Debates of Feb. 9th, 2005

Department of International Trade Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as planned and agreed to by the leaders of the parties in the House, I will take the few minutes that were granted to the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to continue my presentation, which was interrupted by adjournment on Monday.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-31 and continue the intervention that I started on Monday. In giving a bit of the history around the bill at that time, I mentioned the fact that in 1982 Canada's Trade Commissioner Service was integrated into what was then called the Department of External Affairs. It took about 15 years for that integration to actually be effective.

In the mid-1990s that integration succeeded after both Conservative and Liberal administrations had some difficulty with the integration. That is why we were surprised when we saw Bill C-31 being presented. After integration having finally succeeded after a 15 year period, we are now wrenching apart those two ministries.

I mentioned at the time that a number of comments, questions and concerns had been raised in the community by people who understand vividly the importance of having an integration of international trade and other aspects of foreign affairs.

I would like to quote for the record from a number of interventions that have taken place and thus make sure that we as parliamentarians are all aware of legitimate concerns that have been raised about the bill and about the direction in which the government is going.

Previous speakers, as I did in my previous intervention in the House, have underlined the fact that we are now undergoing a review of the very structure of foreign affairs in this government. At the same time that we are undergoing this review, the government has already decided to wrench apart the two ministries and make one international trade and the other foreign affairs. It makes no sense that while the review is going on these two important functions would be wrenched apart. As previous speakers have mentioned, it also makes no sense to have international trade separated from important issues such as human rights, properly the focus of foreign affairs.

I want to quote what Bill Clarke, former ambassador to the Baltic Republics and Brazil said about this in Diplomat and International Canada in the January-February 2005 issue. As the federal government celebrated the one year anniversary of the announcement that the portfolios of foreign affairs and international trade would be split and henceforth go in two different directions, Bill Clarke said that “no one seems to know who made the decision--nor do they know why”. He said, “Many observers are wondering why”, adding that it is “questionable whether a good, open discussion was held”.

Bill Clarke is one of the most distinguished diplomats in the Canadian diplomatic corps. He raises very legitimate concerns about the direction in which the government was going, about the why of splitting these two ministries in half, and about whether or not there were any legitimate and appropriate consultations. He raises very legitimate concerns about this entire process.

It is important to quote for the record remarks that were made by the president of the Retired Heads of Mission Association, a group of distinguished ex-diplomats, people who have been heads of missions and understand the function of foreign affairs and the function of international trade.

The association is composed of about 270 former Canadian ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general. They are deeply concerned about the future of the Canadian foreign service. In the letter of December 8 that I will be quoting from, which was sent to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the association's distinguished former ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general said the following:

Recently, we have had to come reluctantly to the conclusion that our Foreign Service is being gradually dismantled. One clear manifestation of this happening is the recent decision to split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). As former diplomats and officials of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Commerce, Immigration and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), our members have personally experienced difficulties of integrating coherently these two crucial sectors of Canada's foreign policy. Thus, we believe that the decision to partition DFAIT is unfortunate and a step backwards.

They go on to mention other concerns about the foreign service and they say that unless these developments are reversed Canada will lose an essential tool of government. At the end of the letter, the Retired Heads of Mission Association, or RHOMA, requests permission to present its concerns and recommendations to members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade at the earliest opportunity.

Therefore, we can see that concerns have been raised very widely about this particular approach, with people asking why the decision on splitting up these two ministries was made at this time when an ongoing review of foreign affairs is taking place. Why is it happening without broad consultation with people who understand the issue, who understand the essential linkage and integration between international trade and foreign policy?

The Retired Heads of Mission Association also mentioned in a previous letter that the separation of international trade from foreign affairs is another example of a measure which can only weaken the foreign service and make its management more incoherent.

An observer would wonder why the government is proceeding at this time. As previously quoted and as speakers have mentioned, it does not make sense at this time to proceed with this particular measure. To many observers who understand the situation, it does not make sense that this division, separation or partition is taking place between these two functions.

I think it is very important to underline that there is an incoherence, both when it comes to foreign policy and even more so when it comes to the direction that international trade has taken. We saw just this very morning some of the comments made by the Minister of International Trade.

I will read just brief excerpts of some of the headlines from newspapers across the country. From The Telegram in St. John's, Newfoundland: “No tears; Liberals won't complain if business sends more Canadian jobs overseas”. From the Windsor Star : “Job export is good: Minister”. From the Edmonton Sun : “Job losses to offshore labour fine: trade minister”.

Across the country, including such areas as here in Ottawa where the headline read “Grits Urge Biz to Offshore Jobs”, we have seen Canadians waking up to the fact that the international trade minister, and in fact the international trade component of our national government, is now encouraging businesses to do this. The Minister of International Trade was quoted as saying that “businesses should feel free to send work offshore to wherever it can be done most cheaply, to help boost their bottom lines”.

We have from the Minister of International Trade very clear direction that it is time to off-load jobs, that it is open season on Canadian workers and that jobs can be exported offshore. Just last week in the House, we saw the member for Timmins—James Bay raise the crucial question of the offshore manufacturing of our proudest national symbol, our Canadian flag lapel pins, which were actually being made offshore, thus off-loading Canadian jobs.

We are very proud that the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay raised that issue because this is increasingly the case. We have an international trade minister who is encouraging businesses to send jobs elsewhere. We have seen, as we did yesterday, debates in the House about the textile and clothing industry where there was a loss of 40,000 jobs. With softwood, we saw the loss of 20,000 jobs. In industry after industry we are seeing good jobs being exported, and as the Statistics Canada report from a couple of weeks ago clearly mentioned, the jobs replacing them are becoming more and more temporary or part time without pension benefits. For newer workers, those jobs are paying less and less in wages.

