CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 15, 1994
Bill C-224. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 2253
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 2268
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 2279
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 2279
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2284
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2285
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 2285
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2285
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2286
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2286
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2288
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2288
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2288
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2289
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2289
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2289
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2290
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2291
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2291
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2291
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2291
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2292
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2292
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2292
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2293
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2293
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 2293
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 2293
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 2296
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2296
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2296
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 2297
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2302
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2307
(Motions moved and agreed to). 2308
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 2309
Bill C-214. Motion for second reading 2315
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.10 p.m.) 2321
Consideration resumed of motion of Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 2321
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division) 2321
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 193 2322
2253
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 15, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a
guidance paper for the special joint parliamentary committee
that will be reviewing Canadian foreign policy.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of
order in council appointments made by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), these orders in council
stand referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-224, an act to require charitable and
non-profit organizations that receive public funds to declare the
remuneration of their directors and senior officers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to introduce a
private member's bill entitled the charitable and non-profit
organizations director remunerations disclosure act, the purpose
of which is to bring public accountability to all organizations
funded by the taxpayer in the matter of salaries and benefits of
their directors and principal officers.
Once a group receives public money directly or indirectly it
must be prepared to surrender its right to privacy. MPs declare
their pay, and the same principle of salary disclosure should
apply to all persons charged with the public trust. This bill
addresses that principle.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to present a
petition signed by residents from British Columbia, Alberta,
Quebec and Ontario, which I think highlights the importance of
this petition.
The petitioners state that whereas Russian troops continue to
occupy a large radar station in Latvia; whereas the maximum
intensity of electromagnetic radiation from the station has had a
profoundly negative effective on the health of the surrounding
population; whereas Latvia as an independent state has
repeatedly demanded the withdrawal of these Russian troops,
the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to urge the
government to urge the Russians to promptly withdraw these
troops from Latvia and further to remind the Russians that future
Canadian aid and credits will be tied to the timely compliance
with this request.
The petitioners will forever pray.
* * *
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 13 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 13-Mr. Grubel:
2254
Under the family reunification program, (a) what is the number of immigrants
admitted to Canada during the last 12 months (b) what was the average age of the
immigrants admitted to Canada (c) how many immigrants does the minister of
immigration expect to admit annually during the next three years?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Under the family reunification program:
(a) Preliminary data for 1993 shows that 109,765 immigrants
landed in Canada under the family reunification program.
(b) There are three major categories under the family
reunification program: spouses, dependent children, and parents
and grandparents. The principal applicant may bring with
him/her dependents as specified in the regulation. Of the
109,765 immigrants, 50 per cent landed under the spouses
category, 12 per cent under the dependent children category and
38 per cent as parents and grandparents.
The average age for principal applicants in the spouse
category was 31 years. Ninety per cent of the dependents of
spouses were under 19 years and nine per cent were between 19
and 30 years old.
The average age for immigrants in the dependent children
category was 16 years.
The average age of principal applicants in the parents and
grandparents category was 64 years. Fifty-three per cent of
dependents in the parents and grandparents category were under
30 years, 20 per cent were between 31 and 50 years old, and 26
per cent were over 50 years old.
(c) The immigration plan for 1994, which was tabled on
February 2, 1994, announced a level of 111,000 family class
immigrants for the 1994 calendar year.
No immigration levels for 1995 or later have been identified.
On February 2, 1994, the minister also announced that he was
launching a new public consultation process that will help shape
Canada's immigration policy for the next decade. The process
will culminate this coming autumn in a new, 10-year strategic
framework for immigration policy, within which new five-year
immigration plans will be set.
Levels of immigration for 1995 and after, including family
class immigration, will be announced after the consultation
process is complete.
[English]
The Speaker: The question as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2254
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1010)
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs) moved:
That a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate be
appointed to consider Canada's foreign policy including international trade and
international assistance;
That the document entitled ``Guidance Paper for the Special Joint
Parliamentary Committee reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy'' be referred to the
committee;
That the committee be directed to consult broadly and to analyse the issues
discussed in the above-mentioned document, and to make recommendations in
their report concerning the objectives and conduct of Canada's foreign policy;
That the committee be composed of fifteen members of the House of
Commons and seven members of the Senate;
That the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade be appointed on behalf of the House as members
of the said committee;
That the committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of
the House;
That the committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for
persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be
ordered by the committee;
That the committee have the power to retain the services of expert,
professional, technical and clerical staff;
That the committee have the power to adjourn from place to place inside
Canada and abroad and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff
accompany the committee;
That a quorum of the committee be twelve members whenever a vote,
resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and
that the joint chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence
and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as
both Houses are represented;
That the committee be empowered to appoint, from among its members, such
subcommittees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such
subcommittees all or any of its power, except the power to report to the Senate
and House of Commons;
That the committee or its representatives meet on occasions it deems fitting
with the special joint committee or its representatives charged with reviewing
Canada's defence policy;
That the committee be empowered to authorize television and radio
broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if either the Senate or
the House are not sitting when an interim report of the committee is completed,
the committee shall deposit its report with the Clerks of both Houses, and said
report shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to both Houses;
2255
That the committee present its final report no later than October 31, 1994;
and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this
House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems advisable,
members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we believe it is time to review our
foreign policy in light of the changes occurring in the world, our
national interests, our capabilities and the new constraints that
we now face.
Our red book outlined several initiatives a Liberal
government intended to pursue. Since my appointment as
Minister of Foreign Affairs on November 4, 1993, I have taken
steps to implement these initiatives.
First, the government will soon be ratifying the law of the sea
convention. We recognize that Canadians, especially those from
the Atlantic region, want a more effective international regime
for managing fish stocks on the high seas. To this end, my
colleague the minister of fisheries went to New York yesterday
to attend a special United Nations conference on this issue.
Furthermore, I have asked my officials to produce a working
paper on UN reform issues in preparation for the 50th
anniversary of the UN in 1995. I want to point out that Canada
has always played a relatively prominent role at the UN. We
have given an important grant to the United Nations Association
in Canada to promote Canadians' awareness of UN reform in the
context of the 50th anniversary.
Together with my colleague the Minister of the Environment,
I am also pursuing means to make sustainable development a
key component of our approach to international assistance.
In our red book, we also spoke of our desire to make Canada's
foreign policy development more democratic. Our
determination has not flagged.
(1015)
This is why I am pleased to open the debate on Canada's
foreign policy review in this House today.
We promised to develop an independent foreign policy for
Canada. What does that mean? It means first and foremost to
have the political courage to say what we think. To dare say what
we think, sometimes in spite of others, to say it often before
others, but also to always say it better than others. Our foreign
policy must not only be independent but also more democratic.
And the best way to make it more democratic is of course to
listen to the concerns and interests of Canadians. This is why we
want to broaden the public consultation process and enable
Parliament to play a major role in this review.
We promised to allow Parliament to express its views on
major international issues. Indeed, the members of this House
have been able to debate our peacekeeping role in Bosnia and
cruise missile testing in Canada. I believe that these new
initiatives must be pursued. I also think that the parliamentary
committee has a unique opportunity to debate the major issues
which must be reviewed in the context of our foreign policy
review.
I do hope that parliamentarians will hold public hearings
across the country and will invite Canadians, not only to submit
briefs and testify before the committee, but also to establish a
dialogue with the government through the members of that joint
committee of the House and the Senate.
We will also invite Canadians at large to play an active part in
this review. On March 21 and 22, we will hold a national forum,
here in Ottawa, on Canada's international relations. This forum
will be sponsored by my colleagues, the Minister for
International Trade and the Minister of Defence, and myself.
The Prime Minister will preside at the opening of the forum.
More than 100 Canadian personalities from different walks of
life will be invited to examine the major directions of our
foreign policy in light of the overwhelming changes of recent
years. Their comments will be extremely useful to us in
assessing our foreign policy. We should be able to determine
which policies continue to serve our interests and which should
be redesigned.
After the forum, the government will ask the joint
parliamentary committee to undertake its own review of
Canada's foreign policy, taking into account what will have been
said at the forum, and to make specific recommendations. I hope
the committee will have the opportunity to hear the views and
opinions of all Canadians across the country.
(1020)
Meanwhile, together with my colleagues, the two secretaries
of state and the parliamentary secretary will continue
wide-ranging consultations with all those who are interested in
international issues, especially the international development
assistance program.
The recent annual human rights consultations with
non-governmental organizations were very productive for us in
preparing for this year's meeting of the Commission on Human
Rights in Geneva. The recent International Development Week
was more than a mere listening exercise for me; it enabled me to
pursue and develop co-operative ties with our partners. We
intend to continue in that spirit, because many people in
non-governmental organizations follow Canadian foreign
policy and contribute to Canada's good name throughout the
world by serving Canadian interests abroad in a worthy and very
substantial way.
I would like to emphasize in this House the importance that I
attach to the consultation process. The forum and the work of the
joint committee will certainly not be the last step in this
consultative process. Indeed, the government intends to pursue
these consultations, as I was saying, and we hope that it will
2256
become a good precedent that will be followed throughout this
government's mandate.
In the coming years, we want this forum to be used to examine
some particular aspects of Canada's foreign policy. The
government will seek to maintain an ongoing review of its
foreign policy that will involve Canadians and their elected
representatives, because in this world where rapid change and
upheaval are the norm, we must establish and develop a flexible
and effective mechanism. That is what we intend to do and that
is what I promise in this House.
While we are engaged in our foreign policy review, we cannot
ignore our international responsibilities. In this regard, we are
to participate in five major multilateral meetings this year. At
the start of the year, the Prime Minister took part in the recent
NATO summit. This summer, he will go to Italy for the annual
G-7 summit. In the fall, he will go to Asia for the summit of
APEC, which stands for Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation.
Finally, he will attend the summit of the Organization of
American States and of the Conference on Security and
Co-operation in Europe.
We will therefore be very visible on the international scene
this year and we must seize the opportunity to make our views
and interests known at these gatherings.
[English]
This government was elected with the mandate for the
renewal of our economy, our society, our political integrity and
our confidence in the future. We have already begun the hard
work and we know much more will have to be done. The
obstacles are many but our duty to move forward is clear.
(1025)
Many of our most difficult challenges and hardest choices
must be faced here at home. As we said in the red book, finding
jobs, protecting the environment, enhancing national unity,
providing political security and enriching the cultural identity
of Canada are all goals intrinsically linked to how Canada acts in
the global arena.
The international community faces difficult problems.
Answers will require a concerted effort by countries working
together in common. Whether we talk of the economy, of
international security, of respect for international law, no nation
can stand alone. We face common burdens and share links that
cannot be severed.
[Translation]
This government knows how hard the task of national renewal
is, but we also know that our well-being as a country depends on
a stable international environment in which we can prosper.
As the Prime Minister said in our red book: ``Canada has
always adapted to change and overcome adversity, and that will
be the key to our future''. We cannot dissociate change abroad
from change at home. We must show determination,
imagination and courage. We are confident of success in
meeting the challenges of our times. However, we will need the
support and confidence of all Canadians to meet these
extraordinary challenges. We have shown in the past our desire
to solve this country's problems in a shared, open and
co-operative manner.
The foreign policy review process that I am launching today is
intended to observe these same principles. But we do not seek to
be iconoclasts. We do not seek to overturn all the values that
have guided us in conducting our foreign policy until now. We
must achieve a balance between continuity and change. Many
sound elements of our foreign policy remain valuable and
necessary today, objectives and characteristics that have helped
to define us as an independent nation in the eyes of the
international community.
I would say that the whole world expects something of us that
it does not expect of others. We must keep in mind that Canada is
a country which has something special that few countries in the
world can pride themselves on having. We are in a sense
universal. We have a universality that is unlike any other
country in the world. We are Americans and because we are in
America, we have forged special ties with our American and
Mexican neighbours through NAFTA. But being Americans and
members of the Organization of American States, we are also
partners with countries in the Caribbean and Central and South
America. But we are not only American; our geography also
makes us an Atlantic people. Because of our past, our
transatlantic past, we have forged very close ties with countries
on the European continent. Within the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, we have developed ties of friendship and
co-operation with European nations. However, we have also
looked to the Pacific. Within APEC, Canada is developing
increasingly important ties with Asian nations. We must not
forget, however, that there are three oceans. There is also the
Arctic. Given our geographic location, we must also develop
relations and maintain important co-operative ties with
northern nations.
(1030)
We are fortunate to benefit from both the French and English
cultures and languages and to belong to both the Commonwealth
and la Francophonie. Canada plays a major role within these
organizations. We have become a major trading partner of
several African and Asian countries. As a former British colony,
we maintain ongoing, friendly relations with Australia and New
Zealand, as well as with a number of other African and Asian
countries.
Canada acted as a negotiator and helped to bring India and
Pakistan closer together with a view to achieving peace. We
were involved in settling the Korean War conflict. Following
World War II, our military was actively involved in establishing
a new peace in Europe. More recently, with the UN
peacekeeping missions, Canada has made its presence felt just
about
2257
everywhere in the world, but particularly in the Middle East,
contributing in the process to making the world a better place.
When we look at what Canada has done and at the extent of its
participation, we can see that few countries in the world can
claim to have such tangible, important relations with countries
on all continents.
We have to bear this fact in mind when we consider ways of
improving and changing our foreign policy, while remaining
faithful to those before us who helped to develop it.
Of course, we will have to make some difficult choices in
some cases, but we cannot betray the hopes and trust that many
countries around the world have placed in us. As I said earlier,
they expect more from Canada than they do from other nations.
[English]
As we embark on this foreign policy review process, we must
take heed of what has served us well, of what policies have
gained us international respect and admiration, the positions we
have taken and the progress we have achieved in critical areas
such as peace and security, north-south relations and human
rights.
We can be proud of Canada's historic leadership in the
international struggle against apartheid in South Africa and of
Canada's vision in creating peacekeeping. We have consistently
pursued our international values and interests, not through force
of arms or belligerent diplomacy but through force of reason and
commitment. We have always willingly fulfilled our
responsibilities as a global citizen seeking to build international
understanding through co-operative multilateralism. We have
welcomed international trade and investment rather than
retrenching ourselves behind protectionism. Canada played a
key role in the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round and
toward the creation of the World Trade Organization.
(1035)
We will continue to build on the strong foundations of our
support for peace and security, international prosperity and
development, respect for human rights, democracy and good
governance, the rule of law and free trade.
[Translation]
These elements will continue to be basic objectives. While the
dramatic events of recent years give us a sense of hope, modern
times, unfortunately, are as dangerous as ever. The war in the
Balkans is, sadly, an all too obvious example.
We must continue to move from security structures originally
designed to contain the Soviet threat toward a new system
designed to manage risk and unpredictability. Thus, we must
consider the future of multilateral organizations such as NATO
and the CSCE. We must also redefine, as I stated earlier, the role
of the United Nations and we must also endeavour to make
regional organizations such as the Organization of American
States more relevant.
We must also nip possible new sources of conflict in the bud
by continuing our assistance to programs aimed at dismantling
nuclear weapons and by broadening and enforcing
non-proliferation treaties, especially in North Korea, South
Asia and the Middle East.
[English]
Chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction raise
new fears. Recent treaties to halt and reverse their proliferation
are steps in the right direction, but improved verification and
universal accession are essential. International action is also
needed to arrest and reverse an excessive stockpiling of
conventional armaments.
Large scale movements of people, whether refugees displaced
by persecution or persons seeking improved economic
conditions, will continue. The scenes of displacement and
despair we see every day unfortunately on our television screen
are graphic reminders of how much remains to be done.
Countries will have to work together to address the root cause
of migratory pressures. Stopgap measures to ease the pressure or
stem the tide will fail.
[Translation]
The rise of ultranationalism as a political ideology puts
progress toward democracy at the mercy of intolerance. We
must act internationally to respond to problems related to the
treatment of ethnic, religious and cultural minorities. Canada
has much to offer the international community in this regard.
The political, social and economic components of various
environmental issues must be studied as parts of a whole. The
solutions we must find to new environmental threats will not
always be easy to accept. Sustainable development is the only
way for both developing and industrialized countries.
(1040)
[English]
Economically we are faced with explosive change. Dramatic
developments in technology are driving changes in the
organization of production, in investment patterns and in
financial transfers which defy traditional frames of analysis and
forms of control.
My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, will
discuss these changes and their implications for Canada in
greater depth.
2258
I would like to note that economic, political and social
changes cannot be separated. As we can see in eastern Europe,
they intercept, overlap and occasionally conflict.
[Translation]
With this in mind, we wish to benefit from the knowledge and
experience of Canadians. I know that our fellow citizens care
about their country's foreign policy. We must therefore listen to
Canadians. They can best tell us what values and interests this
country must promote abroad, and how we can best contribute to
the international community.
However, I think that we should take into account our
important cultural contribution abroad in our review of
Canada's foreign policy. We must recognize that our
international contribution in this area is directly tied to our
national actions to support creativity, innovation and human
resources development.
Of course, our policies must be realistic. Unfortunately, we
will not be able to do everything we want to do. So, difficult
choices will have to be made. Our resources are limited, and we
must focus our efforts where our contribution will have the
greatest impact. No single issue will be off-limits in this debate
on foreign policy. However, as a government, we must give the
broad outline of this policy and we intend to pursue our action in
the following areas: first, the pursuit of international peace and
security. Second, defining Canada's place in a world where the
role of regional associations is growing stronger. Third, linking
Canada's values and interests, including our economic and trade
interests.
Geoffrey Pearson aptly described in his book entitled Seize
the Day how Lester B. Pearson and his ministerial colleagues
shaped Canadian foreign policy to be independent, original,
forward looking, based on truly Canadian values but requiring at
the same time a sustained involvement in international
organizations such as the United Nations and NATO.
In fact, Canada has always centred its security policy on two
multilateral institutions: NATO, to contain the threat of
communist expansion and to protect democracy; and the United
Nations, to promote the values of dialogue and co-operation to
resolve or prevent conflict. The end of communism has reduced
NATO's importance as a military alliance. However, much can
still be done by NATO.
In the unstable new Europe, NATO must transform itself into
a collective security organization while welcoming into its orbit
the countries of eastern Europe which want to join and become
our friends instead of our enemies. This is an opportunity that
the western world cannot ignore or refuse to see and take up, one
that will have to be acted upon as soon as possible.
(1045)
While NATO's role has changed, the UN has had to face a
multitude of new demands and its role, instead of declining, has
grown considerably. As you know, Canada has greatly
contributed to the building of the United Nations, which reflects
many values held dear by Canadians. After 40 years of near
paralysis caused by the cold war, the UN is now being asked to
play an increasingly active role in seeking and maintaining
international peace and security.
Of course, this transition has not been an easy one. Far from
yielding to the temptation of easy criticism, we must admit that
the United Nations has been asked to assume almost overnight a
role for which it was never prepared. Indeed, one wonders how it
has been able to function in these trying times. I think that it is in
order to thank the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, and to hail his remarkable efforts. He needs the
support and encouragement of all peace-loving nations and all
representatives of UN nations.
Canada has led appeals for a sweeping reform of the United
Nations, but we must show as much courage, innovation and
determination today as in the aftermath of the second world war,
when the nations of the world united to create major
international institutions which, I would say, have served us
very well over the years in spite of their little flaws.
[English]
Institutional inertia has frustrated creative thinking. We
accept that the world is far more complex than it was five
decades ago. We realize there are many more countries
representing many more interests and perspectives. We
understand we cannot tear up everything and start anew,
ignoring the significant contributions made by international
organizations, in particular by the United Nations. Lester B.
Pearson said many years ago: ``We cannot abandon the United
Nations as the main structure of peace''.
We do believe, however, that it is time once again to
encourage fresh ideas about where we want to go as a world
community. We could draw on our expertise and our experience
to develop new ideas on peace making, peace keeping, peace
building; on arms controls and disarmament; on forms of
adjudication and redress for interstate conflicts; on reform of
the UN's specialized economic, social and cultural agencies; on
practical measures to strengthen co-operative security
organizations; on improving multilateral development
mechanisms to deal with chronic underdevelopment; on dealing
with international ecological disasters; and on reacting to
international population migrations.
Obviously this list is not exhaustive, but it is indicative of the
areas where the government believes Canada can help make a
difference for the better. Now that the cold war is over we must
continue to bring the nations of the world together in the pursuit
2259
of peace. We must continue to work on frameworks that will
enable dialogue and co-operation between nations.
(1050)
Lester Pearson said in accepting his Nobel peace prize in
1957:
The best defence of peace is not power but the removal of the cause of war
and international agreements which will put peace on a stronger foundation
than the terror of destruction.
[
Translation]
Canada must review its geographic priorities in this new
international context. The end of a world divided into two camps
and the emergence of new economic powers have contributed to
the development of regional groups. Regional institutions can
benefit the international system in many ways. They are
sometimes the best tool for economic development and
mediation.
We hope the growing power of certain countries will give
them the necessary confidence and determination to promote
co-operation between regions on a large number of international
issues. We wish to establish strong ties that will enable us to
initiate open and honest dialogue on our economic, social and
political concerns, and on human rights in particular. However,
these regions may form hostile and aggressive blocs. Canada has
much to contribute in avoiding such a development.
We Canadians know the importance of dialogue and
co-operation. The government is determined to help the
countries of the world to adopt this course. To this end, we will
have to review our priorities. We will maintain our relations
with Europe because of our historical, cultural, political,
economic and security ties with that part of the world, but we
will also have to see how this new Europe will be affected by the
growing development of the European union. This union will
admittedly play an increasingly important role in Europe and
lead North America, and Canada in particular, to reconsider its
position in relation to the old world.
[English]
It is clear that North America will have to adjust its presence
and influence in a Europe growing stronger and more united.
Our political task in Europe today is building the economic and
democratic structures and security of eastern and central Europe
including Russia and Ukraine.
The past election in Russia has confronted us with new
challenges. The results of the upcoming elections in Ukraine
could also be critical in determining that nation's progress. We
have already mentioned our interest in developing a special
relationship with Ukraine. I have already announced specific
measures toward that goal.
There is a great deal to be done. We will continue to work
closely with our traditional allies and our new friends in Europe
to promote security. However the respective roles of North
America and Europe will gradually change. The transition will
lead to a new relationship as rich and as harmonious as the one
that saw us through the cold war, but it will be focused on new
issues that reflect the new world environment.
Canada is by geography a nation of the north. Our relations
with the United States are of paramount importance to us. We
have already established a businesslike atmosphere in which to
pursue our many bilateral interests. We intend to keep it that
way.
The United States today is adapting to changed circumstances
at home and abroad, and we share many of the same concerns.
We believe Canadian experience, particularly our approach to
multilateralism, can prove useful to the Americans as they
develop new perspectives. We look forward to working
constructively on the international scene with our neighbour.
(1055)
This however does not imply that we will jeopardize our
concern and our interest so as to avoid disagreement between
our two countries at any cost. This is what I have indicated very
candidly and very forthrightly to my American counterpart,
Warren Christopher, during my recent visit to Washington last
month. I made Canada's concerns about efforts by a certain
group in the U.S. to reduce our agriculture and other exports
quite clear and unequivocal to him.
I also indicated to Mr. Christopher that this government was
determined to set its own independent course in foreign policy.
By being independent I do not mean that we are opposed to the
American policy but that we want to see action being taken with
a Canadian point of view in mind. Our hope to see the end of the
American commercial embargo against Cuba is a clear
affirmation of our wish. This is a point I discussed recently with
my Mexican counterpart, Secretary Tello, when I visited Mexico
as the head of the Canadian delegation to the bilateral joint
ministerial committee.
In the past Canada has been in the forefront of diplomatic
initiatives. Canada recognized China before the Americans did
and in a certain way paved the way to bring President Nixon to
China and change substantially the relationship with this giant
of Asia.
We Canadians believe that we could play a very important
role to bring about democracy and respect of human rights
throughout the entire hemisphere. Canada will pursue
vigorously such a policy in every area of the Caribbean, Central
America and South America in co-operation with other
countries. Certainly it will not be against the wish or the will of
the Americans but in co-operation as a partner within the
Organization of American States.
2260
[Translation]
It is obvious that we must further develop our ties with Latin
America. We are very enthusiastic about the possibility of
creating a community that will include the entire Western
Hemisphere, from the Canadian Arctic to Tierra del Fuego. The
potential for our trade and investment is enormous. The
trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement shows us the
way to go. Many steps must be taken, however, before we can
achieve such a community.
We wish to encourage open and honest dialogue with our
partners regarding our common and respective problems.
Together, we must define the results we expect to achieve in
order to clearly establish our priorities.
The Organization of American States can play a decisive role
in our hemispheric relations, and Canada wishes to make this
organization more effective and dynamic.
This government's creation of a position of Secretary of State
responsible for Latin America is an indication of our interest in
the region. My colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland,
has already made two trips to Latin America to promote
Canada's ties with its hemispheric partners. I will leave it to her
to talk about our objectives in more detail. She is also
responsible for Africa. It is in this latter capacity that she will
lead the Canadian delegation to the election-monitoring
mission in South Africa and visit some African countries to
maintain our very close ties with that continent.
The Asia-Pacific region has become a major economic power.
(1100)
As we stated in our red book, our economic prosperity partly
depends on our determination to develop our trade relations
with the Pacific rim countries. We will work continually with
our private-sector partners to increase export opportunities for
our businesses.
We also expect to see the region play an increasingly active
role in politics and security as its economic power grows.
To show the importance we attach to this area, we have also
appointed a Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific. I know that the
hon. member for Richmond has already taken initiatives to
improve Canada's ties and exchanges with the countries of the
region, and that he intends to explain them to you later in today's
debate.
With its west coast open to the Pacific, it is in Canada's
interest to develop and diversify its economic and social ties
with the countries of the region, as the Prime Minister
demonstrated at the APEC summit in Seattle in November 1993.
Canada's interests are worldwide, and we will continue to
have an active foreign policy that reflects our interests. Over the
years, Canada has played an important role in the quest for
peace. We are actively participating in the Middle East peace
process, and we chair the refugee working group.
Last month, we chaired a meeting in Montebello to
co-ordinate the work of all multilateral groups involved in the
Middle East peace process.
We are actively participating in South Africa's transition to
democracy. Elsewhere in Africa, either bilaterally or as part of
the Commonwealth and la Francophonie, we are actively
working with governments and NGOs to contribute to the
economic and democratic development of these countries.
We will, of course, continue to be active around the world. In
these days of budget constraints, however, we must restrict our
scope of action. Changes in the world and in our own country are
forcing us to make important choices.
If we want to have a coherent and effective foreign policy,
these choices must be guided by our desire to build regional and
inter-regional mechanisms that will serve us well in the
fast-approaching 21st century.
[English]
We will remain globally active and committed but we cannot
be everywhere in equal force any longer. That is very important.
We could continue to be present but not everywhere with equal
force. Change in the world and in our own capacity means that
choices will be necessary. This parliamentary committee will
have to help us make these choices and these priorities.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to address the issue of human rights in
our foreign policy. Some people would like to see a foreign
policy aimed solely at promoting human rights and their values,
while ignoring Canada's other interests. Others insist on a
foreign policy that would serve only Canada's economic
interests.
It is far too easy and dangerous to simplify the debate in this
manner. In so doing, we would only compromise this country's
foreign policy. We must recognize that such a cut-and-dried
version of the world is wrong. Of course, our economic interests
are important. Of course, we want to promote human rights.
Nevertheless, we do not have the right to impose one at the
expense of the other. Insecurity, instability and war are
detrimental to international trade. Human rights, democracy and
good governance are the best defences of peace and security.
(1105)
History shows us that economic development and respect for
human rights sometimes go hand in hand. Increased prosperity
often triggers social change. When we talk about economic
prosperity, we are also talking about international trade and
investment. The development of international trade and
investment is clearly vital to Canada. We depend on it for our
own development, for job creation and for our economic
recovery.
2261
There is thus a complex interplay of values and interests, both in
developing countries and here at home.
Is there no way to better reflect our values and interests in our
foreign policy? Is there no way to combine them? Can we build
economic and political mechanisms that will show that the way
to universal prosperity lies through fundamental rights for all?
It is my profound belief that the concept of intervention as a
right and a duty represents a turning point in the history of
humankind. The world has only recently understood and
accepted this concept which, to some, constitutes interfering in
a country's domestic politics but to many others is a sign of
hope.
I say this because I have seen the results. In Haiti I spoke to
Canadian members of religious orders who work in that country,
and these quite remarkable people taught me that intervention
could be a duty. Considering Canada's intervention capability,
we cannot afford not to use that capability to advance the cause
of human rights. We cannot remain indifferent to the fact that
throughout the world, millions of human beings are being
denied their most basic rights.
Indifference is the modern barbarism, and we must therefore
make every effort to advance the cause of democracy where we
have an opportunity to do so as Canadians, because democracy
remains the highest value, in the Northern snows and in the rice
paddies, in the tall grasses of the savannas and the tropical rain
forest, on the hot sand and in the desert. Everywhere, democracy
remains the supreme value.
And if democracy is to be truly synonymous with peace, we
must support it through our foreign policy. Where there are
democratic governments, these governments support the cause
of peace and promote peace in the world. In a democratic
system, there is respect for minority rights and human rights are
protected.
(1110)
We must act as tireless promoters of democracy throughout
the world, and in doing so, we will have an impact on world
peace and security. This does not mean we must cut our political
and economic ties with countries that do not respect democracy
and human rights. If we isolate them, we will never be able to
influence them. That is why I say, to those who insist that we
make respect for human rights a pre-condition for our trading
relations with certain countries, that they are on the wrong track.
We must persevere in our efforts to advance the cause of
democracy in countries where it does not exist. We must do so
carefully and with respect but we must persevere. I believe that
if we do, if we are determined, Canadian values will be
appreciated and indeed emulated by these countries which we
must help, not for the sake of their leaders but for the sake of
their people who are suffering and who deserve a better life.
[English]
This brings me to our development assistance program.
Canadians are proud of our development assistance record, but
they are concerned about program delivery and the long term
effectiveness of aid.
The pressure for review of the aims and utility of the
development assistance program is increasing as governments
and societies struggle with deficit, debt and structural
adjustment. The countries we assist are also coming under
increasing pressures to provide proof that aid works and to show
that the aid provides value. Developing countries will have to
demonstrate they have or are prepared to adopt the social,
political and economic policies that will maximize the impact of
development assistance programs.
The government's earlier policy statements recognized the
interdependent relationships between developed and developing
countries. There are those who argue that we should abandon our
commitment to the developing world because we cannot make a
difference. My answer to that is that we must make a difference
or we will see the level of global insecurity, instability and
uncertainty increase to our peril.
We must work domestically and internationally with other
donors to ensure that our assistance is applied coherently,
consistently and to the maximum possible benefit.
[Translation]
We believe economic and social development in developing
countries is a basic element of our own security. The
consequences of underdevelopment, such as uncontrolled
population growth, environmental damage and mass human
migrations, have a long term effect on our security. Perhaps
even more dangerous than the threat of nuclear war is the gap
between rich and poor on this planet, a gap that is widening
steadily. Unfortunately, the poor are very much aware of this
situation.
With the communications media we have today, we can no
longer hide this fact.
(1115)
The people of the south who are suffering and destitute know
that the people of the north live in wealth and opulence. If we
cannot act to ensure that the people in the south benefit from the
wealth of the north, we are going to have a very serious problem,
because ultranationalist, extremist and fundamentalist
movements will use this human misery to turn people against the
richer countries and take advantage of this situation to become a
2262
revolutionary force in the world. It is therefore imperative for us
to collaborate with other partners and the world of poverty.
I believe that when formulating our foreign policy, we must
ask ourselves the following question: What kind of world do we
want to live in?
[English]
In formulating a foreign policy, questions of Canada's future
should never be separated from the wider question: What kind of
world do we want? This will be the question that the members of
the parliamentary committee will have to answer in formulating
suggestions for our foreign policy. I look forward to receiving
their views and advice in this regard.
Let me indicate the kind of world I would like to live in. I
dream of a world where there will be no more arms race, no more
famine, and no more economic deprivation. I dream of a world
where every child will go to school during the daytime in a safe
environment and will go to bed at night well fed and in a decent
home.
This is obviously a dream. But Canada should work hard to
make this dream come true. After all, great events, unthinkable a
few years ago, have given rise to a renewal, a new sense of hope,
and must inspire all of us as parliamentarians engaged in this
democratic decision making process for this country.
Nelson Mandela was released from his prison cell and now
leads his party in South Africa's first democratic election. The
Gdansk naval yard electrician and underground union leader,
Lech Walesa, is now Poland's democratically elected president.
A political prisoner and playwright, Vaclav Havel, is now the
Czech republic president.
This was unthinkable just a few years ago. But dreams came
true.
[Translation]
I believe we must work hard to give Canada a foreign policy
that meets our foreign aspirations and this includes maintaining
our presence on the international scene, in accordance with a
tradition of excellence that we will maintain in the future.
(1120)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to thank the government for giving us this
opportunity to address some very important issues that will most
certainly generate some very interesting discussion in this
House and in the committees that are formed to address the
twenty-first century and determine the kind of relations we want
to have with the rest of the world.
I would say that I found the minister's approach to the
problems and the issues facing us today most interesting. I felt
there was a certain vigour in the approach to the future taken by
the minister and the government, and I believe this augurs well
for the coming series of extremely important discussions.
We know that such discussions were long overdue and that it
was very important to get this process under way. Tremendous
changes have taken place within a very short period of time. In
1989, we saw the Berlin wall crumble, and subsequently,
everything that happened in the Soviet empire.
These changes, and I assume we will have an opportunity to
discuss them at length in committee so I will not describe them
all today, are taking place as a result of two important facts. The
first one is, of course, the end of the cold war, and as a result, the
end of the polarized state of international relations which had
lasted for several generations.
However, the situation that existed before the present changes
took place had the advantage of a certain simplicity. At the time,
there were the good guys and the bad guys, and it was relatively
easy to define Canada's role, for instance, in the struggle
between the oppressors and the other side that wanted to liberate
the oppressed and acted in the name of democracy. We all knew
where we stood, so there was no need to sit down and wonder
whether or not we would support the forces of democracy
against stalinism.
Today, things are not that simple. The fragmentation process
had led to the emergence of many new players on the
international scene, where conflicts have become far more
diverse and complex. As far as Canada is concerned, the
situation is a far cry from the problems that existed in the golden
age of Canadian diplomacy, in the days of Lester B. Pearson, for
instance. After World War II, in which Canada had fought on the
side of the Allies and helped to win the war, Canada played a
very important role and won the recognition of the whole world.
The Canadian economy was in excellent shape.
It was a time when there was no deficit and Canada's public
finances were not in the vulnerable state they are now. When
people talk about changes on the international scene, there have
been changes that affected everyone, and these I mentioned
earlier: the end of the cold war, the advent of many different
players on the international scene, and so forth.
However, for Canadians and Quebecers, there is a new
dimension with respect to the international environment. We
have a debt that exceeds $500 billion, 40 per cent of which is
financed by foreign interests. When we speak of independence,
we speak of a concept that is no longer the same. When one is
grappling with $200 billion in debt financed abroad in the very
short term, a new kind of vulnerability enters the picture and
becomes one of a range of factors to be considered when the time
comes to define our collective future in terms of our foreign
relations.
2263
Clearly, independence does not have the same connotation it
had in Mr. Pearson's day. Mr. Pearson did not have to concern
himself with the reaction of Canadian lenders. He did not have
to worry about the reaction of those abroad who finance
Canada's debt. He could, with full knowledge of the facts,
define with his government and with Parliament the country's
foreign policy directions which depended very little on the
reaction of others, in any case, but certainly on the reaction of
financial markets. Therefore, many questions arise and it is not
my intention, or was it the intention of the minister, to suggest a
set course for our foreign policy in the future. What we are
beginning here is a process of reflection.
(1125)
This debate must fuel this process and provide an opportunity
to formulate the major questions that we need to ask ourselves.
Thus, we must devise a framework for action for the committees
that will be sitting. The parameters must be more or less defined
so that more specific proposals can be put forward.
With your permission, I would like to identify a number of
questions and problems that need to be resolved, new problems
stemming from the changes that have taken place.
The geopolitical changes alluded to carry enormous
implications. For example, the end of the cold war has also
signalled an end to ideology clashes. Today, few people in the
world are arguing about who was right, Marx or Henry Ford. I
am not saying that the issue is settled and that theorists now
believe that Ford was right, but I will say that fewer and fewer
people are interested in engaging in this kind of intellectual
debate which, what is more, affected the political life of nations.
In Europe, it was extraordinary; some societies were torn by
these debates, even at the political level. We were not affected to
the same extent but our American neighbours lived through the
excesses of McCarthyism. That a great democracy like theirs
could be sidetracked by the fears born out of the cold war shows
the impact ideology had on the world scene.
We ourselves witnessed the impact of Marxist-Leninist
schools of thought and the emergence of various political
movements on the evolution of life in Canada and particularly in
Quebec. But it is now over in the sense that there is no longer any
ideological war. We will not see a Canadian Parliament or a
Quebec or other provincial legislature divided between Marxists
on one side and capitalists on the other. It is over. This
ideological war has been replaced by-
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Oh,
Oh.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue my
speech and deal with these issues at the appropriate level instead
of responding to sarcastic comments from the other side. I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I would like the hon. member to be called
to order.
The Speaker: We all want to listen to what all hon. members
have to say and we hope that we will be able to listen attentively
to what the Leader of the Opposition is telling us.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to sound
presumptuous but the ideological war has been replaced
throughout the world by a trade war. Competition is now at the
centre of international concerns and has given birth to a very
widespread anti-protectionist movement. We saw that the
GATT has been reopened, that free-trade movements are
gaining momentum and that we, in North America, are at the
cutting edge of this trend, having taken concrete action and
signed with our great American neighbour and now with Mexico
a free-trade agreement that will be extended, we hope, to other
countries of this hemisphere. Chile may be the next country to
apply; the last treaty that was signed contains an admission
clause. Some very important changes have taken place.
All these changes have created new problems. For instance,
since international economic development erases borders,
economic boundaries will become the fundamental criteria on
which international movements will be based. There are dangers
on the horizon. For example, it is not a coincidence that concern
for the environment surfaced at the same time as the trend
towards global economic development. People saw another
threat to the environment. We saw that if economic development
becomes the rule, we must find ways to subject it, for example,
to the constraints of sustainable development. Develop the
economy, sure. Create a huge area transcending political
boundaries for the movement of goods and services and capital,
sure. But not at the price of increasing the pressure on this planet
and our environmental heritage to meet such demands.
Economic development should not mean killing our forests with
clear-cutting, allowing our rivers and lakes to be polluted with
toxic substances for the sake of market globalization or clearing
our rivers and the oceans of fish. When you see what is
happening on the coasts of Newfoundland for instance, it is
obvious that economic development is not a cure-all and that
such factors will have to be taken into account as we consider
and develop our foreign policy.
(1130)
There are other risks as well. Who will benefit from this
economic development? If we are not careful, is there not a risk
that only the mighty will gain? Is it not to assert the ``survival of
the fittest'' principle in a new way to allow unrestricted,
unrestrained economic development and trade? We must
therefore look for ways of making all of this work. We are in
favour of free trade. We know this is the way of the future, but
we must make sure large, powerful nations are not the only ones
to gain. So, we have to ensure that we too, in Canada and in
Quebec, can
2264
benefit from this arrangement and that the mighty, such as Japan
and the USA are not the only ones that stand to gain from this.
We must look for solutions. What can be done? I will come
back to this in a minute. But there is a risk. If commercial
interest becomes the golden rule, what will become of the third
world? The minister mentioned earlier the widening gap
between developing countries and ours. That is a fact we are
aware of, but mentioning it does not solve the problem,
especially since the Western economy, the have nations are
largely responsible for this problem. Take our international
development programs for example. We did spend a lot of
money on supporting development efforts abroad. Yet, the gap
widened. On the whole, we can see that what we have given third
world, developing countries in terms of assistance is less than
what we have gained from that investment in terms of
commercial interest.
So, if market globalization means allowing free trade without
taking any of that into consideration, there is a risk. A new
economic order is required. So we must think about it here in our
country and take concrete action to provide a minimum structure
not only for making speeches deploring the widening gap
between south and north but also for ensuring ways to remedy
the deficiencies which we have observed.
Another very obvious problem also arises. Since international
relations are no longer governed by two superpowers
confronting each other, we have witnessed a great increase in the
number of players on the international stage. I believe that the
UN now recognizes 175 sovereign countries. Some claim that
there may be nearly 200 or 275 by the end of the millennium in a
few years. And it goes on. It goes on because the small and
middle powers who had little say now have the opportunity to
act themselves-it is no longer just a monologue between the
Soviet empire and the Americans. It is growing because the
natural lines of force have resurfaced. As the imperial structures
break up like the Soviet Union, we see nationalism coming to the
surface again, this old nationalist feeling which sets political
boundaries. So there will be more participants in international
life.
(1135)
What should we do about it? Obviously the situation is more
complex than it was. It has become more difficult than it was in
Mr. Pearson's time, for example. It is no longer a question only
of managing a relationship with two players confronting each
other; now it is a matter of establishing a certain order in
relations among nearly 200 actors. Imagine all the permutations
of bilateral relations.
There are two dangers there. First is the danger of disorder
and disorder leads to threats to peace. We finally realize now
that in this tense face-off that we lived with during the cold war,
there was a sort of stability, the stability of deterrence; we know
how we learned to live with it and it worked in a way that
prevented direct confrontation between the two superpowers.
Now we are hundreds and it is not so easy, especially since
there are many more sources of conflict and I would say in a
way, paradoxically, that the conflicts are somewhat less rational
since they involve religious, territorial or ethnic conflicts.
Sometimes the irrational takes the upper hand so that the sources
of tension and threats to peace are increased. They may be less
serious because those countries are not armed with the
destructive capacity that the nuclear powers confronting each
other had, but there is still a danger.
The other danger is standardization. As you lower economic
barriers and have one large area where all kinds of goods can
move around, cultures also circulate, but which cultures? The
issue has been raised and I think that we will have to discuss it
thoroughly in committee. Cultural and identity issues will
become more important than ever, because it is dangerous to
have a standardized culture take over national identities. The
one thing everyone needs when confronted with an intrusive
culture is to have familiar anchor points.
It is here that the debate will have to take place regarding the
concept of nationalism. I know that this concept has often been
debated in this House. It has also been the subject of a recent
debate in the Senate. Not long ago, I read a speech on the word
nationalism made by a senator from the other place, and I think
such a debate will have to take place because there are all kinds
of nationalisms.
I was pleased to see earlier the minister allude in his speech to
the emergence of this element in international relations and
refer to ultranationalism. The minister talked about the bad
consequences of ultranationalism, including the resulting
intolerance, while in the copies distributed a little earlier the
word nationalism and not ultranationalism was used. There is a
big difference, because those two concepts are opposite.
