Pierre Brien

[Zaire, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with Kigali still opposed to any intervention by a multinational force on its territory, could the minister tell us how many more meetings

will be needed and how much longer refugees will have to wait before the international community takes action?

[Zaire, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

There is seemingly endless pussyfooting around the urgent action awaited in eastern Zaire and the international community's hesitation casts some shameful doubts on its willingness to act. After three days of meetings, the governments represented in Stuttgart must now assess the options that have been defined.

In the context of an estimated 250,000 refugees still stuck in eastern Zaire and another 300,000 having gone west, could the minister give us an update and tell us which option he favours to resolve the current deadlock?

[Canadian Volunteer Service Medal For United Nations Peacekeeping Act, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak to Bill C-300, the initiative of a Reform Party member, which is an act respecting the establishment and award of a Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and Clasp for United Nations Peacekeeping to Canadians serving with a United Nations peacekeeping force.

Of course, more and more Canadian soldiers are taking part in peacekeeping missions, given the number of major regional conflicts throughout the world, particularly in certain areas. Given the growing role of the United Nations as well, there are more and more interventions of a military or humanitarian nature, aimed at securing a lasting peace in regions emerging from a conflict.

At this time, nearly 2,000 Canadian peacekeepers-the number depending, of course, on how many are sent on the African great lakes operation-are located in various parts of the world, or may be by the end of this year.

This is a substantial figure, representing a substantial contribution by Canada to various missions. As well, we have to accept that the armed forces, particularly in a country like Canada, now play a dual role. In addition to providing civil assistance within the country, they participate in these peacekeeping missions carried out by the United Nations, or in others which may, while under the auspices of the United Nations, be commanded by a specific country.

I must make it clear immediately that we are in agreement with the bill proposed by the hon. Reform member. It might, however, be worthwhile to broaden the first point in clause 4 to indicate that it is a mission authorized by the United Nations, not necessarily an operation under the command of the United Nations.

This would cover such cases as the operation in Zaire and Rwanda, not in its present form, but as it was initially going to be. So in this case, it is not necessarily a mission initiated by the UN but rather a mission authorized by the UN under Canadian command.

So these cases as well should be included if we want to extend the scope of this bill, whose purpose is to recognize by means of a distinctive medal the contribution of soldiers from Quebec and Canada who were involved in this type of mission and, who knows, may be in the future as well.

There are also people who are not parliamentarians who support this bill, one example being the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association.

In 1993, the creation of a similar medal was suggested in a report by, I believe, the national defence committee or the foreign affairs committee. I would like to read part of this report, which was tabled shortly before the election in 1993. Because of the election, there was no follow-up.

The report said that the government should establish a medal for volunteer service in peacekeeping operations, to be awarded to members of the military and non-military employees-I will get back to this-who are on UN peacekeeping missions. This was in a report by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, dated June 1993.

The bill also recognizes the contribution of those who take part in these missions without necessarily being members of the military. In certain cases, these people are sent on peacekeeping missions. They would also be entitled to the medal. So it would be more than just recognizing the contribution of the military.

At the present time, there is a UN medal, but none offered by the Canadian government. Other countries do have their own awards. The bill makes it possible for the Canadian authorities to give special recognition to those who volunteer for such service, whether they are members of the military or other people involved in these operations who served on peacekeeping missions. There have been many instances of members of police forces or the RCMP who were sent on such missions. Some people may be involved in the delivery of medical assistance and other services. There are also others who make a significant contribution.

I would also like to mention something our constituents often ask us, and it is whether this kind of assistance, these operations in which Canada is involved are not too costly. Considering our relative wealth, we have a duty to contribute to restoring peace. We have everything to gain by bringing a more lasting peace to all parts of the world, a world that is rapidly shrinking as a result of the

extraordinary development of communications. I think working towards a more lasting peace is everybody's business.

The United Nations can intervene, co-operate and bring a more lasting peace to an area through the presence of peacekeepers. Such co-operation is particularly significant when it makes it possible to introduce democratic government. I am sure those taking part have powerful memories, some of which are no doubt distressing, others happy ones.

The people in the armed forces have done extraordinary humanitarian things. Some operations, particularly in recent years, have not been huge successes. The Somalia inquiry has revealed an operation that failed on many counts. That said, there is no need to exaggerate or generalize the fact that some people may have lacked judgment in certain operations.