In this bizarre and inappropriate attempt to split up these two ministries, in this bizarre and inappropriate attempt of the trade minister to tell businesses to send their work offshore, to export those jobs and in this incoherence, this bizarre indecision and dithering of the government perhaps a pattern emerges. That pattern is: what is irresponsible is what is put forward; what is incoherent becomes government policy. It does not make sense for the main streets across the country who after 12 years of living with a Liberal government have more debt per individual family and less on their paycheque. In real terms, for most Canadian workers, their salary has slipped 60¢ an hour over the past 10 years. There are fewer social programs and fewer hospitals.

For that reason, this incoherence, this inappropriate decision and proposal will meet with opposition from this caucus. We will be voting against the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster provided us with the pros and cons as well as observations by other people outside Parliament. As his party's critic, would he tell me—I did not understand since it was not clear—whether he is for or against splitting these two departments and why. I want this to be clear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. It was very nice of her. The matter is very clear to us. This division does not make any sense because foreign policy and the overall administration of foreign affairs are currently being reviewed. That does not make sense.

Also, since there has been no consultation with those more familiar with the community, it is clear that we are opposed.

In the area of international trade, the minister says that it is great, that it is fun, that it is appropriate to create jobs outside Canada. Clearly, there is a lack of consistency on the part of this government in its international trade policies and in its administration per se. We have seen this in several areas, including at the Treasury Board.

There are regulations which are supposed to prevent the squandering of public money. Still, it is allowed to go on, and we have cited several instances.

While the government ran a $9 billion surplus, the number of children living in poverty and of homeless families in Canada still grew. Government policies lack consistency. Bill C-31 provides another example of the government's inability to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

As critic for my party, I oppose this bill, as does the NDP caucus. Debating this bill while foreign affairs is undergoing a review makes no sense. It also makes no sense for the minister to say that it is good to create international trade jobs outside Canada. It is very clear that there is a problem there, and it has to be resolved.

For all these reasons, we are opposed to the bill.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated the member's speech because it is along the same lines as the Bloc Québécois's position. I would like to hear his impressions of the contribution potential of the NGOs as far as international cooperation and solidarity are concerned, after this administrative split. We already have considerable difficulties having our social and environmental concerns, or those relating to democracy, heard with the present structure.

With a department for foreign affairs and another for international trade, does he think that NGOs would have better access to the minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Joliette for his question. There is a definite problem with the present structure. In my opinion, however, things would be even worse if changes were made or these two departments were divided, which is precisely what the bill is about.

The problem is that NGOs do not seem to get any hearing from the government, even if they do ask for help, and that is a pity. WIth a minority government, however, there is more chance of getting our opinions across, but the reality is that when human rights and the environment are on the agenda, not only in Canada but elsewhere, both international trade and foreign policy are involved.

We cannot have two different departments going in two different directions. WIth such a division, it would be even harder for the NGOs to make themselves heard.

Issues relating to human rights, the environment and social development involve aspects that are extremely important and ought to be looked at as a whole as far as foreign policy is concerned.

What is more, and this is something that ought to make all members here and all Canadians feel ashamed: yesterday 29,000 children died from disease, starvation and the lack of safe drinking water. Today, another 29,000 will die, as will that same number again tomorrow. This is a huge problem, and Canadians have a duty to set things in motion to improve this situation.

I believe that it will be harder to do this if there are two different departments going into two different directions.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be seen as taking exception to my hon. colleague, but I have to raise a question about his belief that the bill signifies a lack of coherence in government policy. I would suggest that it shows an extreme sense of coherence. The one thing I have seen from the government is it knows exactly where it is going in terms of international trade. It knows exactly where it is going with human rights.

Just last week we realized that with the Canadian flag. It is the symbol in which the government wraps itself every time members of the honourable opposition, mostly from the west, stand up to question the corruption. We understand now that the government sees the flag as though it were a symbol from the wallymart. If it can do it cheaper anywhere else, if it can bring in the cheapest deal, that is good for its so-called consumers.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

That was outsourcing. We did not know that was going to happen.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The hon. member said they did not know that would happen. I was under the impression that the Liberals were very aware that it happened. A number of Liberals have talked to me about the fact that they have been outsourcing numerous symbols of Canada because they can do it cheaper. This brings me to the fundamental question I would like to ask.

Earlier this fall, we asked the government for assurances that when it allowed the sale of Noranda and Falconbridge to go ahead to the Chinese government, it would have a plan to ensure that certain fundamental benchmarks were addressed in terms of human rights and that certain fundamental benchmarks were in place to protect the copper mining communities, of which my region is one. Across Canada we have communities that are dependent on these resources. We could not get a straight answer from the government.

It is becoming very clear to me now that if we divide human rights into one department and trade into another department, it becomes very impossible for us to get a straight answer from the government. It makes it easier for the government to continue to say that it loves human rights, children, little dogs and ice cream, but it cannot do anything about it.

Does the hon. member think this is a lack of coherence or is it part of a much larger industrial strategy being pursued by the government, which is to take as many Canadian jobs as it can and outsource them to El Salvador, China,or wherever it can find the bottom of the barrel?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins--James Bay is absolutely right. There is a direction and that direction is south and offshore. The direction is loss of jobs. The direction is not respecting human rights and not pushing or having any sort of evaluation of foreign purchase of Canadian companies. We have seen 11,000 companies in Canada absorbed over the past 15 years, and they have been absorbed without any debate, without any sort of verification of whether it is in the interest of Canadians.

This is the sellout of Canada. He is absolutely right. There seems to be a direction, the selling out of jobs, the selling out of our resources, the selling out of our companies, and this has to stop. We will continue to raise these issues in the House.

[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 Calgary Centre-North, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Aerospace Industry; the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, Citizenship and Immigration.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Emerging Markets)]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to stand here today and defend the bill. I am pleased to rise and support Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade at second reading.

