Dan McTeague

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Halifax is now getting the idea that there are good reasons for us to not argue from a commercial perspective, but in fact to recognize that if we only look at the cataloguing of events that have taken place in the past few months, balanced with the recognition that many departments within government have a foreign international dimension, requires us to be able to form a policy that is quite separate from our commercial interests.

The hon. member has just travelled to the Middle East. I can say with some certainty that if we are to be successful as a country in reflecting Canada's values overseas, as the integrator of all the values and policies that we have in this country and to advocate Canada's values and interests in the international fora and arena, then we must try to accomplish something here. I take the hon. member's comments about the very busy agenda at committee. I said to an hon. member from the Bloc last week, that we have never in my time as parliamentary secretary been involved on committee with issues that deal specifically with trade. We accept that trade is going to go its own route.

We also believe on this side of the House that there is far more merit in understanding the consequential effects of some of the major events that have transpired just in our time, as evidenced by what the hon. member has just given in terms of her concerns about BMD, the tsunami, consular interests and human rights. It seems to me we must reasonably conclude that while we may not agree on report stage or third reading, at least it would be important for us to respect the will of Canadians certainly in terms of their contribution to get this legislation to committee where we can study it, notwithstanding the very heavy agenda that we have there.

I would call on the member of Parliament, the critic, the very capable former leader of the New Democratic Party to redouble her efforts. It might be an opportunity for her to at least give us an indication of whether her party might now think about getting this bill to committee, so that we can study this very important objective which I think all Canadians support. If I understand her answer very clearly, she is not as ambivalent as she was earlier.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 14th, 2005]

The hon. member has me blushing red right now. I do not just blush red. I believe red is my philosophy. It is my life.

I also want to congratulate the hon. member and all members, the member from the Bloc, the critic for foreign affairs, the member from the Conservative Party, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, for attending the very important meeting which took place last week and the events that surrounded that.

The hon. member is quite correct. It was very good timing, and of course we hope that what has happened in the Middle East in the last week or so will break new ground and that we will all strive toward a just and durable peace in years to come.

I have carefully reviewed the debates of last week and in the hon. member's absence I want her to know the hon. member for Churchill did a very good job. I suspect that should the hon. member move up and move on there will be a very good and very effective replacement in the member for Churchill.

However, I want to point out a couple of glaring mistakes in the assumption about this being the cart before the horse, or Parliament not approving this. There is no one here suggesting that Parliament should not place into effect the creation of these two new departments. They give in fact expanded powers to the minister and to the departments.

What happened by order in council in 2003 is indeed consistent with the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act which gives the governor in council the ability to transfer portions of the public service administerial powers, duties and functions in one part of the public service from one minister to the other.

Given my work in getting private members' bills to be votable, having probably passed more bills than a lot of members who have been in this place, I understand the hon. member may want to include that in her panoply of bills that she may want to look at. But be that as it may, it is clear that Parliament is not rubber-stamping, but is in fact involved and engaged.

What is more interesting and I want to come to the question very quickly because the hon. member made a very interesting point. She could not find a valid reason and yet pointed out four very important areas that give rise to the need for us to treat foreign affairs policies quite separate from commercial interests.

She referred to ballistic missile defence. I take it that there is no commercial outcome in terms of our involvement with that as to whether or not Canadians want to participate for reasons of sovereignty.

Regarding the tsunami, it is clear that in the past 40 days an event of epic proportions took place and our response had everything to do with the human commitment, not with commerce and trade.

She talked about consulates and gave me a bit of a compliment in the process. Some 200,000 Canadians use our services. It has nothing to do with commerce.

She also mentioned Wal-Mart. I invite the hon. member to look at my work, when I sat on the industry committee, about concentration of the retail sector and the effect it is having on jobs. More importantly, the issue of human rights is clearly and decidedly one of a policy reaction that has a lot to do with how Canadians see themselves, how they see their rights being advocated in Canada, and the kind of rights that we can champion at various forums of international conventions of the United Nations and so on.

These are issues that demonstrate the maturation of foreign policy quite separate and independent from commerce. I find it strange and perhaps this is the question. How can the NDP reconnoitre a policy which in effect says international commercial trade should always be something that one takes into consideration in tandem with pure foreign policy?

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity on this day of all days, the great feast of St. Valentine to thank the hon. member for showing restraint and in fact demonstrating, if I understood correctly, the odd compliment in there too.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the members of the Bloc keep talking about human rights and poverty. They point out the areas they want us to focus on. I find that interesting, but at the same time, they do not see that there is a reality where there has to be a division between trade, our statements and our foreign policies.

What they are asking for is a little like saying that because of the Wal-Mart situation maybe the province of Quebec should have its industry department connected with its labour department. The fact is there are many opportunities for our government and the Canadian people to interact, whether it is immigration, cultural exchange, defence, when it deals with things such as helping the world.

Where was the member when the discussion was about Haiti and Darfur? Where was the member when we considered Rwanda? Will he not agree that there is a trade issue, or rather—and without exception—a foreign affairs issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre for his presentation in support of the bill.

I take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for his initiative and leadership in terms of yet another event that I believe has been important in transforming the way we see the world, Canada's effort with respect to Ukraine. This is unprecedented certainly in my time as a member of Parliament of almost 12 years.

