Borys Wrzesnewskyj

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, is not the particular case of Ukraine a perfect example of the way we should be approaching developing democracies, developing civil societies in the world?

There was absolutely no question that it was an issue of trade or investment. We looked to our allies to work together with them, but we took on a leading role. We took on a leading role because Canadians expected it of us. They expected us to stand up for Canadian values, values that we believe in, democracy and civil society.

There are other examples perhaps of when trade or investment influence our foreign policy in countries that have developing democracies or civil societies. I am not convinced that it is the Canadian values of democracy and civil society espoused by foreign affairs that take precedence at all times when the two departments work together. They should be separated. Foreign affairs should lay the groundwork and make sure that when Canadians become interested in investment and trade that we do it with countries that we have helped along the path of democracy and civil society.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle has made a very good argument for reasons we should divide the department. He started off by saying that approximately 240 former diplomats were opposed to this. There are thousands and thousands of current and retired diplomats. With any change there will always be a small minority that dissents with a new vision, especially with bureaucracies, or as sometimes we encounter here in Ottawa, entrenched bureaucracies. That is not what should guide us.

We should be the ones who provide the vision, not the departments or the bureaucrats. I heard from across the aisle that over the past 10 years about 60% of the work of the department has entailed work around international trade. It is very important as we articulate Canada's values around the world that these be values of democracy and civil society, and that there be absolutely no hint that trade will in some way influence these Canadian values and beliefs in democracy and civil society and the efforts of our diplomats in that regard.

We have seen over the past 10 years what a great importance and an increasing importance international trade has in our lives. As international trade develops and takes on a greater and greater role, is there not a danger if these two departments were together that it would take over the role of foreign affairs?

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting that the two departments, as was mentioned earlier, came together some time ago, approximately a decade. Quite a debate was going on in the international sphere of diplomacy at that time. We had just witnessed the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the cold war had come to a close.

An essay was written at that time entitled, “The End of History”. There truly was a sense of euphoria in diplomatic circles that perhaps we had reached a certain end of history in terms of wars and we would now concentrate on economic development and trade. That is perhaps some of the logic that precipitated this move of the two departments coming together. Perhaps the theory was premature. Perhaps it speaks to a world that we will achieve one day, but events over the past decade have made it clear that we need robust diplomacy.

During my speech, I referred to a number of very Canadian initiatives. The initiative of L20 is similar to the initiative of the G-20, a concept our Prime Minister came up with, when he was minister of finance, of bringing the finance ministers of 20 countries together, not just the largest economies in the world but also regional leaders and economies in the developing world.

Canada has taken this one step further and come up with the concept of L20. We have joined along with developing democracies, countries with developing civil societies. It talks to a very different approach from our neighbours or allies to the south. We have a very different approach in bringing democracy to the world than our American allies.

The process that is bringing democracy to Iraq has been quite interesting. A number of people have been rightly suspicious. In fact, some people call it the Haliburton method of bringing democracy to the world. We take a very different approach. We believe in multilateralism. We believe in engaging the world, our allies and also countries that we believe are on the path and need to be encouraged along the path of democracy and civil society. We just heard a petition that was brought forward from the Sunshine Coast where the petitioners said that Canada should not be part of a war machine that brings war to other parts of the world.

Coming back to the example of what has happened in Iraq and the suspicions as to why that has taken place, we do not want that sort of suspicion to ever come into play when Canada plays an international role in diplomacy. There should be a separation between commercial interests and our very important work in building democracy and civil society around the world.

Bill C-32 clearly separates the two departments so when we engage other countries in the world, through concepts like the L20, people will understand that Canadians believe in the values of democracy and in bringing civil society to the world, notwithstanding our trade interests.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to made consequential amendments to other acts presented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs formalizes the continuation of the Department of Foreign Affairs, whose principle mandate is to coordinate and lead Canada's foreign policy.

This re-centering of the Department of Foreign Affairs on its primary functions is already close to completion. It would allow for greater clarity in Canada's international actions and for improved coordination among the actors involved in developing our foreign policy.

It is incumbent upon us today to give a solid legal foundation to those who have been working toward this goal for a year now. To do so, we are being asked to make a number of amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, which dates back to 1982. It is a matter of removing references to international trade from the act of 1982 in order to reflect the new reality of a department that has been operating in this manner since the order in Council of December 12, 2003, with great success, as we have seen.

The first years of this millennium have been marked by events which have reverberated around the world and have had an impact on Canada's international obligations and vision. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or of March 11, 2003, the war in Iraq, various regional crises in Darfur, Haiti, or the Ivory Coast, the move toward democracy and civil society, whether in Ukraine or Somalia, all of these event affect Canada. They affect our interests, conflict with our values, and call out to our common humanity. Such tragic events necessitate well considered yet resolute action on our part.