I proudly support the Prime Minister's decision to create International Trade Canada. Therefore, I support with enthusiasm the legislation introduced in December by the Minister of International Trade to formally establish the department in Canadian law.

This will enable Canada to succeed in our global economy. Canada's economic well-being is dependent upon this external sector. One in four jobs is connected in some way to international trade, and the export of goods and services is equivalent to 38% of our GDP in our economy.

Canada's innovative capacity and its productivity is driven by our capacity, not only to open new markets and keep them open, but to access capital, technology and skills on the global platform. Investment flows are a critical element of our efforts in this respect.

The very nature of international commerce has shifted radically. Transactions occur in light speed. Business plans and business deals are developed less and less by and between single firms, and more and more through rapidly through partnerships, alliances and networks.

Production is organized through global supply chains, with research, manufacturing and distribution spread across many jurisdictions. Canada is part of this environment. Our task is challenging. Canadians are confronted with a far more complex business environment, one of opportunity, but a great deal of change and vulnerability as well.

The question is how does government integrate policies and programs to help the business sector succeed in this environment? How do we sustain the kind of success that grows our economy at home and that complements and reinforces our more specific objectives in sustaining the social progress and in strengthening the development in these regions?

One important, indeed critical dimension of this setting is the emergence of newly powerful economies. Until recently, many of these economic powers were developing countries at the margins of industrialization. Now they are growing at high rates year after year.

We often speak of these newly powerful economies in terms of China, India and Brazil. Clearly, these economies are formidable players in global growth, trade and finance. They are no longer simply sources of low cost labour and sites for the assembly of low value added goods. They are centres of growing industrial sophistication and a force in the global knowledge and the service economy.

These economies typically feature rapid urbanization and technological change, enormous energy and infrastructure pressures and rising middle classes with ever greater purchasing power. Together these economies, with their global reach, increasingly frame the competitive challenge here at home. They also raise the scope of opportunity for Canadians, the potential to create wealth for our own and for our future generations. We are a trading nation.

China alone has grown an average of 9% a year for the last decade and is already the world's fourth largest trader and the second largest investment destination. China, India and Brazil have also become significant forces in international institutions.

They are not alone. Other regions, such as central and eastern Europe, southeast Asia and South America, are becoming more powerful. Countries such as those I recently visited in the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula, with the hon. member for Calgary East, are advancing rapidly and presenting both Canada and our competitors with remarkable opportunities in oil and gas technology and services, in engineering and construction and in education.

Others, such as Korea and Mexico, while hardly what we would call emerging markets, are deeply integrated within regions of expanding opportunity which success reflects a regional reality.

I believe our businesses can succeed and they have been succeeding. However, whether it is in the high tech field, in the manufacturing sector or in the service industries, or whether it is in energy and resources or in agriculture and fisheries, Canadians must operate in a complex global setting. This environment demands hard work and much homework.

It requires government to assemble a full range of trade promotion and intelligence, policy and investment tools, each tailored to specific issues capable of being adapted and applied to specific business challenges and organized for rapid deployment.

It will require resources. Government resources must be adequate to meet the challenge of intense international competition. In our view, they are best deployed at the front line in those markets or regions that are driving global economic growth. There is a lot of competition out there for that global economic growth. If we do not step up to the plate, somebody else will.

Success in the 21st century global economy requires integrated approaches, with solutions spanning from financial arrangements, to technology partnering and skills transfer, to an ability to source inputs at competitive prices. It challenges businesses above all, but it also challenges we as a government to offer services and policy support that adds value to these dynamic environments. We cannot be successful in this new setting by just selling things from one country to another. It is not that simple.

Over the years, we have acquired a world class trade commissioner service, bringing many skills and an astounding range of business expertise and country expertise to the table. We are developing state-of-the-art client service tools, both electronically and person-to-person.

In the future, as ever more complex business partnerships emerge, we will be developing capacity to advise on sources of the best possible legal and business advice. Intelligence, as I suggested, is critical.

The effort business makes, and we support, requires real time, accurate market intelligence covering not only export sales leads but on potential investment and knowledge of partners. We have seen this on our recent trip to China, with over 280 businesses and institutions, how those tools come into effect.

For emerging markets with this blend of opportunity and risk, we need a well-crafted and targeted set of promotional and policy instruments. With investment so critical to positioning, we need agreements to protect our investment abroad. We need to be able to offer the best advice possible in ensuring intellectual property is safeguarded. We need to overcome regulatory constraints that impair our ability to compete effectively in trade or investment.

In some markets, our efforts to tap expanded travel and tourism will benefit from expanded air service accords and perhaps by looking at visa rules and procedures, and by working with all levels of government on issues of critical infrastructure. It is a multi-faceted approach from all different departments.

It is this diversity of requirements that we face and the integrated solutions that businesses need that makes this new Department of International Trade so valuable in present times.

We now have a department that would handle not only trade policy and trade promotion, but also investment, science and technology and integrated service delivery to Canadian businesses through regional offices across this country.

Beyond trade disputes and trade negotiations, and beyond trade promotion, the new department would incorporate a vigorous investment function by expanding marketing of Canada abroad and reinforcing the capacity of communities in Canada to attract and retain investment.

In addition the department will complement efforts at home to build a 21st century economy and to act on the international dimension of innovation. It will work to build knowledge partnerships that work to build productivity at home while showcasing Canadian excellence abroad.

These regional offices will ensure opportunities are learned about and expertise is brought to bear in communities across this country. When we travelled on our last couple of missions, we had companies and institutions from every province.

Moreover, through the legislation, we would be in a position to lead and coordinate the entire federal government in matters of international commerce. We would speak for Canada internationally on all trade matters and we would work to build a coherent, whole Canada approach through international commerce engaging all levels of government, the business community and other stakeholders outside both government and business.

Particularly in reference to emerging markets, I would note that one of our unique Canadian advantages is the cross-cultural skills of our communities right across this country.