I want to remind the House that not everybody thinks the same
about nationalism. In fact, there are all kinds of nationalisms. It
is somewhat like the comment made by the Greek poet Aesop
when, referring to the human language, he said that it was the
source of all evil but also the source of all good. It all depends on
how you use it.
I want to refer to a speech made by Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, the current UN Secretary-General, in Montreal,
on May 24, 1992. If you will allow me, I would like to quote two
excerpts of this speech made by the UN Secretary General, in
which he wonders about the different connotations of what we
call nationalism. He begins with this quote: ``The best
contribution one can make to the world is oneself'', which is
from the French writer Paul Claudel.
2265
Mr. Boutros-Ghali goes on to say: ``To enter into a relation
with someone else, you must first be yourself. This is why a
sound globalization of modern life is based on strong identities,
since the globalization of a standardized culture could crush
other cultures and melt them together, something from which
the world has nothing to gain''.
(1140)
In order to communicate you must have something to
communicate: To have a dialogue, you must have something to
say. So, when you are present on the international scene and you
want to transmit your culture to others, as the minister
mentioned earlier when he said that he intends to spread our
cultural values abroad, you have to know that culture. You have
to preserve it, because it must exist. In other words, our identity
must be affirmed at some level in our rapport with others abroad.
Mr. Boutros-Ghali also said this: ``Each individual needs an
intermediary between the universe which is greater than he is
and his solitary condition, if only because he needs a source
language to understand and decipher the outside world. An
individual needs practical interdependences as well as a set of
cultural references; in short, he needs an access code to the
world. It is in the context of those needs that nation-states
operate, in the sense that they go beyond the immediate
interdependences of family, clan and village. A nation is a
common will to live together which is the first step towards
universal civilization. In today's world, if you destroy nations,
you will not have a vast universal solidarity; rather, you will
have tribes and primary links, whether ethnic or religious, such
as in Somalia or in Yugoslavia. You will also have super states to
exploit or dominate the former''.
There is such a thing as chauvinistic nationalism, the
ghetto-building kind, which is turned inwards. There is also the
kind that produces great nations, like the United States, France,
Great Britain, Germany, Spain and Russia, people who live their
identity through political structures adapted to their needs and
concerns and their relation with the rest of the world, and who in
the process become assets to civilization. Nationalism, if
properly understood, is a link to the universal. It is the bridge
between the individual and the universal, between the individual
and others.
No one will ever say anything against nations as such. Canada
can hardly criticize nations because it is one. There is in English
Canada a nation which to me consists of people who have a
culture and language in common, people who speak English and
have an anglophone culture, and the majority of whom occupy
the rest of Canada.
In Quebec, there is a nation, predominantly francophone with
a francophone culture, which has a francophone vision of the
world but at the same time is linked through its language to a
universal language, French, just as anglophones are connected
by English. That is what culture is about. Culture is a way to
reach the universal from what one happens to be, and we are not
all the same. We are not all the same as individuals, and we are
not all the same as communities.
In Canada, the problem is we have two communities. We have
two groups that define themselves according to different
elements. The basic elements in this case are language and
culture. As long as we have not resolved this problem, we will
have to live with the political consequences.
To support what I just said, I would like to refer to a passage
from a report on UN activities, covering the forty-seventh
session of the UN General Assembly and dated September 1993.
I am not quoting a pathological nationalist but people who live
at the apex of the pyramid of world diplomacy and know
everything about relations between nations and countries. I will
quote two short passages: ``Individuals find their identity in a
nation. Nations find their identity in universality. There can be
no international communities without nations. Hence, the
so-called incompatibility between the nationalist and the
internationalist perspective is merely an illusion''. A second
and last passage from the same page: ``Sovereignty is the art of
making unequal powers equal''.
I think that in the course of the discussions we will have in
these committees, which should be held at the appropriate level,
we will have to examine these issues, because the Canadian
problem, the problem of relations between Quebec and Canada,
the problem of our two nations, is, in my opinion, not unique. It
is a universal problem. It can be found at the centre of all
international relations, and if we are to define a new
international policy without taking this into consideration, it
will not be long before we have to start the review process all
over again.
(1145)
Earlier on, I spoke of the international disorder to which we
become vulnerable when fragmentation occurs among players.
We cannot oppose or prevent this phenomenon because there is
some good to it, namely that it reflects reality and the will of the
people. To this extent, we must respect it.
However, it increases the need for international relations
which are more multilateral in nature. Fewer relations will be of
the bilateral kind. Major international organizations will be
called upon to play an increasingly important role. This is
especially true of the UN which will become increasingly
important, even essential.
Within this community of several hundred sovereign nations,
there will have to be forum in which discussion can take place,
general policies formulated, ideas on common values shared and
2266
peacekeeping operations conducted. I believe that the UN will
increasingly be called upon to serve as this forum.
Here in Canada, we are facing a dilemma, as the minister
alluded to a while ago in his speech. Our dilemma stems from
Canada's geographic location as described by the minister. Our
country borders on three oceans and is open to the Atlantic and
to the Pacific. We also have the United States as our neighbour.
And, although it is true that we must participate more and more
in multilateral relations, that is relations where everyone speaks
within a common international organization such as the UN, we
cannot overlook the United States.
We are fortunate to have the United States as a neighbour. We
have to recognize that this country is a considerable asset to
Canada. We also enjoy one of the highest standards of living in
the world and this is due, at least in part, to the fact that we are
part of the vast North American continent which has an
extremely prosperous economy. We should not lose sight of the
fact that the United States are on the receiving end of 80 per cent
of our exports.
Let us not forget that Ontario's economic development is
closely tied to the Auto Pact. Let us not forget that the United
States are vitally important to us. Most of our large companies
that succeed are based on US capital. We must not forget this. In
some ways, it will be impossible for us to avoid having bilateral
relations with the United States. In our committees, we will have
to find a balance.
So, I say yes to the UN and yes to multi-faceted relations with
all international players. Obviously. There must be a more open
relationship with Asia and Europe, too often forgotten in
discussions at the Lester B. Pearson Building. But our
relationship with the United States calls for a very delicate
balancing act. I think there is a lot of work to do in this area.
I do not want to take too long, as my colleagues will speak
after me. I think we can draw a few conclusions anyway. The
first one is that we have the nation and we have the individual
and that the individual now has a place in international life. In
the past, we did not talk much about the individual in
international relations but that has changed. We are now talking
about it to the point of invoking the duty to intervene, as the
minister was saying, in sovereign foreign countries that violate
human rights.
I think that our policy should be centred on promoting
individual rights. We must also realize that there can be no valid
policy on individual rights without a national policy.
Individuals form communities. It is very difficult to separate
one from the other. Communities bring us to the subject of
democracy. Democracy and human rights are, of course, the
foundations of the international policies we must define
together.
If we are looking for a role that Canada can play, it is to
continue to promote democracy in concrete terms at the
international level. To travel, for example, to the site of an
election so that foreigners can benefit from the expertise of
Elections Canada in this field. The Director General of Elections
in Quebec also provides expertise and advice abroad. We must
actively participate in operations like that in Eritrea, where we
have to ensure that the referendum on access to sovereignty is
held in a democratic fashion.
(1150)
The second conclusion is that we must respect democratic
rights everywhere. We must recognize the democratic decisions
made by others in an appropriate framework under criteria we
deem compatible with democratic principles.
Third, we must define methods of intervention. This is not
easy because the concept of security has changed, too. For a very
long time, security was seen as the need to protect ourselves
against foreign military attacks or invasions. I would venture to
say that the whole Canadian defense system is directed at the
North where the threat has almost disappeared. So we must
rethink all this and look at the new, very insidious threats to
security, in particular social inequities.
The problems of overpopulation, illiteracy and poverty
throughout the world will exert very strong pressure on
immigration and create a gap so large that it could lead to all
kinds of disasters. There is also the issue of the environment. In
a way, the environmental issue is a matter of territorial integrity
or should I say ecological integrity. In that context, the enemy is
not only others but ourselves mainly. We are the first ones to
pollute our lakes and rivers and to clearcut our forests. We are.
So, a totally new concept of environmental safety and
environmental threat is required.
As for the extremely important but sensitive issue raised by
the minister, namely the right or duty to interfere, I think that
refinements will nonetheless be required, absolutely, in certain
cases. Which ones? Not everybody should have the right to
interfere and arbitrariness should not be the rule. The nation
exercising the right to interfere should not be the one setting the
conditions under which it can be exercised. I think there should
be an international process. It is imperative, in my opinion, that
some screening be done, by the United Nations say, to determine
when, how and by whom this right can be exercised. I would not
want superpowers to decide for themselves where and when they
can use it.
Of course it is understood that the intent is to promote human
rights, but as we have seen, selective use can be made of this
right. We all saw how quick we were to intervene in Kuwait
against Iraq. Why was that? Because there was oil under the
desert. In other cases, we were not so quick, in Yugoslavia for
example. We had to be reminded often of the horrors happening
in Sarajevo before we took slightly more drastic actions. Much
remains to be done. That is what we see happening in Sarajevo,
2267
but similar things are happening elsewhere in Bosnia, in other
enclaves, where there are no TV cameras, and perhaps because
there are no cameras.
So, yes to the right to interfere, but let us beware of facile
enthusiasm where the obligations and conditions involved
would be overlooked.
Finally, about the conclusions to be drawn, I would say that
some targeting will have to be done because the minister was
quite ambitious in his speech. He gave a very broad outline of
what Canada should do, what its role should be in this world.
That is all very fine, but there is a need to target our action to be
more efficient. I think that very delicate and important work has
to be done in that area too and that it should be done in
committee.
(1155 )
[English]
In conclusion, we should be aware of the fact that one of the
radical changes in the international environment is that foreign
affairs are no longer foreign affairs. Foreign affairs are very
much internal affairs.
When we speak about the creation of jobs in Canada, and we
badly need to create jobs, we should know that we will never be
able to create the jobs we need if we do not have the kind of
international trade activity we need. More than 25 per cent of
Canada's standard of living is earned through our exports. It is
much less in Japan where it is about 12 per cent. It means that we
have to be very active abroad. We have to be innovative. We
have to implement a very positive relationship with the rest of
the world in order to be competitive so we have a very intimate
blend of domestic and international issues.
It would be the same when we talk about the question of
identity. The identity question, which we thought was a
domestic issue, is a very strong one all over the world right now.
We believed it was only a question in Quebec but it is not. It is
also a question for Canada because Canada will be a big player
in the globalization of the economy. As such, Canada will be
threatened by invading cultures. English Canadians will have to
be very vigilant to protect their own identity. Quebec will have
to do the same thing.
There is quite a rapprochement of issues, whether
international or domestic. The fact that we have such a huge
deficit should be in our minds when we address those questions.
We might have great ambitions as far as Canada's role,
visibility, presence, prestige and involvement in peacekeeping
missions in the world are concerned but do we have the means?
We should take a hard look at that. Until we redress the mess we
have in our public finances we will not be able to play any real
role in the world.
The government should be very vigilant and realistic and
clean up our domestic mess before thinking we can be present all
over the world. We cannot do that. We cannot sustain an army.
We cannot fight the environmental threats with the finances we
have. The government is now trying to sweep it under the carpet
but we all know that the deficit is a terrible one. It is a cancer
eating up the country. If we do not address it, all those exercises
and features are useless.
[Translation]
I would like to conclude with two reservations that we in the
Bloc Quebecois have about the process, not about the content.
The first reservation is that we are concerned that two
processes are going on in parallel, the defence committee and
the foreign affairs committee, to review fundamental
government policies.
However, the two are closely related. I would say that they
belong together. We cannot define one without defining the
other. The ties are so close that we are worried about having two
different operations going on parallel tracks, especially since
the deadline for producing reports is not the same in both cases.
The left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing
and it is impossible to define a foreign policy without including
the basic elements of a defence policy; similarly, it is impossible
to define a sensible defence policy without harmonizing it with a
foreign policy.
It all goes together. In reality, there is only one policy. We will
have four groups working: a group from the House on defence, a
group for foreign policy, and two joint committees that overlap
the previous two and will consider the same things, without
co-ordination and without having to present their reports at the
same time. I find that very disturbing. I wonder where we are
going with that. We risk scattering our efforts and fragmenting
our thinking, which will not lead to as logical and coherent a
conclusion as we might wish.
(1200)
My second concern is the creation of joint committees. First,
two committees of the House already exist. I think that is quite
enough, in terms of cost and consistency and efficiency, and now
we add joint committees with representatives from the Senate.
The Bloc will vote against the resolution. We want to form a
committee where we can work, an effective committee of
elected members who democratically represent Canada, Quebec
and the various provinces, not unelected senators who are
appointed for life by an order in council, a stroke of the pen, and
do not represent the people.
By their presence, the senators will make the committees
more cumbersome, increase expenses and drag out the
discussions, because they are not so in tune with the
contemporary
2268
everyday reality of electoral democracy; it is not really worth
knowing what the senators think. We can do anything and not
bother about what the senators think.
I am convinced that it is a very serious mistake to involve
senators in these committees. Elected people should do the job.
We are mandated to do so and I am sorry that the government
decided to include them. I would like the government to rethink
this matter, because then we could vote with it on forming a
committee of people who should really deal with these
important issues.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would advise members
in the House and particularly those following in the gallery or
elsewhere that while the first two speakers, the hon. minister
and the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, had unlimited
time and no question or comment period, we will now enter the
next stage of the debate pursuant to Standing Order 43.
I will recognize the member for Red Deer who will now
proceed with a 20-minute intervention followed by 10 minutes
questions and comments.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, initially I would like
to say that we are very strongly in favour of this proposed review
of foreign affairs and international trade.
Canada needs a new foreign affairs policy that is more
flexible and able to meet current issues quickly and effectively.
The review must bring us to a foreign affairs position which
allows us to leap into the 21st century.
If Canada wants to regain its middle power role in
international relations in the post-war period, it must a choose
particular global issue and then diligently follow that issue to its
end, utilizing our solid skills and resources. This will make
Canada's influence felt. There are simply too many current
issues for Canada to be involved in each.
Before getting into some of the details of what I feel this
review should incorporate, let me outline how I intend to deal
with this issue today. First, I would like to evaluate the process
itself. I would like to look at the forces that I see operating in the
world. Then I would like to look at the specific areas that this
review should cover and, finally, what the goals should be of this
whole process.
Regarding the process itself, while agreeing with the need for
review and modernization I would like to make several
comments about the process itself. First of all, there is the
involvement of the Senate. I was very pleased to hear the last
speaker agree with our position on involvement of the Senate.
We feel this will greatly weaken our ability to present a policy
that is truly representative of the people and one that will be
accepted by the people.
The Senate is not accepted by the grassroots of Canada and I
would defy any member here to disagree with that. The public
view is one of being a bunch of members overpaid, big
spenders, political appointments, no credibility, no
accountability and no constituents to represent.
The international view is much the same. It is a position that
cannot even be explained. They are not elected. They have no
credentials other than political. They are out of touch and they
have no constituents. Their only role is as consultants and
advisers but not as equal participants. This will immediately
affect the credibility of this review. It may be seen as just
another unrepresentative political study to be put on the shelf.
(1205)
The argument given by the minister as to why we should
include them was simply that they may duplicate the effort and
the cost. My answer to that would be let them do that. Let them
carry out their own study. I submit that it would be like the
$6,000 Senator raise. The public would hold them accountable.
In the area of travel, I believe it is justified for the
subcommittee to travel. I believe it is a very strong point to go
out and get the views of the grassroots and let them speak on this
very important matter.
Canadian policy should not be defined by diplomatic
relations. It should not mirror what the consultants and what the
political people want. It should be from the people. Direct
democracy methods need to be instituted and this is a good way
to do it. Consult Canadians directly. If you do not do that, at least
go to the elected members.
On public hearings, while the need for consultation is vital in
developing a credible Canadian foreign policy, there must be a
constant vigilance by the committee to avoid being over
influenced by the many very efficient and sophisticated lobby
groups which have been catered to in the past by previous
governments. These hearings could easily become a honey pot,
attracting a disproportionate number of special interest groups
to the exclusion of many grassroots Canadians. A special effort
should be made to hear the concerns and desires of the majority
of Canadians.
The timeframe I think also has to be dealt with. While all of us
would deplore a study which might drag on, it is important to
note that this foreign affairs policy document must be open to
change. This policy must be designed to take into account the
constantly changing world in which we now find ourselves. I ask
members to think back just a few years: Who would have
forecast such major changes as the end of the cold war, the
2269
collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin wall and so
many other economic changes that have occurred all around us?
What are the major factors that are operating in the world that
must be considered? The department of foreign affairs and
international trade needs to be able to explain its relevance to
the Canadian public. The Canadian people must think of foreign
affairs and international trade as a way for us to enter the new
era and play an important middle power role.
There have been an enormous number of changes on the world
scene. Let us examine just a few of them. Let us start off with
some of the political ones. Of course the most notable is the end
of the cold war. Predictability is gone and now we have a rise of
international, religious and ethnic wars which have plagued us
in the past but were suppressed by the cold war. Of course we
could talk about examples such as Iran, Iraq, Israel, Ireland, the
Baltics, the former Soviet Union and many parts of Africa.
We have as well on the scene Zhirinovsky, the wild card, the
possible threat to eastern Europe. That must be considered in all
of our deliberations, the growing gap between north and south,
between rich and poor, and the lack of a real solid superpower or
are there other superpowers which are going to rise and become
a problem to world peace.
Second, we have to look at globalization. This is possibly one
of the most important phenomena occurring in the world today.
Globalization is moving Canada toward an alignment with the
western hemisphere and away from the alignment with Europe.
It is clear that our military presence in Europe is not essential to
Canada-Europe economic ties. Canada will succeed in the
European market on the strength of its diplomats and
entrepreneurs, not its soldiers.
It is likely therefore that Canadian-European defence policy
will now be one that integrates its European interest into a more
global co-operation and security force, possibly using the
United Nations.
Having said this we should re-evaluate our policy
commitment to NATO and NORAD to determine if these
alignments are in the best interest of Canada in 1994 and
beyond. Globalization is also moving Canada away from the
European trade links and toward the western hemisphere and the
Pacific rim. Furthermore, with the European Economic
Community coming into place, Canada needs to secure its trade
position within North America. The Canadian-American
position is without a doubt the most important bilateral
relationship in Canadian foreign policy. This is especially true
with regard to the FTA, NAFTA and a possible future
strengthening of the OAS to a level comparable to the EEC.
(1210)
While the western hemisphere is of utmost importance to
Canadian trade, we must carefully evaluate our future trade in
light of all the alternatives. We must look to the assortment of
possible trade alignments, especially in the Pacific where we
will have to work hard to overcome our reputation as a small
player.
While this is a highly competitive market, it is one in which
we can successfully expand and do well. Some of our Canadian
entrepreneurs are already leading the way.
Third, we have environmental concerns. The environment
must also be addressed at the national and international levels.
The continuing dangers of ozone depletion, loss of species,
accumulation of hazardous waste, loss of arable land all become
serious potential international crises. This will be a particularly
difficult issue for Canada.
On issues such as the forests in Brazil, Canada has asked that
other countries begin a process of sustainable development in a
way that mirrors our national plan. Unfortunately for some
countries, this becomes an issue of environment versus
development. Likewise, these countries look for financial
assistance from the north to offset their development losses.
Currently Canada cannot afford to provide this assistance in
light of our present domestic economic situation.
Failure to address these environmental concerns will greatly
handicap our ability as a country and, more significantly, the
world in total to move ahead with normal sustainable
development.
Fourth, we have to look at the world population. With
shrinking fiscal resources our ability to help in the ongoing
problem of overpopulation only worsens. However, it is
essential that efforts continue to try and control this overriding
world problem.
The International Monetary Fund must also be considered.
Putting our domestic affairs in order is of obvious importance to
our international affairs. We must remember that our public and
private international indebtedness is the highest of any G-7
country. If the IMF is forced to become involved in our domestic
policy, we would suffer a major setback in our international
reputation. This threat remains as long as we fail to deal with our
rising debt and deficit.
Next I would like to talk about the areas that I and we as a
party feel should be reviewed and covered in this overall look at
foreign affairs policy.
First, what is the role of Canada in the world? In response to
the new challenges of global competition, environmental
problems, emerging nation states, in a time of shrinking fiscal
resources and greater political uncertainty, what role should we
2270
play in the world? We must target effectively those areas in
which we can be leaders and target areas in which we can build a
domestic pride inside Canada and a reputation as leaders
internationally.
Canada can play a leadership role as a major middle power,
not by big spending and glitzy, showy consulates, not by being
me too U.S. followers but by being ourselves; hard working,
reliable, good managers of money and people. This is one area
of government where we really can recreate a national pride
which has been tarnished by recent governments.
What about our foreign affairs and international trade
department? The operation of this department must be part of
our evaluation. We must be sure that some basic criteria are
followed. The group must be efficiently managed. Emphasis on
Canadian strong points are of most importance.
(1215 )
A lean mean group of dedicated, highly motivated individuals
is critical. The group must be flexible in this rapidly changing
environment. Cost must always be uppermost.
Overexpenditures and waste will not be tolerated by the public
any longer.
We also have to ask if privatization is feasible. Another
speaker will discuss this further. We must get more for less from
this department.
Two of my colleagues will be discussing the area of
peacekeeping further. Conflict resolution must be seen as an
international growth industry with new hotspots continually
emerging. We must enhance our reputation as international
peacekeepers.
Furthermore I advocate using our conflict management
experience to create international peacekeeping centres to train
other countries in effective peacekeeping. International training
would not only bring in funds but it would also present us as a
world power and would allow us to use some of our abandoned
military bases.
In the area of trade, Canada is a trading nation. One of my
colleagues will be developing this topic further a little later. We
must remember however that only by developing our position in
international trade will we truly be leading into the 21st century.
The role of the United Nations has been discussed. There is
reason to question the current ability of the financial and
political capabilities of this whole organization. The UN's
administration and guidelines that shaped international reaction
must be reviewed. Therefore we support the call for a United
Nations charter review conference in 1995.
With respect to the issue of Quebec in the short term we must
review the ramifications to Canada internationally should the
Bloc Quebecois and Party Quebecois realize their goal of
separation.
Specifically we must look at trade and trade agreements as
well as the international treaties. Quebec would have to
renegotiate some 170 treaties with the U.S. alone, including the
FTA. Also to be considered would be Canada's international
position with the absence of Quebec.
There are many other areas that should be examined. Some of
our future speakers will be discussing such things as CIDA and
the whole foreign aid situation and certainly the area of human
rights. I will leave those issues to them.
Finally, what should be the goals of our review and of our
subsequent foreign policy that we will be developing?
This review should cover all of Canada's affairs outside our
borders such that all other related reviews and agencies can
focus their policies and concerns solely on Canada's domestic
situation. The last speaker mentioned there are many studies
going on. We must focus these studies and this one particularly.
Conflicting points of view in this area will do nothing but send
the wrong signals to our international partners.
The goals can be summarized simply: First, to raise the
profile of Canada as a truly influential middle power player on
the world scene. Second, a policy which will allow us to move
our human and capital resources on to the world scene quickly to
take full advantage of opportunities presented by new
technologies or new demands. Third, send a message to
government, business and labour that we are open for business
and that co-operation will be the only way to open and enlarge
our status on the international scene. Finally, a policy of aid
based on respecting human rights and basic democratic
principles and on our ability to help those who want to help
themselves.
We in the Reform Party look forward to working with other
members to achieve a truly representative foreign affairs policy
to serve Canada well into the 21st century.
Given my comments, I move the following amendment to the
motion:
That the motion be amended by:
a) Deleting in paragraph one the word ``joint'' and the words ``and the
Senate'';
b) Deleting in paragraph four the words ``and seven members of the Senate'';
c) Deleting in paragraph five ``on behalf of the House'';
d) Deleting in paragraph ten (i) the word ``twelve'' and substituting the word
``eight'', (ii) deleting the words ``so long as both Houses are represented'', (iii)
deleting the words ``joint Chairpersons'' and substituting the word
``Chairperson'', (iv) deleting the word ``six'' and substituting the word
``three'';
(e) Deleting in paragraph eleven the words ``Senate and'';
(f) Deleting in paragraph fourteen, (i) the words ``either the Senate or the
House are'' and substituting the words ``the House is'', (ii) deleting the words
``Clerks of both Houses'' and substituting the words ``Clerk of the House'', (iii)
deleting the words ``both Houses'' and substituting the words ``the House''; and
2271
Deleting paragraph sixteen.
(1220)
We do this to complete the review and allow it to be more
effective, more cost effective and more meaningful as a
Canadian foreign affairs policy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment is
deemed acceptable.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I will just
speak briefly, mostly on the amendment proposed by the Reform
Party. I will say that we, Quebecers, have the same concerns
about the involvement of the Senate, that we should call the
other place, I believe, when we refer to it in the House. I am
totally in agreement with the amendment which would remove
any mention of that other place.
I think that the government-as the leader of the opposition
was saying a moment ago-is putting two trains on different
tracks, and we do not know where they are heading. There is
already a committee on defence, and then a joint committee on
defence policy was agreed to a few weeks ago. There is a House
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
and now we want to set up a joint committee. I agree that the
other chamber does not need to sit on the committee, does not
have to be part of our reflection, because it does not have a
democratic mandate. The leader of our party said so in his
speech. We certainly are in favour of a review of our foreign
policy, as it is necessary, but it should be done by a committee of
the House only.
(1225)
In that sense, the amendment of the Reform Party is certainly
desirable. I hope we will do without this relic of colonialism that
we call the other place and that is made up of people without a
democratic mandate, people who sit there as a political favour,
former fund raisers for the two main parties, the Liberals and the
Conservatives. There is no reason why these people should be
involved in defining our foreign policy. There are enough
elected members, including 205 newly elected ones, who have
something to say. I could say too that expanding a committee or
creating a parallel one is a waste of money.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for introducing this
amendment. I share his views on the relevance of senators in this
committee and also on cost, since increasing the number of
members would increase the cost should the committee be
called upon to travel. This, in my opinion, is a shameful waste of
money and, as far as we are concerned, we would rather see the
Senate abolished that have it participate to committees.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, certainly I appreciate
that support. As I mentioned in my speech we feel very strongly
about it. I trust many of the members on the other side will agree
that the other place does not need to be represented. We certainly
look forward to the vote on that item.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I also
enjoyed the presentation of the member for Red Deer.
One thing that made me very happy was his indication that
Canada should identify its role by being what we are. We are
good money managers and I thank him for that recognition.
He also made reference to Mr. Zhirinovsky. About a month
back I read an article in one of the papers about how Mr.
Zhirinovsky was carving out his own version of Europe,
chopping borders here and there. Today as we are dealing with a
global economy we need to bring rest within our trading partners
and throughout.
How do we deal with those issues when we have comments
such as those where at the utterance of one word we could create
stability or instability? How do we address those types of
outbursts from people such as Zhirinovsky?
How do we force new players in this world which is unfolding
before us almost daily? How do we recognize newly formed
countries? Do we set preconditions? Do we ask them to come to
the table and before handing out any blank cheques say that we
should resolve those differences before recognizing them? How
would we address those types of comments?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, this points out what we
have pointed out a number of times in the past. That is we must
have a little bit of a go slow attitude when it comes to reacting to
certain individuals and what has happened in those unstable
places like the Soviet Union.
I heard an interesting comment from a speaker yesterday. It
was that in Russia the Reagan poodle has died and we are now
waiting to find out whether a Rottweiler or a Labrador retriever
will take over the country. I particularly like that interesting
analogy.
I agree that the poodle is dead. I wonder whether Mr.
Zhirinovsky is the Rottweiler. His answer was that for a number
of reasons he is not. There are other people to fear in that area. In
particular to the Soviet Union, there is a rise of nationalism. The
change in the economy has not been good when we look back to
the good old days. We must be conscious of all that. It is to our
folly-and the last government fell into it-to jump in too
quickly and so on.
(1230)
I suppose NATO recognizing places like Poland should be
looked at very seriously. We should take our time. We would
2272
agree with the government and certainly those people on the
foreign affairs committee in that whole area. I would say go
slowly and intelligently, not with knee-jerk reactions.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I too want to congratulate the hon. member for the
amendment that he moved and say that we intend to vote for it
because it relates to an area where Canadians and Quebecers
really want to be represented by those whom they elected. I
think this would show respect for the opinion of the people who
just voted last fall, in the general election, on the way they see
the future of the foreign policy, that is that it be made by the
people who were elected in the general election.
By the same token, it would be for us an indication of our
willingness to do things at a lower cost and to take into
consideration all the criticisms that we may have received on the
unnecessary spending there may be in the Canadian federal
system as well as in all bureaucratic systems. However, we do
not intend this morning to put the federal system on trial. In that
sense, the amendment from the Reform Party suits us very well
and we hope that the government will also see fit to vote for it.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his comments. They reiterate a very strong point and we
appreciate the support.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not want to confuse
members, but there was mention made in the intervention of the
hon. member for Richelieu that we commonly refer to the Senate
as the other place.
Today, with the word Senate being in the motion, I would
deem it acceptable for members in replying to questions or
comments to use the same term as in the motion. Ultimately we
must be vigilant and remain respectful of all members in the
House as well as senators in the other chamber.
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussions today
of Canada's foreign policy initiated by my colleague, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I want to share with members today some thoughts on the role
of trade in our total foreign affairs policies, sketch out possible
policy directions, and encourage discussions on how we can best
proceed in the future.
I am also very pleased to co-sponsor the foreign policy forum
which will involve people across Canada from the private sector
on March 21 and March 22. It will seek their views on public
policy. I look forward to the subsequent work the parliamentary
committee will undertake under the initiative of my colleague,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The importance of trade to the making and implementation of
Canadian foreign policy has long been a central principle of our
vision of international relations. Lester Pearson entitled his
1957 Nobel peace prize address ``Four Faces of Peace''.
Significantly his first face of peace and the one about which he
spoke most eloquently was trade. Mr. Pearson noted:
The higher man sets his economic goals in this age of mass democracy, the
more essential it is to political stability and peace that we trade as freely as
possible.
He spoke of the high political purpose of civilizing the
commercial policies of governments through the reduction of
trade and investment barriers.
(1235 )
Mr. Pearson understood that trading agreements can underpin
human development, including greater respect of basic human
rights, by expanding the scope of international law, by
generating the growth required to sustain social development,
and by making governments that have opened their markets
more sensitive to the reactions of international business and
other governments. An autarkic, inward looking society that
depends little on trade and international investment is less
likely to respond positively to concerns raised by others.
The construction of an international system of binding rights,
obligations and effective enforcement in which Canada takes its
place as one of the more active and creative architects helps to
ensure that the rule of law prevails over the rule of unrestrained
power and discriminatory fixes. The making of trade rules fits
this objective very well.
Despite the disputes that arise and the range of barriers that
continue to impede people everywhere from reaching their true
economic and social potential, internationally agreed rules
governing trade relations can be the cement that binds together
the international community.
[Translation]
Our government has focused mainly on economic recovery
and job creation. Trade directly impacts on that area.
A large part of Canada's prosperity is due to the fact that we
have access to foreign markets. Our exports of goods and
services account for more than a quarter of our gross domestic
product.
At the beginning of the nineties that proportion was slightly
less than the one recorded in Germany, about the same as the one
recorded in France and in Great Britain and more than double the
one existing in the United States and in Japan. Directly and
indirectly, exports sustain more than 2 million jobs in Canada,
and international trade will become more significant for the
conservation and the creation of jobs.
[English]
Against the background of Canada's trade record and the
importance to Canada of exports as well as imports, the conduct
of Canada's trade relations must rest on two pillars: first, the
quest for greater international security through agreed rule
2273
making and enforcement and, second, the creation of
competitively sustained jobs for Canadians, whatever the
product, wherever the market.
It is now generally acknowledged that the world economy has
experienced fundamental changes over the last three decades
and that these changes have been primarily structural in nature.
The globalization of production, the growth of knowledge based
industries and the shift in wealth and power to the Asia-Pacific
region all point to the rise of a new international economic
order.
It is also commonly accepted that attempts on the part of
national governments to shield themselves from these changes
are not only illusory but fraught with danger. Admittedly this
has not stopped certain governments from attempting to do just
that. In the United States in some quarters the current political
obsession is Japan, which enjoys a sizeable trade surplus despite
or perhaps because of its current recession. Behind such cryptic
phrases as fairer trade and levelling the playing field often lurk
notions of replacing open rules based competition with managed
trade, restrictive quotas and regulated trade balances. Likewise
in Europe there are some who support the idea of a closed,
self-reliant bloc. Regional liberalization and policy
harmonization are certainly laudable goals when aimed at
deepening Europe's commitment to freer trade. However these
objectives become rather less admirable when one additional
goal is to shut out global competition, especially from low cost
producers in Asia or Latin America.
(1240)
Fortunately or unfortunately there is no turning back the clock
on globalization. Like the industrial revolution of the previous
century, the kinds of changes produced by rapid technological
change and by the liberalized trading system have permanently
altered the economic landscape. As we saw with the former
communist bloc, efforts to shut out these forces eventually
collapsed, with the collapse of the Berlin wall itself, largely
because these countries were being left behind in an
accelerating, footloose technological race. Countries must
either move rapidly to adapt to change or watch their productive
capacities deteriorate and their living standards decline.
The central lesson of globalization for Canada is that we can
only achieve economic growth through an open, outward
looking trade policy. In the current domestic economic climate
characterized by accumulating private and public sector debt,
high rates of taxation and anaemic consumption, there is no
wellspring of demand waiting to be unleashed by the right
macroeconomic fix. Any meaningful domestic growth strategy
must almost by definition be export led. Only by targeting new
and additional markets, by assisting our firms to be competitive
in those markets and by creating an open, outward oriented
economic base both for domestic and foreign businesses, will
the government have any realistic hope of securing long term
growth and job creation.
At the same time we must focus not just on how much Canada
exports but on what Canada exports, the type of markets we
pursue, the delivery systems were provide and, perhaps most
important, the productive climate we foster at home will in
many ways shape the kind of Canadian economy which evolves
in the years ahead.
We must also recognize that in a world of rapid and complex
change where international institutions are struggling to keep
up, where other countries are employing a wide range of
instruments to gain advantage in the global marketplace and
where Canada is but a middle power, we need to be more
focused, more single minded in the pursuit of our policy
objectives.
It has been suggested that political diplomacy is giving way to
economic diplomacy. If Canada is to remain a significant player
in an international arena characterized primarily by the
interplay of economic forces, we must define a more strategic,
less universal niche in the affairs of the international
community. More than ever trade policy is about positioning
Canada in the global economy so that we attract the high value
added, high technology industries and jobs of the future.
The key to developing an effective trade strategy for Canada
is to begin to identify more precisely our national priorities,
both regionally and sectorally, based on a much clearer
assessment of where our economic interests lie. In practical
terms this means working directly with our key export sectors to
develop a more focused, more agile policy agenda which is
concerned less with trade instruments or the institutional
frameworks than with trade objectives. It means using all the
policy tools at our disposal, multilateral, regional and bilateral,
to achieve clearly set out national priorities. In an ideal world,
trade liberalization would occur multilaterally on the broadest
possible range of fronts. Unfortunately we are dealing with an
imperfect, changing world and we must be prepared to wield a
whole array of trade policy instruments if we want to reach our
market access goals.
(1245 )
Although time does not allow me today to examine in detail
the policy directions in the trade area for Canada in the decades
ahead, I want to set forth what should be our three objectives.
First, we must define our priorities more clearly based on a
rigorous assessment of where Canada's competitive advantages
lie. It remains true that Europe is still central for many Canadian
exports and an important source of investment capital.
We shall continue to attend to the trans-Atlantic market very
carefully.
2274
The United States market and the successful management of
our trade relations with our neighbour remain fundamental to
Canada's economic prosperity.
Nonetheless, the highest growth rate, the most exciting new
market opportunities are in the western hemisphere, in Latin
America and more especially westward across the Pacific to
Asia.
Moreover, it is with many of these emerging markets that
Canadian exports will enjoy a strong comparative advantage and
major growth opportunities in the years ahead, much stronger
than we enjoy in the markets of Europe or even in the United
States.
How can we secure further access to traditional markets while
actively expanding our economic links with high growth
markets overseas? The central focus remains the multilateral
trade framework which provides the foundation upon which our
trade policy is constructed. For this reason we are committed to
promoting an early start to the work of the new world trade
organization. Called into being by the recent Uruguay round of
the GATT, it is largely a Canadian proposal that completes the
post war trade and payment system in the best traditions of
Canadian foreign policy.
We shall actively encourage the international community to
elaborate more fully a forward looking work program that
reflects Canadian interests as well as the new trade issues,
especially trade in the environment and the possibility of
replacing anti-dumping regimes with competition policy, that
have arisen through greater global integration.
We will also actively encourage means by which the new
world trade organization, the World Bank and the IMF can
co-ordinate their efforts to reach mutually reinforcing policy
objectives. We shall actively encourage the prompt accession of
China, Taiwan and Russia to the new world trade organization
with all its rights and obligations.
The fact remains that Canada's most critical economic
relationship is with the United States, the destination of over 70
per cent of our exports, and indeed with North America as a
whole.
To manage this relationship Canada has a more
comprehensive rules based framework in the recently
proclaimed North American Free Trade Agreement.
The government's commitment to strengthening this
framework is underscored by our successful efforts to establish
NAFTA working groups that will strive to reform practices
related to the inappropriate use of anti-dumping and
countervailing duties.
NAFTA can provide a complementary tool for expanding
opportunities for Canadian exports only if it remains
fundamentally open to the world economy. What we do not want
to see is a NAFTA which turns inward on itself, devolving into a
form of continentalist, protectionist block.
For this reason we must focus our attention on the accession
issue and underscore its importance as a means of strengthening
trade and investment relations not only within our hemisphere
but indeed across the Pacific for those Asian countries ready for
a comprehensive economic partnership.
The new world trade organization and NAFTA are not the only
tools available to Canada to expand our trade relations beyond
North America.
(1250 )
Another approach can be to explore the prospects for
negotiating a range of bilateral trade arrangements with selected
high growth economies overseas. Such a policy would in no way
compromise our existing and vital relationship with the United
States. The goal is not to increase Canada's independence
through a rekindled third option. Such independence even if it
were economically desirable is largely illusory in an
increasingly interdependent world.
On the contrary, Canada's role in the FTA and now in NAFTA
should be translated into a competitive advantage by
encouraging greater economies of scale, by facilitating mutual
beneficial sourcing and networks and by helping Canadians to
build globally competitive industries. It is essential that we
view our North American base not as a buffer against
international competition but as a springboard to a rapidly
expanding global economy.
Trade agreements open doors. Our trade development
activities help companies walk through them. In the emerging
economies of the Asia-Pacific region or Latin America the goal
of establishing an institutional foothold in those markets and
constructing strong business links or alliances is at least as
important as formalizing market access agreements.
As the second part of our strategic approach to trade policy we
must also devise ways to target government programs and
resources more effectively to assist Canadian companies to
reach into key markets.
Of particular concern to the government is the role of small
and medium sized enterprises which have the potential to be the
growth engines of the future but often lack the critical mass, the
financial resources or the technical expertise to penetrate
foreign markets. Building stronger linkages with the private
sector, improving the delivery of market information, better
co-ordinating government programs, both federal and
provincial and further leveraging domestic financial resources
are issues now on the table.
2275
The main objective is not to encourage government to be
better at exporting but to encourage the business sector to be
more aggressive, more outward looking global traders.
Are there ways of redesigning our trade development
institutions and activities so that we bring a more co-ordinated
approach to the design, the allocation and implementation of our
limited resources? Should we consider working with the
provinces and industry to be the linchpins of effective export
strategies by adopting a more market driven approach to trade
development, one which sees government as an export
facilitator rather than an export leader? We can use market
signals to set our real trade priorities.
Last, we must foster a domestic economic environment
conducive to export led growth. It has become commonplace to
observe that the boundary between national issues and
international issues is becoming blurred in the same way the
distinction between domestic policy instruments and trade
policy instruments is in many instances meaningless.
Regulatory and tax policies that unnecessarily inhibit export
sectors must be revisited. Regimes and restrictions that block
constructive international investment must also be
re-examined. As the world economy becomes increasingly
open, Canada will inevitably be exposed to greater and more
fluid investments.
We need to ensure that Canada can attract the kind of high
quality foreign investment that will allow us to take advantage
of technology transfers to sources from global markets and to
remain at the hub of international linkages and alliances. The
basic objective of our policy is to further Canada's national
economic interests at a time when these interests show a far
greater constancy than the increasingly complex and
competitive world with which we grapple. We can do a much
better job of ensuring that these interests are translated into bold
policy objectives and clear priorities.
(1255)
To that end we intend to ensure that the government's own
house is in order with regard to international business
development support. Upon entering office we found
duplication, overlap and sometimes confused mandates that
hindered the efforts of our exporters to compete abroad. We
intend to correct this and to build a single integrated program
that addresses issues such as the timeliness and dissemination of
market intelligence, the need to reform the mechanisms now in
place that provide export financing, and the promotion of
mutually beneficial science and technology co-operation
between Canadian and foreign companies.
We have to find ways of doing things better, both because
good fiscal accountability demands it and because budgetary
realities oblige us all to act responsibly as well as creatively.
Moreover, we intend to develop this program through a much
closer and more active partnership with the provincial
governments and with the private sector.
This process and the foreign policy consultations now
launched will assist us in identifying the appropriate tools and
strengthening program delivery. During the course of 1994 I
shall announce the concrete results emerging from the
consultations in which we are now engaged.
We must ensure that the greater co-ordination of all Canadian
foreign policy tools to underpin our interests abroad are
respecting the fact that these interests will always be varied. I
want to reassure this House that the government will vigorously
defend the market access achieved through negotiations and
realized in practise through the efforts of our export community.
We shall not hesitate to challenge other nations when they do not
live up to their international trade and economic obligations,
threatening Canadian interests and Canadian jobs as a result.
This is, after all, the whole point of international rule making.
We shall be active bilaterally and we shall use the dispute
settlement provisions in our international trade agreements to
defend the interests of all Canadians.
Today's debate marks early in our mandate a period of
reflection and discussion about the direction of Canada's
foreign policy in a new and more competitive world in which
trade and economic issues will be at the centre of the stage as
never before. I am convinced that by working through these
issues together we shall emerge with a clearer sense of purpose
and a direction abroad that can only benefit the prosperity of all
regions of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, when we
look at Canada's external relations in terms of development
assistance and international trade with a somewhat critical eye,
we have to recognize that by providing assistance, Canada is
doing business and seeking business.
Does the minister believe it would be possible, without
creating a gap, to make a better distinction between those two
Canadian types of action in order to make it clear that business is
business and assistance is assistance if we are going to try to
eliminate the somewhat undue influences which clearly exist in
that area?
