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.