Contrary to the fears of some, the legislation neither precludes nor impairs coordinated approaches in the international sphere. During my recent trip to the Middle East, I saw exceptionally talented and dedicated people from all programs at our embassies in the region. They are all working well together for a common purpose. We saw them in Qatar and in the United Arab Emirates. We saw them in Yemen and we also saw them in Syria, and other posts that we travelled to.

In my view, the new department is now uniquely positioned to work closely, not only with other international departments, but also, with gathering credibility, with our economic policy departments. This is not something new. This is happening in other countries. France and other European countries have separated their trade from foreign affairs. The United States is in its own silo; it does its own thing. It has a direct link to the White House. That is how important trade is for trading countries.

In this way the legislation would offer the Government of Canada and the people of Canada a chance to construct a valuable bridge between the pursuit of our goals at home and the opportunities beyond our borders. Domestic prosperity, from the perspective of the fisherman in P.E.I., the farmer out west, a manufacturing or engineering firm or a high tech startup, is reliant on international trade and investment, both to sustain and to grow in the future. When we were in China, we saw many deals signed. We even saw the Wheat Board sign a deal to sell grains to China.

I urge all hon. members in the House on all sides to support Bill C-31, and ensure it receives speedy passage.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have travelled with the parliamentary secretary on two trade missions and what he just said was fine. I do not think that there is any doubt about what he just said about the importance of international trade, what has happened, and how Canadian businesses are out there engaging with the new realities of international trade and emerging markets.

However, today his subject is Bill C-31 and he completely missed the point. He completely ignored the questions that have been raised in the House. Why is there a need to break up these two departments, the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade? He did not answer this question.

Was there a deeper analysis done to determine if it would be in the longer term interest of Canada if this department was by itself? He did not answer that.

When his Prime Minister came into power, he said there would be a foreign policy review. How come a decision was made before this foreign policy came about?

These are the questions and everybody is wondering if he will now leave his nice, flowery words, and get on with the business and answer these questions.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary East and compliment him on his scarf. He makes a great choice in clothing and it is good to see in the House.

The hon. member is a well travelled person. He has seen it in other countries and knows the competition we have. Whether it is competition from Australia or France, when we are dealing with these emerging markets or others, we need our trade department to stand on its own. We need to give it the wings to fly. That does not mean that we cannot have a whole government approach, where we work with CIDA, Foreign Affairs, and maybe with National Defence, on how we deal with regions. We can work in silos, but we can work together.

This century is going to be a lot different than the last one. China is emerging and we have to adapt to it. The United States will be a main player for our trade. With these emerging markets and global trends, we must be prepared as a government. We must be able to work with the business community to create policies and make things happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, no one can object to the fact that Canadian firms can and must become more competitive on the world market. However, there are questions to be asked on another aspect: we will be more competitive, but at what price?

A decade ago, a number of our Canadian firms set up in Mexico. With the approval of the Mexican government, they created what are called the maquiladoras. I believe there are also some in the Yucatan. Maquiladoras are free economic zones—areas where businesses can locate without paying duties or income taxes. On the premise that they get people working, governments leave them alone to do business. The maquiladoras we are familiar with are primarily around Ciudad Juarez on the Mexico-Texas border.

The Mexican maquiladoras now employ over 2 million workers. These people come from all over northern Mexico, Central America and South America. They work for $1 or $2 a day. There are Canadian firms—I know; I have seen them; I took pictures of them—located there, which have received assistance from the Government of Canada. At present the two departments, international trade and foreign affairs, are together. People are already being exploited without any attention being paid. Their working conditions are being negotiated downwards.

What is more, the Canadian government has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It has not ratified the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right. It has not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. It has not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights.

What will happen, then, in a world where international trade is on one side and human rights on the other? I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to me how we are promoting the best interests of human beings through competition.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a new challenge this century when it comes to trade and how our companies will adapt to it.

We bring up the issue of human rights with other governments when we attend bilateral meetings.

However we have to look at how our companies will adapt and how they will do in other regions. I used Husky Equipment as an example. Its head office is in Ontario and it has four plants worldwide. We visited its plant in Shanghai, which is one of the most modern factories. The company treats its employees properly and has been example for the whole region on how to treat workers and how to give them benefits.

We were also in Yemen where we visited Nexen, a company also located in the hon. member's riding of Calgary East. This company is making money and it is also impressing upon these countries workers' rights. It is being a good corporate citizen.

We cannot sit here and hope the world will be a better place. We have to get out there and do business. We can also show foreign countries the practices we have here in Canada, whether it is with respect to human rights, workers' rights or working with the community.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member's comments and I am still trying to find my way through the buzz words.

The issue here is not trade. The issue here is assuring Canadians that the government has a bottom line when it comes to fundamental issues, and that this is not a race to the bottom. Helping Canadian companies overseas is not the issue and is not what we are talking about here.

When a company is good in business it brands itself. That is a fundamental in business. We just need to look at Burger King. When it was a small company it came up with the phrase “Home of the Whopper”. I know a lot of people think that is the phrase of the Liberal Party, but it is actually the trademark of Burger King.

When we had the Canadian lapel pins that were branded “made in China”, the Liberals were perfectly proud of that until somebody found out and it then became a sense of embarrassment.

I would like to ask the hon. member a simple question which we asked earlier in the House but did not get any answer to. Air Canada, which is a symbol of this country, is a private company that has survived on millions of dollars worth of grants. It has just shut down jobs in Canada for maintenance and mechanical work and has shipped those jobs down south to El Salvador. From my history lessons in school, El Salvador was the land of death squads where Jesuits were murdered at the university. It has an horrific human rights record.

If we are willing to brand ourselves and be proud of our trade, how would the hon. members feel about Air Canada having a slogan stating “Air Canada, maintained and brought to you by the sweat shops of El Salvador?” Is that what we are talking about?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is stretching it a bit. It is a known fact that Canada has the best job record in the western world.