[English]
Mr. MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the member brings forward a
valuable question in terms of the intended purposes of foreign
aid. I am sure that others during the course of this debate will
want to comment on that broad question as well.
With regard to the specific question the hon. member raises,
the commercial relations of our aid program, commercial
involvement in our CIDA program can often bring real benefit. I
think in particular of how in a number of instances in which a
sale of Canadian goods or services is envisaged in a recipient
country, a Third World country, quite often CIDA can provide
2276
the training element that can make a greater reality of the
investment. I have in mind the instances where Canadian
companies have entered into joint ventures or even direct
investment in a Third World country where quite obviously a
short term problem is going to be the absence of local people
capable of working in that factory or industry. In those instances
CIDA has often been able to provide the financing for the
training which enables the local people to participate in the new
industries involved.
(1300)
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the minister. I will preface it.
One of the criticisms in the past of our trade department is it
has not had really strong links with the private investment
community, private business, and it felt a little bit left out. I
think I hear the minister saying that is something that is going to
be corrected in this review that is taking place.
Could he just assure me that in fact that is actually what he
said?
Mr. MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I do not for one moment want to
suggest that I have had misgivings about the abilities of officials
in the department to develop and maintain close working
relations with the Canadian private sector.
I think all of us would recognize, and I am sure the hon.
member would do so, that the world is a rapidly changing place.
Technology is evolving very rapidly in a way that suggests that
new approaches to the relationship between the trade
commissioner service on the one hand and the Ottawa based
staff on the other with the business community needs to be under
constant review.
One way in which we are giving current expression to that is
to examine the ways in which financing is provided to Canadian
companies for their export sales. Quite obviously there are
limited total resources within the country, whether they come
from government or the private sector, to bring about that
support.
We are talking with the banks at the moment about how we
might better co-operate together on export financing. We are
looking in particular, as I noted in passing in my statement, at
the possibility of more financing being available to small and
medium sized businesses that are interested in getting into the
export world, a world that often is bewildering to them and
where they need some assistance from either federal or
provincial governments and from the banks to participate
actively in the export world.
Therein is an example of an area where we are actively
looking at some initiatives to see whether we can tie the work of
the department and of the Export Development Corporation yet
more closely to the private sector interests.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, last
February 17, the government invited this House to a third debate
on national defence launching the process that would lead to the
review of Canada's defence policy.
At that time, I mentioned the contradiction in the fact that the
government was entering into such a debate before declaring
what its own directions, its own intentions were on the subject of
defence. Meanwhile, the government had already decided to
authorise the United States to resume testing of cruise missiles
over Canadian territory and, a few days later, it announced some
drastic cuts in the defence budget, the closing of several bases
and two military colleges, and the six-month extension of the
Canadian peacekeepers' mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina. All
those decisions have a direct impact on Canada's defence policy
and they were made without the slightest announcement of the
government's intentions and before the joint committee
responsible for the review of the defence policy had even begun
its proceedings.
(1305)
At the time of that debate, I said: ``Moreover, the government
assumes that a defence policy can be considered independently
from foreign policy, which is not the case. There again, the
government carefully avoided unveiling its intentions regarding
the direction it will give to this new foreign policy''.
That statement is still very valid today, some four weeks later.
Today, the government is inviting us to participate in the
launching of Canada's foreign policy review process, while
once more keeping its own intentions rather vague and unclear.
However, today, we had the opportunity to hear the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade outline
the foreign policy guidelines the government intends to follow.
I must say that I find it totally deplorable that it is only this
morning that we were given the working paper which is
supposed to be the basis for the debate on Canada's foreign
policy. Moreover, the government persists in seeing the foreign
policy review process as totally separate from the defence
policy review process, an approach which, in many respects,
does not make any sense.
Foreign policy is closely connected to security and defence. It
is particularly true in Canada where post-war foreign policy has
been geared to the collective security system set up under the
UN, NATO and NORAD.
The foreign policy review we are embarking upon follows two
major reviews of this kind undertaken by the Canadian
government during the last 25 years. The first one took place in
1969-70 under the Trudeau government and the second one was
conducted in 1984 by the Mulroney government. Since then,
2277
there has a been a lot of water under the bridge and a lot of events
caused much ink to flow; cases in point are the fall of the Berlin
wall and German unification, as well as the breaking up the
Soviet Union and the collapse of communism.
There is an urgent need to review defence and foreign policies
in view of drastic changes in world order. Today, the notion of
security takes on a meaning very different than was the case not
that long ago.
However, several other major changes have also contributed
to making the federal government feel the need to review
Canada's foreign policy. I can think of the development of
communications, the emergence of environmental concerns, as
well as the globalization of markets.
It is important to point out that this globalization is an
inescapable phenomenon. It is a tendency which affects the
economy of all countries, whether they are G-7 members or
developing nations. To try to escape this reality would be like
ignoring the emergence of new means of communication and
production; in other words, it would be tantamount to ignoring
the changes which have occurred in our economic environment.
In a previous speech made in this House, I mentioned that the
economies of Quebec and Canada are largely dependent on
exports of goods and services, which account for close to 16 per
cent of the country's gross domestic product. Obviously, the
economic prosperity of a nation of seven million people or, for
that matter, of a country with a population of 28 million, is
contingent upon having access to major markets. This is why I
wonder about the reluctance of English Canada to recognize the
existence of a potentially beneficial pattern, assuming it is well
managed.
However, even though market globalization implies a certain
degree of integration in an economic structure which transcends
national boundaries, it does not mean that small countries have
to yield to the powerful economies of the world.
By standing up for themselves, these small nations ensure that
their interests will be protected, since they will have been
enshrined in duly negotiated agreements implemented by
neutral international organizations. Moreover, they can enjoy
the same benefits as their trading partners and competitors.
(1310)
Many smaller states, like Denmark and the Benelux countries,
have done well against great economic powers such as Germany,
France and the United Kingdom and have recognized the need to
open up to the world.
To protect ourselves against the almost unlimited
high-handedness of the great powers, we need to embark upon
some serious negotiations and to establish dispute settlement
mechanisms capable of withstanding political pressure. Of
course, laxness and obscure definitions would under no
circumstances whatsoever be deemed acceptable.
There is much more to the benefits of free trade and market
globalization. In fact, it is our hope that foreign companies
gaining access to the United States and North America will
increasingly choose Canada and Quebec as their entrance point
to these markets.
As you may have guessed, the Bloc Quebecois is not against
reopening NAFTA to include new partners. Quite the opposite, it
would welcome them. However, it greatly hopes that the
government projects will include significant measures to help
Quebec and Canadian businesses and workers to adjust to this
new reality.
Various groups were opposed to the signing and
implementation of the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA,
because these treaties did not include any adjustment measure.
Finally, I have one last word of advice about market
globalization that comes from the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce. At a round table on international trade, one of its
officials said, and I quote: ``GATT, NAFTA and other regional
agreements help to create a more dynamic, foreseeable and
stable trade environment. However, our members believe that
globalization represents bigger and bigger challenges for
Canada. They think that the capacity of Canadian businesses to
take advantage of the opportunities provided by GATT and
NAFTA and to keep their share of the domestic market directly
depends on the capacity of Canada to put its finances on a
healthy footing''.
In fact, the leader of the opposition himself raised this issue
earlier today, during his speech.
I have also mentioned that the Chamber of Commerce
advocates improved co-operation between the private and the
public sectors. As I have mentioned before in this House, this
means, among other things, that the government must give
access to all the information and expertise it has and create an
environment conducive to investments in Quebec and in
Canada.
Although Canada and Quebec are irremediably committed to
freer trade with the free trade agreement, the North American
Free Trade Agreement and GATT negotiated agreements, we
must be careful and watchful of arbitrary decisions on the part of
our trade partners, in particular the United States, to which our
industries could fall victim.
The process leading to the gradual elimination of trade
barriers between Canada and the United States is undoubtedly
well under way and on schedule, but this does not prevent the
2278
Americans from applying against some of our products and
some of our industries protectionist measures which appear to
be anachronisms given the current trend towards market
globalization.
This total disregard for the international rules of the game on
the part of the United States when it comes to trade is evident in
a number of areas of economic activity in Canada. Take for
example the conflicts between Canada and the United States on
steel, softwood, beer, some farm products and uranium.
In those areas, the American authorities are systematically
trying to deny Canadian products access to their market by using
all kinds of cunning and harassing tactics such as constant red
tape, countervailing duties, repeated use of the various dispute
settlement mechanisms, etc.
The latest weapon the United States added to their arsenal of
trade impediments is their super 301. This rather exceptional
measure allows the American administration to penalize the
countries deemed guilty of unfair trade practices against the
United States.
Super 301, which is in total contradiction with the rules and
the spirit of GATT and NAFTA, was strongly denounced all over
the world, in particular by the Secretary General of GATT and by
the European Commissioner for International Trade.
(1315)
Fortunately, Canada is not directly threatened, at least for
now, with possible application of super 301. The United States
are now threatening Japan with trade retaliation measures if it
does not open its market wider to some American products.
However, there are reasons for Canada to fear the potentially
negative impact of the application of super 301 to Japan. The
Prime Minister of Australia and some French parliamentarians
already expressed their fear.
This strong hint of protectionism from another era shows the
need to establish strong international institutions that can
guarantee the continuation of the free trade movement and help
countries to protect themselves against arbitrary and unilateral
decisions by the great economic powers.
In this regard, the creation of the world trade organization as
of January 1, 1995 seems to be a step in the right direction. Also,
we will have to ensure that clear and functional dispute
settlement mechanisms are included in NAFTA and that the
discussions requested by the federal government regarding the
definition of dumping and subsidies are successful.
As I said earlier, trade liberalization and market globalization
seem to be a trend, an irreversible phenomenon. The prosperity
of nations will depend more and more on international trade. It
is a fact that will be part of Canada's economic reality from now
on. So, as I mentioned in this House on February 1, the warm
reception given by both federalists and sovereignists in Quebec
first to the free trade agreement with the United States and later
to the North American Free Trade Agreement should surprise no
one.
In the context of market globalization, it appears essential to
me that the provinces be able to ensure the development of their
economy, their culture and their society. This position, inspired
by the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, implies that provincial
government institutions abroad deal with areas under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction at the international level.
It is with that in mind that Quebec started, in the early 1960s,
to establish a network ensuring its presence abroad. Today it has
27 offices abroad to promote Quebec exports, to seek out
investment, to implement immigration agreements and to
encourage exchanges in education, language and culture.
Other provinces also, including New Brunswick, Alberta,
British Columbia and Ontario, have established a number of
offices abroad. However, Ontario recently decided to close its
offices outside Canada.
When a provincial government chooses to maintain a mission
abroad in order to promote its interests and its culture, it should
not expect the federal government to undertake obstructive
action against it. If we want provinces to be able to attract
investors and to help our businesses break into foreign markets,
we should avoid these centralist offensives or pressures on
provinces by the federal government.
I would like to take this opportunity to add a few words on the
government project called Team Canada. This should not be
confused of course with the hockey team of the same name. This
project aims to encourage and develop a synergy, a co-operation
between the various Canadian stakeholders in the area of
exports. Team Canada, it is to be hoped, must remain a flexible
organization promoting co-operation and collaboration
between these various Canadian stakeholders in the area of
exports.
Too often we have seen such initiatives become exercises in
centralization which look like bureaucratic monsters. Moreover,
consultation with the provinces is imperative if we are to avoid
duplication, draw upon their expertise, and define their real
needs.
At any rate, the whole process of reviewing our foreign
policy, more particularly as it applies to international trade,
should obviously take into consideration the views,
expectations, and concerns of all interested parties.
At the very beginning of my remarks, I took great care to state
my reservations and concerns about a foreign policy review that
is totally divorced from the national defence policy review, a
rather illogical decision. I would now like to deal with my
concern about the process itself.
2279
(1320)
The government's motion provides for the appointment of a
joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate. I think
that such a committee is utterly useless and inappropriate.
Having a certain number of senators join the members who sit on
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade will only make for a heavier structure and lead to an
inefficient and unproductive committee. It will also drive up the
costs, since more people will be travelling with the committee.
In my opinion, the creation of working subcommittees that
some see as a solution to the problems of effectiveness and cost
related to the joint committee's size is in reality a proposal
which will ultimately undermine the coherence and unity of all
committee members in their work.
Some will say that creating a joint committee will help us
avoid duplication between the House standing committee and
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, thus avoiding expenditures made by two
committees working simultaneously on the same issue. This
argument is pointless since both committees, like all
committees of the House which have an equivalent in the
Senate, are constantly overlapping anyway.
We agree with the principle which prompts the government to
propose the creation of a joint committee of the House and the
Senate, that is to eliminate costly and useless duplication
between the two committees responsible for foreign affairs and
international trade.
Obviously, we disagree on the means. While the Liberals
propose a temporary solution to a real problem, which is due to
the existence of the Senate itself, we respectfully suggest to our
colleagues that the sole purpose of creating such a joint
committee is to maintain this ancient and antiquated institution
which is completely out of touch with Canadian reality. That is
why we oppose the creation of this joint committee.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I have a short
question. We certainly agree with the mention of the Senate
item. I look at the difficulty that Canada has in becoming known
in the international community.
The hon. member mentioned something about the efficiency
that some smaller countries can have. He made reference to
several countries. I would take a look at Norway which has a
huge tax burden and a high debt level and point out that maybe it
is not being as successful.
My question concerns the economy of size. Some of the hon.
member's comments made reference to the fact that smaller
units can be successful in the international community. I wonder
if he could elaborate on that a bit, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I find interesting the specific
reference made by my colleague from Red Deer to a
Scandinavian country which, everyone knows, has experienced
over the last few years a growth in public spending for which it
now has to bear the consequences.
I think he has deliberately targetted a Scandinavian country to
illustrate his point. He could just as well have chosen a country
other than a Scandinavian one, such as Austria, Denmark or
Switzerland. He preferred to choose Norway to argue that a
small state is not necessarily more efficient than a large one.
In answer to that, I will only point out that while Canada is a
large country, it is not really in a better financial shape than
Norway.
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa)): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this
opportunity to address the House on the opening of our foreign
policy review.
My remarks today are made in the context of our
government's commitment to a foreign policy review. A foreign
policy review commences with this opportunity in the House of
Commons for elected members of Parliament to speak to issues
which, although they may not seem as urgent as their
constituents' well-being, are in fact just as relevant to our
well-being as health, welfare and a social safety net. Many
factors outside of Canada threaten the security of our daily lives
and those of our children and grandchildren just as surely as
unemployment, health and education programs and difficulties
resulting from our debt and deficits at home.
(1325)
If world population growth rates continue and poverty
world-wide is allowed to continue to ravage our global
environment, if consumption levels continue without
consideration of whether that consumption is sustainable, if
women world-wide are not recognized as the critical
determiners of health and education standards and economic
well-being and yet are not supported adequately in these roles,
then our very survival is threatened, not just our economic and
social well-being.
Members of Parliament are elected to represent more than the
immediate interests of their constituents, important as these
interests are. Members of Parliament are obliged to balance the
interests of their constituents with the broad and often
conflicting interests of the regions of Canada and of our country
as a whole. Federally elected members of Parliament must
broaden the balance of all these interests to include a global
perspective,
2280
the best interests of humanity as a whole, our global family. Our
vision cannot be blinkered by narrow interests. We must not be
blind to critical issues in a rapidly changing world.
As I am sure all members have noticed since the
commencement of the 35th Parliament, determining the future
directions of our nation is a complex and often difficult
balancing act. Canada has a longstanding reputation for
leadership in addressing international problems and we intend
to further strengthen this reputation over the years. However, no
government has all the answers.
In the post cold war era, we are continually presented with
rapidly changing situations, new challenges and many
opportunities. That is the reason the government is launching
today a broad consultative process with the Canadian people.
[Translation]
In the end, the government will have to make decisions based
on principles, but we admit that Canadians, because of their
culture, education, as well as their many travels and
professional experience, are more than ever able to contribute to
policy formulation. Such a combination of culture, education
and international experience is unequalled in any other country.
The Liberal government is not starting from scratch in this
foreign policy evaluation. Over the last four years, we consulted
Canadians on a whole series of issues such as UN reform,
foreign aid, human rights and sustainable development. Our
principles were stated clearly and we want them to be the
grounds for our review.
At the end of the process, I sincerely hope that we will be able
to establish a more consistent foreign policy whose various
components-assistance, trade, defence, environment, health,
agriculture, immigration and politics-will be complementary.
[English]
In the past, elements of Canadian foreign policy have often
operated without consideration of their effects on other policy
areas. This resulted in policies which often worked at
cross-purposes and which ran the risk of cancelling out each
other's benefits. Our fragile planet cannot withstand the
continuation of this short-sighted approach. Scarce resources,
public and private, must be harmonized to maximize our limited
capabilities. We need a full foreign policy review to help us
better understand how to achieve coherent results.
My specific purpose in addressing this debate today is to
highlight the relevant issues from the perspective of my areas of
responsibility, Latin America, which includes the Caribbean and
Africa.
I would like to begin with some reflection first on Africa. As a
continent which is rich in culture, human and natural resources,
I believe it cannot be marginalized. Africa currently has a
population of 650 million people, a figure that could double by
the year 2010.
(1330 )
With such enormous population pressures, what can we do
when the people of Africa are forced to eradicate their own
natural resources for the purposes of survival? It is in those
situations that environmental concerns become as much a
security issue for Canada as terrorism.
The nature of Canadian aid to Africa has changed in recent
years. More and more our dollars are spent in providing relief,
not development assistance. This relief is augmented by
peacekeeping and defence dollars dispensed in response to
social, economic and political upheaval.
Ultimately Canada is forced to make huge contributions to
refugee programs at home and abroad. We must recognize the
immense costs of social, political and economic crises and their
effect on our own well-being at home here in Canada.
The cost to Canada of emergency assistance, peacekeeping
and refugee care and processing in war zones far outweighs the
cost of building secure and stable societies through long term
development. In recent years it has become clearly evident that
we cannot afford not to promote international peace and
security.
Aid or development assistance alone in whatever volume is
insufficient to the task. Dollars spent by Canada for
development should complement policies and programs of
recipient country governments with the same ends in mind.
Sustainable development, good governance, respect for
human rights, adherence to democratic principles, economic
transparency and acceptable accountability standards are
requisite. We cannot afford to squander too many development
assistance dollars in countries that do not respect the principles
and goals of our initiatives.
For that purpose, Canada has already started to relate our
assistance to such principles as respect for human rights and
competent economic management. This will surely be examined
as part of the foreign policy review.
This is obviously an approach of utmost importance. Yet even
a policy of providing development dollars to countries
practising good governance policies will not alone achieve
sustainable development in those countries. Economic
opportunity must also be possible.
For many African countries debt burdens threaten to prevent
the emergence of a viable economy. There is an additional need
in developing countries for policies to encourage foreign
investment and international policies which permit free and fair
trade to occur with poorer nations.
Political will on all sides to bring about necessary reform is
paramount. I am sure our foreign policy review process will
assist the Canadian government in developing proactive,
effective methods to achieve this goal.
2281
[Translation]
Africa is going through a period of profound changes. The
people of many African countries proved their determination to
rid themselves of cyclical problems of corruption and abuse
associated with their governments. Africans want governments
that will be able to fulfil their basic needs, namely as regards
health, education, peace, sustainable development and
economic stability.
Africa is facing a tough challenge. The changes needed will
not be possible without tremendous work and the commitment
of its people. Canada is aware that the road to democracy will
not be an easy one. Any political change inevitably comes with
problems and unexpected detours. Nevertheless, it is important
that the democratization process be anchored in the respect of
African customs, traditions and values in order to take root
deeply and provide hope for future generations of Africans.
In countries that are on their way to democracy, it is not
enough to support the democratization process and principles of
good public administration up to election day. Although
decisive elections are but a first step. Canada must go on
supporting the principle of good administration of public
affairs.
[English]
We also should not underestimate the economic ties Canada
has established with Africa. Our African trade involves every
Canadian region and has allowed many companies to make more
effective use of their knowledge in technology.
(1335)
This is of significant benefit to Canadians who not only gain
market access but jobs and greater economic security for
themselves. By applying our knowledge and supplying our
products where the demand emerges, Canada maintains and
increases its competitiveness.
It is worth recalling that the United Nations, the
Commonwealth and la Francophonie are major multilateral
organizations through which Canadians and Africans have been
closely associated. Many hon. members may not be aware that
African countries comprise 30 per cent of the United Nations
membership, 27 per cent of the Commonwealth and 52 per cent
of the countries in la Francophonie.
The linguistic, cultural and historical ties between our nations
have existed far longer than our relationships through aid
programs. Canada's bilingual and multicultural nature has been
an important factor in building those long term relationships.
That is the foundation upon which we can take the opportunity to
build a long fruitful partnership well into the future. We only
need the political will to do so. In my opinion, we cannot afford
not to.
Within our development assistance programs Canada has
traditionally attached the highest priority to activities which
attempt to reduce global poverty. It has been recognized that
crime, violence and large scale conflict often result in situations
where poverty is most prevalent.
The government has stated that its goal is to provide 25 per
cent of official development assistance. This is to meet basic
human needs and human resource development, to provide basic
health and education, to work more closely to assist women who
are the principal providers of health, nutrition and education,
and to provide sustainable development so that future
generations may also know peace and security.
The government was elected on the promise of fiscal
responsibility. While we are not in a position at this time to
increase funding to our development assistance program, our
goal remains the same: to achieve a 0.7 per cent official
development assistance to GNP ratio.
Despite this need for fiscal restraint I do not believe that
limited financial resources necessitate a reduction in
effectiveness. Through creative, proactive and well-managed
programs our impact can even increase. Initiatives in terms of
human rights for example often administered on a small scale
can have a widespread impact. Our challenge is to administer all
our programs more effectively.
We recognize the impact of necessary change can be felt
unequally by different groups in society. Canada is trying to
respond to this reality by working with international financial
institutions and through local governments to protect existing
adjustment programs, but mitigate the negative impacts by
launching new social programs to benefit those most directly
affected by adjustment. We hope the foreign policy review will
address this issue.
Still, Africa's continuing debt burden severely handicaps its
efforts at sustainable development. As a development partner
we need to consider how best to alleviate this burden. Success
will assist in the creation of healthier African economies.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, allow me to speak now about Latin America.
Canada is part of the Americas. With globalization, Latin
America and the Caribbean are more and more the focus of
Canada's foreign policy. That region has already got involved in
a process of fundamental change and modernization on the
economic, political and social levels. With its positive
co-operation, Canada has a unique opportunity to be able to take
part in that development and help shaping it. In this hemisphere,
we are considered as a responsible and increasingly involved
partner, and I think we have a lot to gain from that partnership.
While recognizing the potential of that partnership, we must
also admit that Canada has a lot to learn if it wants to avoid being
marginalized in the development of its relationships with the
other countries of the hemisphere. These countries have a very
2282
different history, language and culture than ours, and our
understanding of their circumstances will affect the scope and
success of our relationships.
(1340)
Canada's foreign policy regarding that region is faced with
many difficulties. Our attitudes towards Latin America and the
Caribbean must be in tune with the general objectives of our
foreign policy, that is the relief of poverty, the promotion of
sound public management, of human rights, of social stability,
of gender and racial equality, of a sustainable environment and
of international peace and stability.
While that population is quite educated compared with other
developing regions, they have serious social problems which
must be addressed at the grass roots. It is essential that we solve
these problems if we want to ensure their well-being in the
future.
These last few years, there have been positive political
tendencies in Latin America. In the early eighties, many
countries had military regimes. Now, almost all governments in
that region have been democratically elected in accordance with
free constitutional procedures. As these countries get familiar
with the democratic process, they bring their policies up to
international standards.
[English]
Work is being done by Latin American and Caribbean citizens
to consolidate and strengthen democratic judicial and human
rights institutions. Canadian assistance has been and remains
important in reinforcing these trends. The military in most
countries now shows a greater respect for civilian authority and
has retreated to a more limited proper role in society.
Canada supports and is encouraged by this process of
democratization. Similar to our work in Africa it is imperative
to remember that elections in themselves do not create
democracy. It is incumbent on the donor countries to continue
their support until a true democratic society is achieved. In fact
we anticipate the day when we learn from each other in this
regard.
In the Commonwealth Caribbean, Canada has longstanding
strong ties with both governments and people. These ties have
been based on shared parliamentary and democratic traditions,
common values, close personal contact with government
leaders, extensive tourism and major involvement by Canada's
chartered banks. We expect these ties to endure and strengthen
in the years ahead.
How should our relationship with the region be modified to
reflect future and global interests? There has also been
significant progress in the area of economic renewal in Latin
America and the Caribbean. This provides the foundation for
sustainable growth and development.
Many countries in this region are making considerable
progress in implementing market oriented economic reforms,
privatization, deregulation, emphasis on export oriented
production and are integrating into regional and global markets.
Investor confidence is improving.
As a result this is a region which is expanding economically
and in which Canada has an increasingly important trade and
investment stake that can contribute to economic recovery and
renewal in Canada. We must seize these opportunities in the
most effective manner possible.
Canada's official development assistance plays an important
role in our partnership throughout Latin America and the
Caribbean. In this instance there are certain existing similarities
to our relationship to Africa.
By supporting the economic reform process and encouraging
governments to do more now to mitigate the associated social
costs, Canada's aid program has promoted sustainable
development, particularly in the management of natural
resources. It has contributed to a reduction in poverty and has
promoted respect for human rights, democratic development
and good economic governance.
I know from firsthand experience with grassroots projects
throughout Central America the good that can result from
human scale community development initiatives supported by
Canadians. Our larger scale official programs of development
assistance have also had a positive impact in vital areas ranging
from food production to human rights, from the development of
clean water sources to economic reform. They have contributed
to encouraging the economic and social improvements that are
taking place.
(1345)
[Translation]
Since it became a member of the Organization of American
States in 1989, Canada actively supported the OAS in its efforts
to promote democracy and constitutional rule, as well as judicial
reform and human rights protection. Its missions have given
Canada an opportunity to strengthen human development in all
regions.
I believe that Canada should continue to support regional
initiatives in favour of human rights, environmental protection
and trade development.
In this process, we should also make sure that poor countries
are not marginalized. Marginalization of less developed
countries can result in instability and massive movements of
populations away from poor countries and into rich ones, and
could also jeopardize emerging economies. Such situations have
re-
2283
percussions all over the world. Therefore, there may be merit in
trying to prevent them.
Recently, Canada launched a partnership with a country of
this hemisphere, Haiti. As one of four friendly countries-with
the United States, France and Venezuela-Canada will play a
role in the OAS and the UN in the restoration of democratic and
constitutional rule in Haiti. It will support President Aristide
and protection of human rights.
[English]
Cuba poses another challenge. The Cuban economy has
undergone serious deterioration. Economic reforms have been
limited as have human rights improvements. However I believe
we cannot afford to marginalize any country in this hemisphere.
Careful evaluation is necessary to encourage the full
reintegration of Cuba into the hemispheric family, a process that
will require significant change.
Canada's relationship with the countries of Latin America and
the Caribbean cannot be classified in general terms as each
country of the region is so vastly different. For those in the
initial stages of development simply providing education and
poverty alleviation is not enough. We must also assist them in
developing fairer trading relations with their trading partners
throughout the world.
Latin America is on the brink of having a more significant
impact in international policy areas, as it now has a chance to
pursue its vision of becoming an important international player.
The challenge for Canada will be the flexibility of our approach
and the way in which we accept benefits which are offered
through the maintenance and continuance of relationships with
both Latin America and the Caribbean.
In closing, it is the vision of the future of Canadians that the
Liberal Party is trying to capture in this review process. The
result of the process should permit policies which not only
respond to the domestic needs of Canadians but also project the
international image which Canadians want their government
and government initiatives to pursue.
In all of this we are working toward a better future, a future
with considerably less poverty, positive sustainable
development, social and political equity not only for ourselves
but for all women, men and children throughout the world and
for our partners in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa. I
hope everyone present will assist us in achieving that goal.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I commend
the hon. minister on her comments this afternoon that add to the
very important debate taking place with regard to our foreign
policy.
I heard the minister speak about the need for aid in the areas
that she represents, Latin America and Africa. Would the
minister agree with the Auditor General and his comments that
there is a need to downsize and reduce the number of countries
we give aid to in order to better target our resources? Could the
minister comment on that?
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to comment. Earlier today the Minister of Foreign Affairs said
that we have to try to be more focused in our foreign aid policies.
Being more focused in foreign aid policy does not refer only to
aid. There has been an ongoing debate about whether or not we
can concentrate on fewer countries having fewer bilateral
relations with countries around the world. Through that debate
we have produced a greater concentration of development
assistance to regions of the world.
(1350)
The government and I support the development of regional
initiatives in the world, but I personally believe that should not
preclude our bilateral relations with any country in the world.
There are many other instruments of foreign policy besides aid
which we can use to enhance and promote bilateral relations
with nations around the world.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the minister for her comments. As we all enjoy the debate about
foreign policy, hopefully we will come to the start of the process
in which we are going to be involved to set policy going into the
next century.
I would like a comment from the minister or at least her
opinion on whether we should have enabling legislation for
CIDA. I was surprised to find no legislation in place at this time
that gives CIDA its legislative authority; it is just a creation of
cabinet.
Would the minister comment on both the advisability of that
because I realize it restricts CIDA's activities somewhat and, in
view of that, whether or not it would help to control some of the
costs the Auditor General mentioned that have been permanent
sores in many Auditor Generals' reports over the past few years?
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
development assistance, foreign aid, and in particular the role of
CIDA in providing development assistance and aid around the
world, will be very large subjects in the foreign policy review
process in general.
The government in its history has kept CIDA closer to its day
to day operations of foreign policy. Through the instrument of
CIDA and foreign aid there was the desire to supplement other
political foreign policy initiatives by keeping them close to the
government rather than legislating CIDA at arm's length from
the government, as we have done for various other institutions
such as the International Development Research Council and the
International Institute on Democratic Development and Human
Rights.
2284
At this point I would not like to conjecture on how CIDA
should progress into the future. I know I want to see these issues
discussed very fully in our foreign policy review so that we hear
from Canadians how they feel the aid development assistance
instrument can be best used in our whole foreign policy package.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have taken notice of the
member standing. Unless there has been a reassignment of seats
he might seek to return to his seat while I am on my feet and I
might recognize him.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her excellent speech. I
would ask for her opinion on whether or not she sees any role for
Canada utilizing the United Nations and bringing together the
international community to employ economic levers against
countries that may be abusing the foreign aid they get, or even in
the context of gross human rights abuses within their countries.
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland): Mr. Speaker, the
government is committed to working very closely with the
United Nations in trying to strengthen it, in order that the United
Nations can be better able to meet all complex situations that
exist in our global world. Right now the United Nations is
dominated by a security council with a very limited membership
which reflects in many ways a cold war era rather than the era we
now exist in.
(1355 )
It is very difficult for the United Nations because of its current
structure to respond, as the member suggests, to some of the
difficulties existing in the world today. As I said, Canada is very
interested in not only continuing to support the United Nations
but to help it to reform itself in many ways so that it better
reflects the global needs of the world.
Certainly Canada as a nation in its bilateral relations with
other countries of the world is very concerned about issues of
corruption and misuse of funds provided for development
purposes to other nations. We do everything we can. We use
every bilateral instrument we have at hand to try to encourage
governments that may be practising corrupt activities to stop.
I can say from my own experiences as a minister travelling
throughout Latin America and Africa that our own country's
initiatives in that regard have had some good effect. Countries
are now coming forward voluntarily to tell me about measures
they are taking to overcome problems. Many countries through
regional approaches are beginning to police each other.
There is great hope about what we can do to face the
difficulties the member raised which are serious for us. There
are things we can do bilaterally as a nation, but there is more we
can do through helping the United Nations to reform itself and
reform its institutions so that it can help in the process of
addressing these issues.
The Speaker: There being no further questions and it being
two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will
now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing
Order 31.
_____________________________________________
2284
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, I would
be remiss if I did not mention Mélanie Turgeon's incredible
performance at the World Junior Alpine Championships in Lake
Placid, New York. This Canadian athlete, who is only 17 years
old, dazzled the crowd of onlookers and journalists when she
won her fifth medal yesterday.
[English]
During the entire week of competition Melanie has shown the
world what extraordinary talent she possesses. She won a gold
medal in the giant slalom, another in the combination, a silver
medal in the Super G, a bronze medal in downhill, and another in
the slalom.
This remarkable young athlete is the first skier to have won
five medals at the World Junior Alpine Championships, a feat
which no doubt foreshadows a brilliant career.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I join all Canadians in congratulating Mélanie
Turgeon and telling her how proud we are of her and how much
we admire her. She is truly a credit to our country. Well done,
Mélanie!
* * *
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, recently
a constituent in my riding wrote to inform me that it was
impossible to get through to a federal telephone service,
Revenue Canada's 800 information number on child tax
benefits.
Nearly three million people are affected by the failure of this
service. These are the same people who are asked to pay their
taxes without delay, while being deprived of a quality
information service that could allow them to claim a deduction
to which they are entitled.
This situation is intolerable and shows a total lack of respect
for taxpayers. I do hope that corrective measures will be taken as
soon as possible so that our fellow Canadians do not have to put
up with such a frustrating situation any longer.
2285
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, media
seekers have recently jumped on the euthanasia issue with little
regard for the risks down the road.
In my riding the non-partisan public advisory group which
has a direct say through me in all issues has overwhelmingly
said no to legalizing euthanasia. The same response was
expressed by a vast majority of people attending our recent town
hall meeting in Aldergrove, British Columbia.
However sometimes we need to listen to children to bring us
back to reality.
(1400 )
In the words of nine-year old Dustin Chadsey of Clearbrook,
B.C.: ``I don't think people should be able to kill each other or
themselves. Only God can decide if we live or die''.
Before the media seekers do more damage, I urge all members
to ask all their constituents their opinions on this important
issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, National Defence
is making cuts. The government has no choice, and I support the
difficult decisions it has to make. I sympathize with the
communities in Saint-Jean, Victoria, Cornwall and Nova
Scotia, but we sometimes have to sacrifice symbols and
monuments in order to put our finances back on track.
It is possible to reach a compromise on the future of the Royal
Military College in Saint-Jean. The Canadian government, in
collaboration with the Government of Quebec, has offered to
find another use for the college so that the local community will
not suffer undue economic hardship. The present debate is
emotional and almost irrational at times. It is being turned into a
language war.
In the budget, none of our regions has been spared. We are
here to make decisions, and I hope the government continues to
act firmly. By the way, how about marching to Victoria in
British Columbia with Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to try
and save the Royal Roads Military College?
[English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, human rights violations continue to plague the modern
world.
Media reports of atrocities in Bosnia, Punjab, the Sudan,
South Africa and elsewhere should shock every citizen around
the world.
It is too simple to dismiss these atrocities because they take
place so far away, but these horrific events do touch Canadians.
A crime committed against an individual is a crime against all
of humanity.
For this reason I would like to voice my support of the recent
appointment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights to the
United Nations.
It is up to those of us who thrive on freedom to protest human
rights violations wherever they occur.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on a very sad note on the passing of one of my councillors,
Dave McComb.
I still call him my councillor even after being away from the
mayor's chair for four months in this House.
Perhaps I can best sum up Dave's accomplishments and his
contributions to my community by saying that he gave to
politics, as he gave to play and to any other purpose he pursued,
a warm integrity, a graciousness of spirit, a kindling touch
which enriched all things he did for the lives of the people in our
community.
He proved, and that proof is much needed, that all
communities need vital individuals and all individuals are most
vital when they serve their communities.
I am sure that members will join with me in offering his wife,
Nancy, and his family our heartfelt condolences as they are
bereaved by his death.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, as you know,
Quebec anglophones enjoy rights they are guaranteed under the
British North America Act. Quebec has always respected the
rights of its minorities.
For the benefit of the members of this House and Canadians
who are watching, I would like to name some of the benefits
2286
enjoyed by the anglophone community in Quebec. First of all,
Montreal, where most of the anglophone population lives, has a
complete network of hospitals that function in English. They
also have two major universities in Montreal-McGill and
Concordia-and Bishop's University in the Eastern Townships.
They have their own school system at the primary, secondary
and college level, entirely subsidized by Quebec.
Quebec has always treated its minorities well, because we
know what it means to be a minority, Mr. Speaker. I invite all
members from the other provinces to come and visit Quebec to
see for themselves.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, it has
come to light that a Montreal researcher fabricated information
that has been used to shape treatment of breast cancer for the
past decade. The same researcher also used patients who had not
consented to participate in the study. We hear today that the
Quebec Medical Association may have known about this for as
much as three years.
(1405)
The research determined that lumpectomies save just as many
lives as the removal of the entire breast, and that the drug
Tamoxifen can in some cases prevent the return of breast cancer.
Can women be certain that the conclusions from this study are
valid?
How could such a thing happen? Last November the
government received the final report of the Royal Commission
on New Reproductive Technologies. The report emphatically
stated that the unethical use of knowledge is not permitted. This
applies equally to all areas of medicine.
I strongly urge the government to investigate this serious
incident to ensure the medical safety of women all across this
country.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
draw the attention of the House to the situation at the port of
Halifax.
Atlantic Container Lines was ready to guarantee 8,000 new
containers per year of cargo bound for Chicago, simply because
the port of Halifax provides the most competitive entry location
for midwestern U.S. cargo.
The Halifax Port Corporation and the longshoremen's union
both agreed on major cuts in handling fees and surcharges to
attract this business and keep it there. However, last week the
Maritime Employers Association, a board dominated by
interests competing with Halifax, voted to reject the union's
offer to lower benefits. Only after public outcry did the board
decide to accept a revised offer.
However, I remain astounded that any supposedly responsible
employer's group could have considered rejecting an offer of
concessions from its union, an offer of lowering operating costs
and increased competitiveness.
For now, the port of Halifax may have escaped permanent
damage, but this incident forces me to question the system
through which the port of Halifax can be hampered in its drive
for success by a board made up of its competitors.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, today
is World Consumer Rights Day, declared by the International
Organization of Consumer Unions.
Throughout the world consumers are marking this event by
taking part in activities stressing their contributions to the
marketplace in our society. Consumers have a vital role to play
in maintaining the wealth and competitiveness of this country;
over 60 per cent of Canada's GDP is attributed to consumer
demand.
Consumers' voices should be heard and their rights
recognized. The IOCU defines eight basic rights of consumers
as given in the UN guidelines: the right to satisfaction of basic
needs, the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to
choose, the right to be heard, the right to redress, the right to
consumer education, and the right to a healthy environment.
We Canadians are fortunate that many of our basic rights as
consumers are already acknowledged. We have good consumer
protection legislation in place and businesses that for the most
part are concerned with producing high quality goods and
services using fair marketing practices.
Consumers in prosperous countries such as Canada are lucky
to be able to choose from a wide variety of goods and services.
* * *
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina): Mr. Speaker, in the
Toronto Star of Monday, March 14 I read about a visit by two
members of the Reform Party to my riding of Trinity-Spadina.
In their travels they visited Chinatown and Kensington Market
where they felt they would encounter Canadians of origins other
than English and French who would share with them their
opinions of slashing immigration to Canada.
2287
In the process they discovered that the majority of those with
whom they spoke looked favourably on the government's
immigration policy. One respondent business person, Mr.
Danny Tran, a recent immigrant who creates jobs himself, said
that more immigrants meant more jobs.
Because of these responses the title of the article was
``Reformers Get An Education''. To no one's surprise, least of
all my own, they discovered that the multicultural mix of
Trinity-Spadina positively contributes to the dynamic nature
of Toronto.
If the hon. members had ventured around the corner to the
Alexander Park Community Housing complex, they would have
also learned of how three years ago a determined group of
residents, multicultural in character, led by Mr. Sonny Atkinson,
banded together and drove out the drug problem.
In conclusion, I would like to extend an invitation to all
Canadians to visit Trinity-Spadina to discover these well kept
secrets of the success of multiculturalism. In particular,
however, I would like to extend an invitation to more of the
members of the Reform Party so that they too may benefit from
these lessons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, an
unprecedented event took place Saturday in Montreal, namely
the Forum de la solidarité sociale du Québec. For the first time
ever, over one thousand representatives of citizen and
community groups as diverse as the Assemblée des évêques and
unions from all regions gathered together to embrace a common
goal and to wage war on unemployment and poverty through
joint social action.
After painting an alarming picture of poverty in Quebec, the
forum levelled the blame squarely at the federal government's
anti-inflation policy which has led to a 50 per cent increase in
the federal debt, prompting governments to slash social
programs every further.
Above all, forum participants agreed on the need to take
action so that Quebec stands solidly behind a job creation policy
that encompasses job sharing, a reaffirmation of the role of the
state, taxation reform, maintenance of social programs and a
broadening of democracy.
This approach represents hope for Quebec.
(1410)
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Rick Folk and his B.C.
rink for capturing Canada's highest prize in men's curling.
After a week of stiff competition from other provincial rinks,
Folk duelled Ontario's Russ Howard to an eight to five win in the
Briar in Red Deer, Alberta on Sunday. Not since Lyall Dagg 30
years ago in 1964 has British Columbia captured the Canadian
Curling Championship.
I am sure that all of my colleagues from British Columbia will
join with me in congratulating B.C. skip Rick Folk and his rink
of Gerry Richard, Bert Gretzinger and Pat Ryan.
We wish them the best as they will now represent Canada at
the World Curling Championships in Oberstdorf, Germany.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
applaud the establishment of the Canadian Medical Hall of
Fame.
The Canadian Medical Hall of Fame was announced in
November 1993 in London, Ontario and the induction of the first
laureates will take place May 27, 1994 in London.
Housed in London's new convention centre and sponsored by
the Medical Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Medical
Hall of Fame will provide an enduring tribute that will publicize
the accomplishments of Canadian men and women who have
made important contributions to the understanding of disease
and the advancement of health everywhere.
Laureates inducted into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame
will be selected annually in the categories of clinical medicine,
basic medical research and applied medical research.
Canadians should be proud of the establishment of the
Canadian Medical Hall of Fame, an important national initiative
celebrating discovery and innovation in medical science.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, a
number of Vancouver East constituents have written to ask for
the Canadian government's intervention in a very serious
infringement of human rights.
2288
Twelve Buddhist nuns in Tibet have recently been sentenced
to prison terms for participating in a demonstration to which
there are no witnesses. A 15-year old girl is among those
arrested. Those women are going to prison without proper trial
and are in grave danger of torture and possibly death.
My constituents appeal to the Canadian government to use its
authority and ask for the immediate and unconditional release of
these women and for international monitoring of the situation in
Tibet.
The situation is urgent and for the sake of such people human
rights must be protected.
