new department. I wish him well. I hope that he is listening today and can convince his counterparts on the other side that they have to do something to enable the new investment in the new department to find the groundwork and bear the fruit. Unless we do that, I am afraid this is all for naught and splitting the department will really be nothing more than just another side to a bureaucracy in the next few years.

With that, let us look forward to the next opportunities to make some changes in NAFTA. Every five years we have a chance to sit down and review the NAFTA agreement. I know the minister was not there the last time, but we did not take advantage of that. We did not look at some of the things that were wrong with the agreement or those things that we could have done better. I was really disappointed.

I know the government wants to protect certain industries, but it does not fit with the concept of free trade. It seems to me that we have to do a better job. If something is not working, we have to work with our counterparts in the United States and Mexico to do it better so we will all benefit. We have to get a better relationship with our major trading partner and move this portfolio forward in the interest of the living standards of all Canadians.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I can answer my colleague's question directly. For a couple of years I have not been involved in that department. I would need to know a bit more about it, but I think it probably has the potential for doing a lot of good.

I know that some very good work has come out of the department and out of the standing committee, but what bothers me is that the member made the statement that we cannot do things today the way we did 20 years ago. I agree, but I have a problem with that because I see the same things being done by the government that it was doing 20 years ago.

Why is it that the government cannot afford to give a tax break to our Canadian companies? Part of the reason is that it has grown the size of government. All levels of government are involved. It is not just the federal government but all levels of government that are involved in this. Thirty years ago, the size of government in Canada was about 30% of GDP of the country. Our major trading partner and competitor, the United States, was at about 30% at the same time.

Today the size of the government versus the GDP in the United States is 29%, but Canada has grown our government to 42%. If that were all constructive, it would not be a problem, but I see a lot of waste in government. I do not buy into the fact that government can do things better than the private sector in the areas that the private sector has specialized in. I do not know why we are still in some of those areas. To some extent we have not recognized that we have a productivity problem in this country. It has been in the making for the last 30 years. I blame part of that on the size of the government itself, on the fact that we are collecting so many taxes from Canadians to pay for government.

In regard to what we can do at the World Trade Organization, the member said that Canada has been showing leadership. I would just point out that in the area of trade liberalization, as I said earlier, I think it is pretty well accepted that trade liberalization has enabled a lot of countries to really pick up their standard of living. I think it is pretty well an accepted fact that the fewer tariffs and subsidies there are around the world the better the economy works, with more flow of goods and services at a price that people can afford.

How can Canada go to the World Trade Organization talks, whether it was at the old Doha or Uruguay rounds, and say that it wants market access to be opened to Canadian products but in turn access to our markets would be denied on certain products? It is not consistent. What I have maintained is that it puts us in a position where we are marginalized, because people say we are not free traders at all, that all we want is a sweetheart deal for our own products.

Those are a couple of areas that I would point out to the member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what is being transferred:

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

(i) the International Business Development Branch,

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

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

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

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

And so on and so forth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of my colleagues, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora, the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Saint-Jean. This made me want to take a brief look back, to remind the hon. members of the restructuring the current Prime Minister engaged in when he was the finance minister.

At the time, he downsized or shut down regional offices around the country, in an effort to reduce the workforce. The workforce was never reduced in Ottawa. In fact, it even continued to increase when services were no longer provided in remote areas.

Nowadays, department upon department is being established but not being given any additional powers. Today, we are dealing with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. A little while back, we dealt with the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec. This is another example of dividing departments into two; ministerial positions are created, along with additional expenditures for limousine services and the like. During that time, the regions and the provinces are being financially strangled.

My hon. colleague has raised points on which we totally agree. Let me add one: the Canadian workforce, which is usually penalized to meet the needs of the government party, that is the Liberal Party. In this regard, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if it is really necessary to divide departments. Could divisions not simply be created within a given department, with a single minister in charge of their administration? The minister is never in the regions anyway. So, from his office, he could appoint people in the regions to provide adequate services.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question and tell him that he is absolutely right. He gave a very clear illustration. All the years the current Prime Minister was finance minister has made everyday life difficult for the unemployed and the provinces. The hon. member is right.

Almost no effort was made to maintain tight control over what was happening here in Ottawa. It is the unemployed, Quebec and the provinces who have had to carry the burden. We are well aware of the problems they are facing today.