Yes, we do have communities that are going through challenges. His community is doing well with this global economy. The resource industry is doing well. It is not going to be easy because there will be ups and downs but we have to adjust to this new economy.

How is that going to happen? Canada is a trading nation. One in four jobs here relies on trade. We have to do business with the rest of the world. Yes, we do have to watch human rights and we do have to watch the deals we make, but at the end of the day the member's riding will benefit from this global economy. His riding will benefit from the division of this department and be more proactive in regions where his products will be sold worldwide.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-31, which would create a department called International Trade Canada.

I am the critic for my party for emerging markets. The parliamentary secretary just gave an eloquent speech on how emerging markets are important for Canada. I have absolutely no bone to pick on why emerging markets are important for Canada. As he said, Canada is a trading nation. Over 40% of our GDP is based on trade. Over 80% of our trade is with our southern neighbours but we are looking at new and emerging markets offering us opportunities that we need to grab.

However what we are talking about is Bill C-31, a bill that would divide one department into two departments. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would be split into two departments. On that aspect we do have some concerns.

My colleague, the member for Newmarket--Aurora, our trade critic for the Conservative Party, spoke very eloquently to this bill some time back and expressed the concerns the Conservative Party has with this approach.

Being the trade critic involved here for a couple of years and being on the foreign affairs committee, let me go back and give my observations.

Canada's international relationships are run by two departments: the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, which takes care of the aid aspect; and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was joined together by the former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau because he thought there would be a cohesive policy from Canada that would take Canadian strategic interests into account when dealing with foreign issues, which at that given time was thought to be the right approach to take.

However I now know for a fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs was following the same thinking and the same approach in reference to CIDA and it wanted to take over CIDA. From the time when I was an international trade and development critic I know the mandarins in Foreign Affairs felt that if CIDA were brought under their umbrella they could again move into a more cohesive approach dealing with foreign aid, human rights issues and all these things, and make policies in Foreign Affairs that would reflect Canadian values.

However over a period of time the government resisted CIDA going under this umbrella for the simple reason that it was using CIDA as a department which it could “buy influence” overseas in countries where it went to work for Canada, and most important, we have records showing that CIDA was used as an agency that rewarded Liberal businesses very well.

I have been around the world and I have seen CIDA. CIDA officials are different from Foreign Affairs officials and trade officials. CIDA officials do not coordinate their efforts with others. CIDA marches to its own tune as does Foreign Affairs and yet we say that we have a cohesive strategy and that we work together for the interests of Canada. That is not true.

Let us take the example of China. CIDA is still today giving foreign aid to China when the parliamentary secretary just stood up in the House and said how good China was doing, 8% annually. If China is doing so well, why is CIDA giving it money? It did the same thing for India.

No, there is no cohesive policy out there when it comes to international relations. We now have the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. What we are wondering is why and how the Prime Minister of Canada decided that he needed to break these two departments and make them separate. We do not know. Nobody knows. He just decided to do it, despite the fact that this was a functioning department. What is the benefit? What is the cost analysis? Has anyone done it?

Where does CIDA fit into this picture? We now have CIDA and the new departments of trade and foreign affairs. How will they coordinate one policy for foreign affairs? The Prime Minister said there would be a foreign policy review. One would think that the government would do a foreign policy review first before coming to this kind of a conclusion, but, no, that did not take place.

We do not know whether the foreign policy review will come or what will happen. Decisions have been made without, what we think, is a proper analysis of whether it is in the best interest of Canada's foreign policy.

We in the Conservative Party believe we should send this bill to the foreign affairs committee where it can be studied properly and recommendations can be made as to whether this is the right approach in which to go in the long term interests of Canada. That should be a logical, common sense decision but it seems to be lost on the other side.

We have the parliamentary secretary making speeches about emerging markets but what we are talking about is whether this the right approach to take.

I envision going overseas where we have these three officers, the ambassador from foreign affairs, the CIDA individual and the trade individual, sitting in separate rooms and going about their separate turf wars. Meanwhile, where would Canada's foreign policy be on the issues of interest to Canadians?

What will happen? Will we be coming back here and saying that we made a mistake and that we should bring it back? This is a very important decision and it is not one to be taken lightly.

We want to know whether this is the right approach to take. We do not know and therefore we will not be supporting the bill. We want the bill to go to the foreign affairs committee where it can do a thorough analysis of what this is all about.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments and words about the need to study this proposition from the government.

I wonder if, as part of that analysis, the member would consider the factor of acquisitions in Canada and the screen that we obviously need to put acquisitions through with respect to human rights in these emerging markets that he mentions.

Should we have some sort of forum in Canada so that when a country like China, or any of the other countries on the list of not the best representatives of international policy and diplomacy, tries to acquire Canadian companies, of which 11,000 have been acquired over the last number of years, we know its record on human rights? In this case, when we have a government buying one of our greatest mining companies, should human rights not be a factor in the decision around the acquisition of that company?

Under the Liberal government's advisement there clearly is no way to deny an acquisition of a Canadian firm. The door is simply open and the countries can pick and choose. The government clearly accepts every application that comes through. There have been no rejections in 11,000. Would human rights be one of the criteria that the hon. member would encourage to help these emerging markets into the new century?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to advise you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Macleod.

The hon. member's question is precisely what I was talking about and why I raised the question about whether this was the right approach to take.

Human rights is one of those values that Canadians want to see in our foreign policy. Human rights is a very strong value that Canadians are looking for in our foreign policy. That will only come if we have a concentrated policy.

What we could have now, if the government breaks up these departments, is the new department of international trade deciding that trade is all together separate from human rights. It may go in the direction of only following trade and saying that trade and human rights are not linked.

This is a Canadian value and Canadians are concerned about human rights. Canadians would like human rights to be up in the forefront as does my party.

