Debates of March 15th, 1994

Canadian Foreign Policy

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

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.

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

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.

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-

able, prosperous world which we now share with those who were once foreigners but today are our neighbours.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

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.

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?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not see why you have a problem recognizing me; after all, we have known each other for five years now.

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.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

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.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

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.

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.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

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.

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

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.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, 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.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

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.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

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.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

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.

[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.)