_____________________________________________
2288
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in this
House, the Prime Minister denied the possibility that his
Minister of Finance would propose at the Detroit summit a tax
credit for businesses that create jobs, and I quote:
I do not think that the Minister of Finance will present in Detroit a proposal
on Canadian taxation.
As soon as the G-7 summit opened yesterday in Detroit, about
the same time that the Prime Minister said what I just quoted,
the Minister of Finance made such a proposal to his G-7
partners.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile his statement with the
proposal that his Minister of Finance presented to his G-7
partners at the same time yesterday?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance is meeting with his counterparts from
the other G-7 countries. They are looking at some mechanisms
that could be used to create jobs.
Stimulating job creation through tax credits is an option that
was discussed here but it was not specifically included in the
budget. During discussions, the minister put the proposal before
the assembly. He certainly heard the reaction of the other
ministers and will take it into account in preparing his next
budget. They are there to exchange ideas and to have
intergovernmental discussions. Knowing the Minister of
Finance, he is not afraid of exploring new avenues.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it gives a measure of the kind of co-ordination that
exists in this cabinet.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether his Minister
of Finance was authorized by cabinet to make such a proposal at
the G-7 Detroit summit? Was he speaking on his own behalf or
on behalf of the government?
(1415 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance discussed an idea. When the Minister of
Finance or other of my colleagues have new ideas, they do not
call me to ask if they can have new ideas.
I encourage my ministers to explore new ideas and make
proposals to cabinet. At that time I will decide whether we can
incorporate them into the budget, yes or no.
I certainly would not blame any of my ministers for going to a
summit to discuss new ways of creating jobs. I would applaud
that.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): The
point is not to forbid the minister to have new ideas. Anyway, we
know he does not have new ideas. He is only copying old Tory
ideas.
The point is that yesterday in the House the Prime Minister
told us in a very firm and clear way that his minister would not
raise the idea of a tax credit in Detroit. Here he was at the same
time doing the one thing he should not have been doing, if we
rely on what the Prime Minister said yesterday.
Does the Prime Minister intend to support the proposal made
by his minister yesterday? Also, when the minister comes back
from Detroit, can we expect a statement announcing a tax credit
in favour of businesses that create jobs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have voted on the budget. I do not expect the Minister of
Finance to come with a new budget next week. He is there to
explore new ideas. We on this side of the House can have new
ideas.
In the case of the Leader of the Opposition, he changed parties
five times in order to have new ideas. We can have them in one
party.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, last Friday,
the Minister of National Defence refused to confirm that
negotiations were taking place with the Quebec government
regarding the future of the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean. Also, yesterday the Prime Minister alluded to
discussions with the Quebec government, while the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said that an agreement was
imminent, this in the presence of his colleague the Minister of
National Defence, who visibly disagreed.
2289
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Can the minister tell us if, according to the agreement which he
saw, some military activities will be maintained, as requested by
the Quebec government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, we are negotiating with officials from the Quebec
government to determine the best possible use for the facilities
in Saint-Jean.
When you are negotiating, it is somewhat like a poker game. It
would be too easy to put all your cards on the table. What I
indicated yesterday was that the federal government was
prepared to negotiate on the basis of renting for $1 per year the
buildings and the property, which are valued at about $42
million. This is the basis of our negotiating position. The details
will be known later.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Prime Minister. Given the very
contradictory statements made by officials of his government,
could the Prime Minister tell us exactly what the situation is
regarding negotiations with the Quebec government on the
future of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, as I just said, we do not negotiate in public. We
indicated to Quebec government officials what our terms are,
and they, in turn, informed us of their preferences. There is no
disagreement between ministers of this government, including
the Prime Minister, because we looked at this issue together. It
will take a few days or weeks before the outcome of the process
is known.
* * *
(1420 )
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Senior ministers of the government continue to send out
contradictory signals on an old idea, namely the government's
promise of job creation. The Minister of Human Resources
Development says that this government will initiate job creation
directly by spending more tax dollars. The Minister of Finance
now refers to high taxes as a cancer on job creation and told Don
Newman on Capital Report: ``We are going to cut government
spending and we are going to cut it severely''.
These statements do not represent a balanced approach. They
represent a contradictory approach to job creation. Can the
Prime Minister tell us which of these senior ministers is
accurately representing the position of the government on job
creation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
say to the leader of the Reform Party that our program on job
creation was tabled in the House of Commons a few weeks ago
in the budget. He has only to read the budget and he will know
the position of this government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know how to put it more plainly. The government cannot
spend more tax dollars and cut spending at the same time. We
cannot have one minister with his foot on the gas, one with his
foot on the brake and nobody with their hand on the wheel, even
if they are driving around Detroit.
There is a deep, inherent, systemic contradiction in the
government's job creation strategy. Will the Prime Minister tell
Canadians how and when he proposes to resolve this
contradiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have cut expenditures and we are spending money on job
creation with the municipalities and the provincial
governments. It is a program that was approved by all first
ministers and all mayors, including the mayor of Calgary. I have
said that many, many times.
We have a very dimensional approach to this problem. It is the
same situation as yesterday when two of his colleagues stood up
to ask us to spend more money. Every time the leader of that
party stands up, he tells us not to spend money. When will he put
order in his little house and we can run our big house?
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the statements made by members on this side are not in support
of spending money.
Yesterday the Prime Minister acknowledged that public
works spending only creates temporary jobs. His own Minister
of Finance has said that debt and increased taxes kill long term
private sector job creation.
Why does the Prime Minister not commit his government to
long term private sector job creation? Why does he not resolve
this difference by coming down hard and unequivocally on the
side of deficit reduction and tax relief?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we did it when we reduced the level of contribution for
unemployment benefits. We have cut $300 million in this
program which will permit small and medium sized businesses
to create jobs. At the same time we said that we have to invest
money in research and development. Just yesterday one of his
colleagues was asking for even more money to be invested in
that field.
Our approach is that we want jobs created by the private
sector. In fact, there is no plan for increasing the public sector.
Building roads and bridges is not wasting money. It is important
and is adding to the productivity of the nation. Any nation that
2290
has a very good infrastructure can compete better than other
nations that have to move around in a horse and buggy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, we have
learned with dismay that the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs is playing with the future of the Collège militaire de
Saint-Jean as if he were playing poker. He will certainly come
out a loser. In any case, his partner, the Minister of National
Defence is clearly not in agreement with him. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said: ``According to the agreement I
saw with my own eyes, all operating costs, including taxes,
would be paid by the province since it would have access to the
installations free of charge and would have the possibility of
using the Collège for educational purposes.'' He further said:
``The property is worth $41 million, we are offering it for $1 a
year''.
(1425)
Given this declaration of the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, should we understand that the government is preparing
not to give, but to lease the Collège militaire to the province and
wants to keep a tight control over its installations while
transferring all the costs to the government of Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, at this time, the government intends to lease the
facilities and the land of the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean for the amount of $1 a year. That in itself constitutes
an important contribution.
The provincial government will have the possibility of
transforming the buildings in order to create a university or a
post-graduate school of some kind. In such a case, evidently the
provincial government will be the one using the facilities for
activities of its choice and it will therefore have to pay the
operating costs for the courses given there.
The federal government's contribution will be the facilities'
value, the provincial government's contribution will be the
operating costs for the courses that will be given there.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, would the
Prime Minister agree that the compromise made by the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs serves only one purpose, to help
the government get rid of parts of its commitments to
bilingualism just for one dollar?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to see that the opposition is so concerned
about bilingualism. I want to congratulate them. It is about time
they address this issue.
We, on this side, are concerned with the whole situation. The
only problem I have to deal with is an agreement with the
province about the future use of the facilities at the Collège
militaire royal de Saint-Jean.
Bilingualism and the use of French in the armed forces are
commitments we fulfilled in the past and which we will continue
to discharge, according to my colleague, the minister of
National Defence.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
As we heard earlier, the government is considering a human
resources tax credit to subsidize hiring. As a small businessman
I can assure the Prime Minister that business people do not want
more government subsidies to stimulate employment and do not
want to be told how to run their businesses.
The Prime Minister has stated repeatedly that he is counting
on small business to create the majority of jobs so desperately
needed by 1.5 million unemployed Canadians.
Why then does he not listen to what small business people are
telling him about job creation: ``Get out of our pockets, get off
our backs and get out of our way so we can create the real jobs in
the new economy''.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member would look at the budget papers he would see
that we have taken a lot of initiatives to help small and medium
sized businesses. We talked not only about the reduction of
unemployment insurance premiums, but about helping them to
get more credit from the banks, to get credit for innovations to
help them in exports, and they all welcomed that.
I say to everybody that the government is here to help, not to
hurt. That is exactly what this government is trying to do with
small and medium sized business at this time.
(1430 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, while the
Prime Minister has been a politician for 25 years, I have been a
businessman. While I can take lessons from him on how the MP
pension plan works, perhaps he might listen to a word or two
about people who have worked in the real world for 25 years.
2291
Government programs to help small business are more likely
to impede rather than to help private sector job creation. Why
then is the government considering another such impediment, a
subsidy that will interfere with the business decisions,
ultimately raise taxes and further impede private sector job
creation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not understand why the member is taking that line. We have
not announced anything like that. We are discussing better ways
to help small and medium size businesses in Canada.
The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business said it was a good budget and that he liked our
approach. Therefore, you should listen to what John Bulloch had
to say about the budget.
The Speaker: Of course all the questions and all the answers
should be directed to your Speaker.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
Yesterday, we learned that the Kahnawake band council had
issued an eviction notice to about 143 families that had been
living on that reserve for several years. Among the arguments
used to justify that decision, there is the lack of space and even
genetic purity.
As a trustee of aboriginal rights, does the federal government
support this eviction notice, which is unacceptable and which
totally contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I was advised about this problem
early this morning. It is causing me a lot of concern.
The information I have is that in 1973 the Kahnawake band
council used section 81(1)(h) of the Indian Act which governs
the use of buildings on reserves to establish bylaws regarding
the residency of band members and other persons on a reserve.
My understanding is there is a case before the courts relating
to this matter and it would be inappropriate to comment further.
Through this legal process I hope what the hon. member is
concerned about can be defined exactly. That is whether or not
this contravenes the charter of rights.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, is the minister telling us that he cannot give us an
opinion on such a shameful decision that was taken yesterday?
And does he intend to intervene, as the minister responsible and
also personally, to put an end to this disgraceful and
discriminatory operation, instead of hiding behind legalistic
rhetoric which in no way reflects the reality that some men and
women are faced with on the Kahnawake territory, several of
them being aboriginal people expelled by their peers?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, in spite of the rhetoric and the
volume I would be severely criticized if I commented on a case
that is before the courts.
I have a certain faith in the jurisprudence of this country
notwithstanding my friend's feeling and I am prepared to wait
until the court has dealt with it.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister
of Finance.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member will remember that
we do not mention when anyone is here or is not here. Perhaps he
could just put his question.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
hear from the Prime Minister regardless of who is in the House.
Last week the Minister of Finance said on page 2042 of
Hansard that the interest rate assumptions in the budget are
interest rates which at the present time are higher than those in
existence. That statement was completely false. We know for
example that long term rates today are over a point above what
they were predicted to be in the budget.
The Prime Minister today has professed a great interest in
private sector job creation. Will he admit that these errors in
arithmetic will mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of
private sector jobs and private sector job creation funds?
(1435)
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
can tell the hon. member that the Minister of Finance has
presented a budget which was well received by the Canadian
people and by the financial community. There are always
variations in interest rates and neither the Prime Minister nor the
Minister of Finance are in the habit of commenting on the
financial market fluctuations.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, we
observed a very negative response to this budget in the private
sector.
2292
[English]
For example, let us look at interest rates. Since the tabling of
the budget, in the last six weeks interest rates have risen 35 basis
points. The bank rate went up 9 points today. We have had a
three-quarter per cent raise in six-month government bond rates
and over a full percentage point in long term rates.
Will the Prime Minister admit that not only will this cost the
country in terms of job creation it will also endanger the public
debt charge cost to taxpayers. It is also important to note that
already it is costing Canadians millions of dollars in higher
mortgage payments.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): The hon. member knows this was discussed with
officials last week in committee. The outlines in the budget were
done very conservatively. These types of considerations were
taken into account to ensure that our budget would in fact be a
very successful document.
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Despite our repeated questions over the past week concerning
Ginn Publishing the government refuses to cast any light on its
reason for selling the Canadian interest in the publishing
company to the American giant Paramount.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to reveal the identity of
that person who by a simple, verbal agreement consented to the
takeover of Ginn Publishing by American interests?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, there is no refusal to
acknowledge who was responsible for that. It was a decision of
the previous government. It was a legally binding decision that
we were forced to finish up. It was left on our platter when we
took over as the government.
There is no secret as to who is responsible. It is the previous
government.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, once again the Liberals, the so-called great defenders
of the Canadian identity-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, they applaud to be called so.
That is their problem. They are showing their true colours.
Could the Prime Minister not find the courage to act as he did
in the case of Pearson International Airport in order to ensure
that our cultural industries remain Canadian owned? Simply
cancel the deal.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the situation is as described by the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions. There was an agreement
with the previous Conservative government, and it is our
tradition and obligation as a government to respect agreements
of this nature signed by our predecessors. At this time, there is
nothing we can do.
If a similar document was submitted to us today, without the
obligations we inherited from the other government, we might
make a different decision. However, this is a private contract
and because the previous government changed its mind, the
American company took advantage of the situation, as provided
by the contract, and as the government, we had to respect our
obligations.
* * *
(1440)
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, it
is becoming a common practice for school boards with up to 15
per cent of their employees voluntarily working 10 months per
year to issue severance letters on June 30 and to rehire the same
employees in September. They counsel those employees to use
school breaks as qualifying time for UIC.
My question for the Minister of Human Resources
Development is: Can the UIC rules be altered to make such
abuse of the overburdened UIC system impossible by those who
are gainfully and securely employed?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member may know during difficult fiscal times and
changing economies we have witnessed an increased use of
contracting in many industries. This is creating some pressure
on the UI system.
However I do want to make it perfectly clear in cases such as
this one where people are using the UI system, the member can
rest assured that in most cases they are the victims rather than
the abusers.
We have already initiated measures in the federal budget to
rectify this problem. For example it has been suggested that to
foreshadow the treatment of repeat users we may want to
consider means of more effectively regulating on and off
workers.
Of course this is a complex issue and I look to members of
Parliament to give us their input.
2293
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This government is in the process of opening three new
lavishly furnished regional ministers offices. One of them is in
Quebec City, even though there are no ministers from that area
and there is an office already in Montreal.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister please tell this House why the
government is not closing regional ministers offices instead of
wasting another $1.5 million on their proliferation?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
there has been a review and as a result there had been offices
closed.
The office in Quebec City was opened. That is the capital of
the province. It is an important part of relations with provincial
ministers in terms of dialogue with our own ministers when they
are in that city.
However the entire group of ministerial regional offices is
constantly under review both in terms of cutting costs and also
determining if there are any offices we could do without. We
have conducted a review. We will continue to conduct a review
because we are concerned about the efficiency and effectiveness
of the use of taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to hear these offices are currently under review.
I am a little bit surprised at the answer because in this House
on April 25, 1986 the Deputy Prime Minister asked in a question
to the PC government why it was turning its back on pensioned
workers and opening six ministerial regional offices. This
government is now doing the same thing.
The people of Canada would like to know. Does this mean the
Deputy Prime Minister has become a PC in Liberal clothing? Is
this government following a PC agenda?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. Simply put, the response is no.
Before the hon. member makes interventions on the floor of
the House of Commons he should check his facts. Over nine
ministerial regional offices have been closed by this
government since it has taken power.
As the minister responsible for Treasury Board has indicated
a constant review is being taken with regard to ministerial
regional offices as well as all expenditures ministers make with
regard to their exempt staff and offices across the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday, we learned that only 56 per cent of the amount
approved for phase 1 of the St. Lawrence action plan had
actually been spent.
D (1445)
Moreover, only 11 of the 23 projects accepted were directly
related to the St. Lawrence River. Of the $20 million initially
budgeted, less than $5 million was used to clean up the St.
Lawrence.
How can the Minister of the Environment justify that so little
of the money was actually invested in cleaning up the St.
Lawrence River?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. Under the
former government, when the Minister of the Environment was
his colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, the Conservatives
signed an agreement that did not respect the standards for
cleaning up the St. Lawrence River.
I can assure the hon. member that Mr. Paradis, my counterpart
in the province of Quebec, and I are about to sign an agreement
on the second phase of the St. Lawrence Action Plan, which will
ensure that all the funds are spent on cleaning up the St.
Lawrence River, unlike what was done by my colleague, the
former Minister of the Environment.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, is the
Minister of the Environment prepared today, in this House, to
make a formal commitment that 100 per cent of the funds will be
spent on the St. Lawrence River?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I absolutely and
unequivocally give that 100 per cent guarantee.
I am happy the government is prepared to make a stronger
commitment to cleaning up the environment than the current
Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister of Environment.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Recent polls indicate that the vast majority of Canadians are
compassionate to immigrants but retain the belief that
immigration levels must be reduced.
2294
The minister has repeatedly defended his immigration quotas
with references to the red book and the outdated Economic
Council of Canada report. In this case it is clear that the red book
is not consistent with the wishes of the Canadian people.
Could the minister explain why he continues to pursue this
policy when it is clear Canadians do not support it?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member back
from his educational journey through metropolitan Toronto. I
find his statement today at variance with something he told
residents of metropolitan Toronto. The Toronto Star quoted the
hon. critic as saying: ``I don't see our immigration policy as out
of line with the opinions that I have heard in the last few days''.
I caution the member to take one snapshot of a public opinion
survey and therefore deduce that we ought to make policy on the
fly. If he were to look at how Gallup has tracked unemployment
and Canadians' feelings on immigration in the last 25 years, he
would find that in 1982 almost the same kinds of levels were
reported by Ekos Research. At the same time in 1988 and 1990
there was a record 65 to 70 per cent support for more
immigration.
We cannot ask people about immigration like we ask them
about their favourite flavour of ice cream. It is more complex
than that.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): There is no question,
Mr. Speaker, that there is an education process involved here.
The Reform Party is not opposed to immigration. What we
oppose is the idea of increasing immigration levels at this time.
It would appear that a majority of Canadians support our
position and would like to see the minister's policy reversed.
(1450 )
In light of these facts, would the minister care to retract the
statement he made to the press that anyone who disagrees with
his policy is ignorant and uninformed?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I will not retract because that is
exactly what I did not say. If any member ought to go around
retracting statements it ought to be that member for the things he
said in metropolitan Toronto.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Marchi: Although the member did say that education
ought to continue, in another quote from the Toronto Star the
hon. critic concluded: ``Immigrants seem to be just like anybody
else''.
That is what he ought to do. Rather than take one snapshot of
one poll at one time in the history of our country, let us engage
fellow Canadians; let us go beyond the superficiality of simply
one poll and understand the forces at play.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, March is the final month of the government's fiscal
year. This usually means that last minute purchasing decisions
are being made in most departments before the final date. Often
the spending frenzy is not based on need. It is commonly felt
that if there is money in the budget let us spend it.
What are the ministries doing to prevent unnecessary
spending during this month?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, as
is usually said, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The Auditor General looked at this matter a number of years
ago and found that there were some poor cash management
practices. He was not saying that managers were wasteful in
their spending at year end but that because the moneys were
lapsing at year end, the end of March, if they did not spend them,
they had a tendency to spend them perhaps prematurely, make
purchases prematurely or spend money too quickly when it
really was not due on the invoice.
To help prevent that, Treasury Board in the last fiscal year did
an experiment that involved carrying forward some 2 per cent of
departmental budgets into the following year so there would not
be this year end frenzy as the member pointed out. That only
involved a few departments.
This year we expanded it to all departments and have allowed
them to carry over 5 per cent, which I think will help end that
year end frenzy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans called upon the
members of the United Nations to adopt by this coming fall very
stringent rules in order to put an end to overfishing on the high
seas. The minister said that failing such a move, concrete
measures would be considered. He indicated that he would not
sign another statement of principle since, in his opinion, the
Law of the Sea Convention was no longer working.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can he indicate to us
what kind of concrete measures his minister had in mind to end
foreign overfishing if an international agreement is not signed
by the fall?
2295
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, I can assure the hon. member that the
Canadian government is very pleased with the outcome of the
minister's visit. Moreover, it is prepared to work closely with its
NAFO colleagues to ensure that an international strategy is in
place to address this problem which affects not only the fishery,
but conservation and the environment as well.
The ministers involved are working very closely to ensure
that the good work of the United Nations is not being
undermined by foreign vessels who fish illegally and who
disregard their environmental responsibilities.
(1455)
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, judging from the
response of the Deputy Prime Minister and the reference to
concrete measures and NAFO, I see that we are right back where
we started from.
Why is the government unable at the present time to convince
its trading partners of the need to strengthen the provisions in
the Law of the Sea Convention respecting fishing? Why is it
unable to do so, since it must, in any case, bring this matter up
again?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization comprises
14 members, not all of whom were present in Brussels when our
minister of fisheries had a most unusual triumphant success in
getting agreement. Not all were there and in fact three abstained.
The problem that we now face in particular with the nose and
tail of the Grand Banks is with ships flying flags of convenience,
ships that are not members and do not come from NAFO ports. It
is therefore particularly important for the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans to make perfectly clear in New York that we are not
interested any more in papering over the differences, in having
statements of principle.
We are interested at this time in the type of concrete success in
writing down clear prohibitions against fishing that the minister
of fisheries, I have to admit, was enormously successful with in
Brussels a few weeks ago. I can only hope, as I am sure the hon.
member agrees, that the minister's success in Brussels will be
matched by an equal success at the United Nations.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.
Tariff protection for Canadian apple producers was dropped
on February 7. Since then American producers have been
dumping apples into Canada. This has devastated growers in
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and across Canada. The
growers have made a submission to the government requesting
that it ensure fair trade and enforce Canadian trade law.
When will the government take action to curtail this
American dumping of apples?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question and for the courtesy of some notice of the question.
As I am sure he will appreciate, since the decision of the CITT
is in effect a decision of a quasi-judicial body, it would be
inappropriate for me to comment in any way on the merits or
demerits of the decision.
However I can confirm that I had the opportunity to meet with
representatives of Canadian Apple Growers on Monday, March
7, when they were in Ottawa, in conjunction with the National
Convention of the Canadian Horticulture Council. We discussed
a variety of options in terms of how the decision of the CITT
might be reacted to, including the various forms of appeal or
other potential reactions.
I am now considering the input I received from apple growers
about a week and a half ago. In due course we will see what an
appropriate further response might be.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the answer from the minister.
The Canada-U.S. free trade agreement is supposed to contain
mechanisms to resolve unfair trade practices. Is the minister
taking action to use those mechanisms to help Canadian apple
growers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the free trade
agreement are one potential avenue that might be pursued. There
is the potential of an appeal of the CITT ruling to the Federal
Court. There is also the potential of commencing a brand new
CITT inquiry.
The difficulty with all these avenues is that they take a long
time. The time factor was of particular concern to apple growers
when they met me. In terms of my consideration of what the
government's response might be, I am bearing very much in
mind the timing issue apple growers had uppermost in their
minds.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
With the Rogers Communications takeover of Maclean
Hunter we will have a virtual private monopoly of Canada's
information highway. We know the CRTC and the competition
bureau will have to approve the takeover, but surely we need
first to determine what is in the long term public interest and
how best this can be served.
2296
Will the government either instruct the standing committee on
heritage or strike a special committee of Parliament to develop a
position that would ensure the public interest is served in the
ownership and development of the information highway?
(1500 )
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
As we have stated in this House and in the speech from the
throne, this is a very important issue. It is a priority of this
government. We will be discussing this in committee and as
time goes on.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, ever since I first
raised the issue of a guaranteed annual minimum income in the
House last month, I have received many letters from across
Canada expressing support for the concept.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for Human Resources Development if the government will
actively consider integrating existing income support programs
into a single guaranteed annual minimum income.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her question.
As the hon. member will recall, on January 31 of this year the
Minister of Human Resources Development outlined a three
stage process of consultation that would culminate with the
establishment of a new social security act for this country.
During this time we will be listening to Canadians from coast to
coast to coast to bring about the type of positive change that
Canadians called for on October 25.
Of course one of the ideas that we will be examining will be a
minimum income as perhaps presented by the Newfoundland
economic recovery commission report.
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all members
of Parliament to participate in this important initiative by this
government.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: My colleagues, I would like to draw to your
attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Sandy Jolly, the
Minister of Municipal Affairs from the province of Nova Scotia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, a few days ago, a former
member of Parliament, Gilbert Rondeau, passed away. The hon.
member for Shefford will say a few words about him.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday,
I was very sad to hear about the death of Gilbert Rondeau, who
represented my riding of Shefford from 1962 to 1965 and from
1968 to 1979.
When I was a student at the University of Ottawa I had the
pleasure of seeing him here in the House and of going to his
office. He was always pleasant, colourful, and available to give
me the documentation I needed for my assignments.
As you know, Gilbert Rondeau was the right-hand man of
Réal Caouette from the Social Credit Party of Canada, as well as
a worthy representative for the riding of Shefford. Let us not
forget that it is the Creditistes who, when they arrived in this
House, forced Parliament to provide simultaneous
interpretation of House proceedings.
All his life Gilbert Rondeau was a man of action, a defender of
the people, and a friend of the poor. On behalf of my colleagues
from the Bloc Quebecois and of my constituents in the riding of
Shefford, I want to offer my deepest sympathies to Mrs.
Rondeau, to his daughter Micheline Rondeau-Parent, who is a
clerk in this House, and to his children and grandchildren.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and of the
government, I wish to offer my sincere condolences to Gilbert
Rondeau's family.
I had the opportunity to sit in this House when Mr. Rondeau
was a member. He was a very active servant of the people and a
member of the Social Credit Party, a political grassroots
movement from Quebec.
As the hon. member for Shefford just said, he was a close
colleague of the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada,
Réal Caouette. For many years he served the people of Shefford
to the best of his knowledge and his abilities. He was cheerful.
He was a good family man, and I think he tried to properly serve
the people who placed their confidence in him on several
occasions.
(1505)
I had the opportunity to appreciate the work of his daughter
who, as you know, works here in the House of Commons and, in
a certain way, carries on the work of her father who served the
people. Serving the members of the House of Commons is a way
of continuing the work started in Parliament by her father.
2297
I know that another of his daughters, Nicole, also worked for
the House of Commons and the Senate. Serving the Canadian
Parliament is a little bit of a family tradition for the Rondeaus.
Again, I want to express to Micheline and to her siblings our
deepest sympathy on the death of Gilbert Rondeau, a former
member of Parliament.
_____________________________________________
2297
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the review of Canada's foreign policy and
international trade. I anticipate that we are going to have a great
deal of interest in the review process and I encourage Canadians
from coast to coast to be part of that greater debate.
The upcoming national policy forum is both timely and
important. The cold war has ended. The foreign policy of many
countries is drifting and needs to be reviewed. Most industrial
countries are reviewing their policy on foreign affairs as a result
of what has happened in a rapidly changing world.
I have concerns about the foreign policy, specifically CIDA.
We will have speakers later today who will deal specifically
with that so I will comment mainly in the area of international
trade.
International trade perspective to me means opportunities to
develop our trade with other countries. It means opportunities
for our businesses to take advantage of these important trading
deals that we have just concluded.
One such opportunity is the expanding trade with Mexico
through NAFTA. I look forward to Canada participating in that
very important trade pact as well as the discussion that is going
to take place about the expansion of NAFTA. As we know, Chile
is one of the countries that is looking to expand or to become
part of the NAFTA arrangement. I would encourage our trading
partners to accept Chile as part of this greater trading pact.
Currently 80 per cent of our exports are to the United States,
our most important trading partner. I want to emphasize that we
do not want to lose the United States as our most important
trading partner. I think it is a natural relationship that is going to
continue. But I do think we have to look for new opportunities as
well.
New opportunities exist in southeast Asia where dynamic
growth is being experienced. Growth forecasts for this area are
in excess of 8 per cent annually. That compares with less than 3
per cent for OECD countries. Southeast Asia is the one place in
the world where trade is booming.
Canada is well positioned to export to this area. Our western
provinces, particularly British Columbia, have a natural
advantage in water transportation, a very cheap method of
transportation.
Canada has already had some success in selling into the
Pacific area. Japan is our second most important trading partner
and South Korea, of course, rates right up there as number six.
Among the top 25 markets for Canadian goods are six nations
from southeast Asia: Singapore, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Indonesia and Thailand. However, our total merchandise
exports to these six countries only amounts to 2.7 per cent of
Canada's total trade. I see this as being a real area for growth
opportunity for Canada. We can and should be doing better in
this area.
(1510)
We have a large untapped resource. I am talking specifically
about the one million Canadians of Asian origin who possess
knowledge of the language and the culture. They know what the
consumer habits are in these countries. They know the business
norms, the conventions that need to take place. They often have
family ties in that region. This invaluable knowledge is not
found in a textbook, but it is very real and should be used.
We could be looking at encouraging Asian language training
in our universities and encouraging our businesses to support
that. We should also be looking at encouraging our trade
department to hire more people with a background in that area to
take advantage of these natural ties.
I want to speak specifically about some projections from
Canadian business. The Canadian Cattle Commission is a good
example of an organization that plans to take advantage of this
very rich trading area. It estimates that by the year 2000, which
is only six years away, exports will increase twelvefold to this
area, from 6,000 tonnes to 75,000 tonnes of beef annually.
The Canadian Wheat Board is projecting steady growth in that
area. South Korea now accounts for a significant amount of our
feed grains.
Canada is a trading nation. Twenty-five per cent of our gross
domestic product is accountable to our exports in goods and
services and that sustains over two million jobs in Canada.
Our present recovery is being led by solid increases in our
export trade. Canada has a very good reputation as a leader in the
trade area. Our Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade has been doing an excellent job of developing markets
2298
abroad. Canada gained a good reputation as a leader in helping
to establish the GATT after World War II and now the new world
trade organization.
I believe the trade component of the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade should not be downsized. It
should be streamlined to become more cost effective. We need a
strong department promoting Canadian interests abroad. That is
one way we are going to continue to grow.
We heard the minister speak this morning about the review
that is under way in the department. I encourage him in that
review. I would also like to encourage him to make our business
community, our private sector, more a part of our trade
organization. It should be taken into account in a lot higher
degree.
New emphasis should be placed on putting in place people of
Asian background specifically in our trade department, as I said,
to promote trade in southeast Asia. Opening trade consulates in
emerging countries such as southeast Asia should be examined.
The joint ventures that were talked about earlier today I would
certainly encourage in order to make it the most cost effective
method of promoting our interests abroad.
Problems at home must be corrected before we can be
effective traders. We cannot expect our businesses to operate
with one hand tied behind their backs. If we cannot give our
industries a fair chance to compete our efforts are really futile.
Our companies, small, medium and large which have to break
into and develop these foreign markets cannot do so effectively.
They are hampered by disappointing results at home because our
government will not act responsibly on fiscal management.
Taxes must be reduced. Deficits must be eliminated and
government overspending must be stopped. A greater emphasis
has to be placed on removing internal trade barriers. We have to
create the proper climate in Canada to promote business. I
believe that we must put into place realistic tariffs so that we do
not invite challenges from our trading partners as a result of the
very important negotiations concluded at GATT.
In closing, I would certainly welcome a review of our foreign
policy, our defence policy and our trade policy. These are all
happening at the same time.
(1515 )
There is merit in having some joint meetings of defence and
foreign affairs in order to dovetail these as much as possible. It
is very important because the policies we are putting in place
this year will determine where we stand as a nation when we
reach the 21st century.
In my mind it is a very important review. I look forward to the
process. I hope that as many Canadians as possible will
participate in this review.
I also have some concerns, as does my colleague, as to the
make-up of the joint committee. I look forward to travelling
across the country and taking this hearing process to the very
people who have to make representations instead of having them
come to Ottawa. That is a very important part of this process as
well.
In closing this is a very important time in Canada's history,
with the two reviews that are going on. It is not an easy time. All
countries are facing some kind of a review as a result of what is
happening internationally with globalization. I hope we can
meet that challenge.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Madam Speaker, I want to take a minute to
thank the hon. member for the support his party is giving to this
whole policy review.
I know members of his party have some objections to the joint
committee with the Senate, but I am wondering if he would not
agree there are many senators who could be very helpful. I am
thinking of former secretaries of state for foreign affairs such as
Senator Allan MacEachen. Would he not agree that some of
these senators could provide valuable input to our policy
review?
Mr. Penson: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for that very important question. I certainly see there is
some expertise there.
My view is they should make representations to the
committee in the same way as other witnesses do. The problem I
have is that they are not elected officials. There certainly is
merit in having their input because they do have a great amount
of expertise and knowledge. Perhaps that is one way to
accommodate that.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Could I ask Reform
Party members if they are dividing their time 10 minutes each?
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, our first two speakers will be
using up the full 20 minute allotment. When we break from that
mould we will give you the word.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)):
Madam Speaker, as my colleagues, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the Minister of International Trade and the Secretary of
State for Latin America and Africa have all mentioned, the
government believes it is time for a foreign policy review, for a
review of Canada's international interests and our domestic
capabilities and constraints in the pursuit of our interests.
I have listened carefully to each of their remarks. I would like
to add my views on Canadian foreign policy and more
specifically on how it relates to my portfolio as Secretary of
State for Asia-Pacific.
First of all my role as Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific is to
advise the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Asia-Pacific matters.
My responsibilities therefore cover both geographic and
sectoral issues such as political economic matters and social
development assistance.
2299
Canadians recognize the need for job creation in Canada as
well as the restoration of faith of Canadians in our economy.
These two goals can be achieved to a large degree through an
export led recovery. Presently about one-quarter of Canadian
jobs are directly related to exports.
(1520)
The Asian markets for pulp and paper, telecommunications
and transport equipment, construction materials, agri-foods and
petrochemicals present tremendous potential for economic
growth in Canada. At the same time they meet the needs of many
developing nations. Furthermore the Asia-Pacific region not
only provides markets for our exports, but it is also an important
source for the technology, investment capital and skills in which
we can enhance Canadian competitiveness.
Growth rates in much of the Asia-Pacific region during the
1980s were more than twice as high as the rest of the world.
Asia's share of world income could rise from 24 per cent in 1989
to 35 per cent by 2010 and to over 50 per cent by 2040.
Canadian businesses must prepare themselves to capitalize on
the opportunities presented. If they fail to do so then we as a
nation risk the erosion of those institutions that have made
Canada the envy of the world.
Our success will depend on our ability to achieve greater
access to these markets and to develop initiatives that will result
in the provision of the greatest possible competitive advantage
to Canadian exports. As part of this effort bilateral and
multilateral economic and trade arrangements with countries in
the Asia-Pacific region will need to be examined in light of the
major economic changes taking place.
We must also recognize an increasingly important element is
that Canada's trade and economic relations with the
Asia-Pacific region will be the development of new institutions
such as the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum. Within
APEC are included five of Canada's top 10 export markets. As
we can see, an active Canadian role within APEC is vital to our
interests.
I was pleased that my first official function as Secretary of
State for Asia-Pacific was to attend the APEC summit in
November in Seattle with the Prime Minister and the Minister
for International Trade.
APEC, like the region's explosive growth, is a relatively
recent phenomenon. Since its creation five years ago it has
become the region's main forum for discussions on regional
growth, economic interdependence, strengthening the
multilateral trading system and reducing barriers to trade in
goods, services and investment. It has also become a major
vehicle for co-operation on sectoral issues such as
environmental problems.
During my first overseas trip in January to Hong Kong, south
China, Thailand and Japan I was able to discuss many of these
issues in more detail. These are some of the fastest growing and
important markets for Canada. As I have already mentioned
their needs correspond to many of our skills and expertise areas.
We need to devise ways to target government programs and
resources effectively to assist Canadian companies to be even
more successful international players. Of particular concern to
this government is the role of small and medium size businesses.
They have the potential to be the growth engines of the future
but often lack the critical mass, the financial resources or the
technical expertise to penetrate foreign markets.
The government must help to facilitate Canadian businesses
to access the market in the Asia-Pacific region. We have some
excellent examples of practical initiatives businesses and
governments are undertaking together.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong is
planning Canada-Hong Kong Trade and Investment Week. This
event is appropriately being titled ``Profiting from Partnership''
and will take place in Hong Kong and Guangzou in early May.
(1525 )
This initiative, which has the full backing of government and
industry, has been designed to create networks between business
people in Canada, Hong Kong and China. It will educate
Canadians about business opportunities in Asia.
As the Minister for International Trade outlined recently, in
co-operation with the Minister of Industry he has instituted a
full review of this matter. The aim is to ensure that our small and
medium size firms have access to the tools and the environment
needed to compete.
Exports and venture financing, delivery of market
information, co-ordination of government programs and the
pooling of private sector resources are all issues now on the
table. By adopting a more market driven approach to trade
development, one that sees government as an export facilitator
rather than an export leader, we can use market signals to help
set our real trade priorities. We need to develop a national
strategy to tap into the Asia-Pacific market. In order to develop
the proper strategy we need to hear from parliamentarians and
Canadians.
However foreign affairs must not only be concerned with
international trade issues but also with political, social and
economic matters. During the election campaign the Prime
Minister clearly enunciated his mission of creating a stronger,
more independent role for Canada on the international scene.
The Prime Minister stated his belief in a government that
reinforced Canada's reputation for tolerance and openness, one
with a common sense approach to ensure our values are reflected
in all aspects of our foreign policy. The Minister of Foreign
2300
Affairs is working hard to make that mission a reality. I am very
pleased to have the chance to assist him in this regard.
One important aspect of the relationship Canada has with
many of the nations of the Asia-Pacific region is in the area of
development. It was not too long ago that the relationship
between trade, aid and development was viewed by many as
non-existent. Yet there are many facets to Canada's
development program.
First, assisting societies in meeting their citizen's basic
human needs has been a pillar of Canada's international
involvement. However development assistance is much more
than that. The environment, building peace and security, good
governance, the promotion of human rights and racial and
gender equality are also development issues.
Development assistance has been particularly effective in
fostering the development of countries in the Asia-Pacific
region. In light of the progress achieved Canadian development
priorities have shifted from isolated project planning to broader
policy interventions intended to involve Canadians in
co-operation for sustainable development in the region.
CIDA's strategy for the Asia-Pacific region has five broad
priorities: strengthening the institutional capacity in support of
sustainable development; co-operating in resolving national,
regional and global environmental problems; promoting
co-operation between private sectors in Canada and the
Asia-Pacific region; fostering institutional linkages and
networks; and encouraging respect for human rights and
promoting good governance.
As these five priorities clearly demonstrate, the social,
economic and political aspects of foreign policies are related.
We as a nation will only benefit from an integrated approach.
Just last week I saw these five priorities in action during my
visit to Bangladesh and Cambodia. Then I left the Canadian
delegation to attend the ICORC meeting in Tokyo. ICORC
stands for the International Committee on Reconstruction of
Cambodia. My main interests were to promote our bilateral
relations with Bangladesh and Cambodia and to observe first
hand the effects of Canadian aid programs.
(1530)
I was deeply impressed by the commitment of Canada's
efforts to date.
Bangladesh is our biggest aid recipient and despite serious
ongoing problems caused by overpopulation and environmental
stress, Bangladesh has made important progress in a number of
areas including family planning, food self-sufficiency, and an
economic growth rate of 4 per cent in 1993.
Bangladesh is also becoming less aid dependent with donors
now required to fund just over 70 per cent of its development
budget compared with 100 per cent some years ago.
Our commitment to Cambodia is also of several years
duration. We were signatories to the Paris peace accord of 1991
and contributed substantially to the UN Transitional
Administration Committee that ushered in the new government
last year.
Now that Cambodia has a democratically elected government
after years of war we are assisting in such crucial areas as
demining, technical assistance and poverty alleviation in rural
areas. It is hard to think of a more compelling environmental
problem than demining. Canada's leading role in helping to
solve this problem has been recognized by the international
community.
The highlight of my trip was meeting the 13 Canadians who
are training Cambodian soldiers to complete this most difficult
task.
As Canadian Lieutenant-Colonel Focsaneanu explained to
me, the Cambodian people cannot return to the fields to work the
land until those fields are safe. Demining is the most important
part in helping Cambodia to develop.
Canada's political relations with the Asia-Pacific region are
complex and challenging. Since the end of the cold war the
region has evolved into an area of greater stability, productivity
and justice. Nevertheless, serious causes for concern remain and
other potential sources of dispute and conflict also exist.
Despite outstanding overall growth, disparities continue.
While east and southeast Asia are outpacing the rest of the world
the majority of the world's poor are still in the Asia-Pacific
region.
These uncertainties present major challenges in any review of
Canada's political and security relations with the region.
Perhaps the most encouraging development in recent years in
the Asia-Pacific region is the growing willingness to address
security issues and potential problems multilaterally using
institutions such as the ASEAN ministerial consultative process
in which Canada is a dialogue partner.
The process of multilateral consultation among regional
governments is still in the early stages and much more work
needs to be done before the region will develop practical
mechanisms for resolving conflicts and disagreements.
In the interim informal methods of consultation involving
academics, businessmen and officials acting in their unofficial
capacities have developed. Canadians have been playing leading
roles in these activities, notably in creating the North Pacific
Co-operative Security Dialogue in 1990.
2301
Through funding provided by CIDA Canada has also been
instrumental in fostering consultations on specific areas of
potential conflict such as the workshops on the South China Sea.
In the Asia-Pacific region, as in elsewhere, co-operative
security means more than just reducing armaments and creating
barriers to military ambitions.
(1535 )
There can be no real security if hunger, poverty, social
injustice and environmental degradation continue. Our foreign
policy has to be based on a comprehensive approach that
involves trade developments, the respect for human rights, the
support of social development and the institutionalization of
good, open governments.
Recently the debate over social injustice in the Asia-Pacific
region has acquired new dimensions. There are those who have
argued that democratic development must necessarily take a
back seat to economic development. However, I am one who
maintains that in many instances the two are not mutually
exclusive.
Certainly there is evidence that increased political flexibility
is a by-product of economic liberalization, and governments
that have opened their markets to international trade are more
sensitive to the views and reactions of other countries. An
inward looking society that depends little on trade and
international investments is less likely to respond to concerns
raised by foreigners.
Trade reduces isolationism. Trade also expands the scope of
international law and generates the economic growth required to
sustain social change and development. Economic liberalization
also leads to a pluralization of interest groups in society.
Nevertheless, all societies must resolve the tensions between
individual and collective rights and we must all be vigilant to
ensure that fundamental human rights are protected.
In this regard it is imperative that we as a government
continue to raise the matter of human rights with those countries
we believe to be in violation thereof at every opportunity. While
we respect time honoured traditions and cultures, our position
has always been that the best guarantee for stability and
prosperity is a government that is responsive to its people.
