Debates of March 15th, 1994

Agriculture

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

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?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, 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.

Information Highway

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

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.

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?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, 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.

Guaranteed Annual Minimum Income

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

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.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, 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.

Presence In Gallery

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

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.

The Late Gilbert Rondeau

[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.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[André Ouellet, Liberal, 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.

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.

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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

Canadian Foreign Policy

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, 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?

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

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?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

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.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

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?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. I have heard the kind of complaint the

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.

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.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

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.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

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.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

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

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?