Generally, the behaviour of the vast majority of peacekeepers brings honour to us all. Our international reputation, which is very important in some respects, enviable even, in certain instances, is often thanks to those who represent us abroad. These people are from families we know, sometimes from our own family. Here in Parliament, there are people who have served in the armed forces. All have contributed to a positive image of us as Quebecers and Canadians.

This then is an act intended to honour people who often make significant personal sacrifices during peacekeeping missions. Generally these missions last six months. During these six months, they live far from their families in conditions that are not always easy.

They must be extremely careful at all times, because they are in zones that most of the time have been in conflict, and so their work is extremely delicate. They carry out their mission brilliantly. It is indeed a very good idea to want to honour them with a special award, and I see no reason why Parliament would not support such a bill.

The bill also contains provision for a retroactive award in order to honour participants in earlier peacekeeping missions. Tracing these people may be a lengthy process, but it should be done where possible.

The bill's aim as regards future missions is certainly readily achievable. I have no doubt that it may be done without costing a whole lot. It is fair compensation for what these people give and the contribution they make.

I conclude by saying that initiatives such as this are easy to support. I would like to congratulate the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, for his initiative. He has my support and that of my colleagues.

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, considering that the numbers that were to be involved in the multinational force are now, according to current information, being reduced, what is the level of resources, human and otherwise, that the Government of Canada would judge to be essential if this multinational force is to fulfil its mandate effectively?

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In light of rapid developments in the situation in Zaire, does the Government of Canada approve of the restricted mandate which the U.S. government and Rwanda seem to want to impose on it, in other words, a mandate that excludes opening and maintaining humanitarian corridors outside Rwanda?

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, since this aspect will not be covered in any great depth in my speech, allow me to commend the expertise of my hon. colleague from Louis-Hébert in international affairs.

I completely agree with the last part of his remarks, which I caught and which dealt with prevention. The image was quite forceful. When $2 billion is spent on international assistance, while national defence is funded to the tune of $10 billion, this clearly indicates that, in this area as in many others, a more curative than preventive approach is being favoured. In the end, the cost is higher, and, in this case, we are not talking about money, but human lives.

I would like to say a few words about this multinational force Canada will be leading and which will be deployed. In Zaire, it has already started providing assistance to refugees, many of whom are now returning to Rwanda, which is a major development that has taken place since the creation of a multinational force was announced.

The Bloc's position, as stated earlier by our leader, is clear: We support this mission designed to allow refugees to safely return from Zaire and ensure that assistance will be provided to these people. Over the weekend, some very poignant images were broadcast. Some I saw myself, but one in particular was described to me; I did not actually see it. Just imagining the scene makes us realize how terrible a tragedy this is. Following an attack, a portion of the slaughter was shown, and there was this little child looking around him, but all he could see was dead bodies. There were not many people on hand to provide assistance to the child, who was apparently rescued later. Such pictures cannot leave us indifferent.

At some point, someone had to take the initiative so that something could be done in Zaire, because everyone was leaving it up to the others. Everyone was waiting for everyone, including France and the United States. No intervention was being made and we were faced with a situation that could still get worse, because even the presence of a multinational force will not eliminate the causes of the conflict. Far from it. This is a potentially explosive situation and there could be a great deal of damage.

One only needs to remember what happened in Rwanda not too long ago to realize that the situation is very complex and is far from being resolved as regards the cohabitation of the Tutsis and Hutus.

So, we congratulate Canada for taking the initiative regarding this issue by getting together a multinational force and sending it with a UN supported mandate. Of course, some adjustment will have to be made. It will be made on Thursday, at an important meeting, because the population that was living further north in Zaire is now in motion. It is believed that 400,000 Hutus are already back in Rwanda and that another 100,000 will have made it to that country over the next few hours.

However, according to estimates made by NGO observers over there, some 700,000 refugees are still scattered, including more than 100,000 who are headed to western Zaire, who may have to quickly go to Rwanda. These people often find themselves in zones that are much less safe. A humanitarian corridor will have to be provided for them also. The mandate provides for the creation of a safety corridor for these people, and for bringing them the basics, such as food and medication.