The topics I have touched on today may serve as a preliminary
indication of the kinds of issues that will need to be addressed as
we consider Canada's relations with the Asia-Pacific region
during the review of Canada's foreign policy. We are seeking
views and guidance from Canadians in all walks of life to help
provide directions in the development of our new policies and
initiatives for the Asia-Pacific region.
While establishing strong and effective economic and trade
relations with our Asia-Pacific partners is a primary focus, we
shall continue to promote respect for human rights, the
development of truly democratic political institutions and the
objectives of sustainable development in our relations with the
region. Establishing strong and effective economic and trade
relations with the region is an important goal for Canada. As I
hope I have outlined, we have much more to offer each other
than just commercial opportunities.
As part of the foreign policy review process I look forward to
discussing with Canadians their views on expanding our
engagement with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region across
the entire spectrum of political, social, environmental and
economic relations.
As a country bordering both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans,
Canada has the opportunity to expand in both directions. I
believe the time is right for us to realize our full potential as a
partner in the dynamic developments taking place in the
Asia-Pacific region and I look forward to hearing the views of
Canadians on how to best achieve this goal.
In the Asia-Pacific region, Canada is faced with a number of
very important issues. We must continue to establish beneficial
trading relationships and we must also work hard to promote our
bilateral as well as multilateral linkages. We must continue to
support economic and social development in the region, while
being mindful of its cultural diversities, and we must capitalize
on our natural human advantages to realize this tremendous
potential.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to thank my colleague for having described so well a huge
market and an incredible population. For a number of years,
very commendable efforts have been made between Canada and
Asia-Pacific.
I come from a rural riding where we manufacture chopsticks.
We are present on the market, but it is extremely difficult for us
to break into that market. We have large quantities of wood. My
colleague talked earlier about pulp and paper. In my area, we do
have pulp and paper mills.
My question is this: Why can we not break into that market?
What are the main problems? In my area, we know perfectly
well that relations with the United States and Europe are easy. A
lot of people who went to Asia did not come back disappointed, I
would venture to say, but observed that things were a bit slow.
What are the main problems we have to deal with in order to
get a share of that huge market, when we know that
multinationals can afford to pay lobbyists and when we know
that things are easier for them? How can a small business get a
share of that market?
[English]
Mr. Chan: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his question. I have heard the kind of complaint the
2302
hon. member mentioned when travelling across Canada trying to
investigate the problems facing Canadian industry right now.
I cannot agree with him more about the problems faced by
small and medium sized businesses. However, the problem is
multifaceted. In a lot of Asian countries the commercial laws are
not in place. They have different cultures. They also have
different ways of doing business. Also, because of language
barriers and so on Canadian businessmen usually have a tough
time making deals with Asia-Pacific countries in comparison
with the way we can deal with our European counterparts and
our North American counterparts. That is why for the past while
only big business seems to have the ability to make deals with
the region.
That also points to the reason why social development and a
system of development to help those countries to
institutionalize good open government are so important in our
foreign relationships with them.
However, at this moment we still have to promote our trade
for small and medium size businesses. What the department is
doing now is investigating and looking for an institutionalized
structure through which small and medium sized businesses
could reach those markets. Sometimes they could afford one trip
to the Asia-Pacific region but they might not be able to sustain
the effort.
Through these trade commissions in our posts in those
corresponding offices and with a more permanent structure in
place we hope to help the small businessman facilitate them. At
this moment we are trying to invite trade delegations from the
Asia-Pacific region to Canada as well as to support our trade
delegations going to various regions. By matching the
businessmen on both sides of the ocean, by helping them to form
partnerships and joint ventures we hope to help facilitate the
trade effort.
(1545 )
There is a lot more that needs to be done at the beginning of
our exploration of that market. The business community has
done quite a bit on its own. With the government's commitment
to providing help we can achieve much more in the near future.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his comments. I agree
with the gist of the member's earlier comments noting that the
key to future prosperity was going to be in both access to foreign
markets and enticing foreign investment to come to Canada in
the sense that the recent GATT negotiations enable us to ensure
those markets. It is a good move. The approval of the NAFTA is
also a positive move.
One of the ministers who reports to the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has mentioned that
he did not differentiate between foreign affairs and international
trade, that the two were almost inseparable in many ways. That
is part of the process we will be going through in the next few
months in our review.
Because the member has a longstanding tradition in the
human rights movement, I would appreciate his comments on
whether he believes there should be any linkage between human
rights or human rights violations and international trade
opportunities, open doors and so on.
Mr. Chan: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
concern about the relationship between human rights and trade
development.
Because of the bilateral relationship between countries and
the situation of particular countries, the method of dealing with
the issue of human rights should not be a blanket approach. In
some cases the government is not willing to have dialogue or
even open up to trade and communications. We have to deal with
them quite differently.
However in many instances in the Asia-Pacific area, for
example China and Indonesia, the governments are willing to
have dialogue on human rights and have been willing to adapt to
a liberalization of their economies. Many cultural exchanges
and social contacts through academics and other people are
taking place. It is through those kinds of exchanges the people
who are part of the leadership within the countries are
responding to the concerns of international institutions.
In dealing with those cases, trade development with those
countries is helping to move on to the international stage, to
participate in international institutions and to respond to the
international promotion of human rights. At the same time it
encourages them to respond to international supervision of
those issues.
Through trade we encourage them to participate. That is one
issue. The other issue is that through trade we can help the
government and the country to develop economically. If the
country improves its economic position education centres can
elevate their awareness of human rights and so on.
I always look at trade as part of helping developing countries.
They are not mutually exclusive. We can pursue trade at the
same time as helping to promote awareness of human rights in
those countries. I hope I answered the hon. member's question.
(1550)
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity today to speak to the motion presented by the
government. Today, the Minister of Foreign Affairs moved that
the House of Commons and the Senate form a special joint
committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to consider
2303
Canada's foreign policy, including international trade and
international assistance.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this
committee. I have no objection to examining Canada's foreign
policy, including international trade and international
assistance. I would be delighted and proud to discuss these
issues because this is a very important area, but I do object to the
fact that the government is ordering us to form a special joint
committee of the House of Commons and the Senate.
In fact, I will have the honour and the privilege of seconding
the Reform Party's motion that the Senate should not be part of
this committee. Let me explain. Quebecers no longer believe in
the relevance or credibility of the senators and the Senate.
Quebecers feel they no longer represent what people really
think, because they are out of touch.
Every day, I meet residents of Longueuil who say, when we
talk about the budget: When are you going to get rid of that
useless Senate? Between 85 and 90 per cent of the residents of
Longueuil agree we should abolish the Senate, which is an
indicator that the Senate's credibility is not that high. And that is
why I hope the Senate will not be part of this committee.
Quebecers gave us a vast majority in Quebec. Fifty-four
members of the Bloc Quebecois, 20 Liberals and one
Progressive Conservative were elected in Quebec. With this
sweeping majority, Quebecers are saying that they want to get
rid of the Senate, and as a result, it is my duty to say today that I
object to the Senate being part of this committee.
This is the second joint committee the government has
created, the first being the committee on national defence
established a few weeks ago, and today the committee on
foreign affairs. What is the purpose of all this? What is the
government trying to do? I have come to the conclusion that the
government wants to dilute the democratic rights of Quebecers.
By diluting the number of elected members on this committee,
since a number of senators is being added which reduces the
proportion of representation by members from Quebec, which
should be about 25 per cent and will now be only 10 per cent, the
government is diluting the power of Quebecers on this
committee. I think this is an insult to the people of Quebec and
also to the people who elected the Reform Party.
I deplore this interference by the senators in our affairs. Is it
not the role of the Senate to review bills and make
recommendations for amendments? Quebecers will once again
feel they have been deceived by authoritarian federalism. And
that is why I intend to second the motion of the Reform Party
that the Senate withdraw from this committee.
(1555)
In my opinion, it is admirable that the government wants to
review its foreign policy with respect to international trade and
international assistance. There are many reasons why I consider
this to be an excellent initiative. First, because the world around
us is constantly changing.
Look at what is happening within the European Economic
Community, the changes in the USSR, the new North American
agreement, NAFTA, the reunification of Germany and East
Asia. These changes put a new slant on international relations
and create new economic realities. We must contend with
market globalization, with new policies and with new
democratic structures being set up in the world. Priorities have
also emerged with respect to human rights, democratic values,
the policy of life and environmental protection. We are faced
with new challenges, new players and uncertainties and an ever
more complex state of interdependence. As a member of
Parliament representing Quebec and as a citizen of Canada, I
find it especially important that we re-evaluate our position so
that we can meet these challenges head on. Exactly what
changes and challenges are we confronting?
Let me begin by speaking about the situation in Europe. For
the past 30 years or so, Europeans have been trying to come
together while remaining highly sovereign nations with their
own language and culture. European nations have been trying to
achieve economic integration through such means, for example,
as the elimination of trade barriers, political co-operation and
new infrastructures. Recently, to improve communication in
Europe, a decision was made to dig a tunnel under the English
Channel. This must be seen as a very serious attempt on the part
of sovereign European nations to unite and work for a common
purpose. However, as you can see, the process is by no means
simple. They have been at it for 30 years. Nevertheless, as
Canadians, we must take these facts into consideration.
Let us also consider briefly the unification of Germany. I had
the pleasure and privilege of being in Germany about one week
after the wall came down and I can assure you that it was quite
something. Germans were proud and pleased to be reunited with
their families after having been split up following the war in a
rather cavalier manner. I was quite surprised when barely a few
weeks after the wall came down, Germans decided to reunite
their country. Today, we should be proud of the German people
for reuniting to form a great nation and an important power in
terms of Europe's economic development.
However, as Canadians, we have to understand that the
Germans invested a great deal in Canada, particularly in
Montreal, in real estate and in other areas. Where are they going
to invest their money now? Probably they will invest more in the
2304
former East Germany. We will have to take this fact into
consideration, as will the committee.
In Eastern Europe, including the former East Germany,
important changes have occurred. First of all, an economic
turnaround has taken place. State-run economies have been
abandoned in favour of market economies. We must also realize
that all of these countries have become sovereign and that their
system of government has changed. Democracy and the
free-market system have taken hold.
(1600)
The most important of the sweeping changes of recent years,
particularly in the nineties, was the dismantling of the U.S.S.R.
First, because it signalled the end of the cold war.
For years, we were concerned day in and day out about what
was going on between the two superpowers, the U.S. and the
U.S.S.R. This was the cause of conflicts here and there around
the world. Now that the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, I guess one
can say that major conflicts have practically been eliminated.
But we must not forget that these 300 million people were
divided into some fifteen republics which have now become
sovereign nations. National assertion movements in Russia, the
Ukraine and the Baltic States have led these nations to
sovereignty and having recognized one another, they can now
flourish and prosper better. As Canadians and Quebecers, we
will have to be well informed and prepared to adapt to these
major changes.
All these changes, these major changes cannot be
overemphasized. I think that most people wondered what on
earth would happen when the U.S.S.R. decided to let these
nations become independent and flourish within their culture.
Such changes affect the economy. In the old days, the
government had total control on the economy and the people
were not used to taking initiatives, whereas today they are living
in a free market.
For a hundred years or so, the economy was managed from the
top. All of a sudden, the people found themselves in a free
market context. Just imagine the changes and problems these
people are facing. This causes adjustment problems and we can
see the changes happening, particularly in Russia. The people
living in these countries are concerned, and so are we as we try
to co-operate with them.
In that sense, the situation becomes very tricky, economically
and, of course, politically. It is not sure that the Russians will
accept switching from a communist system to a free-enterprise
or open trading system. There could be problems and instability
for several decades to come. It makes it a little difficult for
Canadians to know how to deal with them. It is in that context
that the committee will have to take a very serious look at our
relations with the former U.S.S.R. countries.
There is also the Asia-Pacific region. In that region, Japan in
particular has become a world economic power and managed to
position itself very successfully on all world markets. Today, it
has to redefine its relations with its Occidental trading partners.
South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, the four
dragons of South East Asia as they are called, together with
Japan are the driving force behind the region's economic
development and fierce competitors on the international market.
We will have to deal with these people and nations.
(1605)
Let us stop a moment and think about a country that we
sometimes tend to overlook, but which has a population much
greater than any other country in the world, namely China.
China is a complex country with a population of 1.2 billion. It
is also undergoing major changes. For several years, it has been
changing its economy significantly. Last year, China's economy
grew nearly 15 per cent, compared to Canada, where the
economy grew about 1.5 per cent.
With the development of a market economy, China is
becoming an economic power. Some predict that China will be
the world's leading economic power as early as the beginning of
the next decade. This means that we Canadians will have to
adjust our relations with China.
I had the privilege of going to Japan and the Philippines in
January and I took note of certain things there. I attended the
annual forum of Asia-Pacific parliamentarians, where about 14
countries were represented. The big topic of discussion of
course was how these countries would unite and create a sort of
free trade pact among Asian countries. They have trouble
understanding or accepting that North America is a free-trade
area. It frightens them. They also want their economic pact, like
Europe, America and Asia, of course. The Asian countries,
especially those on the Pacific and in eastern Asia, have started
to hold discussions about creating their own economic pact.
We have also noted what is going on in Asia now. These are
dynamic countries with intelligent, educated people who want to
succeed. I can tell you that the economic growth of these
countries is quite remarkable. Again, we will have to watch
closely so that we can be in a good position to trade with them in
future, to develop together and to benefit from their knowledge
and know-how as much as they can benefit from ours.
Let us take North America for example. In North America, we
have made giant strides to be able to deal with the globalization
of the economy. The highlight is no doubt NAFTA, which gives
us the opportunity of joining a North American market of about
350 million people, one of the largest markets in the world.
2305
Especially for us in Quebec, I can tell you that North
American free trade is very important because Montreal is
within 1,000 kilometres of 100 million people, 100 million
consumers, the best consumers in the world. We think that the
line between the United States and Quebec should be eliminated
as soon as possible so that we can sell our products and we very
sincerely believe that the smaller countries always win in trade
agreements, not the big ones, because the smaller countries
often have smaller businesses and they can double their
production without being noticed. That is how Quebec will
benefit from it.
I was pleased to talk about the whole area of international
affairs and I will be very active on this committee so that Quebec
in particular is well positioned to face this global economy,
these increasingly open markets, and I am convinced that we
will succeed together, we intelligent members on this
committee.
(1610)
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Madam Speaker, I do not
know whether we should be happy today to debate a government
motion to appoint a joint committee to consider Canada's
foreign policy. On the one hand, we are happy to have the
opportunity at last to discuss Canada's foreign policy in this
House. We believe an exchange of ideas is necessary so that
parliamentarians can express their views on the relevance of the
Canadian government's past and future actions abroad.
We must look at the Canadian government's goals and
policies on diplomacy, foreign aid, security and international
trade, to name but a few. The Bloc Quebecois thinks that the
time has come for a comprehensive review of Canada's foreign
policy.
On the other hand, we are puzzled by the government's
proposal to create a special joint committee. The Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade already
seems to fulfil the role and mandate proposed for the new joint
committee. The standing committee has the power to send for
persons, papers and records, to retain the services of experts, to
travel to gather the information it deems necessary, and to make
recommendations on Canada's foreign policy.
Why create a joint committee with the same mandate as the
standing committee? Does the government realize that it is
hampering not only the decision-making process but also the
implementation of its foreign policy, and that it might make the
committee less efficient in the process?
As for the presence of senators in the foreign policy review
committee, we believe, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed
out, that major foreign policy directions must be defined by
elected representatives. The members of the other place were
not elected and do not represent anyone.
Of course, we could also talk about waste and duplication but
I realize that one more committee will not shake the temple of
bureaucracy and waste. No matter. In this period of budget
restraints, the government could have avoided this duplication
of committees.
Moreover, the Official Opposition wonders why the Canadian
government has already undertaken a review of its national
defence policy before even defining its policy of involvement on
the international scene. The foreign and defence policies are too
closely related to have committees work independently from
one another. It is to be hoped that the two committees set up by
the government will consult each other as soon as possible. But I
am probably dreaming!
I could go on and on, but I will take this opportunity to discuss
specific issues of Canadian foreign policy.
As I pointed out earlier, we feel that an in-depth review of that
policy is in order. Over the years, Canada has made a reputation
for itself which, we are told, is envied by many. We have to ask
ourselves why this is the case and try to see if we can be as
successful in the future by pursuing the same direction, or if we
should change our way of doing things.
(1615)
Three activities have enabled Canada to gain this enviable
reputation on the international scene: the participation of
Canadian troops in peacekeeping missions, Canada's aid to
development and, more recently, our efforts regarding human
and democratic rights.
However, Canada's reputation in these sectors could be in
jeopardy. For example, we were supposed to allocate 0.7 per
cent of our gross domestic product to development assistance
programs. The fact is that successive cuts were made by the
government, so that this aid now represents only 0.4 per cent of
the GDP. As soon as it took office, the Liberal government
started implementing the same policy as the Conservatives,
proposing an additional cut of 2 per cent in the budget for
international assistance in the coming year.
At the rate things are going, Canada's reputation as a generous
country with poorer nations could be a thing of the past, or at
least somewhat tarnished. In spite of its enormous problem with
public finances, Canada remains one the richest countries. The
Bloc Quebecois does not believe that we will solve our current
problems by penalizing the poorest people in the world. In the
context of this review, the Canadian government should ensure
that the money allocated to international assistance is really
used to help the poorest.
As the Auditor General indicated in his recent report,
Canadian assistance is neither very efficient, nor very effective.
Canada must define its objectives and its priorities regarding
2306
this aid, and it must ensure that these objectives are reached at
the best possible cost.
We, on this side of the House, do not believe that the waste of
public money is a justification for withdrawing our assistance.
The process must be maintained and improved, and we should
even increase aid to poor countries because their needs are as
pressing as ever. Indeed, in spite of the efforts made, the
situation of the poorest countries has not really improved.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned this morning,
the gap between rich countries of the North and poor countries
of the South is even wider now. Excessive debt, overpopulation,
poverty, abusive development of natural resources, inadequate
education, high infant mortality rates, as well as reduced life
expectancy, are all part of daily life in these countries.
For example, the World Bank has indicated that the external
debt of all developing countries has increased from $62 billion
in 1970 to $1,703 billion in 1992. Moguls and multinational
corporations are often the ones to benefit the most from such a
situation. These businesses can take advantage of the extremely
difficult situation in the poorer countries by overusing human
and natural resources. In the meantime, the poor countries are
getting poorer and poorer.
One of the most dramatic problems caused by such extreme
poverty is one of overpopulation. The annual rate of population
growth reached 2.9 per cent in Africa, compared to 1.1 per cent
in North America and 0.3 per cent in Europe. This means that the
fertility rate is higher in Africa than in North America and
Europe. Developing countries account for 95 per cent of the
overall growth of the world's population.
There are 1.18 billion people living in the industrialized
world, compared to 4.3 billion in developing countries.
(1620)
Estimates show that the population in developing countries
will have increased by 3 billion to reach more than 7 billion by
the year 2025, compared to an increase of 0.15 billion people in
the rich countries which would then have a population of 1.35
billion.
Sub-Saharan Africa, already one of the poorest regions of the
world, will have posted the highest growth rate. A demographic
explosion is also expected in Islamic countries where it could
intensify the problems linked to political and economic
restructuring.
Too often, such rapid population growth in the poor countries
leads to more poverty and overuse of natural resources. If
projections prove to be accurate, and the world population
doubles half-way through the 21st century to reach ten billion,
economic development will need to increase anywhere from
fivefold to tenfold to satisfy needs. That would have tragic
implications for the global environment.
Health conditions in poor countries are also disturbing. In
spite of all efforts, a young North American can expect to live 23
years longer than a young African. In 1970, the difference in
terms of life expectancy was 25 years.
Moreover, 14 million children die each year from poverty,
sickness and malnutrition. AIDS could also affect development
and cancel out the effects of several years of assistance. Of the
estimated 10 million cases of HIV in the world, more than 65 per
cent are in Africa. Without our assistance, developing countries
will not be able to stop the spread of the virus, or deal with the
consequences of this terrible sickness. Canada must be a leader
in the strategy to solve the problem.
We should also mention that the development of poor
countries is highly desirable, for the welfare of the countries of
the South as well as our own. We benefit a great deal when these
countries increase their revenues. The North-South Institute
estimates that, during the 1980s, the sharp decline in the
purchasing power of developing countries was responsible for
the loss of 180,000 jobs in Canada. Development assistance
cannot be viewed simply as an expenditure. It must also be seen
as an investment.
Moreover, in 1986, the Winegard report reminded us that
Canadian aid is too closely linked to diplomatic and trade
interests and not concerned enough with the effective
development of poor countries. This same report also indicated
that the primary goal of public aid to development should be the
development of human resources in poorer countries and that
this aid must be concentrated in countries which need it the
most. In fact, it recommended in particular that this goal be part
of a legislative mandate.
The 1988 Canadian policy paper entitled Sharing Our Future
attempted to answer the concerns expressed in the Winegard
report, but without achieving the fundamental redirecting which
had been recommended. The main reason for this failure, we
were told, were the budget cuts that were applied at that time and
the fact that CIDA was unable to truly become an organization
dedicated to help the poor because it was too preoccupied with
its political and bureaucratic influence.
(1625)
In spite of all the government's speeches and papers, public
assistance still does not get to the poorest countries, regions and
people. It is estimated that less than 10 per cent of the Canadian
budget for development assistance is directed to priority areas
like medical care, basic education, water systems and public
health. Compare that with the 62 per cent of development aid
money spent right here in Canada.
In tabling its last budget, the Liberal government which
talked of greater openness in the development and
implementation of the new Canadian foreign policy, presented
us with a fait accompli. Indeed, on February 22, the Minister of
Finance
2307
announced that Canadian assistance would be reduced by $400
million over the next three years.
Quebecers and Canadians will have to ask themselves an
important question: ``Do we want to continue enjoying our
excellent reputation in the world? Have we become so obsessed
with our problems that we have lost all compassion for the most
deprived people in the world?''
The geocentrism that seems to appeal to some ignores the
dependency existing between rich and poor nations. This
interdependency is particularly noticeable in matters of peace,
environment and population explosion. If today we stop
showing human solidarity and gradually withdraw our aid, we
might well have to face much more serious problems tomorrow.
I would like to elaborate further on the thorny issue of world
environment. In 1972, environmental issues were raised on the
world stage in Stockholm on the occasion of the United Nations
Conference on Human Environment. In 1983, the UN General
Assembly established the World Commission on Environment
and Development to investigate major environmental and
developmental problems and to formulate proposals for better
international co-operation in that area.
The Brundtland Commission, as it is called, tabled its report
entitled Our Common Future in 1987. This report emphasized
how urgent it was to act on a global scale. It reminded us that
desertification was increasing at the rate of 6 million acres a
year, that 11 million acres of rain forest were destroyed
annually, that global warming might have been as considerable
during the last fifty years as it had been in the preceding 10,000
years, and that fuel consumption has increased more than
30-fold over the course of the last century.
This report came to the conclusion that human progress had to
be promoted in a durable and sustainable way. That is where the
concept of what we now call sustainable development comes
from; it means meeting present needs without jeopardizing
those of the future.
Since then, Canada signed five international environmental
agreements, during the Earth Summit held in Rio in June 1992.
Canada must continue its efforts to promote sustainable
development internationally.
In closing, I would like to talk briefly on another subject
which is closely related to all the previous ones. It is the
protection of human rights in poor and developing countries
where Canana is involved through aid or trade. Human rights are
multi-faceted, the main ones being related to basic needs like
food, housing, health and education. Several countries are way
off the mark.
Canada is among the very active countries in the field of
human rights, and we hope that it will remain so.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs this morning shared a
beautiful dream with us. He dreamed of a world, and I quote him
almost verbatim, ``where there will be no more arsenals, no
more famine, no more economic plundering, where children
would go to school, have a roof over their heads and enough to
eat''.
(1630)
I would like to share the minister's dream, but unfortunately
the means announced in the Main Estimates quickly brought me
back down to earth.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague's comments about
Canada's reputation in the world and the fact that it might be
threatened. She listed in her arguments what we might call a
tripod of this recognition of Canada's contribution to the world
being foreign aid, peacekeeping, and respect for human rights.
Then in her remarks she simply addressed herself to one of
those three issues, making clear that on the basis of the fact we
have fallen short of our .7 per cent target in foreign aid somehow
our reputation is about to be greatly threatened and undermined.
Could I remind the hon. member that we are second to none in
the world today in our efforts in peacekeeping. We ought to be
very proud of that fact, and I am sure we all are. In the matter of
human rights, again Canada has a loud voice and is a champion
for better human rights both at home, as we have heard day after
day in the responses of the minister of immigration to certain
sentiments that we do not share on this side of the House about
welcoming people to Canada, and in our efforts to encourage
other governments to respect human rights where it is not the
case in their own countries. Just a few days ago I raised in the
House the matter of the situation in Chiapis, Mexico, and the
concern of many Canadians about it.
The hon. member has made reference to these three points.
She castigated the government in saying that we were only at .4
per cent and that somehow this was threatening our reputation in
the world. She then went on to speak about interdependency
among countries, what one might call supranationalism.
I applaud that and I certainly second her sentiment there.
However it is amazing to hear that from a member of a party
with a political agenda to return to the petty nationalism of the
19th century which preached that a nation must be based solely
on the fact that those who speak a language must therefore in and
of themselves become a nation and would seek to destroy the
new experiment in nationalism represented in Confederation, a
neo-nationalism that Macdonald and Cartier along with many
2308
other Canadians had the vision to put forward in this great
country.
I listened with interest to the hon. member and to the leader of
her party earlier today. I was saddened to hear their arguments
based on a type of nationalism that is at least a century and a half
out of date. Indeed it was the dream of the 19th century and
became the nightmare of the 20th century with some of the most
destructive wars in the history of mankind. It is amazing to me to
hear such sentiments of interdependency of nations, which I
applaud, coming from someone who is a member of a party with
such a destructive political agenda, at least very destructive for
this country.
Does the hon. member not believe that if the Bloc's agenda
was achieved and Quebec did tear itself apart from the rest of
Canada, Canada without Quebec and Quebec without Canada
would certainly fall far short of what we would achieve in the
world by being together as a nation? Does she not see that as
perhaps the greatest threat to our reputation in the world, and it
comes from her own party?
(1635)
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien: Madam Speaker, the hon. member touched on
many of the points I just made. I am not sure he understood very
well what I said. As a matter of fact, I praised Canadian foreign
policy in many areas without making any reservation or
omission in that regard. I think I was fair in my remarks because
I am here to speak in good faith of our foreign policy and tell the
government what I think that policy should be. I will keep this
same attitude for as long as I sit in this House.
There is another point on which I would like to comment. The
hon. member seemed to imply that, among the very few
reservations I had, I criticized the government for spending only
a small percentage of our GNP for official development
assistance. I was referring to a Liberal commitment in the red
book saying that Canada would renew its promise to allocate 0.7
per cent of its GNP for ODA. That was the gist of my criticism: I
simply said an election promise was broken. As to the rest, I feel
I was very kind in my assessment of Canadian foreign policy.
As to what the hon. member labelled as the narrow
nationalism of the Bloc Quebecois, I would say nationalism is
not only a matter of language. He is the one who made a link
between nationalism and language. I think nationalism is much
more than that. It is a culture. The Leader of the Opposition was
perfectly clear on that this morning. I will also point out to you
that in his speech this morning, the minister of Foreign Affairs
referred to nationalism, rather ultra-nationalism, which in my
view is not consistent with the ideas of the Bloc.
If we look at globalization of trade and markets, despite this
phenomenon of globalization, we still are confronted-the
minister of Foreign Affairs said it this morning-by the
nation-state, and you know that Quebec considers itself as a
nation. It is in that sense that we talk about nationalism, because
we consider ourselves as a nation, a nation with a culture, with a
language, with a history which, from the outset, was different
from that of English Canada.
It is in that sense that we feel that a nation-state may very
well-and its has been clearly demonstrated recently-we feel,
I repeat, that a nation-state, however small it may be, may very
well survive among nations increasingly interdependent. This
is, in my view, the idea that the Bloc has always been trying to
defend. That does not mean a nation closed to the world, that
does not mean that we are going to apply the geocentric theory
which I mentioned earlier. On the contrary. In my view, Quebec
has always been very open to the world, hoping to become a
nation one day and to remain a nation.
(1640 )
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but the period
for questions and comments has terminated.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
there have been discussions among the parties and I think you
would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I
move:
That the vote on the budget scheduled for Wednesday, March 16, 1994 at 6.30
p.m. be deferred until Tuesday, March 22, 1994 at the conclusion of the time
appointed for the consideration of Government Orders.
I have a second motion. I move:
That the ordinary hour of daily adjournment be suspended this day to permit
continuation of the debate on a motion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to
establish a special joint committee and on any amendments thereto, and during
such extended sitting no quorum calls shall be permitted, nor shall any dilatory
motions be received by the Chair, and when no further member rises to speak,
and in any case no later than eleven o'clock p.m., the Speaker shall put all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion forthwith and without further
debate.
A recorded division shall be deemed demanded and the division shall be
postponed to the end of the time appointed for the consideration of government
business on Wednesday, March 16, 1994 and thereupon the Speaker shall
adjourn the House until two o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, March 16, 1994.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House has heard the
terms of the motions. Does the House agree to adopt both
motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motions moved and agreed to).
2309
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Madam Speaker, I listened to the last few
moments of debate. I believe Canadians are proud of the
country's role on the international stage. They see it as a role of
an honest broker, as a role of a middle power, as a role of a force
of goodwill and civility. It is also a symbol that has acted as a
beacon of hope to those who unfortunately find themselves
displaced. We are particularly proud of the role our immigration
and refugee policies have played in helping to establish our
international reputation along the way.
Canadians have historically had a humanitarian response to
people fleeing persecution, whether it was the open arms that
Canada extended to the United Empire Loyalists or Hungarians
fleeing communism, whether it was the innocent families
escaping a murderous dictator in Uganda or most recently the
helpless Vietnamese boat people who were cast adrift.
In a world of dramatic change, however, we can no longer
view immigration and refugee policies simply as a sporadic
domestic response to occasional international crises. Migration
and refugee issues must be at the forefront of our foreign policy
concerns for Canada and on the foreign policy initiatives agenda
of so-called developed countries.
In addition, I believe we need to come to grips with and create
a coherent international population policy to address the
important issues and challenges raised on the floor of the House
of Commons today.
(1645 )
I believe this foreign policy review is a very welcome
initiative. It coincides with a national consultation on the future
of our immigration program which we had occasion to launch on
March 6 and 7. I believe that these two initiatives should not run
on a parallel playing field, but rather at some point converge into
one through the many inextricably linked issues.
It is very true that immigration programs must be developed
with an eye to both domestic priorities and domestic concerns.
That goes without saying. It must take stock of world
conditions, world pressures and world changes. We cannot
isolate our national programs from our hope for a saner, more
gentle international community.
We also need a wide breadth of vision in recognizing that
whenever we try to extend help to humanity in some corner of
this globe, we are at the same time putting in the first footings of
the foundations of bridges that will one day transport more than
just goodwill, but be transformed into social and cultural and
economic advantages for both countries.
I believe that in eastern Europe where the Berlin wall has
come down that immigration can be one of those bridges, not to
try to have a brain drain when those countries are trying to find a
footing and develop a dynamic and exciting new society, but
rather to try to meet some of the aspirations of those people who
wish to immigrate to Canada where there is already a history and
a proud tradition of that. I believe that it goes beyond just
immigration.
With respect to eastern Europe and some of the countries
therein, we need to show our support now during this difficult
transition time and not later on in the next generation when
obviously we will be seen to be trying to reap the rewards of a
consuming society.
What steps then must a democratic, pragmatic, fair-minded
country like Canada take to help find new answers in a new
world? Recent years have seen a sharp rise in the number of
global migrants. There are as many as 100 million migrants on
the move around this globe. There are almost 19 million
refugees, double the number in 10 years. There are almost 20
million individuals displaced in their own countries, including
some four million individuals from the former Republic of
Yugoslavia. Therefore, there are many root causes for all the
migration. We need to understand and analyse the forces at play
that mobilize this colossal movement of humanity.
My hon. friend from the other side touched on some of these:
civil wars, deep and persistent poverty, mass violation of human
rights, environmental degradation, lack of solid, viable long
term economic opportunities, globalization, uncontrollable
urbanization, better communication and easier transportation
and, of course, the global recession that has touched both
developed and developing countries.
There are some who would close their eyes and others who
would want to close their borders. I suggest that neither of those
actions will stop the problems nor the solutions from coming
forward. As a modern society we cannot afford to have an
international corridor of locked doors. We know that to be the
case. An international corridor of locked doors will only reroute
the traffic through our back doors and through our side windows.
Of course Canada cannot solve the problems alone. However,
by working in co-operation with other countries, clearly we can
help to find international solutions to what is an international
phenomenon, that of migration. We as a country can offer that
leadership because we are truly an international country if we
stop to think about the kinds of exciting characteristics that
define Canada.
2310
(1650 )
We are an international country. Canadians have roots in
every corner of the world. Therefore we should take heart about
that dynamism and ask ourselves what country is better poised
in this new global village to try to seek to mobilize the
leadership for such an international consensus. We should not
sell ourselves short. One of the criticisms that we sometimes
hear is that we are too meek on the international stage. Yet, on
this issue of global migration, we have offered leadership. It is
there, it is documented and it is a source of pride.
In my few remarks I do not wish to try to predetermine the
outcome of the foreign policy review as it deals with migration
pressures. Rather, I would like to raise some serious questions
and issues which I hope will receive the careful reflection of this
joint committee and of the speakers subsequent to my
deliberations.
For instance, while Canada has been a forceful advocate of
individuals' ``right to leave oppressive regimes'', can we go one
step further and become a forceful advocate of people's right to
stay in their homelands? What can we do to make emigration a
matter of choice and not simply a matter of desperation and lack
of options? How can Canada help strengthen the role of the
United Nations High Commission for Refugees that is looking
for assistance to strengthen its resolve?
When most refugees selected by our western world happen to
be men, what can we do to recognize and balance the reality that
most refugees in the world overwhelmingly are women and
young children? How can we encourage international
co-operation to address the root causes of involuntary
migration? Can we find new means of fostering economic
development, human rights, conflict prevention, population
planning and environmental sustainability?
What role can international fora such as the Commonwealth,
la Francophonie, the OECD, or the G-7 play in developing a
much needed integrated population policy which currently has
gone by the wayside and which leaves a large, large vacuum?
What role can and should our trade policy play in the
reduction of migration pressures? What role can Canada's
immigration program play in helping developing nations
strengthen their own countries and develop their own human
resources to the fullest of their potential?
What is the role that technology can play in this equation of
migratory pressures? Have we reached the point where we must
consider migration impact like environmental impact questions
in the development of our foreign and aid policies?
These are some of the questions and issues that I would like to
put on the table for further discussion because in the red book in
the last election campaign we pledged as a party to adopt a more
comprehensive strategy toward national and international
security, including sustainable development, global economic
prosperity, support for democracy and solving problems through
multilateralism.
As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I increasingly
see how critical our success in developing such a comprehensive
strategy will be to the future manageability and success of our
own domestic immigration programs.
I believe and I urge that migration issues and migration
pressures must be a central focus of Canada's foreign policy
agenda as we move together toward the next century. They will
be on the agenda, for instance, at an important United Nations
conference which will take place this September in Cairo,
entitled the United Nations Conference on Population and
Development.
At this particular forum, and at gatherings subsequent to this
forum, we need to search and find new kinds of world-wide
co-operation to ensure that migration is a positive force, not a
destructive force, and an engine of development serving the
interests of migrants as well as the aspirations of both the
sending and the receiving countries alike.
(1655 )
We must seek co-operation to establish stronger international
regimes and strengthen an international resolve to address the
force of world migration, to encourage conditions to permit
people to remain in their homelands and to ensure that when
people are forced to seek refuge that there is an international
community that is not oblivious or indifferent, but receptive to
their plight.
It is through this working partnership to achieve this objective
that Canada's foreign and immigration policies can indeed find
common cause and common ground.
If one looks at public opinion surveys, and I think a few
minutes ago my colleague touched on this nerve, Canadians are
looking for symbols, institutions and initiatives that give a sense
of pride, meaning and purpose to our country called Canada. I
think the element of this debate is such a useful exercise because
an exercise such as this, that goes beyond our own domestic
borders and looks internationally abroad and talks about the
dreams that the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke about earlier,
is the vacuum that Canadians want us to fill. It is a unifying
force.
We may have differences in how we approach these individual
international problems, but it is a force that unites us as opposed
to a force that divides. It is a reputation that not only would give
us a sense of pride but would reinforce the reputation that we
have developed as a caring and compassionate country. Those
are not empty words or empty rhetoric when one tries to fashion
a domestic policy that is in keeping with an international dream
2311
or a more gentle version of a world that sometimes is more filled
with disorder than order.
Every time we make a ripple in the world it sends out a signal
and an example to other countries. That is what multilateralism
is all about. What we seem to be doing on this issue is not only
important domestically, but given that we have had a track
record and a leadership role it becomes doubly important. What
we do in this area, speaking quite modestly, can have an impact
on how other countries view the problem.
It is not a question of trying to preach or lecture to other
countries or try to say that we preach from a pulpit of perfection
where we have a monopoly on virtue. Not at all. Some
Canadians would say that we have our challenges from within.
The poor, ravaged by the recession, would argue: ``Why are you
spending a day in Parliament talking about problems that seem
so far away? Why do we not take care of the problems here at
home first?'' Other voices would suggest: ``Why are we
allowing the doors to still remain open for those seeking refuge
when there are individuals here who are not meeting their own
dreams and never mind the dreams of a very complex, confused
world?''
We hear those voices. Those are tough questions. Those tough
questions do not always have easy, ready made answers do they?
I think we feel and we sense as members of Parliament that on
the one hand we need to listen to those concerns because without
being rooted in that reality we are lost in this place. This place
means nothing unless this debate becomes realistic and people
out there connect with us and through us.
In the other sense, we also feel that when we come together as
members of Parliament in the institution of democracy in
Canada and where our constituency all of a sudden becomes
national, we have a responsibility to go beyond our riding
boundaries and also consider the international plight of our
fellow brothers and sisters. Do we not? Our work as members of
Parliament would be less if we simply thought of what could be
good parochially speaking for each of us or each of our ridings.
(1700)
We have to go beyond that. We have to try to broaden and
elevate the debate to see that the world's problems are really
problems for us indirectly. We can reach out and build those
bridges and seek those solutions. If we stop to think selfishly for
a moment it is beneficial for this country as well.
Linkages in the world today are absolutely vital. McLuhan
talked about the global village and it is certainly here. The
rapidity of technological and communications change links us
whether we like it or not.
The global marketplace will belong to countries that are
forward thinking, that are creative in trying to come to grips
with old problems. It will belong to countries that seek the
pioneering work which is very difficult but reaps benefits.
As fellow human beings we owe it to the world to try to make
it a better place. Most of those people on the move would rather
not be. Most immigrants to Canada, including my parents,
would rather have stayed where they were. However they were
compelled and forced to pack their bags and move without really
knowing where the train would take them.
However ask those individuals today what the best decision
was in their lifetime. Nine out of ten will say it was packing
those bags. As painful as it was then, the best decision was to
pack their bags and to adopt a new country, Canada. Those
individuals are prepared to line up to defend and to stand on
guard for thee.
We should not forget that because those movements still exist.
Individuals look to Canada, look to the United States, look to
Australia, look to New Zealand and other countries that ought to
be in this group for a beacon of hope.
I hope this foreign policy debate will view immigration and
refugee policies as an extension of that foreign policy, in how we
deal with those people on the move and how we position our
country for the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Madam Speaker, I was most
interested to hear what the minister of immigration had to say. I
am sure that the people of Chambly and the people of Quebec
and Canada are thinking along lines that are not too far removed
from the points the minister is trying to make.
In this House and elsewhere, unfortunately, the minister is
asking questions and I hope he is willing to hear the answers or
at least our attempts at providing answers because in our society,
there are some subjects that are taboo. Today, we cannot talk
about capital punishment or immigration or other topics that are
not considered politically correct in our society, even if we just
want to obtain information and perhaps come up with the same
solutions or objectives as the minister.
(1705)
The minister asked us some questions. He said: ``Canadians'',
and this includes Quebecers until further notice, ``must take a
position and do some serious thinking''. However, when we do
that, we are not always politically correct.
The minister approached this subject by tugging at our heart
strings. Of course there are some sad situations in the world and
there are people who really have a lot of problems. However, I
would have appreciated it if, for once, the minister had not
played on our emotions, because at times we have let our
emotions go beyond what we could afford. I wish that, for once,
the minister would show us some figures and prove his point this
way, and I am sure he would succeed, but I wish he would stop
playing on our emotions and use scientific and economic data to
2312
give us some hard facts that prove what he thinks and what I
think, namely that these are issues that will benefit Canada.
There is no doubt that immigration benefits Canada. Our
country is where it is today thanks to immigration.
However, to satisfy people who sometimes argue on the basis
of false premises, I would have liked the minister to explain
from the mathematical point of view how he reached this
conclusion.
[English]
Mr. Marchi: Madam Speaker, the member raises an
interesting point. The whole matter of immigration and refugee
migration is a very emotional subject to start with. Some
members have accused me of being over-emotional at times. I
suppose I am at times but that is the nature of this federal public
policy area.
I would go out on a limb and suggest it is probably the most
emotional area of federal public policy. It deals with people
wanting to come here. It deals with people being denied the
chance. It means there is only room for so many individuals and
family reunification individuals feel that very emotionally.
On the one hand the issue is emotionally charged. On the other
hand the hon. member is right. Our challenge as government and
as a Parliament when dealing with immigration and refugee
migration movements whether it is to Canada or internationally
is to divest ourselves as much as we can of our emotionalism and
to talk about it rationally. That is very much the object of the
exercise I launched on March 6 and 7.
What did I say when we announced the immigration levels for
1994 back in February? In addition to the numbers, we talked
about a new way of consulting and engaging Canadians. It was
not an attempt to superficially massage the issue. Rather it was
to go beyond that and to engage Canadians on the facts and
numbers and on what the member referred to as the
mathematical or scientific equation of immigration refugee and
migration. I welcome that thinking because that is what those
consultations are about.
I was accused today for example during Question Period of
calling people ignorant when they perhaps had a thought that did
not agree with mine or with government policy. I made no such
categorization of individuals. I repeat what I have said in this
place before. It would be too easy to dismiss individuals who
have concerns and we should not because those concerns are
genuine.