To answer the member's question, human rights is one of our concerns as well, which is why we are saying that we will not support the bill until it goes to the committee where these issues can be brought forward and addressed, and where we can hear what departmental officials and the government have to says about this.

What we have right now is the government's unilateral policy out there. It has decided this is the way it is going to go without any other questions being answered as were asked by the hon. member.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the comments made by the member for Skeena on that issue, but first I will make a comment before I ask a question.

We have been around this honourable House for well over a decade. We know very well that companies in other countries have come to Canada to invest, acquire, merge, or whatever. We know very well that there are provisions to make sure that investment does not jeopardize, impede or hurt us here in Canada. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we live in a global economy and these things happen.

My hon. colleague spoke so eloquently on this issue. There are trouble spots in some countries with child labour, labour laws being abused, human rights abuses and whatnot. Being aware from what we know and read that something like that exists in particular countries, is it wise to stay away, avoid the issue and turn a blind eye, or does it make sense that we do the best we can to engage with the countries? Knowing the wonderful society we have built here, we can build on that by being there and showing others that there is a better way to perform in society.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the word is “engaged”. Yes, we should engage. We cannot isolate them. We are pushing up the human rights abuses from what we see when we isolate countries. I agree with him that we should engage the countries. The issue is how to do it.

What is the most effective way to engage the countries when talking about child labour and all those other issues? The best way from my perspective is to tell them that if they do not change their laws, if they do not meet the ILO requirements and if they do not meet the international treaties that have been signed, then we will have a concern about dealing with them. We cannot just stick our heads in the sand and think nothing is going on around the world. I agree with the member, but which is the right way to engage the countries to get the best results?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Calgary East is very passionate about this issue, as are many of us.

We need to recognize the concerns that we have with the bill. I will be putting my support behind the bill simply because we need some answers and the only way we appear to get answers from the government is by asking witnesses to appear before our committees. We have some tremendously important questions that need answers.

The fundamental question in my mind is why we moved forward to divide the department and then decided we were going to finally have an international policy review. What is the policy review going to tell us? What if it tells us that we should not have divided the department, that it is not for the good of the country to have done this?

I have a rather long history of working with the trade department. I made some good friends in that department. In my former life I represented agrifood exporters and producers across the country. I was president of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance which represents 90% of the country's agrifood exports, not just products from the farm but products that have had value added to them. Canada is an export dependent country. We can never forget that. It is fundamental to our future and the businesses that fuel our economy.

I have worked with the trade department and also with foreign affairs. In my past life I have had a very good working relationship with the people in the trade department and the people in foreign affairs. I sense some very grave concerns within the Pearson building. I have spoken with good people who work hard for this country. They have been doing dual duty. They have been working for trade and foreign affairs. There are also those who have been working for CIDA. They all fit under this umbrella group. Later we will get into the funding questions.

Those people are very frustrated with the situation. They too are asking, “Who made this decision? Why were we, as participants in this, not asked our opinion?” How many Canadian businesses were actually consulted on this decision before it was made? Was it simply made, as we have heard on many occasions, to create another ministry? That is the question I would like to ask the ministers when they appear before the standing committee. If we do not approve the bill in principle and move it forward to the committee stage, we may never hear those answers.

I would like to see something in writing from the businesses that might have actually requested this. I would suggest there probably are not too many businesses that requested this to happen.

In recent months I have been in consulates in a number of different places: Hong Kong; Seoul, South Korea; Tokyo; Brazil; and Santiago, Chile. I heard the same concerns from the good people in the dual roles in these consulates. They did not know if they had a future and did not know what that future might be. They were concerned about the role they were going to be able to play.

Those people have worked supporting trade and foreign affairs and indeed they have roles within CIDA. They have worked well. It was very obvious they were concerned about their futures. I would be most interested when this bill gets to committee stage to bring some of those people to committee, provided they have whistleblower protection so they can actually make some serious comments about their futures and how their departments have worked in the past.

That is not to say this may not be a good thing for business, but let us sit down and look at it. Let us sit down and question all of the people who are involved. Let us find out the fundamental reason that this is being done.

In 1982 when the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was formed, industry was part of it. We decided at that time to take industry out of it. In the back of my mind I am still questioning whether or not that was a good thing, because industry still is a big part of trade. We have too many departments and, pardon me for suggesting this, maybe we have too many ministries too. We wonder about all of the different ministers travelling around the world making conflicting statements that do not seem to put forward the agenda that is needed to make this country work better.

Regarding the splitting of the department, it would be very interesting to see the international policy review, if in fact we ever do see it. I am becoming skeptical as to whether we will actually see this in my lifetime, or shall I say in my career here in the House. I believe it was promised in November and there does not seem to be too much indication that it will be coming anytime soon. In fact we are hearing that it has been delayed once more.

The suggestion is that this is a housekeeping bill. It is far beyond a housekeeping bill. It is very critical that this type of discussion take place. It is critical for the future of businesses in this country. I also want to find out if it is simply a bill to divide the two departments to create more jobs for Liberals. I want to find out why there has not been the public consultation that is needed to determine whether or not this is the right way to go. We have some very serious questions and huge concerns about this.

We have other concerns not only about CIDA's role, but also about CIDA's funding. We are very concerned about the reaction to the tsunami. Hopefully this will be addressed in the international policy review process. Certainly we needed to support those people in that disaster as strongly as we could, but we are still uncertain where that money is coming from. Is it coming from the Department of National Defence? Is there money coming from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade through CIDA that is going back to replenish the funds that we have taken out of defence? We have some very serious questions along those lines.

My hon. colleague on the other side of the House, my opponent, spoke about some of the contracts that were negotiated. There is one which I would like to mention once again. He and I have had this discussion. He was very excited about the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board had signed a contract during the last visit to China.