In spite of the fact that 500,000 people are about to go back to Rwanda, the mandate remains. The intervention is still justified. Even though it is difficult to negotiate with the authorities of Zaire and Rwanda, as it is always complex, there will nevertheless be observers on the ground, especially NGOs that are there to help the people who still need help. Those observers know how to deal with the real situation and can make very specific observations.

Of course, there will be complex things to settle to ensure rapid intervention. In spite of Canada's commitment to send a force, there are still a few obstacles to overcome that will need to be dealt with at an important meeting on Thursday.

Whereas we can deplore somewhat how slow the process is, things do not always move as fast as we would like them to in this kind of intervention. A further step has already been made at least, since observers are already on site. More specifically, General

Baril is there with a team that will grow in the days and weeks to come.

There is no ambiguity about our support. It is there, even though we, as well as the government, might have questions on the duration of the operations. There is some question about a more permanent solution, because obviously nobody expects the political problem there to be settled in four months. We know that we are getting involved in a very complex mission that might certainly last longer than the four months contemplated. The United Nations could then take over. We will see.

Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has already stated that there will be a report. It has been agreed that a report will be submitted in early January. We will see what comes out of it.

I want to mention it, because it deals with a question often asked by some of our constituents. True, this type of mission costs money. However, as citizens of a relatively rich country, living in a very different context, we have the duty to show solidarity with the people who are living in utterly unacceptable conditions and facing a human drama which is really out of the ordinary, compared to what we see in our everyday lives.

The $100 million contribution that was mentioned comes to a mere $4 a year per capita. On a daily basis, it does not represent such a huge contribution, such a huge sacrifice to make in order to help those people and to take part in this operation, which will hopefully, because of the troops we are sending over there, make for an international perspective a lot closer to the real situation.

I think everybody, including the Government of Canada, wishes for an international conference on the situation in the great lakes region of Africa. Such a conference could be another step in the right direction. Meanwhile, in the sort term, there are some needs to be met, especially in terms of humanitarian aid. Safe corridors have to be established for the people returning back home.

There is one more thing I want to mention. I want to salute our people and our soldiers sent over there. When people enlist in the armed forces, they expect one day to be called to take part in such a mission. Today, in the case of Canada, it is well known that when you enlist in the armed forces, you will probably take part in peacekeeping missions because, to our great fortune, we are not directly involved in domestic or foreign conflicts.

This means that our interventions are primarily civilian in nature or part of UN operations or other types of intervention by a multinational force led by Canada. We pay tribute to those who take part in such missions. It will be difficult for them and for their families, but such is reality. This is a choice they have made.

We pay tribute to their courage and hope that this operation will allow the Canadian armed forces to restore their reputation, which was tarnished by events, however isolated, in Somalia. I think that this will be an opportunity to point up the fact that the very great majority of our soldiers are doing extraordinary work and that they are deserving of greater attention.

This will provide an opportunity to realize that they are making a contribution that they will remember all their lives, just as those they help will remember it. We support them and we wish them the best of luck.

I repeat that we support this mission. Certain questions have been raised by colleagues during debate, but I do not think that this level of detail is appropriate when operations on this scale are involved. We wish our troops the best of luck and we hope that the government will keep us informed of developments, should there be any change of mandate. I am certain that the ministers involved and the government will do so.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to certain comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

He said something important in his speech. He said that the trade deal was first meant to give Canadian companies access to the Israeli market. He did say that was its prime objective. I understand that, but what this also means is that the objective of putting the peace process back on track comes in second or worse. Indeed, this is typical of this government for which democratic values and human rights always come in second when the time comes to talk about economic issues in relation to respect for democratic values and human rights.

In a sense, I am happy that he made things clear, but this does not mean that we agree. The parliamentary secretary was clear and frank when he said the agreement's prime objective was to give Canadian companies access to the market in Israel.

He also said that it would benefit Quebec almost exclusively, if we are to go by the list of Quebec companies he read out. I would like to remind him that 80 per cent of our exports to Israel are also food products, such as grain. We know full well that the west will also benefit quite a lot.

Therefore, it should not be said that only Quebec stands to gain. Of course, I am not surprised that companies from Quebec export to Israel because Quebec understood long ago that the economy of the future is turned towards foreign markets and free trade. I do not want to debate this question further, but I am convinced that it is normal that Quebec should export to other countries as well, even countries with which we did not sign a free trade agreement.