I am not suggesting that we assume and accept any perception
people have about immigration or refugee or migration
movement. There is a middle ground. In a sense we can try to get
to that common ground and try to learn from each other and
allow the facts to be distilled. Let us put emotion, perceptions,
myths and fiction to one side and let us talk hard numbers. I do
not fear that kind of debate. That kind of debate brings to the
fore the true values which have shaped immigration in the past. I
am confident of that.
(1710)
If I have one negative criticism of my predecessors in the last
10 years of Tory administration it is that they legislated on
fiction rather than fact. They led with the negative only. They
did not talk about the positive.
Sure there are problems and of course there are concerns. For
example, it drives Canadians up the wall when a convicted
murderer makes a refugee application at a Kingston
penitentiary. It drives this minister up the wall too. There is due
process. I am trying to make the system fairer but I am also
determined to close the loopholes which make our tolerance the
object of ridicule and undermines those who seek to come here
legitimately.
I welcome a discussion based on fact and not fiction, one that
is rational and not emotional. We would be doing honour to the
subject matter at hand.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Madam Speaker,
when I listened to the hon. minister earlier, I was reminded of
Martin Luther King many years ago. He spoke with a great deal
of magnanimity and emotion, except that while Mr. King was a
preacher, the minister holds a position of power. Yet, when a
very honourable family asks to stay in Quebec , we see that even
with all the power he wields, he has to tap dance around the
issue. Clearly this is unacceptable, because he certainly has
ways to get results.
Nevertheless, I do have a question for him. My constituency
of Matapédia-Matane is as vast as an entire country. My
question is this: Why is it that new immigrants to Canada
usually settle in the large cities rather than in the regions? Is it
because the unemployment rate is higher in our regions, or is
there some other reason?
[English]
Mr. Marchi: Madam Speaker, it is rather unfair that the hon.
member tried to categorize this government as being unfair with
this case or another.
One of the realities of this portfolio I am trying to correct is I
am trying to improve the system by pulling back the system
from the hands of government and the minister. Right now all
negative refugee claims whether they are through members of
Parliament, NGOs, church groups or the media, land on the desk
of the minister. I do not subscribe to the policy that the minister
knows best.
When we get thousands of cases, how do we begin to
intervene and make it rational and fair across the board? Do I
react because an issue was simply in the pages of Le Devoir or
the Toronto Star? Keep in mind there are 700 other cases that
could not get on the front pages of Le Devoir or the Star. Do I
react when someone goes on a hunger strike? Do I move when
2313
someone seeks refuge in a church? Or do we try to have a policy
that is fair for one and all and that provides adjudication more by
the system rather than the minister? I have the commitment from
my caucus and cabinet colleagues to do just that.
The member touches on another issue. Largely speaking
Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are seen as our chief magnets
for immigrants and refugees. One of the challenges we can
address is that if immigration is positive, then it flows logically
that some of the economically depressed regions could certainly
use the advantage immigrants bring. The challenge is how to
encourage immigration to those parts of the country and balance
that with the mobility rights they obviously enjoy under our
charter. It is a challenge I hope we come to grips with.
(1715 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Madam Speaker, it
is unfortunate that I did not get an opportunity to question the
minister following his comments. It was a dynamic question.
The minister is going to have to wait until another day.
Before I start into my main point, I believe no one party has a
monopoly on love for Canada, for patriotism, for a concern for
the improvement of the system. When we on this side of the
House ask questions I hope the minister takes them in the spirit
they are intended. We may not be as slick as some in the way we
can present questions and we may not have the years and years
of experience. However, the love for Canada and a belief that the
system may need to be improved are part of what we hope to
have in all our questions, comments and speeches in these
debates and reviews.
There have been a few surprises since I came to Ottawa. I am
surprised that it can be this cold. I have come during the coldest
winter in living memory. I guess I could expect that. I am
surprised that the salt stains on my shoes never come out. I am
surprised at the cost of an apartment and I am surprised at the
workload of an MP.
I am also surprised in some ways to find that there are many
fine MPs on all sides of the House and I commend them for their
concern in debates such as this as we review important policy
and try to set the policy that will lead us into the 21st century.
I have also experienced one of my greatest surprises during
the last few days while sitting as a member of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I want to
pass on some of this astonishment to the House and to anyone
else who listens today. Hon. members will be more than a little
surprised to hear some of the things that have come up in the last
few days in this important committee.
Our committee is undertaking a sweeping foreign policy
review. Part of that is happening here today. Over the next few
months we will begin comments on foreign policy from this side
of the House, talking about an agency I would like to focus on
today, integral to Canada's foreign policy.
This agency is responsible for delivering 80 per cent of
Canada's foreign aid and dozens of other nations shape their
concepts of Canada through their contact with this agency. Its
budget is huge and the very lives of thousands and sometimes
hundreds of thousands of people depend directly upon it. CIDA,
the Canadian International Development Agency, is a very
important agency, an organization in our foreign policy.
Let me say a little bit about CIDA. It falls under the authority
of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It began in 1968 with a
budget of $279 million. Today its budget is over $1 billion. It has
1,300 employees and is involved in 115 countries around the
world. These facts do not surprise me.
What I find truly incredible are the very basic things that we
do not know about CIDA. What is the mandate of this
organization? We do not know. How many and what kind of
countries is it supposed to work in? We do not know. What kind
of aid is it supposed to deliver? We do not know. Is it doing a
good job? We do not know that either, we have no idea.
The few answers we do have are just as surprising. What
legislation brought CIDA into existence? There never has been
any legislation. CIDA is a creation of cabinet. Is it directly
accountable to Parliament for the billion dollars it spends every
year? Not at all. Is there the political will to make it
accountable? The answer is a simple no. I found that out from
the minister last Thursday.
The minister appeared before the foreign affairs standing
committee to present the estimates and I asked him if he felt it
was a problem that there was no legislation spelling out CIDA's
mandate. With some characteristic, political caution he said that
laws are useful but not necessary. Then he added that laws could
become an impediment.
I could read between the lines of these statements. I think he
meant the government may not want to bring CIDA under the
direct control of Parliament because legislation by its very
nature is restrictive. It says that there are some activities that we
cannot do or that we cannot take part in. Or it could mean if we
create legislation that gives CIDA a humanitarian mandate, for
instance, we will not be able to use the organization as a political
tool of foreign policy or an economic tool of Canadian
commercial interests. We would restrict our freedom to
manipulate CIDA by introducing legislation.
2314
(1720 )
This would be a bit more acceptable if there were not grave
problems with CIDA, problems that can only be solved by
legislation. The Auditor General included an entire chapter on
this organization in his last report and he exposed fundamental
shortcomings which could be mitigated by enacting appropriate
legislation.
The Auditor General says that the first problem is one of
conflicting objectives. Some see CIDA as an instrument of
Canadian business, others as an agent of humanitarian aid.
CIDA does not know what it is supposed to do. It stumbles along
trying to please both sides but pleasing neither very effectively.
CIDA, very simply, is overextended. Its activities are spread
too thin, we are in too many countries doing too many things to
be much help in any one place. We need to have a sharper focus
to our foreign aid.
The Auditor General says that CIDA is also too bureaucratic;
is it any wonder when we realize that it has 1,300 employees but
only 125 actually work overseas? I was astonished to learn this.
That is an average of only one CIDA representative per country
that we are represented in.
CIDA's management style is also inappropriate. In the past it
undertook more physical projects like building bridges or
building roads. Its project managers knew a lot about how to
build bridges and how to build roads. Today CIDA is involved in
a far wider range of activities such as policy advice and human
resource development. Its managerial expertise, though, has not
changed to match its new activities and the result is that CIDA
has not been able to properly dovetail its current staff to the new
and evolving tasks which it has been asked to accomplish.
The Auditor General says that CIDA needs to be more
accountable. I could hardly believe it when I read that when
CIDA signs an agreement with a foreign government to
complete a project there are no required results set out in the
agreement. There is no independent on site monitoring of the
project and there are no clear budgetary limits. There is no
legislative requirement to evaluate CIDA's involvement and
report those results directly to Parliament.
These are all very theoretical. In a practical sense what kind of
problems result from these types of inadequacies? I will cite just
one example.
The Auditor General took pains to tell us about Bangladesh
where Canada has spent approximately $2 billion over the last
25 years. In one village officials counted more than 80 separate
international aid groups and the Auditor General said: ``That
country could not possibly absorb and use in a cost-effective
way all the development assistance it was already getting from
the multiple donors''.
Bangladesh still receives 40 per cent of all CIDA funding. It is
no closer to being self-sufficient than it was 25 years ago, and
there seems to be no process for deciding if it should remain
Canada's top priority.
These are very significant problems. If they were ever to be
resolved we as Canadians should consider a deeper, more
philosophical question about CIDA, one that goes to the heart of
our national character. Before we enact legislation to enable
CIDA to solve its own problems we must answer this basic
question or it will be impossible for CIDA to become effective.
For a quarter of a century CIDA has been the arena of a great
struggle within Canada, a struggle about Canada's motives for
giving foreign aid. The problems exposed today earlier in my
speech are just symptoms of this greater struggle. Should our
motive be to help poor people, with no strings attached, or
should our motivation be to profit commercially in some way
through aid for trade arrangements?
If our motives are to help the poor, we must realize that we
will not be repaid in an economic sense. If we want to benefit
Canada's economy through foreign aid, we will likely turn away
from the poor and divert those resources to richer nations with
potential for increased trade with Canada, thereby increasing
our own wealth.
In 1987 the standing committee on external affairs authored a
very popular report called the Winegard report which recounted
many of the administrative problems that I have already
discussed and also tackled this deeper question about CIDA's
role. The report was entitled ``For Whose Benefit?'', which
implies the question who are we helping. Do we really want to
help others, or is giving aid just another way of helping
ourselves?
(1725 )
That same committee in 1987 made it clear where it stood on
the humanitarian versus the market orientation question. Its
very first recommendation was that the government adopt a
development assistance charter as part of a legislative mandate
for Canada's development assistance program.
It recommended legislation and stated as the first principle of
that legislative charter that the primary purpose of Canadian
official development assistance is to help the poorest countries
and the people in the world. The committee acknowledged and
upheld that humanitarian concept of foreign aid and the
government of the day, the Conservatives, paid lip service to 98
of the 115 recommendations found in the Winegard report.
During the last election the Liberal Party also spelled out a
continuing commitment to humanitarianism. Government
seemed to be consistent in its support of humanitarian goals and,
to that end, consistent in its desire to reform CIDA. Nothing is
2315
ever actually accomplished because the underlying question has
never been resolved through legislation.
The continuing struggle was echoed just one week ago and
addressed to our standing committee by the president of CIDA. I
sympathize with her. She is trying hard to please two masters
here. On the one hand she attempts to please the humanitarians
in the crowd by telling about CIDA's accomplishments with the
poorest of the poor, and there are some very positive
accomplishments and achievements there. On the other hand she
also tries to please the more market oriented people by noting
with some pride that 60 per cent of CIDA's foreign aid is
actually spent right here in Canada to support Canadian
businesses. That is a direct contradiction and that is where this
needs to be settled.
It is no wonder that members of the global aid community
shake their heads in disbelief. Obviously there are internal
pressures to make CIDA an instrument of Canadian commercial
interests.
The so-called Carin paper leaked from the Department of
Foreign Affairs in late 1992 saw CIDA as a means to promote
Canadian interests and values abroad. It advised the government
to shift aid toward richer nations like Russia where we might
have the chance to develop stronger economic ties. This report
was never implemented but the trend is clear.
This problem and the administrative ones I have highlighted
are obvious and long standing. The problems and many of the
solutions were clearly laid out in the Winegard report nearly a
decade ago. When one reads the latest Auditor General's report
much of it sounds like the reiteration or the reinvention of that
same Winegard report.
There is a continuing lack of political will in the government,
as revealed by my conversation with the minister last week,
because of the competing philosophies about CIDA's most basic
role, aid or trade. I have heard that two successive ministers, the
past two, have tried to change CIDA and have failed. I have also
heard that numerous, well intentioned and influential people
have run into a brick wall trying to reform the system for the
sake of the Canadian taxpayer and the sake of hungry people
abroad. We need leadership or the problems will continue.
The Reform Party of Canada is willing to offer leadership in
this respect. I want to clarify the Reform position. The Reform
Party of Canada, as members know, has called for a reduction in
foreign aid funding simply because Canada no longer has the
money to spend like it once did. Reformers are concerned about
the poor but they are unwilling to ignore the larger context of our
ability to pay and they are unwilling to overlook the reforms that
CIDA so urgently needs.
The Reform Party is well aware of the plight of a full third of
the world's nations. In them, 34,000 children die of hunger or
illness each day; 800 million people are malnourished. On the
opposite pole, we are all well aware that on the United Nations
index of human development Canada sits second out of 172
nations. This position of privilege carries with it a unique
weight of responsibility and we as Canadians must not close our
eyes to the grim realities faced by others.
It is therefore our recommendation that CIDA be clearly
mandated to assist-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. We will proceed with his debate once the
House resumes its business.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2315
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved
that Bill C-214, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate
propaganda-age group), be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am honoured and privileged to
have the opportunity today to present to my colleagues in
Parliament and to commend Bill C-214, the purpose of which is
to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to render it impossible to
import a product known as the serial killer board game.
[Translation]
I would like to start by describing the serial killer board game
for all hon. members. This is a Monopoly-type game that comes
in a child-size body bag. It contains 25 baby figures and four
killer figures. The purpose of the game is, of course, to commit
as many murders as possible to tally up the largest number of
baby corpses and win the game. The winner is the best killer.
The game also includes a map of the United States where the
states without capital punishment are in a different colour. For a
big murder, the killer gets three baby corpses and, for a smaller
murder, only one corpse.
Here are some of the cards a player can get in this game.
[English]
``Hitch-hiking is dangerous. Someone should have told this
girl''. Here is another quote from one of these little
Monopoly-style cards: ``The quiet dorm could turn into a house
of horrors when you visit. This campus is crawling with cops
though. Beware''.
2316
[Translation]
This game is based on the actions of John Wayne Gacey, who
was found guilty of 35 murders in the United States.
I would like to say a few words about public opinion on this
game. I humbly submit to this House that Canadians do not want
this product. Most Canadians are reasonable people and want to
ban this game. I have presented over 105,000 petitions in this
House in recent days. Several other members have also
presented such petitions. In Quebec, in particular, many
teachers and school boards are passing around the petition I
drafted myself two years ago.
I have several more petitions in my office and I intend to table
them as soon as the Clerk of Petitions has had a chance to review
and approve them for presentation in this House.
At this time, there is nothing preventing the importation of
this game into Canada. In 1992, after complaints in this House
and demonstrations by many Canadians, Diamond Comic
Distributors, the company that distributes the serial killer board
game in Canada, decided to stop distributing this game or to give
up its distribution rights. I think the reason for this is obvious.
After all, it would be unwise for a distributor of comic strips to
antagonize parents. So, in the face of controversy, the company
decided to give up all rights to distribute this product. But you
just wait and see. If there is a profit to be made, sooner or later
another distributor will show up to ensure the large-scale
distribution of this product here in Canada.
The former Minister of National Revenue, Otto Jelinek, even
admitted in a letter-as I told the hon. member of the Official
Opposition-that nothing in the Criminal Code now prevents
the importation of this product into Canada.
(1735)
Customs officials have no law that would allow them to stop
the game from crossing the Canadian border. Therefore I
humbly submit to this House that there is an urgent need for a
law to stop imports of this game.
[English]
On February 11 I tabled in the House Bill C-214, an act to
amend the Criminal Code of Canada. That is the bill we are
debating this afternoon. It is through that bill I propose to ask
my colleagues to take the necessary measures to prevent the
importation of the serial killer board game.
The bill that I offer to the House is very simple. Basically it
adds one word to the Criminal Code. I will explain that in greater
detail. Bill C-214 proposes to amend the hate propaganda
provisions of the Criminal Code. Presently-and this is no
surprise to anyone-if the serial killer board game advocated to
destroy, physically harm or murder people on the basis of race,
colour of skin, religion and so on, obviously it would not be
allowed to enter our borders.
However, because babies by definition come in all races,
colours and everything else, that particular criterion does not
work to stop the importation of the serial killer board game. By
definition right now the hate propaganda provision says that
hatred cannot be promoted against an identifiable group.
Identifiable group is then further defined as a group that can be
distinguished by sex, colour of skin, ethnic group, religion and
so on. Obviously there appears to be no way at the present time
to stop the importation of the serial killer board game.
My bill would add another category. It would add an age
group as an identifiable group. The word age would be added. In
other words babies by definition are relatively the same age.
Otherwise they would not be babies. This age group would then
become identifiable and jurisprudence would develop when a
baby is a baby for the purpose of the bill. Nevertheless,
jurisprudence would determine when this criterion could be
used.
In any case advocating violence, promoting violence or
glorifying violence against babies would be prohibited under the
measure I am proposing to the House this afternoon.
[Translation]
Now, as I said, section 318 of the Criminal Code forbids
anyone to promote genocide, and that is what we are talking
about. If hon. members have a copy of the Criminal Code in
front of them, they will see that subsection 318(2) reads:
- ``genocide'' means any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a)killing members
of the group; or (b)deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
``Identifiable group'' means any section of the public
distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. Of
course, as I just said, I propose adding another category to this
section of the Criminal Code, namely age group.
In conclusion, because I would like to make my comments a
little shorter than the 20 minutes allotted to me so that more
members can speak, this is not a partisan issue today but an
important social issue and I think that as many parliamentarians
as possible should be able to speak on this subject.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say to you and to my
colleagues that on many occasions I have told the House of
Commons my opinion on importing the serial killer board game.
I say and I repeat that I find the idea of this game, which is to
collect the largest number of baby corpses, repugnant.
2317
(1740)
Not only I, but all parliamentarians and all Canadians are
disgusted by this game.
Finally, I want to leave you something to think about. Madam
Speaker, imagine that you are a parent of a newborn child and
your next-door neighbours are having fun playing the serial
killer board game and collecting baby corpses. Would you not
want the government to ban this game!
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Madam Speaker, hate
propaganda is one of the most despicable forms of human
foolishness. Those who use it without thinking have not learned
anything from history, while those who spread it wilfully
commit a crime against humanity.
Hate propaganda can easily be concealed in the most
seemingly harmless comments; it goes against the
constitutional protection afforded to freedom of expression, and
those who use it do not care about public opinion, which
disapproves of its use.
In fact, you cannot define hate propaganda; you see it, you
hear it, and you measure it by the provocative effect of the words
and actions of those who use it. It defies definition under our
democratic law. Every time we legislate to combat hate
propaganda, it resurfaces in a new, unsuspected, active form.
Our Criminal Code has included a few minor provisions on
hate propaganda since 1970. Sections 318 and 319 deal with
advocating genocide and with public incitement to hatred
against groups which the law calls ``identifiable''. The Code
currently defines the offence based on the group to which the
victim belongs. This does not take into account historical and
social realities.
Any form of hate propaganda against any social group, by
anyone, should be strenuously opposed. The current Criminal
Code only includes acts against certain groups, distinguished by
colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
For example, the age, language, sex, sexual orientation, social
environment and condition, political convictions, profession,
marital status or lifestyle of individuals forming a social group
are not elements of identification of victims of hate propaganda.
I think that restricting potential victims to a few groups is not
justified when we are dealing with a crime against humanity as a
whole. Instead of designating a few ``identifiable'' groups, the
law should prohibit any form of hate propaganda against any
group. Public incitement to kill women, welfare recipients or
homosexuals is no different than inciting people to kill Jews,
Catholics or Muslims. Social hatred, in its expression and in its
effects, is akin to universal hatred.
Consequently, I agree with the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on the spirit of his proposed
amendment to Bill C-214. However, I cannot support the bill
itself, because it implicitly recognizes that the law would only
protect certain groups of people, when it should include
everyone.
This bill is similar to Bill C-204 tabled on December 18,
1988, and Bill C-207 tabled on April 7, 1990, which also
provided for the inclusion of age as a distinguishing factor. Bill
C-326, tabled on June 27, 1990, also added sex and sexual
orientation to the list of factors.
The bill tabled by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell adds age as a distinguishing
factor for a group of victims, but what we have to do is abolish
these restrictive designations of ``identifiable groups'', in order
to extend the protection of the law to society as a whole. Again,
this bill confirms the restrictive nature of the current legislation.
(1745)
On the other hand, this bill gives us an opportunity to debate
in this House the effect our legislation really has on hate
propaganda in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in the Zundel case, last year, and the Keegstra case, in
1990. As we know, the Alberta Court of Appeal was scheduled to
hear another appeal from Keegstra on February 2, 1994, and has
not yet issued a ruling.
While Keegstra was charged under the hate propaganda
provisions, Zundel was charged under old section 181 on
spreading false news. As we all recall, Zundel denied the Jewish
holocaust ever happened and his comments were tinged with
racism.
Zundel's motives could have been examined as part of mens
rea determination. However, in the majority jugement of the
Supreme Court, section 181 was invalidated by the Charter and,
whatever his motives, Zundel had to be acquitted. In its ruling,
the court mentioned it had ruled a few years earlier, in the
Keegstra case that hate propaganda was protected under section
2(b) of the Charter, and added that all communications that
convey or intend to convey a message fall under section 2(b) of
the Charter, with the only proviso that the material transmission
of the message be otherwise acceptable.
Unfortunately our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is
protecting fanatics and eccentrics like Zundel who can spew out
their insanities with complete impunity. As the law now stands,
how would the Supreme Court react to section 318 which has not
yet been tested, as we know?
I also know that this bill is premised upon the alleged
impending importation in Canada of a game I prefer not to
mention. No one has seen this game yet. I think that the panic
stirred up by certain watch groups is actually playing into the
hands of the game's promoters who are benefitting from an
incredible amount of publicity. If there is such a game, it is
shameful and should be stopped at the border or seized by the
2318
police. I think that other provisions of the Criminal Code, if
amended, could in fact allow such action.
Without getting into a legal debate on notions which elude the
public, I want to call the attention of the hon. member and of this
House to the fact that the Code contains provisions which
prohibit the distribution of crime comics under offences tending
to corrupt morals.
Pursuant to section 163(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, a person
who circulates a crime comic commits an offence. However, I
would agree with the hon. member that the definition of the
scope of the offence is far from perfect and that customs officers
and the police would not be able to act easily.
The game targeted by this bill depicts through drawings or
photographs the serial killings of children. I would propose, as
an alternative, that the definition in section 163(7) be amended
to include any material that depicts pictorially the commission
of criminal acts. I think that, from a constitutional standpoint,
these provisions would be more effective and more valid in
terms of stopping the distribution of this kind of game than the
addition to the restricted categories of clauses respecting hate
propaganda messages, as these categories are already protected
under the Charter.
Finally, I am by no means convinced that even with the
amendment put forward by my colleague, this type of game
would fall under the definition of hate propaganda covered in
section 318 or section 319.
For these reasons, and although I agree completely with the
spirit of what the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is trying to do, I cannot support
the amendments he is proposing and I fail to see how they would
be useful from a practical standpoint. Since the legislator cannot
pass legislation for no reason, I think that Bill C-214 should,
quite simply, be deferred.
(1750)
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Madam Speaker, I rise today
to speak in support of private member's Bill C-214. My hon.
colleague who just spoke may be accurate in that there are some
deficiencies in this bill. At the same time we cannot amend the
total Criminal Code and rectify the problems within the criminal
justice system in one fell swoop.
I support the private member's bill. However I do so with a
degree of regret. It saddens me to think that we would have to
debate such an issue, whether or not we should amend the
Criminal Code to stop the proliferation of what I consider to be
obscene and immoral.
I would like to briefly describe what I know about the serial
killer board game. It was invented by Tobias Allen of Seattle,
Washington, and inspired by John Wayne Gacey, a serial killer
on death row for the murder of I understand 33 children in the
United States. The object of the game is to kill as many children
as possible. The game comes in a body bag and the pawns to play
the board are in the shape of dead babies.
In my mind there is no debate. The answer is a given. I believe
from the volume of mail and petitions received by past and
present members of this House that there is no debate in the
minds of Canadians on this issue. We should stop the serial
killer board game from reaching Canadian stores and the
impressionable minds of our children.
I will never understand what kind of sick mind devises such a
despicable and horrifying game, one that glorifies the killing of
babies, the most vulnerable and precious treasure we have in this
world, innocent victims of some of the most heinous crimes
committed in this and other countries.
Are we not here to protect our children from the senseless hate
and violence that exists throughout the world and which is
increasing in our own country? How anyone finds entertainment
in playing a game that depicts the slaughtering of babies is
beyond me and everything I have ever held dear in my life. How
anyone could condone the importation and sale of such an
outrageously immoral game is beyond comprehension.
I stand here today to support an amendment that demonstrates
to the U.S. originator and manufacturer of this game that there is
no place for it in a country whose standards in regard to morality
will not tolerate the exploitation of children and to reinforce the
commitment I have made to my constituents to help put some
sanity back in the justice system that no longer protects our most
valuable possession, our children.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has
tabled private member's Bill C-214 to amend the Criminal Code
to include age which appears to be the only effective means to
stop the importation of the serial killer board game as it would
constitute importing hate propaganda.
Currently under subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code
regarding hate propaganda, children or seniors are not protected
because they do not constitute an identifiable group. Within this
section the application of the Criminal Code only applies to hate
propaganda that advocates or promotes the physical destruction
of persons distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic
origin.
This serial killer board game which establishes the winner as
the person who collects the most dead babies would not be
permitted in Canada if the babies were of a particular race or
colour. Obviously white Anglo-Saxon is not included in the
definition of race under subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code
2319
and has an awful lot to say about the state of our Criminal Code.
Otherwise Revenue Canada officials could have prohibited
entry of this game into our country.
I would like to point out that similarly women would not be
protected under this section of the Criminal Code as gender does
not fall within the confines defining what constitutes hate
propaganda.
Therefore if the dead bodies were that of white Canadian
women the game would also be acceptable to pass through our
borders under subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code. How
have we regressed to the point where we have no equality before
the law? It is no wonder this country cannot eradicate the
problem of violence against women and children when sections
of the Criminal Code such as 318(4) provide no protection for
them.
(1755)
I understand that under tariff code 9956 of schedule 7 to the
Customs Tariff, Revenue Canada can prohibit the importation of
certain material into Canada. Material suspected of being
treasonable, seditious, obscene or hate propaganda is inspected
by Revenue Canada officials and if it is determined to come
within the terms of tariff code 9956, its importation is
prohibited.
According to the Minister of National Revenue, his officials
have reviewed a version of the serial killer board game and
determined it did not fall within the confines of tariff code 9956
which has necessitated private member's Bill C-214.
I do not know what obscene means to revenue officials but to
me and as is defined in the dictionary it means highly offensive.
If the game depicting the murder of babies is not highly
offensive, I do not know what is. Anything that glorifies killing
and depicts serial murders as victorious is very offensive to me
and the people I represent. I really do not understand what is
happening in our country, what is happening to the sense of
decency and morality that was once so indicative of a country
whose values were second to none.
What kind of a message are we sending people when we allow
a game of this nature to enter our country? It is the same message
we send when we allow a murderer serving a life sentence to be
eligible for parole after 15 years, when we give a convict a day
pass to rape and kill again, when we pay a serial killer
handsomely to provide law authorities with information
regarding the location of his victim's bodies or when we permit
a person in prison who was a partner of one of the most horrific
sexual slayings in this country to own a microwave, a television
set, take university courses and to decorate her cell with
whimsical cartoon characters when law-abiding Canadians
struggle to obtain similar assets.
Another major area of concern, of course, is the Young
Offenders Act which is currently ineffective in stopping the
growing number of youth engaged in criminal and violent
activities. There has been considerable discussion regarding this
area of law and private member's Bill C-217 is currently before
the House. The purpose of this bill is threefold. To lower the age
limits that define who is a young person for purposes of the
Young Offenders Act, to allow the publication of the name of a
young offender who has been convicted of an indictable offence
on two previous occasions and to increase the maximum penalty
in the Young Offenders Act for first and second degree murder to
10 years.
I commend the hon. member for York South-Weston for his
initiative in this area. I cannot say at this time that I agree 100
per cent with the suggested amendments, however I do believe
they warrant discussion and analysis.
Stopping the importation of material such as the serial killer
board game or serial killer cards is a necessary component in
providing the proper environment for our children to grow up in.
How can we expect them to adhere to a prescribed set of rules
and moral conduct if we have games or literature that are
contradictory? How will they ever understand wrong from right
if we say one thing and our store shelves are filled with games or
literature that defies what we have told them?
We know a world of corruption lies beyond our front doors.
Every day in this country Canadians are warned of the
unspeakable things that can happen to their children and they are
urged to make their children street smart.
Allowing the serial killer board game into this country goes
against the moral conscience of Canadians and everything we as
parents are trying to do to raise our children to be morally
correct human beings.
Our job as legislators is to provide leadership and direction
through our laws. If we do not amend the Criminal Code we will
be telling our children that we believe killing babies, killing
innocent and defenceless members of society, is all right even if
it is only in a game.
In conclusion, when we do this we are allowing violent and
immoral behaviour to further proliferate in this country. I stand
in support of this bill.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):
Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to
speak to Bill C-214 introduced by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
This bill proposes to amend the existing Criminal Code
definition of identifiable group which is found in that part of the
code dealing with hate propaganda so as to include the term age.
The new definition would apply to all of the hate propaganda
offences.
(1800 )
The search for the proper role of the law in respect to hate
propaganda is especially difficult because it forces us to review
2320
the conflict between freedom of speech and the interest of the
state in criminalizing speech injurious to the public.
Before proceeding to speak to the bill it is important to say a
bit about the current law. At the present time the Criminal Code
prohibits, first, advocating or promoting genocide against any
section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or
ethnic origin. That is section 318.
Second, it prohibits inciting hatred against a protected group
by communicating in a public place statements which are likely
to lead to a breach of the peace. That is subsection 319(1).
Third, it prohibits communicating statements, other than in
private conversation, which wilfully promote hatred against a
protected group. That is subsection 319(2).
Fourth, the Criminal Code provides for the seizure and
forfeiture of hate propaganda kept on the premises for sale or
distribution. Those are subsections 320(1) and (4).
Fifth, it provides that a person charged with advocating
genocide is liable to five years imprisonment if charged with the
offence of public incitement, or hatred, or the offence of
communicating statements which wilfully promote hatred. A
person is liable to two years imprisonment if prosecuted by way
of indictment or to six months and/or a $2,000 fine if prosecuted
by way of summary proceedings.
The Criminal Code also provides for four special statutory
defences which an accused may raise if prosecuted for wilfully
promoting hatred: if the statements communicated were true; if
the statements expressed or attempted to establish by argument
in good faith an opinion upon a religious subject; if the
statements made were on a subject of public interest which on
reasonable grounds were believed to be true; and pointing out in
good faith for the purpose of removal matters producing or
tending to produce feelings of hatred.
Except for the offence of public incitement to hatred, the
consent of the provincial attorney general is required to obtain a
seizure or to initiate a prosecution under the Criminal Code's
hate propaganda provisions. The hate propaganda provisions of
the Criminal Code were examined by the Supreme Court of
Canada in the case of Regina v. Keegstra. The judgment was
rendered in December 1990.
The Supreme Court of Canada determined that
communications which wilfully promote hatred against an
identifiable group conveyed a meaning and were thus an
expression within the meaning of paragraph 2(b) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court further noted that the prohibition set out in
subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code was directed at words
that have as their content and objective the promotion of racial
or religious hatred.
Inasmuch as the purpose of the provision was to restrict the
content of expression ``by singling out particular meanings that
are not to be conveyed'', the Supreme Court of Canada
determined that subsection 319(2) infringed the guarantee of the
freedom of expression in paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
The court ruled that the presence of hate propaganda in
Canada was sufficiently substantial to warrant concern. The
court recognized that hate propaganda could cause two types of
injuries: first, harm done to the target group by for example
provoking a retaliatory response or causing the target group to
avoid activities and withdraw from participation in activities
with non-group members and, second, influence upon society at
large by attracting individuals to hold these views and to create
discord and disharmony among these groups in society at large.
(1805)
The court upheld subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code
which deals with wilfully promoting hatred. It upheld it as a
reasonable limit on the guarantee to the freedom of expression
within the meaning of section 1 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Subsection 318(4) defines the expression identifiable group
as meaning ``any section of the public distinguished by colour,
race, religion or ethnic origin''. Expanding the definition would
broaden the type of speech that would be caught by the hate law
and therefore could potentially put the hate propaganda
provisions at risk. This is very significant.
The Supreme Court of Canada noted in the Keegstra case that
subsection 319(2) was designed to extend a measure of
protection to visible and religious minorities so as to prevent
their being exposed to hate messages and to promote racial and
religious tolerance.
Expanding the definition of identifiable group to include
another characteristic such as the one proposed in Bill C-214
would undoubtedly broaden the narrow purpose of protecting
visible and religious minorities approved by the Supreme Court
of Canada in the Keegstra case. It is not clear to me whether
adding what is proposed in Bill C-214 would have the effect of
protecting children from killer cards and board games as there
must be shown an incitement to hatred or promotion of hatred.
The proposed change here would broaden the definition of
identifiable group without succeeding in its attempt to protect
children from nefarious materials. As a result, the hate
propaganda provisions as amended by Bill C-214 could be more
2321
vulnerable to a finding by courts that they constitute an
infringement of the charter guarantee of freedom of speech and
that they are not a reasonable limit prescribed by law in a free
and democratic society.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is
attempting to do something which should be supported. We all
support his aim. The problem is how best to do it. Is it with Bill
C-214? We have to be careful, as I have stated, that we do not
weaken the law as it exists at the present time and that we
perhaps find another way of dealing with if.
The Department of Justice at the present time is looking into
the matter. Hopefully it will have something to recommend. I
say this with all deep appreciation to the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. With the co-operation and work
of all members of the House, we will find the best way possible
to deal with this despicable practice, which certain people are
using to make considerable sums of money at the expense of our
young people.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There being no further
members rising for debate, the time provided for consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House will stand
suspended until 6.30 p.m.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.10 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 6.30 p.m.
2321
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from March 14, 1994, consideration of
the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.30 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now
proceed to the recorded division on the supply proceedings.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 12)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-41
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
2322
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Young
Zed-193
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Brien
Finestone
Guay
Irwin
Nunez
de Savoye
(1855 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
(1900 )
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to see that after the short break to reconsider
their position members are coming in droves to hear the end of
my speech.
Before the break I had been talking about an important part of
our foreign policy review. That is the position we should take as
we study and review the position the Canadian International
Development Agency should have in this foreign policy review.
I have heard that numerous well-intentioned and influential
people have run into a brick wall trying to reform CIDA's system
for the sake of the Canadian taxpayer and the sake of hungry
people abroad. We need leadership or the problems will
continue. The Reform Party of Canada is willing to offer
leadership in this respect. I want to clarify the Reform position.
The Reform Party of Canada has called for a reduction in
foreign aid funding simply because Canada no longer has that
money to spend. Reformers are concerned about the poor, but
they are unwilling to ignore the larger context of our ability to
pay. They are also unwilling to overlook the reforms that CIDA
so urgently requires.
The Reform Party is well aware of the plight of one-third of
the world's nations. In them 34,000 children die of hunger or
illness each day. Eight hundred million people are
malnourished.
On the opposite side we are well aware that on the United
Nations index of human development, Canada sits second from
the top out of 172 nations. This position of privilege carries with
it a unique weight of responsibility. We as Canadians must not
close our eyes to the grim realities facing others.
It is our recommendation that CIDA be clearly mandated to
assist the poorest of the poor to become self-sufficient. We
recommend that this mandate be enshrined in legislation. This
would be legislation that protects CIDA from the political
pressures that divert its energies toward other tasks. It would be
legislation that includes a project by project evaluation
mechanism and budgetary sunset clauses. It would be
legislation that controls CIDA by requiring it to justify its
actions to Parliament on a regular basis.
A scaled down CIDA should concentrate on working at the
grassroots level with the poorest of the poor. It should give less
bilateral or government to government assistance, because that
is where the corruption and the greed too often frustrate our
2323
efforts. It should concentrate instead on its efforts to forge more
partnerships with community based non-governmental
organizations where help goes directly to needy people.
Currently only 9 per cent of our foreign aid budget is used in that
way.
CIDA should follow, as an example perhaps, Sweden's lead
and reduce its focus from 115 countries to just a handful, making
a significant impact on poverty and health in each one of them.
An example of this can be found in the latest years for which
figures are available.
The statistics show that Indonesia which is classed by the UN
as a middle income developing country received $40 million in
aid under CIDA. Haiti, sitting at the bottom rung of the world's
ladder, received just $6 million. By shifting priorities we could
have a real impact on a country that is the poorest of the poor
through our non-governmental organizations.
(1905)
CIDA must take a long term view by making the poor
self-sustaining rather than allowing them to become dependent
on continuing foreign aid.
Canada enjoys an unprecedented position of respect in the
world today. Other rich nations do not enjoy the same level of
international esteem. Why is this? In large measure it is because
Canada has reached out with benevolence. We have given
generously to nations like Bangladesh and Pakistan knowing
they may never be able to repay us.
The world has recognized that our motives for giving are
generally altruistic and for that we are rewarded with global
goodwill. At the world table we have substantial bargaining
power for a nation of our size. This is possible because we back
up our words with tangible assistance.
The vehicles for enhancing Canada's trade already exist. The
industry and international trade departments are well suited to
serve Canada's commercial interests. However we ought to
separate our economic interests from our humanitarian motives.
The overt promotion of Canadian trade is a worthy and
necessary endeavour best left to he departments of industry and
international trade. I believe our integrity is somehow
diminished in the eyes of the world when we quietly couple
commerce with humanitarian relief.
It is impossible to estimate the value of our good international
reputation in monetary terms. The good seeds we have sown in
the fields of the poor may well bear the future harvest of
increased trade. Whether this happens or not let us move now to
enact legislation recreating CIDA as a vehicle that can deliver
aid with efficiency and purpose.
In case the government is not contemplating such legislation
at this time, I intend to introduce a private member's bill in the
coming weeks that will incorporate the principles I have
addressed. It can serve as a starting point for a non-partisan
effort that I believe all members could support.
Within our ability let us give freely to the poorest of the poor
without ulterior motives but in the spirit of generosity and
compassion that marks each member in this House as truly
Canadian.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence): Madam Speaker,
I compliment the hon. gentleman on the tenor of the latter part of
his intervention which I heard. It certainly exemplifies some
very commendable views about Canada and its role in the
international sphere.
I am a trifle confused however by his reluctance to see the
relationship of both objectives. The commercial side reflects
Canadian interests as they might develop anywhere in the world.
That might reflect positively on the more humanitarian or
altruistic-if he would accept that term-side of the equation as
it more appropriately relates to Canada's political and
humanitarian objectives everywhere in the world. I do not
understand why one must preclude the existence of the other.
I accept that we should renew and continue to reinforce those
initiatives which have made Canada stand out for its
humanitarian or relief work, which is the term I think the
member used. However Canadian interests are served on both
the philosophical side and the strictly pragmatic business side
when the two interests are married under one administration.
I am wondering whether the hon. member would clarify that
for me. I have difficulty understanding why we would have to
separate the administration of two departments under one roof
when the objectives of both give us the results Canadians seem
to want.
(1910 )
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, the problem is twofold. One is
the idea of separating the mandate or giving CIDA a mandate.
What is the purpose of CIDA? The management of CIDA has
been flipping every 18 months. It is in a total state of turmoil not
knowing what its mandate is, which should be to protect the
purpose of our humanitarian aid and to help the poorest of the
poor.
That was the mandate suggested by the Winegard report. We
need to focus in on what is the role of CIDA. That role should be
brought under the authority of Parliament through enabling
legislation.
I also have budgetary concerns. CIDA's budget is too large.
There are too many tentacles, too many countries, too many
purposes. It needs to be restricted and that is another reason to
focus our attention on a few countries.
On the other question of whether commerce and humanitarian
aid would be looked after together, I believe that may be
possible. As one parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier
today it is almost impossible to dissociate international trade,
2324
foreign policy and defence policy. All of them go together often
under trade policy which is really the commerce aspect of what
the member was talking about.
Trade must be left to the international trade people. We need
that commercial process to develop arrangements, agreements,
free trade agreements and so on with other countries. It would
allow them to pursue trade opportunities in Canada and would
allow Canadian businesses to pursue trade agreements with
those countries. It is a trade issue.
Our humanitarian efforts need to be focused without
expecting commercial return. In that sense we target our money
and say that whatever the amount is, the money is given without
strings attached. It is done as a humanitarian gesture because we
want to help that country so that in the coming years it is not
dependent on foreign aid.
One of the critiques in the Auditor General's report is that
countries that have received $1 billion or $2 billion from Canada
over the last 20 years are as dependent or more dependent on
international aid now than they were when we started what we
thought was going to be short term assistance.
We need to focus our humanitarian aid for that reason.
International trade is a separate issue. Although sometimes it
will overlap and it is a good thing if it does that should not be the
focus of CIDA. It should be a foreign aid and humanitarian
gesture.
Mr. Volpe: Madam Speaker, I want to clarify one further item
with the hon. member.
We do not differ on the philosophy but I think the member is
aware when he speaks on the question of giving aid especially
through CIDA we are not talking ultimately of a cash transfer.
We are talking about providing a service. We are talking about
providing goods. We are talking essentially about purchasing
the same for the benefit of a third party. That does not
necessarily mean we are taking a large budget item and
transferring it in cash to a recipient country.
Because of that I do not see why we would want to separate
from the philosophical objectives of any of our activity the
possible consequences which can all be positive.
(1915 )
The fact that we would be giving aid does not necessarily
mean that there are no commercial benefits or that there are
commercial benefits that we should eschew. The fact that we
would be providing or stimulating trade does not necessarily
mean that we would not be disposed to providing further
assistance because it is not a question, unless the member's
understanding of the Auditor General's report is different from
mine, of taking dollars out of our pocket and handing them over
to somebody else whom we have defined as needy.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
I realize that often it is not just money that is being transferred
in our bilateral systems. Often money is part of it. There was a
budgetary figure not this year but last year or two years ago
where we spent tens of millions of dollars in direct transfers to
help other countries with their national debt problems, for
example.
To me that is not a purpose for CIDA. That is not something
that Canada should be doing at this time, giving other countries
direct assistance to help with their national debt problems when
we have the biggest national debt problem we have ever had in
our history. There are times when direct money is transferred. In
those cases we have to restrict the mandate of CIDA through
legislation to eliminate that abuse.
Second, there are times when instead of thinking of strictly
humanitarian reasons, we start to think of Canada's commercial
interests. Madam Labelle mentioned the other day that 60 per
cent of our money is spent here in Canada, sometimes for buying
foodstuffs and so on but sometimes for reasons that are more
commercial in nature and not particularly geared for the poorest
of the poor whom we should be helping.