International problems and crises provide opportunities for Canada to find solutions. The Government of Canada and more particularly our Prime Minister and our Minister of Foreign Affairs have recently met with considerable diplomatic success. I am referring, among other achievements, to the inclusion in the report of the UN high level panel on threats, challenges and change, of the concept of the L20, a group bringing together leaders of developed and developing countries and the concept of the responsibility to protect. These successes, which emphasize Canada's influence in the world, were made possible through the dedication and professionalism of foreign service officers.

More than ever, our country must assert the role it wishes to play on the international stage. A Department of Foreign Affairs will now allow our diplomacy to focus on its foremost tasks: to promote the interests and values of Canada abroad; to develop its unique expertise, the product of over 80 years of remarkable history; to strengthen its international networks with a spirit of dialogue and collaboration with other government departments and actors on the international stage, International Trade Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of National Defence, of course; but also the many other federal and provincial departments and agencies which, with the proliferation of exchanges and the need to apply truly global solutions, have seen their perspectives extend beyond our borders.

It is a fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade no longer claims a monopoly on Canadian action beyond our borders. Today, it is unthinkable for foreign policy and domestic policy to operate in isolation. Ever more complex issues and parallel improvements in means of communication have led the actors of domestic policy to become increasingly interested in what is happening around the world. It goes without saying that many global challenges can only be faced with a coordinated response. That is why federal departments and agencies are ever more involved in Canada's international policy.

Foreign Affairs Canada will remain more than ever the main architect of Canadian international policy, but that policy will have to be pan-governmental, involving the engagement of all federal departments and agencies having international interests, with a special contribution by CIDA, International Trade and National Defence. This role as coordinator and integrator thus requires that the Department of Foreign Affairs focus on its own activities.

A Department of Foreign Affairs separate from that of International Trade does not mean the two distinct departments will cease working closely together to face future international challenges. To the contrary, these challenges will help Canada introduce a new diplomacy with an integrated approach that will take into account all Canadian actors involved on the international stage.

I want to emphasize that the act introduced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not affect the status of the management of consular affairs, which remains with the Department of Foreign Affairs. More than any other service, consular affairs directly interacts with Canadians.

The citizens of our country are great travellers. Wherever we go, whether in Latin America, Asia, Europe or Africa, we meet Canadians. Some have chosen to work abroad, whether for private institutions or NGOs. Others travel for pleasure, curious to discover the world. Just think of all our fellow citizens heading south at this time of year. For example, from November until March up to 15,000 passports will be issued every day and 8,000 a day during the other months of the year.

Still, consular services are much more than issuing passports. Every year Canadians make over 100 million foreign trips. Consular services are there to help Canadians plan their trips, whether for business, school or pleasure and to help them during their time abroad. The consular services of the Department of Foreign Affairs are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, through Canadian offices set up all over the world. Canada has offices in over 270 cities located in some 180 foreign countries to serve our fellow citizens, as well as an around the clock consular operations centre here in Ottawa.

The Department of Foreign Affairs will continue to provide the consular services at our missions abroad all the support they need to effectively carry out their foremost mandate, which is to serve Canadians.

The control and management of information are crucial issues of the 21st century. For a department like foreign affairs, the effective management of information and knowledge, for both internal use and public dissemination, are of vital importance. Innovation in the development of information technology is key to transcending the limitations of time, bridging cultural differences and overcoming the often great distances that separate Ottawa from its missions abroad.

The modern, well-defined Department of Foreign Affairs, as outlined in Bill C-32, can count on a very effective communications network to help fulfill its mandate.

To conclude, I believe it is important for us to enable those who represent Canada abroad to continue their valuable work. The legislation will do just that.

[Somalia, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the people of war-torn Somalia and the Somalia diaspora greeted with much optimism the recent election of transitional President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed and the appointment of Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi

Somalia is a state that has failed its people. This new government provides war-weary Somalis a chance; a chance to move toward peace and stability.

This past week the Somali parliament based in Kenya sent delegations to study security conditions and to examine the possibility of returning to a country that has had no effective central government for more than a decade.

Canadians are directly involved in this process of bringing democracy and civil society to Somalia. For example, 11 members of the Somali parliament are Somali Canadians and Canadian Somalis are in key positions in the Prime Minster's and other ministers' offices.

Canada must provide international leadership by formally recognizing the new transitional government of Somalia, a government which, while facing immense internal challenges, requires our international support.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there was an unprecedented response by the people of Canada and by the government to the effects of the tsunami. I happened to have been monitoring the election in Ukraine on the very day that the tsunami hit. The following Monday and Tuesday I was being interviewed by a number of our Canadian news organizations. Most international news organizations were in Kiev at that time.

On the Monday there was not a great deal of information. In fact, prior to being interviewed, we would chat a little. Information was just starting to come in. No one had a clear idea of the devastation that had taken place. On the Tuesday we were getting reports of unheard of tragedies. By Wednesday it had become clear. Our government reacted as the information rolled in.

Unfortunately, when tragedies strike they do not necessarily strike in places where we can rapidly assess the situation because we do not have the information required. Some of the worst hit regions were pretty inaccessible regions of the world.