The hon. member exaggerated a little when he said jobs would be lost if the coming into force of the agreement was delayed. It is as though people thought that without free trade there can be no trade at all. Wait a minute. There is trade, but it is not as simple. Even if duties are charged, there can be trade.

Let us take the example of Canada and the United States. Three quarters of our trade was already liberalized even before the free trade agreement. So people must not think that there is no trade between countries if there is no free trade agreement. So to say that jobs would be lost if we were to delay the implementation of the agreement is going a bit too far. Perhaps it would delay the job development process, which is a totally different thing. However, as representatives of the people of Quebec and Canada, we must not forget that Canada has a responsibility to protect human rights in other parts of the world.

The adoption of this bill at this moment could be viewed as an expression of support or at least would send a very ambiguous message with regard to the peace process in the Middle East.

If the Liberals want so much to respect or to improve the peace process in the Middle East, then why did they not accept the amendments that were proposed? I remind them that the purpose of these amendments was to include in the agreement, as in the free trade agreement between the European Union and Israel, that Canada and Israel are committed to human rights and the principles of democracy and that their domestic and foreign policies must be based on that commitment.

Such a provision exists in the free trade agreement between the European Union and Israel. The inclusion of this commitment in the deal would have been justifiable, as well as the inclusion of a provision explaining that the signing of this deal does not mean in any way that Canada supports the new Israeli government's position with regard to the peace process where it is not in line with Canada's foreign policy. This could have been mentioned as well.

This way, at least, we would have said that the Canadian government continues to be deeply committed to these values, which are the state's responsibility. But we can see that Canada has reneged on that commitment and that its only objective, as mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, is to secure better access to these markets, whatever the circumstances.

Yes, the role of a government or a state is to promote economic development, but not at any cost.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-61, an act to implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.

According to the timetable provided for in the bill, this agreement, which was signed in July 1996, will come into effect in January 1997.

What is in this agreement? First of all, this free trade bill is more concerned with goods than services. For example, customs tariffs on industrial products of Canadian or Israeli origin will be eliminated on January 1. Only swimwear-at Canada's request-and certain cotton fabrics-at Israel's request-will still be subject to duty for another two and a half years.

Low duties or no duties will apply to various products, especially in the areas of agriculture and fisheries. These products include grains and their byproducts, beef, maple sugar, alcoholic beverages, and various processed components. Both parties have excluded dairy, poultry and egg products, which will be the subject of future negotiations to further liberalize trade in the agri-food sector.

Like NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Israel provides for a tribunal, a binding dispute settlement mechanism, which has worked rather well so far in the case of free trade with the U.S. and Mexico.

According to the government, the next step is to have the bill passed by Parliament. Should this be done before January, the act

will come into effect on January 1, 1997. I will get back to the timetable and the process a little later.

I should point out that, according to the Government of Canada, the sectors that will benefit the most from this agreement are the grains and grain products industry, manufacturers of telecommunications equipment, the environmental industry, and other cutting-edge areas. Some sectors are excluded: neither the Auto Pact nor cultural industries are affected.

Other areas of trade such as services and government procurement would continue to be governed by the multilateral rules being established through the World Trade Organization.

This is an overview of the agreement. As we can see, this is a free trade agreement dealing much less with products than with services. This is a first step in increasing trade currently worth anywhere from $450 million to $500 million between Canada and Israel.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are obviously in favour of free trade in principle. I may remind my hon. colleagues that this has traditionally been the position of sovereignists who, as a matter of fact, strongly supported the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and they United States. It was a central issue in the 1988 campaign, with the sovereignists backing a party that advocated implementing the agreement at the time.

Similarly, we supported the free trade agreement later expanded to include all of North America, NAFTA. The purpose of these agreements is to extend free trade zones for the benefit of economies that specialize in areas where they have comparative advantages.

Everyone can benefit from free trade provided that companies adapt and that they can specialize and be productive in areas where the economy gives them these comparative advantages.

That said, the government must not forget that it has responsibilities in terms of wealth redistribution and also regarding the human rights situation, as may the case in any number of agreements. Trade must be pursued, free trade must be promoted, but not at the expense of our global responsibilities as individuals and as a society.

Speaking of the pro-free trade position held by sovereignists, I cannot help but recall the last campaign fought by the Liberal Party, which now forms the government. At that time, the Liberals were against the free trade agreement with the United States and promised to renegotiate NAFTA.