Indeed, another department has just been created. But there was someone at the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We cannot say the current minister was a junior minister. It was, after all, the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was responsible for international trade. Now this will no longer be the case. He will no longer have this tool. He can no longer use international trade to say that if people are not respecting human rights, if they are not observing acceptable international standards, then we will reduce our trade with them.

He is right on both points. We could have very easily left the department the way it was, as Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said in 1993. This achieves all the objectives. Under this umbrella are all the necessary tools for promoting greater respect for people throughout the world.

I think that creating this separate department will make that objective more costly. I have nothing against the Minister of International Trade, who has just acquired more responsibilities, but the fact remains that this is probably a more expensive approach. An even bigger concern is that there will no longer be any coordination between the two departments. International trade will no longer be used as an important instrument in foreign policy. Now the two departments will be separate. They will be two different entities.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for making such a clear presentation. He clearly demonstrated the futility of this exercise, since everything is already firmly in place. As far as I am concerned, I think the whole thing is turning into a circus.

The Prime Minister announced a review of our foreign policy. As we know, he was not pleased with what his public servants had given him. Therefore, he asked a professor from Oxford University to conduct this review of Canada's foreign policy. Based on what we know, on what the media are telling us, it seems that our foreign policy will be refocused on the community, on citizens.

Here is my first question: does the hon. member not think that it would have been better to wait for the findings of that study on foreign policy and for the work of that expert, before splitting the department in two?

Second, Canada has endorsed the millennium development objectives proposed by the UN. One of these objectives is to pursue the implementation of a trade system that is based on a commitment to good governance, to development and to fighting poverty, both at the national and international levels. This is one of the objectives that Canada supported.

I want to ask the hon. member how Canada will meet this objective, now that it has two committees, two departments that are totally different and that may possibly no longer talk to each other?

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

Madam Speaker, on the first question, the problem that I see in foreign affairs, national defence or international trade policies is that everything is done in a vacuum. I have been saying for years now that the taxpayers are the ones who are paying for the MPs' and the ministers' salaries and for the new policies adopted by the different governments. When will we finally hold extensive public consultations to ask people what kind of foreign affairs policy they want to see adopted?

If a commission mandated to do such a study were to come to Quebec, people would say that International Trade should be kept under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs for the reasons I have stated. I am not just talking through my hat. The Bloc Québécois has always made a point of listening to the people of Quebec. We say this because we believe it is what all Quebeckers think. However, it is important to consult with them and to make sure that the whole process is not taking place in a vacuum amongst senior public servants and academics, with the public then presented with new policies on which it will not have a say.

With respect to the importance of international treaties, the one on international poverty for example, my colleague is absolutely right. We had a senior Minister of Foreign Affairs who had public servants working under him. Now he will simple announce in an international forum that he cannot say anything about complying with international standards in trade and that from now on his colleague from Willowdale will be responsible for that. This indeed creates a problem. This is one of the main reasons why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill as presently worded.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member of Saint-Jean's speech with great interest. I thought that the parallel that he drew was interesting. Indeed, the creation of a second department would mean further investments in limousines, instead of real treatment of the needs of the real people across this country, with respect to employment insurance, among other things.

For the last 15 years, we have been living under a free trade system. I would like to have the opinion of my colleague from Saint-Jean on the quality of jobs that were created during that period. Does he think that it is better than 15 years ago?

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

Madam Speaker, concerning the issue of international trade liberalization, whether it is free trade or the whole issue of WTO, my colleagues have said it many times and I will repeat it: we will have to give it a human face. It no longer makes sense for the great billionaires of the world to have such a powerful influence on governments and to continue to get rich, to the detriment of the working class and the poor. We must reflect seriously on this. Unfortunately, it seems that here, in this House, in this kind of forum, international trade and the billionaires' club come first.

I know about the New Democratic Party's positions, which are very similar to those of the Bloc Québécois. We are here to defend public interest and we will continue to do so. Given the overall international context of negotiations, this bill before us today does not serve public interest or the people in our ridings.

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

Madam Speaker, since the time provided for consideration of this bill is almost up, I will make only part of my remarks today. I should also mention that I will share my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. When we again consider this bill at some other time, I will finish my remarks, and my colleague for Sackville—Eastern Shore will make his speech.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Does the member have consent to split his time?