However, what we can take pride in is, as we became aware of what had taken place, we responded. The Canadian people responded. Once again, just as we did during the orange revolution in Ukraine, our response to the tsunami tragedy has been unprecedented and has demonstrated that Canada will play a leading role in the world in the 21st century.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a specific issue in the prebudget debate, namely building a role of pride and influence for Canada in the world.

Approximately half a century ago, Lester B. Pearson had a vision that young Canadian men and women would not travel to trouble spots around the world as soldiers but as peacekeepers. He envisioned that our young men and women would not bring war but peace to other parts of the world. For this, our former prime minister won the Nobel Peace Prize and Canada earned a place of great respect internationally among first and third world countries.

In the 21st century we are seeing the evolution of this vision. Our government has talked of a new peace and nation building initiative which has four component parts.

The first will continue building on our great peacekeeping tradition. We have made a commitment to add 5,000 soldiers to our forces and 3,000 reservists. To show our appreciation of the work that they do, we have committed and we have said that they will not pay income taxes when they do their work in trouble spots. We have also made a commitment to purchase state of the art equipment, armoured vehicles, search and rescue aircraft and helicopters and supply ships.

However, our vision has evolved beyond just peacekeeping. Canada will also help in building democracy and civil society in countries undergoing difficult political and economic transitions. To this end, we announced the formation of a Canada Corps. In December we saw the very successful completion of the first Canada Corps project.

As the House will recall, in the fall in Ukraine an orange revolution was taking place. Canada demonstrated its special relationship with Ukraine in the House. Our Deputy Prime Minister spoke clearly that Canada would not accept the massive fraud of an election that took place on November 21. That was followed by non-partisan votes in the House where a very clearly worded motion was passed unanimously saying that Canada did not accept these results and that there would be consequences if the will of the people was not respected.

Often motions are passed in the House and then they gather dust. In this case we have demonstrated that we will play and have a role of pride and influence. Soon after the supreme court of Ukraine annulled the second round vote, we announced the first Canada Corps project, an unprecedented 500 election observers to travel to Ukraine to ensure that the will of the people would be respected.

Today there are 500 goodwill ambassadors throughout the country that will talk in their constituencies and in their various communities about this new role that Canada has taken on in the world.

We have seen in the last week the election in Iraq which has taken place. Once again we played a very important role. We did not send soldiers, we sent electoral experts to ensure that in these very difficult and trying times in Iraq democracy might have a chance. They were quite successful in their results.

I have talked about our role as a peacekeeping nation and how it has evolved into civil society building and democratic initiatives. However, there is a war that we have declared. It is a war against disease in the third world.

Many third world countries face numerous challenges, and one of the worst is curable diseases which prevent them from moving forward.

We have taken direct aim and declared war on disease in the third world. We have dedicated $100 million so that three million people suffering from HIV-AIDS will receive drug treatment. We have dedicated $70 million to the global fund to fight HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

Finally, our peace and nation building initiative has a fourth component. It involves reducing and forgiving debts to the third world.

The present governments and future generations of many third world nations have been anchored to the past by huge debt loads. We will make efforts among our allies, among the circle of democratic nations, the G-20, so that other developed countries share in our vision. However, if necessary, we will not be timid and we will take the lead. We have demonstrated this with our Canada corps project. We have demonstrated this with the $100 million that we have dedicated to provide three million people with drugs to relieve their suffering from HIV-AIDS.

The 21st century beckons, and Canada will respond by building a role of pride and influence in the world. We have taken initial steps, and the upcoming budget will confirm this vision.

[Ukraine, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Ukraine's supreme court dismissed as fraudulent the second round of the presidential election that took place November 21 and has called for a rerun on December 26.

What exactly is the Canadian government doing to help ensure that this rerun is fair and transparent?

[Committees of the House, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, in both official languages.

Your committee studied Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, which was referred to the committee on October 18, 2004, and is reporting the same back without amendment.

I take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee from both sides of the House for their diligence. I would also like to thank the committee staff.

Bill C-36. On the Order: Government Orders:

December 10, 2004 —The Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform—Second reading of Bill C-36, an act to change the boundaries of the Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi electoral districts.

[Ukraine Elections, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations with all parties and if you seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House to put the following motion forward. I move:

That, in the opinion of this House and based on the observations of several thousand international observers, including observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, NATO, and the United States, as well as the observations of approximately 100 Canadian observers and two Canadian Parliamentary delegations; a concerted, systemic and massive fraud has been committed by the current regime and the Central Electoral Commission of Ukraine against the will of the people of Ukraine;

That, based on the above mentioned observations, the electoral commission does not have a legitimate basis for declaring Mr. Yanukovich the winner of the presidential election;

That, in the event that President Kuchma and the Government of Ukraine do not ensure that the democratic will of the Ukrainian people is respected, the Government of Canada shall consider the introduction of appropriate and effective measures, mindful of the impact on the people of Ukraine and will seek the cooperation on such measures with the international community.