Today, a few years after they came to power, we see that they have been converted to free trade, obviously inspiredby sheer common sense. It makes us very confident in the future to see that the Canadian people generally seems to understand that there is a future in relations as extensive as possible with different countries, whether it be Israel, as is now the case, or Chile.

Some day we will talk about the expansion or the preservation of the economic zone between Quebec and Canada which is, and I stress it, 135 times more important than trade between Canada and Israel.

What is positive in this agreement? The development of this free trade agreement between Canada and Israel will enhance trade. Trade relations will be increased and there will be increased ties between the two countries. That being said, we should not think this will be enough to influence the State of Israel with regard to the peace process in the Middle East. We must be careful not to jump to such conclusions.

Many people think that the strengthening of economic ties is a good way to influence the internal policy of our trade partners, down the road, because there will be more dialogue. It is desirable, but it is certainly not enough.

We are aware of the position of the Israeli government which is not not facilitating the peace process in the Middle East, far from it. This peace process is very fragile and has not been working very well lately. There might be a perception-and this is important in the political world and in the everyday world-that this free trade agreement between Canada and Israel is be some kind of support for Israel. That is the most negative aspect of this agreement.

Speakers from the government side are telling us that we have to understand the difference between the two. This could have been specified through the various amendments moved in committee, by the Bloc members among others. These amendments were aimed at setting out, in the free trade agreement itself, Canada's foreign policy position.

It has to be understood that the agreement applies in the territory of Israel, including the Palestinian territories, and therefore that it will apply also in the territories Israel claims as its own, but that the international community would prefer to have dealt with during negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinians. They have not been a party to this process, but they will now be included, and that could be an advantage with this free trade agreement.

It should not be forgotten that, in the Canadian foreign policy, the occupation of these territories is considered illegitimate. The Canadian policy on this issue is that Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over the territories that have been occupied since 1967. These territories include the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. Canada condemns any unilateral action to predetermine the outcome of negotiations, including those on Jewish settlements, and to annex East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Canada considers these

actions are contrary to international law and do not in any way foster the peace process.

So, we have two separate policies, one on foreign affairs, and the other one on international trade, that run in different directions. The agreement does not even mention disagreement over Israel's policies. This is a weakness on the part of this government that is to be found in many areas of its foreign policy concerning human rights in general. This is a position of weakness, an acknowledgement of failure and helplessness. It is almost as if human rights are not a concern any more.

In many cases, this government has forsaken the international responsibility it had taken up. It had become a major player in various peace processes. Canada also had acquired an international influence. Today, it seems that we are just giving up. We are hiding behind this effort to make free trade areas wider, and we are claiming this will eventually help us improve situations we would like to change.

We should not be doing this right now, because we are sending mixed signals about Canada's foreign policy concerning the peace process in the Middle East.

Another complaint we have, and it concerns not only this agreement, but all free trade negotiations, is that we are always presented with a done deal, and there is not much we can do except accept or reject the whole thing.

Because of the negotiation process used for these kinds of agreements, Parliament, at least here in Canada, does not have a major influence or impact, and the views of the public are presented by their elected representatives during debate.

This is just a warning because I am sure that we will soon have before us a free trade agreement with Chile and the same negotiation process will have been used. A different approach would probably have given us the opportunity to ask questions or even to amend provisions or add parallel agreements on social issues and the environment, as we did with NAFTA, to ensure that those free trade agreements do not threaten our working conditions or our environment in any way.

There is something wrong with the agreement between Canada and Israel at that level. Maybe we can settle this issue in the future, but for the time being we have to consider what we have before us. I would like to remind the House that we will have to vote on the agreement as a whole and that if Parliament does not pass the bill it will delay the implementation of a very practical and nicely designed agreement which has been negotiated and concluded.

Not giving Parliament the opportunity to have a greater and more direct influence or impact on the negotiation of such international agreements is not a very healthy way of doing things in a democracy.

A word of caution. Canada has asked for protection for the swimwear industry under this treaty, which means that duties will remain in effect for another two and a half years. However, the imbalance is due to the fact that Israel can buy supplies from the European Economic Community, pursuant to the free trade agreement it has with the EEC, something Canada cannot do. So, the Canadian swimwear industry will be penalized or be at a disadvantage compared to Israel to the tune of 25 per cent, because Israel has signed a free trade agreement with the European Economic Community.