In those cases, I am concerned. The Auditor General this year
did not specifically identify any horror stories. He tried to zero
in on the process and the problem within CIDA that he identified
by a lack of legislation and some other things but tried to avoid
the horror stories as I have tried to avoid them today in my
presentation. However those horror stories still exist. We can go
back through the last 10 years of Auditor Generals' reports to
see them in their fullness.
That is why we need to restrict it to humanitarian aid. I realize
that sometimes it is goods and services that are also exchanged
but by and large we need to restrict it to the poor, make the
mandate strict in legislation and we will not only enhance
CIDA's reputation within Canada, which is very important at
this time as it is flagging, but improve our opinion abroad as
well.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed that last exchange
between the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence and the hon.
member for Fraser Valley East because both members are on the
foreign affairs committee and in developing an independent
Canadian policy on foreign affairs.
This is the kind of interchange we need on the floor of this
House. Therefore I congratulate the two gentlemen for
contributing to the debate and to helping us develop an
independent Canadian foreign policy.
2325
Canadians have seen the world change dramatically in recent
years. In many ways change has been the defining characteristic
of this decade. Nowhere has this been more true than in central
and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
The fall of the Berlin wall, which I witnessed personally, the
collapse of communism and the Soviet military threat and the
emergence of the new independent states have reshaped Europe.
We are faced with challenges and opportunities unparalleled
since the end of World War II.
The last five years have shown that the first dramatic steps are
sometimes the easiest to take. The hard work begins when ideas
must be transformed into reality. Democracy cannot simply be
proclaimed. Free markets cannot just be willed into existence.
Fundamental reform requires courage and patience. Canada has
an important role to play in central and eastern Europe. We must
seize this tremendous opportunity.
I would like to focus my statement today on Canada's foreign
policy challenges in that part of the world. It is obviously in
Canada's best interests that reform in the region succeed. The
opportunity to build a more stable world order based on
democratic governments and free market economies cannot be
squandered.
(1920)
Central and eastern Europe is a new economic frontier. Trade
is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. The region's largely
untapped markets represent an exciting opportunity to generate
exports and create new jobs and prosperity in Canada.
Canada's historic, cultural and human links to eastern Europe
are an advantage that few of our so-called competitors,
European or otherwise, possess. We must use our advantage
wisely.
Almost 20 per cent of the constituents in my constituency of
Parkdale-High Park and 10 per cent of Canadians generally
across Canada can trace their roots to central and eastern Europe
and the former Soviet Union. This is an unparalleled bond. We
have tried to foster relationships with these countries. A number
of Canadian entrepreneurs or academics have gone there to offer
their expertise and knowledge, to offer training and assistance.
It is a difficult task where progress is measured in little steps,
but whose rewards for Canada are great.
The linguistic skills and the cultural ties of Canada's
ethnocultural communities enable us to support a number of
people to people initiatives, to bridge cultural barriers and to
deliver training and assistance. The impact of this direct contact
cannot be overestimated. I know from years of personal
experience working with the Canadian Polish community, with
travel study programs for Canadian students in Poland, how
personal links can bring countries together.
The countries of central and eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union are trying to create in months and years
institutions and systems which have in some cases developed
over centuries in the west.
While we should seize the opportunities presented by change,
we must recognize that there will be setbacks and avoid
impatience and unrealistic expectations. Political and economic
reform take time.
Last week the President of Georgia was in Ottawa, Mr.
Shevardnadze. I had the honour of greeting him at the airport
and bringing him to meet the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. I asked Mr. Shevardnadze if he had an
opportunity to relive his life would he again push the economic,
political and democratic reforms as he did with Mr. Gorbachev.
He thought about it for a while and said: ``Yes, but I would do it
much more slowly''. His argument was that the problems they
were having in many of the east European countries today were
because they were not ready for such rapid change.
Therefore, if we want Canada to have a prosperous and
beneficial relationship with central and eastern Europe then we
must start today and patiently wait for the results. In countries
like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, the
memory of democracy and market economies have survived 45
years of political repression and state control. But in what
shape? There is enough intact to provide the basis for a
successful transformation but the task remains daunting. With
strong support and investment from the west we are seeing
encouraging signs.
Poland became the first country in the region to record growth
in gross domestic product with an increase of 4 per cent last
year. It was Europe's fastest growing economy in 1993. Who
would have predicted that 10 years ago?
In Hungary the private sector generates close to 45 per cent of
the country's GDP. The Czech Republic has low inflation and
unemployment rates and has launched a second phase of a
successful privatization program.
In the former Soviet Union the first steps have been taken, but
with virtually no history of democracy and free markets to draw
on we should not be surprised that change is slow and difficult.
The challenge is large but it is not insurmountable. Countries
such as Russia and Ukraine are central to the historic
transformation of Europe. Canada must make a commitment for
the long term.
We are encouraging Russia's president, government and
parliament to work together to develop a new reform consensus.
Canadian assistance remains contingent on a continuing
commitment to democracy and economic reform. I should draw
to the attention of newer members that the foreign affairs
commit-
2326
tee was in the former Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine twice.
Maybe it is time to revisit that region.
(1925)
Yesterday I had a lengthy meeting with the new ambassador of
Ukraine, Ambassador Batyuk, to discuss Canada's special
relationship with Ukraine. About two hours ago the Minister of
Foreign Affairs met with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress
under the presidency of Oleh Romaniw to discuss such matters
as political issues, technical assistance, trade and economic
issues, consultations with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
immigration issues as they pertain to Ukraine.
This is the kind of input that we welcome, not only input
through parliamentary standing committees but meetings such
as the minister had just prior to my speaking here.
Government commitment to enhancing this relationship is in
every spirit political, economic and social. We will be at the
forefront of helping Ukraine in its democratic and economic
transformation. A stable, secure and prosperous Ukraine is vital
for European security.
We are encouraged by President Kravchuk's desire to submit
the non-proliferation treaty to his Parliament for ratification.
Since 1989 Canada has provided substantial support to central
and eastern Europe in the form of technical and humanitarian
assistance. It is important that we continue to do so. The people
of the region must clearly see that the west is supporting them in
practical and direct ways during the difficult period of
transition.
That is why one of the major components of Canadian
assistance to the region is an ongoing program designed to
promote democratic development, to support the transition to
market economies and to increase Canadian trade and
investment links with the region.
In pursuing these objectives we have adopted a partnership
approach both with recipient countries and Canadian partners.
This is partly a reflection of limited resources. It is also a
recognition that government does not have all of the answers.
The program draws on the expertise to be found in all sectors of
Canadian society.
The assistance program matches Canadian skills and
technology with the priority needs of partner countries. We have
done this successfully in fields such as energy, agriculture,
private sector development and the environment. Our
sophisticated financial and legal systems and our respected
public service have also provided unrivalled expertise.
This approach not only ensures that Canadian assistance is of
high quality but also helps to develop long term commercial
opportunities for Canadian companies.
Canadian assistance is having a practical impact on the
process of reform. It supports the transfer of critical knowledge
and technology and fosters the emergence of small and medium
sized enterprises. Western economic practices are being adopted
and democratic institutions are being strengthened.
The assistance program also increases the capacity in
Canadian firms to compete effectively in central and eastern
European markets. Two examples of projects in my parents'
homeland of Poland illustrate the range of our involvement and
give us a good reason why we should continue to be involved in
the region.
One, a Canadian company advised the Polish Ministry of
Health on health care reform in 1992. It subsequently won a
World Bank contract to manage a $200 million U.S. health
sector loan in Poland. Another example, more than 100 Polish
dairy farmers and veterinarians have so far upgraded their skills
and received management training in an ongoing program at the
international livestock management school in Kemptville.
There are those who think that Canada spends too much on
foreign aid, as we heard from some of the Reform Party
speakers, and that it is a waste of money. As we embark on this
foreign policy review process we will have to look at our aid
programs, but aid is not simply money. It is also expertise,
knowledge and skills that we can share with those who are
seeking to build in modern society.
(1930 )
Let me cite a few examples of where Canada has taken the
lead in setting up successful programs with very little money.
The Federal Business Development Bank took the lead in
establishing an independent Romanian loan guarantee fund for
small and medium enterprises in 1993. A contribution of
$775,000 will provide on site staff and management training
until June 1995. Canada without providing capital in the fund
has provided much more: a credible reputation and confidence
in the abilities of its managers. Thanks to this the fund has
attracted a $5 million contribution from Germany.
In Hungary we are establishing regional vocational and labour
retraining centres. Our involvement in the project started in
1991 with a $400,000 contribution to the Association of
Canadian Community Colleges for one pilot project. The
association and an Irish partner then secured a $1.5 million
World Bank contract to establish close to 20 such centres in
Hungary.
Just yesterday Ambassador Gedai of Hungary was in my
office expressing appreciation for the co-operation and
assistance from Canada.
Russian oilfield workers and managers are benefiting from
training in Russia and Canada. A $10 million Yeltsin democracy
fellowship program managed by the University of
Saskatchewan in my province brings Russian officials to Canada
to work in ministries at all levels of government.
2327
In Ukraine Canadian support for a professional public service
training institute is helping to build the institutions that modern
independent states require.
Canada is contributing its expertise in agricultural
economics, social policy planning and communications.
Already 21 deputy and assistant deputy ministers from Ukraine
have participated in Canada in a two week executive
management program at the Canadian Centre for Management
Development.
Canada's assistance program also provides funding to
Canadian business on a cost shared basis to develop joint
ventures in trade and investment opportunities. As a result
Canadian companies have established a strong presence in
Russia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Ukraine. Trade and
investment are key to the long term growth of these fledgling
market economies.
As I said earlier, and my colleagues have also pointed out,
trade is also essential to Canada's continued growth in the next
century. Canada is encouraging collective, decisive action on
the part of the west. The government supports stronger links
between NATO and central and eastern Europe through the
partnership for peace program. Canada has encouraged the
CSCE to play a more active role in central and eastern Europe,
particularly in the area of conflict prevention and crisis
management.
We are proposing to focus high level G-7 attention on
Ukraine. Already Canada is playing a leading international role
in assisting Ukraine in its upcoming elections through technical
assistance and election monitoring.
I am pleased to announce that the Minister of Foreign Affairs
has asked me to lead a delegation to Ukraine on its request to
monitor the elections there.
Canadian soldiers are serving as peacekeepers with the United
Nation protection force in the former Yugoslavia and the
government increased Canada's contribution to relief
operations there with the announcement of a $10 million
package of humanitarian assistance in November 1993. This
brings Canadian contributions of humanitarian assistance for
the war affected populations of former Yugoslavia to $50
million since 1991. We will continue to monitor humanitarian
needs throughout the region and to respond generously and
compassionately.
Had the former Yugoslavian conflict been resolved in an
institutionalized way through compromise, tolerance and
agreement, as recommended by Lester B. Pearson, billions of
dollars could be used today for development rather than for
humanitarian assistance. Again, in response to the people who
say we should focus on only giving assistance to the poorest of
the poor, if we only give humanitarian aid when do the countries
get assistance to develop so that they can stand on their own
feet? Our ideology should be to help the people in those
countries to help themselves.
(1935)
The course of reform in central and eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union may continue to be unpredictable and
fraught with danger but we cannot withdraw. Canada must play a
role in turning this period of turbulent change into an
opportunity to create a more stable and prosperous world. The
government is committed to providing creative international
leadership to ensure that we achieve this vital goal.
I am very impressed with the work of the parliamentary
standing committee represented by the three parties sitting in
this House and I am looking forward to criss-crossing Canada,
hearing views from grassroots Canadians in helping us develop
a unique, independent Canadian foreign policy.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, I have one
question for the hon. member.
During the election campaign I heard from people in my
constituency, and I think others did across Canada, that
Canadians want this country to take care of Canadians first.
They said we have to cut down substantially on the amount of
money spent on foreign aid. That is what recent polls have
shown as well.
I want to know how the member would answer these people
when they ask if that is what this government will do.
Mr. Flis: Madam Speaker, this is a question that we as
parliamentarians get. I get it in my own riding and it is a very
fair and honest question, knowing the deficit and the public debt
we have. The comments I get are that charity begins at home.
We have to point out to Canadians that we are all brothers and
sisters on the same planet. When someone says charity begins at
home, Somalia, Ethiopia, Cambodia are also home for
Canadians.
I was in Cambodia observing its elections. I learned that only
one in five children reaches the age of five and the lifespan is
only around 50 for adults. How can we say no?
Those are our neighbours. When we hear charity begins at
home I have to remind myself that is part of my home as well and
I have to help those children so that they can live past the age of
five.
The other answer that we can give our constituents is that if
we had global security we would spend less money on defence,
we would spend less money in humanitarian aid. That money
could go toward helping these countries develop their
economies rather than looking for handouts.
I concentrated on central and eastern Europe because I believe
very strongly that with a little help there it is more an investment
for the entire world. These countries that I have mentioned will
and some are already helping the developing countries. Poland,
2328
Hungary, the republics of Czechoslovakia and others are already
helping third world countries.
That will ease the burden on Canadians. Canada cannot do it
alone, whether it is in peacekeeping, whether it is in
humanitarian aid. That is why we have to look for partners
around the globe.
It is a tough question. We will get this as the committee
travels across Canada. We have to look at it as investment for the
future. We have to look at it as global security.
When I was in Honduras recently with our overseas
assistance, we brought in a water system to a rural community
fed by gravitational force, no motors, no engines.
(1940 )
I was there talking to the barefoot children and to the local
inhabitants surrounding me and I said that we were pleased that
Canada could help in a small way. I said I was sure that if
disaster struck Canada those people would be the first to come to
our help and they all applauded.
I saw the coffee and the bananas growing in the fields. I am
sure these same countries we are helping, should a disaster
strike Canada tomorrow, we do not know, would be the first to
come to our assistance.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Madam Speaker, I have two
questions for the hon. member.
He has made comments that I find very inspiring and
uplifting. At lunch we have a meal served here and we do not pay
for it as members of Parliament. At supper I understand there is
a meal out there and we do not pay for it although we are being
paid to work through these hours.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he would be willing to
pay a small fee for the food we eat here and have that given to
countries that are in need.
My second question to the hon. member is what does he feel
will be the impact on our foreign aid program as a result of the
addition of $100 billion to our national debt over the next three
years?
Mr. Flis: Madam Speaker, in answer to the first question, I
was on duty all day today. I paid $76 for my lunch today. How
much did the hon. member pay?
I think these are piddly little things that we bring in as red
herrings to take us off the real issue. The real issue here is
developing an independent Canadian foreign policy, not
whether we are spending $2 or $5 on our lunch. I do not want a
free lunch. I happened to take some of my constituents out for
lunch today to the tune of $76.
As I say, let us not waste taxpayers' money by pulling in these
little red herrings to deflect us from the real issue.
The second question is the real issue and if he would look at
our budget we are trying to reduce the deficit. We are trying to
reduce the public debt but gradually so not to hurt Canadians too
much.
If he looks closely at the budget over the next three years we
will be reducing the deficit by over $3 billion just in the way we
are operating the government.
In the PMO and in the ministers' offices, et cetera, I feel the
pinch now. I was parliamentary secretary in the 1980s and when
I became parliamentary secretary I received additional staff and
resources. Right now I am not receiving anything extra.
When the Prime Minister told me to go to Hungary to
represent Canada at a state funeral because its Prime Minister
suddenly passed away, I was a one person delegation. Normally
there would be three people representing each party. I was a one
person delegation. We cannot run government any leaner than
that.
A month later the minister asked me to go to Norway for
another state funeral. I was a one person delegation.
I went to the inauguration in Honduras. I could not even take
my wife. It was embarrassing because representatives from all
the countries were there with their spouses being presented to
the president. I was there all alone, a one person delegation.
If the Reform Party cannot accept that I would say it is at the
wrong level. It had better go to municipal politics because it
does not know what international politics is all about.
(1945)
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. I would
like to fill him in a bit in that I know something about Russian
history too. Those are my roots. My great-grandfather fourth
removed negotiated the land deal with Catherine the Great for
the Mennonites to move to the Soviet Union. I know what a
prosperous country can look like. That country was the land of
milk and honey as far as the Mennonite people were concerned
at that time. They prospered tremendously but corruption and
mismanagement set into the Czarist regime and finally some of
the people started immigrating to the United States.
In 1874, when the first Mennonite people came to the United
States, they brought new strains of wheat along with them which
were used pretty well until the 1930s. That was a prosperous
country but now it has turned around. Through mismanagement
they have lost everything. This is what Reform is really worried
about, that this not happen to our country. That is why we are
concerned that we have decent management, that we look after
the wealth, and that we share it with other people.
2329
Mr. Flis: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman
shared his experience and his roots because it is members like
him who understand.
We are not here to throw money around. My parents came
from Poland in 1930, right into the Depression. They had no
handouts. Because they had no relatives they had to work for two
years on a farm in Saskatchewan and they ended up working for
22 years. They know what it is like to save for the future, to
tighten the belt. Our party knows it too, but we also have to think
of the over one million people who are looking for jobs.
I am sure for that member like myself the hardest thing is
when someone comes to his constituency office and asks for
help in finding a job and there are not any around. I see a lot of
members nodding their heads. I thank the hon. member for
sharing that with us.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to advise
the House that prior to the vote I recognized two members of the
Official Opposition.
I am now going to recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister for International Trade and revert to the
government for this part.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to be
speaking in the debate on foreign policy. I want to congratulate
all the men and women who are serving our country abroad in
different capacities, whether in peacekeeping or in a foreign
post trying to represent our great country.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the
government, the Prime Minister, the Minister for International
Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of
National Defence for undertaking this initiative to conduct both
a foreign policy review as well as a national defence review. I
am delighted to see that at some point in time both the foreign
affairs policy and the national defence policy would go hand in
hand. A number of groups have made presentation to me and to
many of my colleagues. One issue they have raised with us is
that they want some sort of connection between the review of
foreign policy and that of national defence.
I quote the National Forum on Canada's International
Relations in the second part wherein it is indicated that the
government is committed to reviewing the two hand in hand.
There will be public hearings across Canada by parliamentary
committees on Canada's foreign and defence policies. This is
excellent. It is extremely timely in many ways.
(1950)
We are approaching the 50th anniversary of the United
Nations. It is timely for a country such as Canada that has always
been on the leading edge internationally to be reviewing its
policy in terms of national defence and its foreign policy at the
same time. It will coincide with the review of the United Nations
policy on its 50th anniversary.
I am confident that once again Canada will play a leadership
role on that front and will be on the leading edge when it comes
to the international scene in trying to ensure, as the
parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs has indicated, that
the global village lives in peace and harmony and that
humankind never sees the suffering we have seen in past
decades.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I will take a few minutes to address another
issue in this area, and I am referring to trade and the review of
our foreign policy. As you know, Madam Speaker, we are all
aware of the extent to which trade, and especially international
trade, contributes to Canada's economic prosperity. Nearly
one-quarter of Canada's GDP is generated by our exports of
goods and services. One out of five Canadian jobs is directly or
indirectly linked to international trade. Each billion dollars in
Canadian exports creates between 12,000 to 15,000 jobs in
Canada. This means that exports are extremely important to us
as a country.
We have every reason to be proud of our export record,
because our exports have continued to post good results despite
a slowdown in the world economy in the early 1990s. Finally, in
1993, our monthly exports to the United States, for instance,
reached new highs. The latest figures are expected to show that
in 1993, exports to our principal trading partners rose 15 per
cent over 1992 levels. Canada's exports to the United States are
worth $268 billion annually, which means that in 1993, our
exports to the United States were worth $4 billion more than in
1992.
However, in an increasingly competitive market, we cannot
afford to merely repeat our past results. We have been
successful, but we must do better. Intensifying our efforts in this
area will create jobs in Canada and stimulate domestic growth.
If we are to maintain our competitive position on
international markets, we must act quickly to take advantage of
opportunities offered by trade agreements like GATT and
NAFTA. We have a chance to strengthen our service sectors,
which represent more than two-thirds of our national economic
activity, and also to improve our service exports.
As we know, about 75 per cent of our trade is with the United
States, and five groups of products represent more than 70 per
cent of all exports of goods. We must continue to develop these
exports while increasing our market share in other areas as well.
2330
(1955)
Asia, for instance, has become our second largest market after
the United States. It has strong potential and poses a big
challenge to Canada's competitiveness.
We must also work with small and medium-sized business to
develop an export mentality. As you know, only 15 to 16 per cent
of our manufacturing industries export their products, and that
is what happened if we look at the large number of businesses
here in Canada.
I cannot overstate the importance of exports for Canada, but I
would be wrong to suggest that we should concentrate solely on
exports. The international business climate changes rapidly, as
you know. Businesses must now also consider international
investments, capital flow, technology, research and
development in developing their international marketing
strategies.
We are facing some challenges. We have a $9 billion to $12
billion trade deficit in high-tech products, and our research and
development results are less than those of the other G-7
countries and OECD members.
In addition, international business investments greatly help to
create jobs and improve the competitiveness of
Canadian-based companies. In this regard, we are fiercely
competing with other countries to attract scarce investment
capital.
I see that I am almost out of time and I would like to know
whether I have 10 or 20 minutes. Ten minutes?
So, with all these issues, we must see if we have partners. We
have banks, various businesses and manufacturers, and our role
as a government is to work together, as a team, to develop the
economy for the benefit of Canada.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the hon. member for
Ottawa-Centre.
He had started discussing the importance of international
trade and I wonder if he could, in the few minutes at his disposal,
elaborate a little more on Canada's important role on the
international scene, as well as on the usefulness of trade to
stimulate employment, support foreign aid and all those other
issues raised by the hon. member this afternoon.
Mr. Harb: Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue.
Unfortunately, given the time left, I cannot provide a fully
satisfactory answer to the hon. member. I will simply tell him
that, as I indicated earlier, each billion spent on foreign trade
results in the creation of at least 12,000 to 15,000 jobs.
Every time we talk about job creation in Canada, we have to
take into account the fact that we must do our best to encourage
companies to do business abroad, not only because of the better
opportunities, but also because only 10 to 15 per cent of
Canadian companies are currently doing business abroad.
Consequently, our government should continue to encourage
more and more Canadian companies to do business abroad.
(2000)
Unfortunately, as you know, we have a problem in Canada
with private sector investments in the field of research and
development. If we compare Canada to other countries, we see
that our government invests a lot, or at least enough, in R and D,
but that the problem is the inadequate contribution of the private
sector.
This is very important, and our government is sending a signal
to the private sector. If we want to gain a reasonable momentum,
the private sector must invest more in research and
development.
As you know, over 80 per cent of new jobs created in Canada
are created by small business. So, our government took that into
account and developed a policy to support small business.
In response to my hon. colleague's question, when we talk
about government policy in the area of job creation, it is very
important to bear in mind that we believe in import. It is one of
the best ways not only to create employment here, in Canada,
but also to generate additional revenue in Canada. To fight a$38 to $40 million deficit and a debt now totalling over $500
billion, funds must be generated. And there are two main
sources of funds. One source is taxation, and as my hon.
colleagues know, Canadian taxpayers have had it up to here with
taxes. So, other means of generating revenue must be sought.
In the end, these means of generating revenue will be
provided by small and medium-sized businesses which will
create jobs for Canadians here, in Canada, and export their
products in other countries.
I hope to have answered the question of the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, I find it rather telling that today's debate is the fourth
major debate on Canada's international relations in the first two
months of this new Parliament.
I am no stranger to this House. Having taken part in debates
for the past 20 years, I can attest to the fact that I have never
before had or been given so many opportunities to debate these
issues.
Therefore, the government is taking a new, very important
approach at a critical point in our country's history. Against
what backdrop is this debate taking place? In my view, there are
many great reasons why we have to have this debate.
[English]
First, to state the obvious, we live in a very different period of
world affairs from the rather more predictable one of almost a
2331
decade ago. That was when the last comprehensive updating of
Canada's foreign relations policies was undertaken.
Then we wondered whether Mikhail Gorbachev was for real.
Almost no one would have believed or predicted the German
reunification at that time, or for that matter the swift collapse of
the Soviet power. As Mr. Gorbachev, the last President of the
Soviet Union observed rather wistfully during the final throes of
that momentous upheaval: ``Once again history has accelerated
its pace''.
In retrospect it is clear that the international community was
not prepared for so much unprecedented change so soon. There
was hardly time to rejoice at the fall of the Berlin wall and to
embrace the prospect of the so-called peace dividend when the
rhetoric of the gulf war and the new world order took over.
(2005)
That too proved to be ephemeral. As sober second thoughts set
in other conflicts flared. Foreign policy analysts and pundits
turned their attention to the new security risks of the post cold
war era.
Most hopes of the 1990s had been pinned on developing new
multilateral arrangements and on strengthening forms of
economic and political co-operation. However even at this level
as we approach the midpoint of this decade there are still many
questions awaiting answers.
The United Nations for example will mark its first half
century next year as a financially strapped organization that is in
demand in a positive sense and more embattled and in need of
reform than ever.
[Translation]
Canadians understand that difficult choices are needed in
order to formulate a rational plan for managing our common
future which is at risk. This brings us to a second important
reason for reviewing Canadian policy.
Before the government proceeds to make these choices, as it
will have to do sooner or later, Canadians will have to reflect on
this issue and share with members of Parliament their views on
our country's foreign policy.
Before decisions are made on important aspects of the
management of public affairs, Canadians are entitled to be heard
in an open and democratic consultation. When institutions
responsible for foreign affairs spend Canadians' money, the
members of this House, elected to represent their interests and
their values, have a responsibility to demand results in return.
We in the Liberal Party were aware of this attitude of
Canadians when we began a consultation process several years
ago to develop a renewed, more democratic and more
independent foreign policy. I hope that such dialogue will
enable us to find a consensus among all Canadians on the nature
of Canada's key international interests, on what Canada can
afford as a nation and on the best way to meet the challenges of
the 1990s and of the next millennium.
[English]
I only have a few minutes but I would like to elaborate on what
in my view is a balance of caution and inspiration in this
populist approach this government has taken in terms of
consultations with Canadians. There is caution because we have
to be careful not to give the impression of doing all things in all
places.
This morning the minister responsible for foreign affairs
commented that we must learn to do better with less. Canada as
we all know has been spending about $12 billion a year on
defence matters and about $4 on foreign affairs and trade
programs. Given the constraints on those budgets in the
foreseeable future it becomes even more important to me to look
closely at where and how the dollars are allocated and to get the
best value for that in terms of clearly defined, clearly identified
priorities and objectives.
Inspiration will be needed. In doing this we will need to look
at how key trade-offs should be made and how the different
strands of foreign policy can be tied together. How for example
should aid, trade, human rights and environmental policies be
interrelated? It will be an interesting debate and one that I hope
will give us some direction. However it is going to be a tough
debate.
Do we have the right structures and institutions for
implementing these policies? It may be time to rethink how we
organize our foreign policy machinery and processes to meet the
new challenges.
[Translation]
The Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that he wanted public
consultation to be as broad and as thorough as possible.
I am sure that I speak for all hon. members when I say that we
approach this review with an open mind and the desire to hear as
many Canadians as time and resources will allow.
(2010)
As Chairman of this committee responsible for consulting and
listening to Canadians, I personally undertake, along with most
of the members of the committee I think, to do my best to
understand where we are going and to explain in a report to be
tabled in this House by the end of October what we will have
heard and understood from testimonies and how we see things.
Let Canadians be warned however that we will not be able to
meet all expectations. That is impossible. We will do our best
however to meet as many as possible and to take as much time as
possible to look for a fair and equitable solution. As I said
earlier, we cannot please everybody. When all is said and done,
we are the ones who will have to set priorities.
2332
When I say we, I mean all of us Canadian parliamentarians.
We will be the ones who will have to take into account the
representations made to us, the values, the special interests, the
day-to-day concerns of Canadians about employment, security,
well-being, all of this within the framework of a fair and
equitable foreign policy.
That is the challenge facing the members of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade if we
want to lead the way for Canada's international relations at a
time when world events not only happen much faster but are
sometimes very troubling.
[English]
To quote an ancient Chinese curse, we live in interesting
times. In this high risk, multi-choice world decisions will have
to be taken. That is why it is so important to use this review to
prepare ourselves well. We are counting on the knowledge,
experience, common sense and the goodwill of Canadians to
help us as their elected representatives to carry out this task.
I hope we are successful. I pray we will be successful. I will
give it my best.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Madam Speaker, I first want to
congratulate the committee chairman, the member for
Ottawa-Vanier, on an excellent speech. I commend him for his
commitment to the cause of Canada here and abroad.
The committee will be travelling from one end of the country
to the other. Representations will be made by groups interested
in the issues of foreign aid, foreign policy and so on. At what
point in time will the committee which is dealing with defence
policy issues and other international and foreign affairs issues
present its report to the House of Commons? Will the members
of the committee be the same members who are now sitting on
the foreign affairs committee or will others be joining it?
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Madam Speaker, some of
the answers I will be giving are my own. The steering committee
of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade has not yet set its agenda for work and consultation.
I hope we will be ready to go by the end of this month. We will
be consulting with Canadians as individuals but also as groups.
There will be interest groups and people with a special message
to give us. The schedule of meetings has not been established as
yet. I wish I could give that schedule tonight. It would save some
money on advertising.
The second question was on the work of the defence
committee which is presently holding its meetings. It has started
work on its order of reference. I believe there are areas which
overlap.
Foreign policy first and foremost is the why issue of this
exercise. Why Canadians would like to participate in
peacekeeping rather than peacemaking is a debate; why
Canadians tie environmental issues to the questions of aid and
human rights and so on.
(2015)
Defence is more or less the how we do things and that is a
special study that defence will be doing as to how best to put into
effect the why decision, the policy issues, decided by
government and proposed by parliamentarians. I see foreign
affairs as the committee that decides why we should be doing
these things and defence on matters of defence telling us how
best to do that.
I see all the other agencies such as CIDA telling us also as
professionals in the field how best to put into action the why
decision, the policy issues, that this House will recommend in
its report.
I do not know if I answered the member in a satisfactory
manner but I tried to address some of his points.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for the confidence he places in the
committee and the members on that committee.
I have one question. How are we going to prevent as a
committee the dominance by special interest groups, the sort of
overwhelming influx of special interest groups in many areas
and how are we going to actually get down to the grassroots of
this thing?
I wonder if the member could address that question.
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Madam Speaker, it is a
very hard question to answer.
I believe there are two aspects to our study. One of them is the
collective aspect of interest groups that have a particular
message to put to the committee. We would invite those people
to send us their written presentations and we could go through
them. I expect the committee will get many of those.
The other aspect is the individual approach, the grassroots
approach, the individual Canadian who has ideas and who wants
to put them to the committee. We will have to hear those
persons.
I am going to propose that we hive off smaller subcommittees
of this large committee of 22 people. I do not know yet and I may
be doing this in anticipation of the decision but the proposal
before us today is that there be 15 members of the House and
seven senators. I take it if that happens then we could hive off
2333
smaller groups of say five or six parliamentarians and really go
into the grassroots areas of this country, the communities, and
hear how they see our direction in the coming few years and
possibly into the next century.
Having said that, it will be up to us to give them a fair chance
to be heard but as far as the groups are concerned I see them
presenting us briefs, as we call them, memoirs-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, the
member's time has expired.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Madam Speaker,
I will be splitting this 20 minutes segment with my colleague,
the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
[Translation]
I want first of all to urge the people of Canada to accept the
offer made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who chairs
the committee, to listen to what you have to say because it is
essentially the point of my speech today.
[English]
I do welcome the opportunity of addressing the House on the
topic of Canada's foreign affairs policy.
My feeling is that the more our foreign policy is reviewed
publicly, such as in this discussion, the more the policy will be
understood and supported by the public. To go a step further, if
the discussion is carried outside the House in communities
across the country the more accurately will our foreign policy
reflect the majority opinion of the electorate. This is
particularly important, in my opinion, when it comes to revising
or formulating defence policy, which should be a subset of
foreign policy.
(2020)
The Canadian public is very supportive of its armed forces in
time of war, but it is less interested in time of peace. However,
what Canada has experienced in the nearly 50 years since the
end of World War II cannot properly be called peace. We have
had relative peace within our boundaries but that was so, in large
part, because Canadian troops were engaged overseas in smaller
wars such as in Korea and in the cold war.
Throughout this half century as well Canadian forces were
engaged, as they are at the moment, in peacekeeping operations
around the world. The public must realize, therefore, that the
terms war and peace are subject to redefinition. It should also
accept the responsibility for engaging in this debate on foreign
policy including defence and peacekeeping.
In asking for public consideration and input, it might be
helpful to do several things. We should probably define
peacekeeping, then examine what we have been doing in that
field. We should also postulate our ideals of foreign policy.
What should Canada's policies be and why? It might then be
instructive to compare the ideal with current policy to see if
there are anomalies or gaps in our policy.
Finally, we should zero in on defence policy and the specifics
of peacekeeping.
Concerning definitions, the Canadian public should at least be
aware of the difference between peacekeeping and
peacemaking. Peacekeeping implies that there is an agreement
in place, as is the case between Serbians and Croatians in parts
of the former Yugoslavia. Peacemaking implies an action to
bring hostile parties to agreement, which is the case in Bosnia.
In reviewing our foreign and defence policies, the public
should decide if it supports both activities and under what
circumstances.
If we examine Canada's participation in peacekeeping and
peacemaking operations over the years, we find that changes in
operations and our commitments have taken place without our
necessarily having changed policy. Through an apparent zeal to
participate in all peacekeeping operations, we have gradually
become immersed beyond the intent of our policy and almost
beyond our resources.
We have also learned some lessons over the years. I cite as an
example our experience in Indo-China. Canada was part of a
moribund commission there for many years. It was a wasted
effort. However, when it came time to help the Americans
extricate themselves with their prisoners of war from Vietnam in
1973, Canada wisely joined the new commission with much
revised terms of reference but pulled out after six months when
the main part of the job was over. It made good sense.
We said that we should postulate our foreign policy ideals.
What do we believe in as Canadians and therefore what should
our foreign policy be?
I believe that we are a generous people who believe in
democracy and the rule of law. We do not believe in imperialism
and we do have strong humanitarian feelings.
(2025 )
We are also pragmatic enough to believe in collective
security. All of these beliefs shape our foreign affairs and
defence policies. I do encourage the public to think about these
basics and to add its own ideas.
A comparison of our ideals with what we have been doing as a
country in peacekeeping should tell us how far off our policies
are. My personal conclusion would be that we are fairly close
but that a review is very necessary. As said earlier, the public
should participate to the maximum extent in that review.
In addition to encouraging public participation in the review
process, I would like to leave the House with these thoughts.
First, the Canadian forces, through years of efforts overseas,
have created for Canada an international reputation of real
value. We should do more as a country to capitalize on our
2334
standing by taking a greater leadership role in the shaping of
international peacekeeping policy and procedures.
Second, in reviewing our foreign and defence policies we
should take full account of the work of previous House standing
committees. Some of the reports I have read have been excellent
and should not be wasted.
Third, if as expected the review reaffirms the role of aid of the
civil power for the Canadian forces, it must be confirmed that
the forces are of sufficient strength to meet that commitment as
well as their other obligations.
In a similar manner, the equipment state of the forces should
be checked after the forthcoming review to ensure that it is
adequate to perform the given tasks.
Finally, policy review of foreign affairs and defence,
including peacekeeping, should be an ongoing process by the
departments concerned, by Parliament and by the public.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate
the member on his comments, many of which this government
subscribes to in the sense that from time to time we have to
revisit any policies in order to ensure they truly reflect the
modern age and the needs and aspirations of all those who are
affected.
My question to the member is quite specific. Could he tell the
House and all Canadians what percentage of assistance his side
of the House would support in terms of gross domestic product,
in terms of foreign aid that Canada should give to other
countries around the world, taking into consideration Canada's
position internationally as a member of the United Nations
where we have a commitment to fulfil when it comes to the
international scene? Also, would his party support the
continuation of that level of aid?
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the question, my
address was specifically on peacekeeping. The question directs
itself to foreign aid as well as peacekeeping and so I will try to
respond to those two issues.
First, consideration of foreign aid should not be done in
isolation of the fact that Canada is spending a great amount on
peacekeeping. That should be part of balancing the ledger for us.
(2030 )
On foreign aid, I will not give it as a measure of percentage of
the gross domestic product but my reckoning is that $2.5 billion
per year at this moment with Canada's vulnerable economic
state is too high.
We must continue to give foreign aid, there is no question,
particularly for some of the things that we have heard of today
such as pure water systems and the like. That is good. That is
direct aid to people and we need that.
What we must get away from is some of the government to
government aid which finds its way into bottomless ratholes.
That we do not need. My response in summary is keep up the
peacekeeping. Bill it as part of foreign aid. Cut foreign aid by a
measure below $2.5 billion a year and direct it in the right
channels.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I
too want to address the foreign affairs review from the
standpoint of its relationship with and to defence
considerations.
As we have heard before in this place, the end of the cold war
and the reduction of the antagonism it engendered between the
two superpowers has unhappily not resulted in a world that
could look forward to an extended peaceful coexistence.
The world today is probably more volatile and unstable than it
was when the Warsaw pact and the iron curtain were alive and
well. As a result there continues to be a need for effective
defence forces and co-operation in defence matters between
like minded people.
There are those who would disagree with this assessment,
those who think that Canada should show the world the way by
dramatically reducing the Canadian Armed Forces and
concentrating those that are left on peacekeeping and
community assistance projects.
As idealistic as I am, I cannot agree with this philosophy.
Canadians enjoy an excellent way of life and an excellent
standard of living. One of the reasons this is so is that over the
years we have been willing to commit Canadian support to assist
in maintaining democracy and freedom not just at home but in
almost every part of the world.
As my colleague pointed out earlier, we are involved in
several such endeavours at this moment. Unhappily there are
those who mistakenly think that the people in the armed forces
tend to be war minded and supportive of belligerent or strong
arm policies.
I am here to assure members that while they may be many
things, Canadian service men and women are not stupid. They
are fully aware that if as a result of deliberate escalation or
inadvertent error, a shooting war should develop they as trained
members of the armed forces will be first in the line of fire.
No, the men and women of the Canadian forces are very much
in favour of keeping the world at peace. They also know that the
awareness developed between people in co-operative defence
forces often spills over into many other aspects of international
relationships.
Thus defence considerations can have considerable impact on
foreign relations. As evidence let us examine some of the
relationships that have come about as a result of our
participation in two world wars, the Korean war, NATO,
NORAD, the gulf war and other co-operative military efforts.
2335
In so doing, we find that these affiliations have enabled or
helped to enable a level of trust and comradeship which has led
to a better relationship between our countries, to increased
interest in our problems, to more understanding and willingness
to accept our position even on matters totally unrelated to things
military and finally to increase trade and co-operation between
the nations concerned.
For instance, although it is now 50 years since Canadian
forces liberated Holland toward the end of the second world war,
there is still a special place and warmth in the minds of
Netherlanders when they think of, relate to and deal with
Canadians today. This special relationship extends beyond those
who were physically there during the liberation. It has been
taught in school and passed down, so that no matter the age that
good feeling is there.
(2035)
This does not mean that the hard-nosed Dutch businessman or
woman will not attempt to drive the hardest bargain and extract
the best deal when dealing with his or her Canadian counterpart.
It does mean that there will be an underlying warmth and some
assurance of fair play in the negotiations.
Moving north, our relationship with Norway is favourably
affected and influenced by the many Norwegians who took their
flying training in Canada during World War II. Not only did they
take their flying here, many of them took Canadian wives back
to Norway with them after the war.
Unquestionably, these experiences have resulted in a far
better relationship between our two countries than would have
prevailed had they not occurred. These relationships have been
further deepened and strengthened by our mutual participation
in NATO. In fact, it would be fair to say that Canadian defence
forces operating with or in some cases against other countries
have substantially enhanced Canada's stature in the world.
While we are examining how we should shape and conduct
our foreign affairs, it would be an expensive and ill-advised
oversight to overlook the lucrative opportunities and benefits to
be achieved through military co-operation.
Ideally this foreign policy review should have been
completed prior to the commencement of any defence policy
review. After all, defence policy should be a logical and
supportive extension of foreign policy.
Because it has been necessary to convene and conduct these
two studies concurrently, it is vitally important that the two
committees work closely and co-operatively with each other,
exchanging information and keeping updated as the reviews
progress.
Moving away from North America and Europe for a moment,
I am certain that in their considerations the joint standing
committee on foreign affairs and international trade will
appreciate that not all democracies are the same and that unlike
Canada, in many countries the military is an integral part of
government. For example, this is so in Tanzania.
When Tanzania was first establishing independence and
requested assistance, Canada dispatched a Canadian forces
training team to Tanzania to carry out in-country training there
and brought the Tanzanian peoples defence force members to
Canada to attend Canadian military training schools here.
Many of those Tanzanian trainees are now experienced senior
officers who have considerable influence in their government
and who still harbour feelings of warmth and respect toward
Canada as a result of their experience with our military
personnel. Although now on a much smaller scale, this
co-operation continues today.
Make no mistake. These people are Tanzanians first and
foremost but a good relationship has been established which can
positively influence any negotiations between our two
countries.
Considering our interest in and increasing trade with the
Pacific rim, it would seem appropriate for the committee to look
carefully at the utility of establishing mutually advantageous
defence relationships with the countries there. The same
rationale applies to our relations with Central and South
America.
Whether it be an exchange of military attachés, making
training teams available, or opening Canadian forces training
schools to their use, good military contracts are an excellent way
to improve understanding and co-operation between countries.
One of the often overlooked benefits Canada reaps from
Canadian forces involvement overseas is the ambassadorial role
that our personnel play. They and in turn our country are liked,
respected and in many cases emulated by those they encounter.
Also, because these military interrelationships occur across the
rank spectrum and thus involve all social walks of life rather
than just the relatively high diplomatic level, the effects are far
more broadly based.
The results, advantages and benefits of such programs can
often far exceed the costs of participation.
To a large extent Canada's prosperity and way of life depends
upon international trade and thus on world stability. No one can
say that world stability is totally dependent on military defence
or assistance pacts. But history has shown that such agreements
and particularly those in which Canada has been involved have
fostered a better, more predictable and more secure world. In
conclusion, while it would be a mistake for the foreign affairs
review to concentrate too much attention on defence related
2336
activities, it would be an even bigger mistake to overlook their
value.
(2040)
To reiterate, it is vital that there be continuing close contact
between the joint standing committee on foreign affairs and the
joint standing committee on defence.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, this is a very
important debate and the review which it launches will be
among one of the most important tasks which Parliament will
face in the upcoming term.
I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate and to be a part
of the process of this review as vice-chairman of the foreign
affairs and international trade committee under the direction of
the chairman, the member for Ottawa-Vanier.
The minister and others who have spoken before me have set
out the broad policy issues which we must examine in this
review. Having listened to them I will not repeat their points.
