Pierre Paquette

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her very clear and very substantial speech.

I would like to ask her if she thinks it is logical for the government to have decided to have this debate on Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 when it has been announced that, in a few weeks the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be presenting new directions concerning foreign affairs. Mind you, we have been hearing that this was coming for over a month.

All things considered, is this debate not somewhat irrelevant, at a time when we should be focussing more on substance instead of talking about splitting up a department without any foundation in terms of content? I totally agree with her analysis about this being harmful to the economic and political interests of Canada. From a logical standpoint, however, does she think there is any point in having this debate before the foreign policy directions have been discussed?

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it touches on what is at the heart of this debate. We know this was all done on the sly and they are trying to make this a fait accompli. We know the decision was made a year ago by a little known order. However, I do not believe that separating the two entities will make them stronger, on the contrary.

I will give you a single example. Currently, an ambassador is evaluated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as the Minister of International Trade, on both missions. This will no longer be so. In the future, under Bills C-31 and C-32, ambassadors will be evaluated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs based on diplomatic performances. That is very good. I have nothing against it. However, the Minister of International Trade will no longer have any evaluation to make and ambassadors will be less inclined to look out for Canadian economic interests.

Furthermore, under Bill C-32—I can never remember the clause number—coordinating international relations will no longer be the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If this coordination had been left to a single minister, then that might have made up for creating two separate departments.

However, the coordination of international relations—and I will close on this note—has now been entrusted to the Minister of International Trade. As a result, both missions will be weakened to the detriment of Canada's political position and Quebec's interests.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his most relevant question.

I would like to cite a few figures here. He was saying that trade is intensifying. One of the indicators of that fact is that Canadian exports, as a percentage of everything we produce, are increasing phenomenally from decade to decade. In 1971, for example, 18.2% of what we produced was exported from Canada, Quebec included. In 1980, the figure rose to 24.6%. So nearly a quarter of Canadian production was exported. At the moment it is 38%, that is, almost 40%. The figure for Quebec is even higher.

Indeed, we can no longer separate from our production processes our responsibilities for human rights, union rights, environmental rights, social rights and cultural rights. Since 40% of everything we produce goes abroad, we must keep in mind that this is production on a planetary scale.

Unfortunately, yesterday we were reminded that this reality is quickly catching up to us. The closure of the Wal-Mart in Jonquière fools no one. It is an anti-labour move, which we are obliged to denounce here. However, if we have no action outside Canada and Quebec to denounce anti-labour activities, we shall find ourselves isolated. In any case, within North America Quebec is already fairly isolated in this regard. This Wal-Mart incident is going to be a common occurrence here, just as this sort of thing happens every day in Mexico, Honduras and pretty much all over the world.

I completely agree with the hon. member that the division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two entities will weaken Canada's capacity—even though, at the moment, that capacity below what is expected of Canada—to establish a trade policy that serves foreign policy, and what the hon. members across the way like to call the promotion of Canadian values.

In that sense, this division is politically harmful to Canada, and indirectly, to Quebec. What is more, it is economically harmful, because the current foreign affairs function plays an important role in promoting our export interests. This is true for Canada, but also for Quebec. As a result, everyone will lose. The only winner in this situation will be an economist vision of globalization that jettisons everything to do with the environment, culture, social rights and union rights.

In closing, I would add that the civil society groups very rightly defending these causes will find themselves shunted back and forth between the department of Foreign Affairs, which will say that Canada's trade policy and international economic relations are the responsibility of International Trade, which in turn will say it deals with international trade only, and so matters to do with the big international conventions are the business of Foreign Affairs. Thus these groups will find themselves in no man's land with even less of an audience. They will no longer be able to put pressure on this government, which is already extremely weak in terms of its planetary social responsibilities. Such pressure will be even less significant, and we shall see drift, something that has already begun with this decision by the Prime Minister.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary had asked me a question which I did not have an opportunity to answer. I will start by replying to him.

It was actually a very interesting question that enables us once again to clarify the role that the Bloc Québécois plays in this House. The parliamentary secretary was wondering how it was that a sovereignist party could be interested in this question of the separation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two entities, namely Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It is interesting to note, by the way, that in this case it is the governing Liberals who are the separatists while we are trying to the contrary to suggest that there be some consistency between two key functions of a department.

When we are here in Ottawa, we not only defend Quebec's interests but we also promote a concept of the responsibilities of a country, a nation and a government. We do not think that it is in Quebec's interest to divide in two the missions of international trade and foreign affairs. We would not like a sovereign Quebec to take an approach like that currently proposed by the Liberal Party of Canada, by the current government. It is an approach that means that Foreign Affairs cannot use trade policy as a tool to help fulfil its international obligations.

We are therefore here both to defend Quebec's interests and to promote responsibilities that should be shared by all nations and all sovereign countries throughout the international community.

So this is the answer that I wanted to give the parliamentary secretary. Unfortunately, he is not here now, but I know that he is an avid reader of Hansard. He will therefore have an opportunity to see my answer.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 9th, 2005]

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.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 9th, 2005]

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?

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 9th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-326, an act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a bill to limit the application of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement to goods produced in territories recognized by the international community and the United Nations. Products from territories occupied by Israel since 1967 would not benefit from the advantages provided in the agreement signed in the mid 1990s.

I am certain that passing this bill, in keeping with Canada's policy of equal treatment of the parties, will contribute to reopening the roadmap to peace and will ensure a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.

In closing, I want to thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for seconding my bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Clothing and Textile Industries, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments show that in addition to the people of Mirabel, older workers, the unemployed, young people and women, the government, through its inaction, is now getting ready to abandon clothing and textile industry workers as well.

Does the Minister of Industry realize that in addition to all the fine speeches, solid intervention is urgently needed to help the clothing and textile industries and to prevent the loss of thousands of jobs?

[Clothing and Textile Industries, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as we know the government ignored the motion that was passed to help the people of Mirabel whose land was expropriated. Yesterday, Parliament passed the Bloc Québécois motion calling on the federal government to substantially improve its aid package for the clothing and textile industries.

Can the government promise, for once, to respect the will of Parliament and do what is necessary to provide concrete help to the clothing and textile industry?

[Clothing and Textile Industry, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Textiles Institute has described these measures as insufficient and incomplete. While the textile and clothing industry is struggling to survive, it is totally incomprehensible that the Canadian government is adding insult to injury by imposing additional taxes on the import of garments manufactured with Canadian textiles.

Why is the Canadian government restricting access to its own market for textiles manufactured here? Why?