We should be concerned about the potentially very negative impact this could have on the swimwear industry, in Quebec in particular. My hon. colleague from Terrebonne has raised this issue several times but so far the government does not seem to be very worried. Let us hope that behind this facade the government is at least giving some serious consideration to the impact on the swimwear industry, particularly in Quebec.

The Bloc brought forward a number of amendments and I want to go over them because I believe they make of lot of sense. As a first amendment, we wanted to include, at the very beginning of the agreement, a declaration that Canada and Israel are committed to human rights and the principles of democracy and that their domestic and foreign policies must be based on that commitment.

It was a word for word rendering of clause 1 of the free trade agreement between the European Union and the State of Israel. Canada did not even consider it a good thing to include this clause in the free trade agreement between Canada and Israel. Why? The question is legitimate, since that would have shown somewhere that, while signing international trade agreements, Canada wants to maintain its positive influence on the peace process and send a clear signal to the State of Israel.

There is a second provision, in the suggested amendments, that would have explained that Canada's signing does not sanction in any way the position taken by the new Israeli government towards the peace process. Canada's position is quite clear if one looks at the foreign affairs policy, government papers and government speeches. Thus, why not state it again?

I must remind you that the government does not recognize Israel's control over the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. This could have been mentioned, emphasized and indicated during the negotiations, where both sides wanted to reach an agreement, so that everyone would be reminded of Canada's position on its foreign affairs policy. In this way, trade and human rights would not have been totally disconnected, as the government seems to be doing.

It is disturbing to see Canada shirk its responsibilities at the world level for the sake of economic interests alone. There are indeed limits to the benefits of economic development if this development is not backed by actions on the part of a government that assumes its primary responsibilities. Economic growth would still exist without the government, that is for sure.

That being said, the government must ensure that growth occurs in an orderly fashion, in accordance with the fundamental principles of society, from redistribution of wealth to equal opportunity, and respect for democracy. We must not abdicate these values, which are the very foundation of the state, simply so that some individual interests can benefit from agreements that could go against collective interests if they are not related to the fundamental workings of the state itself.

This is why the Bloc is worried about the schedule provided for the passing of this bill, although we are deeply in favour of free trade and convinced that there lies the future. Quebec is open to the world and it always has been. In this regard, Quebec has been a pioneer in Canada. Without Quebec, we could very well be only at the ratification stage, or even only at the negotiation stage, of the free trade agreement with the United States. Quebec played a major role in the process that led to the signing of the free trade agreement with the Unites States. I simply wanted to remind you of that fact in closing.

However, I am reassured by the fact that the present government has finally recognized the merits of free trade. It is reassuring for Quebecers to see that the day they will decide to take over their own political destiny they will have a free trade neighbour that has an interest in its economic development and, for that reason, an interest in negotiating with a partner with which its trade is 135 times greater than its trade with Israel. It is said that the volume of trade between Canada and Israel is about $500 million, but trade between Canada and Quebec represents more than $65 billion.

Understandably, under such circumstances, common sense will prevail, but that being said we, as a society, must not forget our responsibilities towards democratic values and human rights. I hope the government does not abdicate those responsibilities.

[Canadian Armed Forces, October 30th, 1996]

To listen to the minister, Mr. Speaker, even salaries should not be made public.

How can the minister put his head in the sand like that when, only last month, in a Federal Court ruling in the McCreery case on MPs' pensions, opposing the privacy commissioner and the Department of Public Works, Justice Richard concluded that this kind of public interest information could be disclosed? What are they trying to hide behind this separation payment?

[Canadian Armed Forces, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Two days ago, the President of the Treasury Board came to the rescue of the Minister of National Defence by supporting his decision not to disclose how much General Boyle's generous separation package would be. The minister is hiding behind the Privacy Act. But the act is clear: discretionary benefits are not included in the definition of personal information. For the minister's information, I am referring to subsection 3( l ).

How can the minister stand by what he said when the act, on the one hand, does not recognize discretionary benefits as personal information and, on the other hand, explicitly authorizes the disclosure of any other type of benefit in the public interest? To be more specific, I am referring to subparagraph 8(2)( m )(i).