I would remind the hon. member that my terminology of a contract is there has to be a price and a delivery period involved. My understanding is that is not the case. It is more like a memorandum of understanding. The most exciting news I could deliver to my constituents is that we have sold some wheat. Unfortunately, I cannot tell them that at this time.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to condemn this totally aberrant measure that is found in Bill C-31 and in Bill C-32. These two bills must, of course, be examined together.

This is an aberrant measure, because it lacks transparency. In fact, it was undertaken in an undemocratic fashion and in secret. Moreover, it is an attempt to present parliamentarians with a fait accompli, that is the splitting of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two entities, namely Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.

It is also retrograde legislation in every respect, and I will get back to this later on. It is totally illogical. Indeed, it will be harmful to Canada's political and economic interests and, consequently, to Quebec's political and economic interests.

Therefore, hon. members will realize that, faced with a bill or a measure that is not transparent, undemocratic, illogical, retrograde and harmful, the Bloc Québécois will assume its responsibilities and vote against Bill C-31 and Bill C-32.

I will begin with the lack of transparency. On December 12, 2003, the governor in council quietly—if not secretly—issued an order pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. That order split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two entities, as I mentioned earlier, namely Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.

Of course, the government did not draw attention to this decision. In fact, the process to split the department into two entities had begun. It was only on November 29, 2004, that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade was informed of this new reality, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared before it. So, this process was undertaken without consultations and without making use of the existing parliamentary structures, particularly the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who testified before the committee, was unable to explain where this decision came from and what was the logic behind it. It brings to mind Jeffrey Simpson's article in the Globe and Mail , which asked Hercule Poirot, the Agatha Christie character, to help Ottawa to identify the author of this idea. This idea is, as I mentioned, extremely detrimental to foreign affairs and international trade. Unfortunately, no one has been able to identify the father or perhaps the mother—I do not want to be guilty of sexism—of this idea. It is sometimes said that bad ideas are orphans. In this case, it is true. We still have not been able to identify the person responsible for the idea the Prime Minister has used.

The minister had stated in the House—and it is quite interesting to quote him, “—that there are always consultations. The government has always maintained communication with the major exporters associations and stakeholders in other economic sectors”. A little later he said, “This time, having discussed this matter with various people, the Prime Minister decided otherwise”.

These quotes are interesting, because we are being told that there were consultations. It is a bit strange that the order was issued on the very day the Prime Minister took his oath of office. We are not used to the Liberal government being so fast and efficient.

Members remember the people whose land was expropriated for Mirabel and Parliament's decision to help them. To date, no answer has been given, other than by the Minister of Transport, who said that the government would not follow up on Parliament's decision. Since 2000, the unemployed have been waiting for an answer, after the repeated promises of Liberal ministers and the Prime Minister during the leaders debate. This reform still has not been implemented. We hope that, in the budget, there will finally be answers. We have been waiting for nearly five years now, and the unemployed are waiting for a reform worthy of the name employment insurance. Again today, I mentioned in the House that, after the House of Commons decided yesterday to adopt a Bloc Québécois motion to substantially improve assistance to the clothing and textile industry to save the thousands of jobs in these two manufacturing sectors, there still has been no reaction from the government, except to say that it will take action as a result of this decision.

At the moment, there is a dead calm.

I will not start talking about aerospace, where I could list numerous issues we have been discussing for years, and the government has been studying for years and on which no decisions have been forthcoming.

Oddly enough, the very day he was sworn in, the Prime Minister announced the plan to divide the departments. There must have been some discussion, but it must have been at lightning speed. We know very well that his mind was made up. Where did the idea come from? I am unfortunately not trained in psychology, and it is psychology more than logic that is involved here, so I cannot say.

The minister speaks of consultations. Whom did he consult? The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade was not in the loop, except through the rumours and leaks from Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

As for the various groups—with whom my colleague for international affairs and myself are in constant contact—whether concerned with economics or international cooperation, no one there heard anything about this before they were asked about it.

So probably a few people, bosom buddies of the Prime Minister, were involved in the consultation. What is interesting is that, according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, even those people advised the PM against this illogical division.

I will remind you of what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said: “The Prime Minister decided otherwise”. So even people close to the PM told him that this would not fly, for all manner of reasons, ones I do not have time to go into this afternoon.

As I said, it was a done deal. It is a mystery where the idea to do this came from. Perhaps someone like Hercule Poirot could come up with the answer, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs certainly will not. We have already tried that route.

This decision is therefore not transparent or democratic, and as the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has said, it is all a kind of who-dunnit. So much for the first aspect, the lack of transparency, of consultation, so much for the slighting of Parliament and its institutions, the totally anti-democratic nature of this undertaking.

Now, for the retrograde aspect of the decision. I would like to share with all the hon. members an excerpt from a letter from the Retired Heads of Mission Association. I would like to read more of it. These former ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on December 8, 2004, so the letter is fairly recent. The first paragraph says it all:

Our Association, which is composed of approximately 270 former Canadian Ambassadors, High Commissioners and Consuls General, is deeply concerned about the future of the Canadian Foreign Service. Recently, we have had to come reluctantly to the conclusion that our Foreign Service is being gradually dismantled. One clear manifestation of this happening is the recent decision to split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). As former diplomats and officials of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Commerce, Immigration and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), our members have personally experienced the difficulties of integrating coherently these two crucial sectors of Canada's foreign policy. Thus, we believe that the decision to partition DFAIT is unfortunate and a step backwards.

Why backwards? Because it runs counter to 30 years of efforts to integrate Canada's foreign policy with its trade policy and to make the latter an instrument for promoting its foreign policy.

That decision was not made overnight. It goes back to 1971. In the Trudeau era, it was decided to integrate all support staff in the missions abroad, who had until then been scattered among various departments, and to bring them all within the external affairs department. For example, the people from Immigration who dealt with refugees abroad were brought into the department. The functions of CIDA were also brought in at that time.