My contribution to this debate will be more modest. I hope to
add some personal reflections which will highlight the
considerations which I believe will be relevant to this review.
When my former colleague on the faculty of the University of
Toronto, Marshall McLuhan, coined the phrase ``the global
village'' which was used tonight in this debate, it seemed like an
exaggeration but developments since that time have made that
statement resonate more truthfully.
My own professional experience prior to being elected to this
House led me to work and teach in many countries, the United
States, Africa, the Middle East, China and Latin America. In the
course of my work it became quite clear to me why it was a
Canadian who came up with the phrase global village.
Unlike our neighbours to the south, Canadians have long been
conscious of our place in the world. We are more dependent on
other nations and peoples by virtue of our trade. Thirty per cent
of our economy is dependent on our exports.
We are more aware of the outside world by virtue of the great
number of new Canadians who have retained the diversities of
their culture while at the same time contributing to our unique
Canadian identity.
Our outside activities to which some of the other speakers in
the House tonight have referred have brought consciousness to
Canadians of the importance of our participation in the United
Nations and other peacekeeping activities.
We are also aware, I dare suggest, of the nature of the world
outside because of the federal institutions which have allowed in
this country a realistic and flexible sharing of powers between
various levels of government, a federal arrangement which I
would suggest is compared and analysed as a model in many
other places in the world, particularly the European union which
is now examining how to deal with exactly that problem and also
the problem of globalization which was referred to by the
Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier today.
When we look at our great cities such as Vancouver, Toronto,
and Montreal, we see features which make them in and of
themselves global players by virtue of their trade and
communication links, the diversity of their populations and
their existing and future infrastructure.
Canadians are interested in and determined to fashion a
foreign policy which will determine the place which this country
and they themselves will take in a rapidly evolving world.
Canadians are aware of the fact that the former distinction
that prevailed between foreign and domestic policy objectives
have been blurred. As the Minister for International Trade put it
this morning there has been a blurring of these distinctions or as
my colleague at the University of Toronto, Sylvia Ostry, puts it
``there is nothing more domestic than international trade
policy'' a matter which we learned in this House when the matter
of article XI of the GATT was discussed with great intensity
early on in your term, Mr. Speaker, and in my first term in this
House.
We learned it in the 1988 election when people said to me that
international affairs are not of interest to the people of Canada.
(2045)
Then we were into an election on an international agreement.
The 1988 election was fought on an international agreement
which had incredible domestic political consequences. It was
the failure of the government of the day to recognize the
importance of those domestic consequences that caused them to
lose the last election.
In this party we did not lose that perspective. We always
argued in favour of a coherent policy, the need for domestic
adjustment policies, to accompany the international economic
reality that was being imposed by that agreement. I and other
Canadians look forward to having the chance to focus on how
our domestic and international policies will be co-ordinated.
We will have many chances to do so in the House.
The first speech I had an opportunity to make in the House
was on social policy review. There was some question as to what
it had to do with international affairs. Even a matter seemingly
as domestic as social policy review must be considered in light
of the international reality in which we live. If we believe in
globalization we cannot formalize social policies which do not
take that reality into account.
Next month there will be a labour market summit in the
United States led by the President of the United States in which
we will be participating. Labour policies will shortly be on the
list of issues to be co-ordinated along with many other issues, if
2337
we are to survive in this integrated world in which we are going
to live.
As Canadians we must participate in these activities and
ensure that our values are reflected in the social charters which
will arise in the NAFTA, GATT and World Trade Organization if
we are to avoid having solutions imposed upon us from outside.
We have a population uniquely qualified in the world to
participate in this discussion. This has been brought home to me
many times since the election, but I would like to cite a couple of
examples.
Recently a constituent of Vietnamese descent from Rosedale
came to my Hill office. He was a refugee to this country of only a
few years who now has a successful business. He came to say
that he had been to the Vietnamese embassy. He wants to get
back to Vietnam. He wants to get trade going with Vietnam. He
speaks the language and he knows the culture. He is eager and
many of his colleagues are eager. With that eagerness comes
some extraordinary opportunities. As the secretary of state for
Asian affairs said today, we must take a pragmatic approach to
human rights when we are looking at these issues.
My friend who came to speak to me in my office is anxious to
go back and trade with Vietnam, not only for the commercial
purposes that will enable him to do so but because it will enable
him to bring some form of relief to the family and friends he left
and to encourage an evolution of human rights in that country
which he believes will benefit everyone.
We need to have mechanisms in place that will facilitate that
reform. It will be our job in committee to examine and to ensure
that when the day is done the Government of Canada has created
the instruments necessary to enable people like the constituent
of whom I spoke to participate in the world in a way that would
enrich him, enrich us and enrich the world.
That example is not just one of commerce. I was at a
conference at the University of Ottawa last week. I learned that
traces of the pollution being produced in the Sea of China,
adjacent to Vietnam, are actually being found in our Arctic
waters. If we do not trade with Vietnam, if we do not send our
expertise there, if we do not deal with the problems of pollution
in Vietnam, it is not a Vietnamese pollution problem we will
have; it is a Canadian Arctic pollution problem that we will
have. We must address this issue. We have the means and we can
contribute to finding a solution.
There are Chinese Canadians and Filipino Canadians. I do not
mean to hyphenate the term Canadian, but there are Canadians
from every walk of life who have experience outside this
country that they are eager to bring to bear to enrich the country
and to enrich our experience. Those people are insisting we craft
or create a truly Canadian foreign policy which reflects our
values and impresses our neighbours. They also recognize that
our neighbours have an interest in us.
(2050 )
Recently I had the privilege of going to Vancouver with a
parliamentary delegation. Some members of the House were
also on that trip. As I sat in a helicopter flying over Clayoquot
Sound looking at clear-cuts with a communist deputy from
Sardinia on my left and an English MEP on my right, I said to
myself: ``What am I doing looking at clear cutting in Clayoquot
Sound with these gentlemen?'' One might ask: ``What business
is it of theirs?'' The fact of the matter is that they were saying
they were not going to buy our tree products if they did not come
over to Canada and become satisfied as to how we were doing
business.
We can say we do not like it, but it is a fact of the new life. We
can call it a loss of sovereignty if we like, but the lesson we
learned from that trip was the following. We agreed with those
people in the end that we should create an international
agreement which would set up objective rules, which would lay
out an objective and a scientific way in which we could
determine whether or not clear cutting was being properly
conducted, whether or not we were being environmentally safe.
That is the way we will have to go in the future. We will have
to craft rules and we will have to craft institutions. Nowhere will
it be more important in the matter of institutions than in dealing
with our neighbours to the south, the United States of America. I
will leave you, Mr. Speaker, with this last thought: Nowhere
would I suggest we must be more vigilant in ensuring that we
have proper institutions than when dealing with our neighbours
to the south.
In that respect we had an interesting witness before the
parliamentary committee last night who told us a very important
truth. He said the United States was a great nation and it did not
respect servile allies. It respects those who stand up for their
rights.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will craft an
independent foreign policy. That independence is not just
because we want it as Canadians. It is also the best strategy to
pursue in dealing with an ally like the United States which is
powerful and strong but willing to respect the strong opinions of
others.
In conclusion, we live in an interdependent world. We have in
our own ridings, each one of us here, the expertise and
knowledge of Canadians. John Polanyi was speaking on
peacekeeping just two nights ago in my riding. All of us in the
House have a great wealth of expertise in our ridings.
As a member of the committee I look forward to an
opportunity of hearing from Canadians. In so doing we will
learn about ourselves and how we can best contribute to a
peaceful, sustain-
2338
able, prosperous world which we now share with those who were
once foreigners but today are our neighbours.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence): Mr. Speaker, I
was tempted to ask my venerable colleague why he stopped
when he did. I realize he had about 25 pages of material, as is his
wont as a university professor and an expert on international
affairs. However I realized that with the time constraints
imposed upon him by the hierarchy in this place he had to cut
short his deliberations.
I will try to take up where he left off. I hope I will be forgiven
if I am a bit more humble in my approach to this topic, not
having the erudition and background demonstrated by my
esteemed colleague or his outstanding eloquence on the topic.
I do not want to make light of it because my colleague from
Rosedale said something that is extremely important for each
and every one of us to consider. In the context of an evolving
Canada we now have the kinds of expertise for which most
countries lust and literally spend hundreds of millions of dollars
to develop. I am referring to the human resources afforded us by
people from all over the world. They come here with a cultural
background that gives them an opportunity to understand the
societies, the political systems and the economic systems
throughout the world. They also have the networks and the
dispositions to take advantage of those opportunities for the
greater good of Canada.
One might deduce that perhaps my particular disposition is
one that would accord more attention to the international trade
side of a foreign affairs and international trade review.
(2055 )
I do not want you to fall into a trap, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is
absolutely crucial for the well-being of our country to exercise
its dynamics on the world stage, to ferret out if need be all the
opportunities that will allow for the flourishing of Canadian
economic potential and for the capitalization of all the resources
we have in great quantity and quality. However, I am first and
foremost concerned that Canada takes its rightful place on the
world stage as a country or as an entity that will play its role as a
leader in social development and will understand the values of
social and cultural organizations permeate virtually everything
we do and that all our neighbours, all our allies and all our
trading partners should emulate.
Therefore I take my lead from my colleague who just finished
a most studied presentation before the House and from my other
colleagues both on the committee and in the departments as
secretaries of state and ministers. These people have served with
other members of the House in other capacities. They have
learned from those experiences and through that learning have
developed an appreciation of what the country ought to do.
Each and every one of them has pointed out a specific, it is
almost de rigueur to say, niche in foreign policy and
international trade of particular interest. They wanted to give an
indication to the House and to all citizens watching the debate
that the country never needed as much as it does now a new
examination of and definition for its role on the world stage.
That means we have to take to heart, with the kind of energy
that only the House can provide, the initiative of our ministers to
undertake a studied, thorough, analytical review. It must be as
critical as it can to derive all elements which will formulate a
policy that is truly reflective of the Canadian entity not only in
the latter part of the 20th century but one that will lead us, I dare
say, into the 21st century.
The challenges are many. Many of the debates we have in the
House on occasion seem to be separated and distinct one from
the other, but they are all interrelated. On many occasions, and
even today during the course of debate, we talked about the
importance of Canada's new policies on the environment, a new
definition of international human rights, and the impact of
expanded trade agreements on goods, services and the
exchange. Even some of our colleagues on the opposite side of
the House have pointed out that there are enormous changes in
the concepts and definitions of peacekeeping and peacemaking
and the consequences that come to bear on domestic policy as a
result of those emerging definitions.
They have also acknowledged that there are many
consequences and implications for military and civil
considerations, police selections, environment and
surveillance. These obligations the Canadian people through
their representatives, through their government and through the
House, accept as part of a leading western society, a leading
progressive society and as the leader in social integration and
social harmony.
That is no longer a question of domestic policy. It is no longer
merely a question of determining priorities in a budget
environment. It is no longer merely a question of determining
how much money we shall accord here and how many such
resources we shall accord there. Rather it is a question of how in
their comprehensive total they will contribute to stamping a
character which can be defined and sum totalled with one word,
and that is Canada.
(2100 )
We need public consultation. We need public input.
Colleagues from both sides of the House agree that if we are to
develop a proprietorship in a policy each and every one of us on
both sides of the House and through us the people who elected us
have an opportunity to shape the views of the government of the
day and governments to come.
Foreign policy is not merely the reflection of the individual
on the moment for the moment. It is the vision of a people who
decide in total what avenues will be pursued, what goals will be
developed and what objectives will be realized in the medium
2339
and long term. They can only do that if all the Canadian public
has had an opportunity to wax their views in an environment
where those who will put those views into effect listen, shape
and then implement those views.
In the course of this debate some members have reflected on
the problems associated with mixing what seemed to be
different objectives, commercial and humanitarian. I said
earlier in the debate with colleagues from the Reform Party that
I was not sure that the two had to be mutually exclusive.
If Canada is to play a leadership role it is going to exercise
influence. Some of that influence will be translated as internal
meddling because influence means we will have others accept
our values in life, our political values, our cultural and social
values as they pertain to organization, development and
integration. If we are going to truly exercise that kind of
influence then we must be prepared to engage in productive
relationships with other countries.
In the past we have focused on Europe and the United States.
We have omitted ourselves from other areas such as South
America. We have omitted ourselves from the tiger economies
of Asia. We have essentially taken a one dimensional approach
to our relationships with developing and underdeveloped
nations.
Now is the time to approach this in a more comprehensive
fashion and through it to have an influence on domestic policy.
It is becoming more clear that the primary focus of our
government should be one that gives its attention to a policy that
expands beyond our borders. Then we can see ourselves not only
as we would like to see ourselves but as others would recognize
us to be.
I urge all members to support this initiative and then to engage
themselves in the review that will follow.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member referred to the input by the people of Canada into this
process of developing international affairs policy. The member
also referred to Canadians influencing people from other
countries through this policy.
Our country has a tremendous debt. Do we have the money to
try to influence others outside this country? In my constituency
and across the country Canadians have been saying we should
spend less on external affairs and on foreign aid in particular.
Over the last couple of years polls have shown people across the
country believe this.
(2105)
If we are going to ask Canadians for their opinions in terms of
foreign aid, is the hon. member willing to vote the way his
constituents tell him to vote and reduce the amount of money
Canada spends on foreign aid?
[Translation]
Mr. Volpe: Madam Speaker, I do not see why you have a
problem recognizing me; after all, we have known each other for
five years now.
[English]
In response to my hon. colleague opposite when constituents
vested their confidence in me and other members on this side of
the House and I dare say even on that side of the House, they
thought: ``I look at the candidate and the party. I want that
individual to stay abreast of all the issues on which he or she will
have an impact. I expect that individual to stay informed. I
expect that member of Parliament will exercise decisions in the
best interests of the country first and foremost, and second in the
best interests of all citizens''. Sometimes they are exactly the
same thing.
The question of whether Canada at this moment in its history
has the resources to engage in foreign aid ought to be addressed
in the specifics of the analysis. To suggest that is the foremost
question today is to negate that we are talking about a
comprehensive review of foreign affairs and international trade.
Foreign aid is but a portion. Whether it is large or small is
immaterial; it is but a portion of that review. It is but an aspect of
the obligation we impose upon ourselves under the two headings
of international trade and foreign affairs.
It also negates the importance of the commercial aspect when
we consider that international trade. Foreign relations and
foreign affairs are part and parcel of an economic strategy that
will also bring wealth to the individual Canadian citizen, to the
individual Canadian entrepreneur, or to groups thereof.
To say that perhaps we should not be focusing on this at this
time or to suggest or even to allow others to infer it from what
we say damages the comprehensive economic policy that could
emerge from a proper analysis and review of international trade
and foreign affairs.
I know my colleague opposite would not want us to do any of
that. In fact, I am sure he would encourage us to promote any
kind of activity that would encourage the development of
economic benefits for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Madam Speaker, the end
of the cold war represents an incredible change in the
international order. It is the last episode of an era which will
disappear forever. However, the new emerging order is
characterized by a
2340
great instability, and is jeopardized by new threats such as
environmental disasters, the demographic explosion, the
wasting of resources, financial crisis, and particularly the
impoverishment of people living south of the tropic of Cancer,
which is three quarters of the world population.
From a safety standpoint, the increase in the number of
problem areas throughout the world compels the international
community to search for regulating mechanisms which fit
current political and economic realities. We must no longer
merely avoid war: We must also seek peace.
With the 21st century looming ahead, peace is a big challenge
for the international community, because everywhere there are
conflicts which seem more and more difficult to solve.
(2110)
It is in this context that the Canadian government is
undertaking a review of its foreign policy. In the coming weeks
and months, parliamentarians will have to decide what the new
policy should be. We will have to ask ourselves what Canada's
role in the new world order should be.
I want to mention a few ideas to think about in the course of
the debate on the foreign policy review.
Apart from the violence which, too often, characterizes
relations on the international scene, economic activity also
influences those relations. In that regard, the globalization of
economic activity is one of the outstanding features of the last
few decades.
The growing internationalization of goods and services
production, distribution and marketing that characterizes this
tendency was influenced by the following factors: the lowering
of tariff or other trade barriers, the gradual elimination of
controls over capital flows, progressive deregulation in many
countries, the reduction in transportation and communications
costs.
The powerful forces of market globalization strongly
influenced by the actions of multinational corporations give us
the impression that we are ushering in an era where the worst
kind of economic selfishness takes precedence over solidarity
and sharing.
In recent years, the gap in the standard of living between the
rich countries and the poor countries has become wider.
According to the United Nations, this gap has doubled in the last
30 years. As victims of war and the international financial crisis,
the people of the third world have become increasingly
marginalized.
Malnutrition, the lack of democratic rights, the denial of basic
human needs and the 17 million refugees in 1991, in addition to
the 30 million displaced people, prevent us from turning a blind
eye to the inappropriate development of the southern
hemisphere countries, as our reality will be affected if only with
respect to immigration and the environment.
Most developing countries were hurt by the economic crisis in
the current global climate. In the 1980s, the reduced terms of
trade were accompanied by the debt crisis and the
overexploitation of natural resources to resolve this crisis.
Caught in a vicious circle, the countries of the south cannot find
a solution to this situation that has become intolerable for their
population.
Partly responsible for this drama since they created the global
economic configuration inherited from colonialism, the
industrialized countries are also its victims as they will have to
pay for environmental disasters, which do not recognize
political borders.
We can no longer try to solve these problems without thinking
that sustainable development is the cornerstone of the global
socio-environmental chessboard. What does the Liberal
government think of this?
Since a lot of people still believe in the old saying charity
begins at home, the Canadian government has shown a tendency
in recent years to reduce its development assistance budget.
Unfortunately, this tendency is shortsighted and based on a
erroneous assessment of the global situation as the millennium
comes to an end.
It would be appropriate to briefly examine the evolution of aid
to developing countries to show Quebecers' and Canadians'
solidarity with their disadvantaged brothers and sisters
throughout the world in the last 40 years.
In 1950, the external aid office, the ancestor of CIDA, had a
development assistance budget of $11 million. By 1967, its
budget had grown to $279 million. In 1968, the Canadian
International Development Agency was created. CIDA never
became a separate department. It was created without an
incorporating act and comes under a statutory authority that
gives it the power to spend money.
In his last report, the Auditor General of Canada points out
CIDA's uncomfortable position under the sometimes undue
pressures exerted by several departments such as foreign affairs,
international trade, and national defence, not to mention
Canadian businesses involved in international activities.
(2115)
Legally, CIDA reports to the Department of Foreign Affairs,
but its mandate has never really been specified. In principle, it
should advise the government on co-operation issues; in
practice, we have the impression that it responds to influence
more than it really influences others.
Since it is not a department and since there is no minister with
a mandate only for development assistance, Canadian ODA has
never reached the internationally recognized standard of 0.7 per
cent of GDP. In 1993, Canada spent only 0.4 per cent of its GDP,
which is much less than what many industrialized countries
spent on development assistance, as the following figures show:
Norway, 1.16 per cent; Denmark and Sweden, 1 per cent; the
2341
Netherlands, 0.86 per cent; France, 0.63 per cent; Finland, 0.62
per cent; Canada, 0.40 per cent.
While the federal government spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on advertising Canada's 125th anniversary and sending
its propaganda to all Canadian households, at the same time, it
lowered the aid budget for developing countries.
The early 1990s marked the end of any measure to achieve the
goal of 0.7 per cent. The 1991 budget not only further restricted
development assistance but it extended aid to include the
countries of eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth of
Independent States.
In his 1992 economic statement, the then Minister of Finance
cut international aid by $50 million. The last budget reduced the
international aid envelope by 2 per cent and it will be cut by the
same amount again in 1995.
Canada's aid strategy will soon be at a crossroads.
To this decrease in aid for developing countries must be added
something else that reduces the impact of Canadian ODA: the
scattergun approach. This approach no doubt confirms the many
influences that turn CIDA away from its objectives. The charter
of official development assistance from Sharing Our Future
bases Canadian aid on the following four principles:
First, the fight against poverty; the main objective of
development assistance is to help the poorest countries in this
world; second, aid must seek to strengthen the human and
institutional resources of developing countries so that they can
solve their problems themselves; third, development needs must
take priority in setting goals for official development
assistance; fourth, development assistance must help to
strengthen ties between Canadian institutions and citizens and
those of third world countries.
Despite such clear objectives, the Auditor General, no offence
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, points out major
shortcomings in what CIDA is doing: lack of clear, precise
objectives and lack of coherence; dispersion and chronic lack of
focus in CIDA's objectives; red tape favoured to the detriment of
development content. On this point, I add that it is embarrassing
to recall that for bilateral aid or the geographic program, CIDA
uses 600 people to supervise the work of 125 people in the field.
At the same time, a small organization like CECI sends 250
co-operants to carry out specific small projects.
The final shortcoming mentioned by the Auditor General is
the limited knowledge of and minimal learning ability for
accountability with respect to results.
On the other hand, the Auditor says he is sympathetic to
CIDA, since it is subject to many constraints and influences. So,
what is at issue is not so much how CIDA is managed as the lack
of legal framework which makes it vulnerable.
In fact, Canadian development assistance increasingly finds
itself torn between assistance and foreign trade. Which is to be
favoured? This question sums up pretty well the whole problem.
Again, the old saying ``grasp all, lose all'' is rather appropriate
with regard to CIDA.
Let us not forget that Canada's ODA encompasses several
programs which further dilutes goal attainment by involving
more and more people. Although the figures do not apply
specifically to Canada, the 1992 report on the United Nations
development program is particularly bleak and calls into
question ODA practices in developed countries.
(2120)
In spite of these flaws revealed by the UNDP, definite
progress have been made over the past 40 years in developing
countries: life expectancy went from 40 to 63 years; the infant
mortality rate dropped from 190 per 1,000 to 80 per 1,000 and
the ratio of deaths of children under five years of age from 300 to
120 while, between 1970 and 1990, literacy grew from 23,8 to
48 per cent in Africa, from 44 to 64 per cent in Asia and from 73
to 84 per cent in Latin American and the Caribbean.
Yet, absolutely scandalous gaps continue to exist in terms of
the per capita GNP for instance. Here are a few examples: in
sub-Saharan Africa, the GNP was $120 in 1968 and reached
only $330 in 1988; in South Asia, it was $100 in 1968 and $320
in 1988; in East Asia and Asia-Pacific, it was $100 in 1968 and
had grown to $550 in 1988. Meanwhile, in Latin America and
the Caribbean, it varied from $490 and $1,850 and in the Middle
East and North Africa, it went from $220 in 1968 to $1,210 in
1988.
During that time, in OECD countries, the per capita GNP
jumped from $2,750 in 1968 to as much as $17, 468 in 1988. In
1993, OECD nations allocated about $71 million to official
development assistance, while a 2 per cent annual growth in the
economy of poor countries would cost industrialized countries
$200 billion a year. When faced with needs of this magnitude,
we all too often give up. I remind members that these same
OECD countries spent in excess of $370 billion on national
defence in 1992.
Therefore, the problem is not one of resources, but rather of
resource allocation. Canada's defence budget for 1994 is $11.5
billion, while $2.8 billion has been budgeted for assistance to
developing countries. One can assume that the powerful defence
industry lobby has a great interest in seeing this budgetary
structure remain in place.
The Canadian government, cannot, however, continue
indefinitely to support these questionable choices. By
maintaining the gap between defence spending and development
assistance spending, we perpetuate the belief that if poor
countries cannot climb out of their state of poverty, the only
solution left is for us
2342
to arm ourselves to ensure our security in the face of a future
revolt. Are we being foolish or reckless?
Any future foreign policy should settle this debate and come
down on the side of government funding for development
assistance. Canada could take on a leading role in this area and
map out a new course to follow in the field of co-operation and
development in the 21st century.
Moreover, Quebecers and Canadians are keenly aware of this
new world vision which is tied not to the arms race, but to
solidarity and sharing. It is no coincidence that roughly 250 aid
agencies are members of the Canada Coucil for International
Co-operation, the CCIC, and the Association québécoise des
organismes de coopération internationale, l'AQOCI. These
NGOs are driven by the generosity and dedication of thousands
of volunteers who donate their time and money to help and ease
the suffering of the poorest and most destitute men, women and
children in the world.
In its foreign policy review, the Government of Canada must
consider the objectives pursued by NGOs. It is generally
recognized that these agencies are the most efficient channels
for development assistance.
In the years to come, the Canadian government, as stated by
the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House on February 9, will
be expected to increase its support for NGOs. At the present
time, NGOs receive only 10 per cent of the ODA budget. This
percentage must increase, especially since amounts allocated by
the Canadian government are matched by the substantial
amounts invested by development co-operation agencies in
their development projects.
(2125)
Because NGOs have no political ties with the often
illegitimate governments of poor countries, they are unlikely to
be obliged to abandon their activities in countries with a record
of gross human rights violations, since their assistance is always
directed to people, which unfortunately is not always the case
with bilateral aid.
If we consider the fourth main principle of the ODA charter,
which is that development assistance must help strengthen ties
between Canadian citizens and institutions and those in the
Third World, I think it is clear that the best vehicle for achieving
this objective is the NGOs, whose workers merge with the social
and cultural fabric of the people they help.
At the other end of the spectrum, we find large Canadian
companies carrying out turn-key projects in developing
countries which preclude this merging with the population,
create even greater dependency and, in the final analysis,
guarantee maintenance contracts for these companies. Our
foreign policy review should stress these major issues: Does
Canadian ODA serve the interests of a few Canadians rather than
those of the poorest countries? These are a few of the aspects of
development assistance which the Bloc quebecois would like to
see considered in the context of a foreign policy review.
In concluding, I want to express my disapproval of the fact
that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade is being merged with that of the
Senate. I object on several grounds. In the light of budgetary
cutbacks, I think such concerns should be reflected in all
decisions made by the government. In this case, having senators
on the joint committee will add to operating expenses if the
committee plans sittings away from Parliament Hill.
Furthermore, I also see this as a sign of panic on the part of the
Liberal Party, which is afraid to see the party it resembles most,
the Conservative Party, disappear altogether. To ensure the
Conservatives are represented, the Liberals are prepared to
appoint committee members from their supply of federalists.
This means putting elected and non-elected members of
Parliament on the same footing. This is unacceptable in a
society that is proud of its democratic roots.
A survey conducted across Canada last summer indicated that
more than 60 per cent of Canadians were in favour of abolishing
the Senate outright. It is certainly not appropriate at this time to
give the senators a legitimacy they have already lost as far as
public opinion is concerned.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Madam
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's
comments and I am impressed with his generosity.
I would like him to answer a question. I produced grain and
livestock on my farm for years and years and I am producing
more every year and it does not seem to keep up with the bills.
I am now at the stage at which I am old enough and fortunate
enough to have some grandchildren. Every time I welcome one
of them into this world I have to tell them they have $24,000 of
debt. The next one has more debt.
How am I going to convince my grandchildren that I have
spent their fortune already by being so generous. Can the
member answer that for me? I have a great problem with
spending somebody else's inheritance before I look after my
own.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: Madam Speaker, I, too, have grandchildren. I do
not want to leave them a country such as Canada the way it is
now. However, I do not think that it is Canadian assistance to
developing countries that put Canada in this situation. I simply
want to point out the incredible gap between the nearly $12
2343
billion we invest in national defence and the $2.5 billion to $2.8
billion we spend on aid to developing countries.
We must realize that what we do not do for developing
countries in the coming years is precisely what our children and
grandchildren will criticize us for in 20 years, as the world order
will be completely destroyed and the developing countries, the
third world countries, will end up by imposing the law of the
majority.
(2130)
I think we must clearly agree that it is necessary to increase
our aid to developing countries and that the arms race taking
place around the world is just about the most stupid thing we
have seen in the 20th century.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam
Speaker, it is a great privilege today to speak on a subject that is
close to my heart and the most valuable thing we possess beyond
our good health. That is human rights, the right to live in peace,
say, do and go where we want within the confines of a fair,
compassionate legal system, free of harassment and secure in
due process. As the name implies, they are not a privilege but an
undeniable right as a member of the human race.
We in this beautiful country are very fortunate to be in one of
the few countries where its people can express their human
rights to their fullest potential. Tragically the same cannot be
said for most countries in the rest of the world.
The end of the cold war with its two warring superpowers has
given rise I think to an environment of greater political
instability and has unleashed decades of seething ethnic and
tribal tensions; for example, Yugoslavia, Somalia and, right
around the corner, South Africa.
This will give rise to more bloody regional or civil conflicts
and the rise of smaller, non-functional or poorly functional
nation states with their nationalism, tribalism and, at times,
intolerant attitudes and behaviours.
Added to this melting pot of troubles are a number of other
factors. Developing nations economies are either stagnant or
have regressed dramatically over the past 20 years. Corrupt
leaders have throttled and pillaged their economies for their own
ends, pocketing foreign aid for themselves. Foreign
governments in many cases have given aid for prestigious
megaprojects that have often wound up being megaflops instead
of concentrating on small scale rural projects.
I will give an example. Sub-Saharan Africa, exclusive of
South Africa, will take 40 years to get to the same level of
economy that it had in 1970. If we take Nigeria out of that
equation, it is going to take 100 years for that part of the world,
that represents a population twice the size of America, to get
back to where it was in 1970.
Another factor is a world population that is spiralling out of
control. In fact by the year 2050 we will have a population that
will exceed 10 billion or more than twice what it was in 1990.
These numbers will outstrip, I feel, the ability of this planet to
adequately provide for its inhabitants and leave the majority of
people with an appalling quality of life on a planet that is
suffering from a significant amount of environmental
degradation. Examples of this we can currently see.
I would suggest that we would in part concentrate our efforts
on providing aid in conjunction with population control in many
of these third world countries.
When we put all these factors together we have a climate that
is ripe for conflict, struggle and human rights abuses. Although
we may say we live in a beautiful and big country with a small
population and that many times the situations seem far distant
from us, make no mistake about it, what happens half a world
away will sooner or later wind up on our doorstep.
As has been mentioned here before by some hon. members, I
like to think of ourselves not necessarily as Canadians first but
as citizens of this planet. If we all practised that perhaps we
would be able to engage in a little bit more tolerance between
each other.
Abuses of human rights such as detention without trial,
torture, rape, extrajudicial executions are commonplace and
occur in such diverse countries as Iraq, China, Liberia, Brazil,
Egypt, El Salvador, Angola and Burundi, just to name a few.
My first personal experiences with gross human rights
violations came when I was working in Africa in the 1980s. Here
I saw people who had had chunks of their flesh torn out, whose
human rights were trampled, who were tortured with hot irons,
who were gang raped, who were brutally beaten and who were
murdered. Once you see this first-hand you cannot turn your
back on it. You feel compelled by every part of your soul to do
something about it.
(2135)
The response of the international community has in many
cases been abysmal, particularly with smaller countries where
people tend not to care too much about what happens. The world
and the international community seem to deal with human rights
violations in other countries only when it is politically
expedient or when the media has thrust it on to the front stage so
that it cannot be ignored.
Self interest has directed many governments' response to
human rights and violations of friends of a country are often met
with silence while those that are enemies of a country are
publicly and vigorously castigated. This shows a terrible lack of
2344
political integrity, foresight and compassion with respect to
foreign policy.
What can we do about this? I should say that I am proud that
we are one of very few countries in the world, one of only a
handful I think, which can actually speak credibly on the matter
of human rights which makes it more imperative that we do so.
First, I suggest that we publicly castigate countries that
commit gross human rights abuses. We must take a lead role in
mobilizing other nations to force the country in question to
mend its ways. International co-operation is the most
expeditious way of dealing with this.
There are certain techniques we can use and some that have
been underutilized in the past. Most of them involve economic
levers against the guilty party, for example, via the World Bank,
the IMF. I think country to country loans are a powerful and
often underutilized technique and can be very effective.
We also need to tie economic aid and trade packages to human
rights. Sports sanctions and the freezing of state assets are two
other options that can be utilized under certain circumstances.
A second thing that we as a country can do is to start looking at
the United Nations and help to mobilize the countries in the UN
to utilize it as the primary force to act as the advocate for human
rights in the world.
The following are some of my recommendations. First we
have to define the various courses of action that we can take
against states which commit gross human rights violations and
get the acceptance of the UN body at large to follow suit when
this occurs.
Second, we must put forth an early, firm and decisive action
on the part of the UN against brutal regimes and anticipate
problems before they occur. We must anticipate these trouble
spots and act early. A couple of examples might be Mr.
Zhirinovsky and his so-called democratic group in Russia.
Another one that is happening very close is South Africa. I just
would make an aside and say that we as a country have to support
democratic reform in that country. If South Africa falls and falls
into the same morass and quagmire as has occurred in most
sub-Saharan African countries after their independence, then
we will lose the whole southern half of the continent for the next
50 to 100 years. I think it is very important that if we invest now
it will pay off amply in the future. An ounce of prevention, as
they say, is worth a pound of cure. Yugoslavia is an excellent
example where we did not take the initiative early enough and
now we are paying for it in spades.
Another thing we need to push for on the world stage is to
support the international tribunal against war crimes. We must
make it known on the public stage that individuals who commit
gross human rights violations are going to be met with the full
and effective force of the international community.
As an aside I would also push for this country to press for the
banning, as I have said before in this House, of anti-personnel
devices world-wide. These devices have no role to play in war.
They are meant purely to maim innocent civilians and
destabilize a country for decades to come, even after peace has
occurred.
For us to do these things and to forge a consensus among other
countries and to stop flagrant abuses of human rights will
require clarity of vision, unshakeable determination and
backbone. When you look, as I have said, into the terror-filled
eyes of innocent civilians who have had their basic human rights
trampled and see the despair and suffering they are enduring,
you cannot turn your back on it. In fact, with every fibre of your
heart and soul you are compelled to help them.
It is our moral obligation to this beautiful, cruel, frustrating
world that we live in to provide the international leadership to
fight for one of mankind's most basic needs.
(2140 )
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Madam
Speaker, since 1982 the Department of Foreign Affairs has
administered the federal government's program for the
promotion of Canadian exports.
In recent years this program has been criticized by academics,
the private sector, provincial governments, government
employees and others for the following reasons.
First, employees and the workings of the TCS have been
integrated only imperfectly into the culture and operations of
the Department of Foreign Affairs. The pursuit of mundane
commercial interests is not a natural activity of individuals who
joined foreign affairs and were trained to become diplomats
dealing with international politics, war and peace and the
nation's external security. While there are many career officers
who work hard on their assignments in the commercial field,
such assignments continue to bring little prestige and
opportunities for advancement in the institutions hierarchy.
Second, the private sector has expressed discontent with the
lack of input into the work of the federal trade promotion work.
The Department of Foreign Affairs is heavily bureaucratized
and never has had a tradition of working with the private sector
in the pursuit of its traditional mandate.
Efforts to rectify this situation through the creation of
consultative committees have not been a great success. One
aspect of the criticism by the private sector is that the
operational objectives of the trade commissioner services are
often linked with political goals.
The promotion of political and military alliances, of human
rights and democratization and of international development
efforts can and often do interfere with the promotion of
international trade.
2345
Third, the work of foreign affairs duplicates and overlaps with
that undertaken by provincial governments. In major countries
abroad, trade representatives from the two levels of government
compete with each other. Further duplication occurs as federal
trade offices throughout Canada deal with the private sector and
promote exports in competition with provincial officers.
Fourth, even within the federal government there are at least
15 other departments that undertake trade promotion activities
of their own. CIDA-INC as it is known is one of them. In some
instances its activities are better financed than those of the
Department of Foreign Affairs.
Efforts to co-ordinate the different federal departments'
offices through foreign affairs have not been totally successful.
Time does not permit me to dwell further on the negative
assessments of the Department of Foreign Affairs trade
promotion efforts.
Instead, I must now turn to some positive suggestions for
reform of Canada's program. Suggestions for change involve
different models of organization based mostly on real world
experiences. There is a proposal to create a crown corporation
independent of direct political influence.
The Government of British Columbia recently created such a
crown corporation. Another model envisages the complete
privatization of the service. This best describes the system used
by Britain where executive agencies with independent
management have been established on a contractual basis.
The removal of the bureaucratic culture from these agencies
has resulted in substantial performance increases. This
precedent can be applied to the trade commissioner service
offered by our federal government. However there is also great
merit in an approach I am investigating now in the context of
preparing a private member's bill. The approach involves the
use of a commercialized service to deal with the problems of the
present system.
The following represents my preliminary thinking on the
subject and I welcome suggestions for improvement from
anyone interested in the subject.
I propose to call the new organization the Canadian Trade
Organization. Let me call it CTO for short. Its headquarters in
Canada will be located in one of the large commercial centres
like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver with branches in other
cities. The CTO will have offices in foreign countries with
headquarters in the capital like Rome and subsidiary offices in
major cities like Milan.
(2145 )
The responsibility for the Canadian operations will be in the
hands of a board of directors consisting one-quarter each of
representatives nominated by the federal government, the
provincial governments, private sector organizations like theCanadian Manufacturers' Association and the Exporters'
Association, and general membership consisting of Canadian,
foreign and multinational firms.
The day to day operations of the CTO are undertaken by a
private staff, the executive director of which is also on the board
of directors. Governments can have liaison officers on the
operational staff.
Financing of the CTO will come one-quarter each from the
four groups represented on the board of directors. In addition the
organization is required to sell its services to private firms and
administer Canadian involvement in trade fairs throughout the
world. This is important.
Profit sharing or bonus payments to employees successful in
such private sector sales will assure that the CTO is responsive
to market needs. Such needs often involve Canadian
governments in their roles as diplomats and makers of industrial
policies. The proposed links of these government offices with
the CTO through the board of directors and liaison officers
assures that the public interest will adequately be reflected in
the employees' work.
Periodic meetings, the publication of a newsletter and social
affairs arranged in different cities will provide a constant link
among directors, staff and the private sector in Canada. Contacts
through such arrangements will provide the proper environment
for the flourishing of commercial activities of CTO.
I now turn to the business offices of the CTO abroad. They
will have advisory councils consisting of representatives from
the local Canadian embassy or high commission and from local
industry. The latter will most likely consist of multinational
corporations, Canadian firms with representatives abroad and
local firms interested in trade with Canada.
The operations of the foreign business offices will be in the
hands of Canadian managers who work with staff consisting
predominantly of persons who speak the local language, have
local contacts and are familiar with the country's business
practices.
Financing for these offices will come from the same sources
as that for the operations located in Canada, that is federal and
provincial governments as well as interested parties in the
private sector.
In addition special efforts will be made to obtain financing
through contracts with private sectors abroad and in Canada.
These contracts will involve market research, establishing
commercial contacts, assuring representation at fairs and
exhibits, keeping an eye on technological and product
developments and many other activities that would help
promote international trade and Canadian competitiveness.
2346
In many smaller countries CTO offices will be attached to
local embassies or consular offices. In larger countries they will
be housed in separate quarters though a close link with the
diplomatic representative is essential.
The preceding is only a rough and preliminary sketch of the
institutional, financial and operational characteristics of the
proposed replacement of the international trade promotion
system which is presently operated by the Department of
Foreign Affairs.
My sketch should suffice to show how the commercialization
of these trade promotion services will first, eliminate the
currently existing duplication of government services. Second,
it will permit its governors and operators to concentrate on
commercial issues while it retains the benefit of access to and
advice from Canada's professional diplomats in foreign affairs.
Third, it creates private sector incentives for professional staff
to serve the needs of Canadian business. Finally, it removes
domestic and international political agendas from the trade
promotion program.
In conclusion, I note that it should be possible to structure the
CTO so that the government cost of providing trade promotion
services will be lowered considerably. Such savings should be
welcomed by the federal and provincial treasuries and
departments like foreign affairs during this period of extreme
financial restraint.
The commercialization of the service would permit
governments to focus better on the delivery of services in which
they have a competitive advantage. The financial and
operational involvement of the private sector would increase
operational efficiency of the service. It would also raise general
interest in international trade.
I believe that out of the shortcomings of the current trade
commissioner service in foreign affairs arises an opportunity for
change that will produce nothing but winners.
(2150 )
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Madam Speaker, the hon. member welcomed
suggestions on his concept of a Canadian trading organization. I
am wondering whether he is familiar with a parliamentary task
force that submitted a report over 12 years ago now. It was not
called a Canadian trading organization. It was called a national
trading corporation.
This all-party task force which travelled across Canada and
actually through Europe, looked at trading houses, looked at
bartering, et cetera. The whole idea was that if we could help
small and medium sized businesses increase their exports by 10
per cent and if we could get some firms that were not exporting
into the export business, we could generate $10 billion worth of
additional trade. That was back then; it would be more like $100
billion now.
The concept was that this national trading corporation would
be funded 50 per cent by government and 50 per cent by the
private sector. As we know, many countries today will not trade
with another unless there is some government involvement and
that was the idea of the 50-50 per cent.
Unfortunately on the day when the special parliamentary task
force tabled its report the Conservatives at the time submitted a
minority report and shot down the main report. They agreed with
the recommendations. Actually, many of the recommendations
came from the Conservatives. Unfortunately on the day that the
report was tabled it was not supported.
I recommend it to the hon. member. I believe there will be a
copy of the report in the parliamentary library. I know it would
be of great interest to him because I think that is the kind of
foreign affairs, independent Canadian foreign policy, that we
should be looking at.
I really appreciated his creative suggestions. It is too bad that
he was not here 12 years ago.
Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, I thank very much the hon.
member for pointing out the existence of this report and my
executive assistant will go after it tomorrow morning. Perhaps
we can speak a little bit more about my ideas.
I have already been invited to send my concept to a number of
private sector groups and government people for comment.
Then perhaps something can develop out of it with the hon.
member's support, maybe a private member's bill. If he wishes I
will happily give all of these ideas to the government to do
something good for Canada.
I am most pleased with the hon. member's comments and
thank him very much.
Mr. Flis: If we have some time, Madam Speaker, I do want to
caution the hon. member that in our findings the trade
commissioners were the most efficient and the most effective in
promoting export trade.
That could have changed over the 10 years, but we
complimented the trade commissioners in our report because we
got very positive feedback on their service and their
effectiveness.
Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, I thank again the hon. member
for his comment.
I want to make sure that I am not ever wanting to depreciate
the efforts that people make. I believe, however, that the
effectiveness of efforts made by individuals is determined by
the institutions and the incentive structures in which they work.
It has been suggested to me by people who are intimately in
contact with this that we can bring the system we now have into
the next century by looking at what other countries have done.
They have removed it from their foreign affairs departments
where the culture simply does not seem to be functioning as well
as it does when the institution is separate, profit motivated and
the private sector has a direct stake in it. That is my basic
concept.
2347
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the recorded division
is deemed requested and is deferred until the end of the time
period for government business on Wednesday, March 16, 1994.
Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2
p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.)