It is rather ironic, but not all lost on those of us who know about the change that took place in Ukraine. The response by the Canadian government and this Parliament speaks to the importance of foreign affairs policy that is directly focused on the issue of capacity for governing and on issues dealing with good governance, proper legal systems and electoral reform, for which Canada is very much noted. This is quite separate from commercial interests and trade considerations.

Given the member's expertise in this area, is it the view of the member that foreign affairs can operate more effectively when it is focused on matters dealing with affairs of other countries, devoid of commercial interests? I would like to hear the hon. member's response to that because he has an expertise in the House which is beyond question.

[Foreign Affairs, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the statements by North Korea are true, they are troubling and worrisome. I agree with the hon. member that we are in a position where we must make every effort to have an independent investigation to ensure that the country is not acting in a manner that could threaten global stability.

This would enable us to see the true situation and ensure that there will be negotiations aimed at maintaining peace in that region.

[Arts and Culture, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the hon. member's remarks and documents. I know this is something of great interest to this Parliament as a whole. Meanwhile, obviously, there is a budget coming down. Perhaps certain proposals could be made first in order to calm the hon. member's concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Churchill. I have a great deal of respect for that member of Parliament and I know she speaks very passionately.

The irony of course with her comments is that all of the concerns that she has raised, and those of her colleague from the Bloc Québécois and his party that she is supporting, on culture, human rights, peace, and yes, she even used the same example I gave on two occasions already on the tsunami, speak not for the reasons to keep this department together, but if we are going to respect the modernization of where Canadians are domestically, globally and internationally, then she could not but come to a conclusion other than the fact that there is an inconsistency with trade and our politics on foreign affairs.

The member is well travelled, as she has well described, as are some members in the House. I am glad to hear that. If we are to take seriously our relationship with other countries, not as a means to ensuring trade, the first thing we hear from those from other parts of the world is that we should be involved in understanding their cultures better. What better way to do that than to recognize Canada's diversity, which works for us in so many ways, to create links around the world that do not just take into consideration how much money we are going to make at the end of the day. That comes after and it is based on trust and relationships.

Our world has changed. Our consular services had nearly 200,000 inquiries by Canadians last year. The disaster of the tsunami that she pointed out had nothing to do, I hope, with anything related to international trade.

The hon. member has given a passionate and direct argument as to why she will not be supporting the bill. Ironically, those are the very arguments I would use to say that she has and must support the bill out of interest to ensure that our foreign policy not be connected with our trade policy.

As to the member for Saint-Lambert, and based on what the member for Joliette had already said, who talked about the 15th anniversary of the freeing of Nelson Mandela, I want to remind those members over there who were not here in the House that it was in 1960-61 that John Diefenbaker led the charge to ensure that country was reprimanded for what it had done. That was a matter of foreign policy, and to connect that, although it may be convenient from a trade perspective or from a monetary perspective, loses sight of Canadian values and what we stand for: dignity and respect for human rights.

If human rights mean anything to those members from the Bloc or the NDP, they could not but conclude that this is the right approach and that Foreign Affairs should not be linked with International Trade. I understand the 270 former diplomats who were diplomats during the period of the great unity between the department, but times have changed. Understanding what the hon. member has just said, would she not agree that change is a very strong argument to ensure that foreign policy, human rights, peace and culture become the priority of Foreign Affairs, not money?

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

If I have heard correctly, the hon. member has just said that there are no differences and that both fields must be paired.

When we want to talk about human rights or, as this hon. member knows, consular affairs, what in the name of goodness could that have to do with commerce?

The reality is that in many respects we have to judge the changing and evolving world, which that party simply does not get. The reality, however, is that there are other dimensions to our foreign affairs policies, and they deal with defence, of course, and immigration, as the hon. member has just discussed. Let us not lose sight of what the bill is all about it. It formalizes a process by law, which the hon. member does not want to consider, which permits the government by order in council under a bill to proceed with the division of the department. This is the formal process in which the member can have a debate.

That member and I sit on the same committee on foreign affairs. Not once in the time he has been a member, or in the past year and a half that I have been a member, has an issue come up on the subject of trade. Indeed, that member will know this, because his colleague, who is also the critic for foreign affairs, has brought several motions forward, not one of them dealing with commerce.

I therefore will ask the hon. member this. Since this issue has already taken place and the division is already occurring, and because of the maturity of both the foreign affairs element of our department and commerce, often not inextricably linked as he suggested but just the opposite, moving in very different directions to ensure the interests of the whole country, would he not agree that it is time for the Bloc Québécois and that member to get their facts together and to modernize their thinking about the world around them as opposed to the insular politics on which they are founding those kind of comments?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask a question of the hon. member of the Bloc Québecois, who finds that there is no reason to split the department in two. I find that interesting, not to say daring, for a party that seeks to split up our country. He is here to work himself into a state and to make sure that there is no separation between departments.

I will find a few examples, because he feels that this decision was a step backwards. I know that the member is not aware of all the things that have been done recently but, in the case of the tsunami, it was not a question of international trade, but of foreign affairs. We recognize that we live in a global world. Large countries are currently increasing their potential and broadening their policies. I am thinking about China, Brazil and India. Those are examples that show that the world has changed a lot.

We must also take into account the fact that, in foreign affairs, policy considerations differ from those pertaining to trade.