What happened 10 years later is extremely important. The trade commissioners, who were then in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, were taken into External Affairs. It is clear that there was administrative logic, consistency in personnel management, in order to ensure greater effectiveness of foreign policy, international trade, international assistance, and refugee policy.

There was also a concern in terms of financial effectiveness with being able to maintain a synergy among the various missions, while ensuring that ambassadors fulfil diplomatic, economic as well as human rights functions.

Between 1971 and 1982, it was decided to concentrate all these functions under the Department of External Affairs. This trend was never reversed by any subsequent government, be it Conservative or Liberal. Even during Mr. Chrétien's term of office, the importance of finding together under one roof all of Canada's international functions was never questioned.

Clearly, there is a problem. It is not to say that, at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, all was perfect. But the real source of the problems experienced by that department had nothing to do with the concentration of all these functions within a single department run by a minister of state and two associate ministers, one for international trade and one for international assistance, but rather with the drastic cuts made in the 1980s. These cuts started under the Conservatives and continued after the Liberals took office. In fact, the current Prime Minister was the one mainly responsible for these cuts, when he was the finance minister.

So, a number of international functions and missions—extremely important for a country that claims to be democratic and to want to play a role on the international scene, particularly with respect to international assistance, where major cuts have been made—and the Canadian presence in diplomatic missions for immigration and refugee processing were dropped. In these areas, because of lack of funding, the department has been unable to exercise all its responsibilities.

This was not an administrative problem, but rather a financial one. The solution to the problems experienced by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade would have been to reinvest the resources necessary to assume our various responsibilities in diplomacy, international trade, international assistance and refugee processing.

Dividing the department into two separate departments is not only a step backward in terms of the strong trend of the past 30 years, but no solution, because no funding will be reallocated. At least, there is no indication from the government that there will be. This decision is therefore taking us back more than 30 years, beyond the 1970s.

As I was saying, the decision is illogical on every level. As for human resource management, it is certainly not by creating two administrative entities that we will have more efficient and more coherent management of our human resources on a diplomatic level. We are eliminating this vital interaction between foreign policy and trade policy, the latter serving as a tool for the former.

There is no way I will be convinced, speaking of coordination—this is mentioned in both bills—that this problem will be resolved. Coordination of economic relations is very clearly being taken away from the Department of Foreign Affairs and being given to the Department of International Trade. It is stated in subclause 7(2) of Bill C-32, which eliminates the coordination of economic and international relations.

Imagine what type of globalization Canada will defend. On one hand, we will have a Department of Foreign Affairs making a series of grand statements and great promises, internationally. On the other hand, we will have a Department of International Trade concerned only with developing Canada's international trade and seeking foreign investment in order to encourage investors to come to Canada and promoting Canadian investors in these countries.

What will the Minister of International Trade say when NGOs or civil society ask his department, or Export Development Canada, whether they took into account major Canadian values, whether democratic rights are respected when Export Development Canada supports a project and whether the department ensures that the working conditions of people hired in other countries are consistent with International Labour Organization conventions? He will say it is not part of his mandate and that he deals with international trade. He will say to go see the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who will say he understands, but he has no control over international economic relations.

These NGOs—who already have a hard time being heard in terms of international cooperation and solidarity—and most of civil society will no longer have any outlet for their concerns. This is extremely detrimental, because there will no longer be the necessary pressure on government, on Parliament, to ensure that Canada does more than talk and that it truly works for globalization that serves the people rather than large multinational companies.

We see that this plan is not in any way advancing what those opposite often refer to as the great Canadian values. It will be harmful to the development of democracy. It will prevent Canadian civil society and Quebec civil society from doing the necessary lobbying. Thus the bill is extremely harmful to the political and economic interests of Quebec and Canada.

It is non-transparent, backward, and illogical. I have gone into some of the aspects, but even on the economic level it makes no sense.

Canadian ambassadors are currently evaluated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade. From now on, it will be by the MInister of Foreign Affairs only. So the whole economic policy aspect is an extremely important element of our foreign affairs policy.

When the Prime Minister went to Japan, he spoke about mad cow disease and about the Japanese having closed their border to us. That is trade-related. He spoke about the forthcoming G-8 summit on climate change. That is a matter of international trade and foreign affairs as well. We cannot carve it up as if it were some sort of sausage.

So, we will find ourselves in a situation where business people will no longer enjoy the support of the entire diplomatic apparatus, and they are very concerned about that. I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with them, and they feel that ambassadors will no longer be evaluated. This is indeed the case as regards their performance from a trade policy perspective.

As we can see, this legislation does not make any sense. Moreover—and this was pointed out by a number of participants, including some Liberals—what is the point of splitting the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, when we are told that, in a few weeks, the Department of Foreign Affairs will propose new directions for our foreign policy? This is truly putting the cart before the horse.

If, at the end of the process, we had said “Yes, perhaps we will be better served by splitting the department”, I would not be more in agreement, but at least we could say that there is a logic underlying the process. But here the government is making an administrative decision and then it will review the main focuses of our foreign policy. This obviously lacks any logic; the government is way out in left field.

I will conclude by quoting a former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said in The Globe and Mail —as hon. members can see, I do read English newspapers—“If it works, why try to fix it?” It is exactly the same with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It works. We should invest more money in this department, but there is no need to repair it by splitting it in two.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor. I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech from my office. It is interesting that he finds it unfortunate to split the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He said that the fundamental issue was that this splitting would have a negative impact on our policy. I find this interesting, since the Bloc Québécois is a party that wants to split the country. Perhaps he is an expert in splitting and dividing.

Will the hon. member agree, like other members, that since the department's merger in 1981, there may have been times when this merger was justified, and times when it was not ? Does he not think that this could be the subject of a debate in the committee on which he sits?