Philippe Paré

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is not one Canadian or Quebecer who questions the importance and value of the five principles set out in the Canada Health Act. However, the greatest threat to these principles, in my view, is the underfunding the Government of Canada has caused these past few years by phasing out financing in these areas.

Does the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard recognize that this seriously threatens the principles he referred to and with which I totally agree? Reduced funding from the federal government may well place the provinces in a situation where,

while recognizing these principles as normal and necessary, they can no longer uphold them.

[Rwanda, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the massacre of thousands of Hutu refugees by the Rwandan army on Saturday raises many questions regarding the use of Canadian aid to Rwanda, which amounts to a hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 30 years.

There is a growing rumour that these funds may have been diverted and, in the light of disturbing revelations relating to the murder of Brother Cardinal, the government must reconsider its support and assistance to the regime currently in place in Rwanda.

Instead of being lax and complacent, the government must immediately check into this matter and release the findings of the special envoy it dispatched to the scene. Otherwise, one could wonder if the government is not backing, through its international assistance, a regime which has no qualms slaughtering its own refugees.

[International Development, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs treated the people working in organizations promoting awareness of international development abominably yesterday.

After cutting the funding of these organizations, which represents only one half of one per cent of the total aid budget, the minister had the nerve to insult the thousands of volunteers involved. By saying that if they really felt it was important to increase public awareness about development aid, they would do it for free, the minister was distorting the facts. The funds allocated to these organizations do not go to pay volunteers.

Furthermore, the minister would appear to be unaware of the incalculable consequences this measure will have on the network of solidarity and international co-operation. Rather than insulting everyone, the minister should reconsider this very hasty decision.

[Cida, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister, after spending nearly $1 million on the Canadian foreign policy review, ignore a joint committee recommendation to increase funding levels for the Public Participation Program?

[Cida, April 5th, 1995]

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

CIDA recently announced, at a week's notice, its intention to stop funding organizations involved in public awareness of international development that do not participate in overseas projects.

Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not realize that, in so doing, the government is chopping nearly half the international development network available to NGOs in Canada, although funds provided to these organizations amount to only half of one per cent of the official development assistance budget?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when a bad decision is made, nothing could be more justified than to try to delay its implementation. That is why the dilatory motion put forth by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is relevant and why I support it.

In the next few minutes, I will try to demonstrate how appalling the finance minister's budget is as far as the drastic cuts to official development assistance it contains are concerned. This decision without vision makes it clear why the government did not want to make any commitments in early February, when the Canadian foreign policy statement was released. Also, the excessive focus on trade in this new foreign policy is brought to light in the budget tabled on February 27.

The early 1990s signalled the end of any measure that would have enabled Canada to reach the target of 0.7 per cent of GDP for official development assistance. In the 1991 budget, aid spending on Eastern European countries and the Commonwealth of Independent States was increased at the expense of ODA.

In his 1992 economic statement, the Minister of Finance cut $50 million in the international assistance envelope. The 1994 budget called for international assistance to be reduced by another two per cent in 1994 and 1995, but what this budget says is quite different. Ignoring this commitment to cut only 2 per cent, the Minister of Finance decided to cut 21 per cent, or $532 million, from the development assistance budget.

In addition, the cuts announced between now and 1997-98 represent a shortfall of $1.3 billion for our international co-operation programs. As I said, these cuts mean a 21 per cent reduction in the total development assistance budget. I would point out to this House that the cuts to the Department of National Defence represent only 14.2 per cent. Surprising for a government that acknowledged the threats to our society in the post cold war period come, in large part, from development problems.

In 1994, the development assistance budget corresponded to 0.4 per cent of Canada's GNP; in 1997, the figure will drop to less than 0.3 per cent. This will make Canada one of the least generous of the industrialized countries, because this figure will be below the average of the OECD countries.

The budget of the Export Development Corporation grew by $155 million, whereas the budget of the voluntary sector of official development assistance will be cut by $45 million. Where is the logic in all this? The cuts to the budgets of NGOs lucky enough to still receive support are estimated at about 15 per cent.

The Bloc Quebecois' position on development assistance has always been clear, unlike the Liberals' position in their red book. It has remained consistent from the speeches by the Leader of the Opposition during the 1993 elections to debates in the House and in committee. Should I point out that the Liberals had set 0.7 per cent of the GNP as an objective for official development assistance?

We can understand, in a time of budget restraint, the government's making major cuts in the development assistance budget.

However, in light of the work done by the special joint committee, that assistance programs for volunteer organizations will be hardest hit by these cuts is totally unacceptable.

Last Friday, CIDA announced a 100 per cent cut in funding for NGOs working in the area of public awareness of international development among Canadians. This will take effect on April 1. The Bloc Quebecois obviously objects to these measures and to the way they were announced, with only one week's advance notice. I do not understand this budget measure. The savings the cut will generate only account for 0.5 per cent of the total official development assistance budget. The consequences and the chain reaction that this measure will set off on the international solidarity and co-operation network are inestimable.

One thing we can already be sure of is that the future of close to one hundred small NGOs which are mostly located in the outlying regions, already raise 50 per cent of their funding from other sources and co-ordinate the activities of thousands of committed volunteers, is in danger.

For a few years now a world-wide consensus has been emerging that these non-governmental organizations, which do remarkable work at little cost, are very efficient. It is in this context, and despite the speeches and commitments it made in front of international forums, that the Canadian government quite unexpectedly cut the funding of close to one half of the country's NGOs and is reducing by 14 per cent the funding of the remainder.

But most of the witnesses heard during the vast consultations led by this government on Canadian foreign policy were saying the opposite. Following these consultations, the Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canada's Foreign Policy recommended in November 1994 that public participation be considered a priority for official development assistance.

After rejecting the joint committee's recommendation, the government went so far as to cut this program's funding and seems to want to perpetuate the ambiguous mandate of CIDA, which is becoming increasingly interested in promoting international trade and less interested in accomplishing its main mission: promoting sustainable human development in the poorest nations of the world. Particularly as Quebecers and Canadians are adopting a new world vision of solidarity and sharing rather than building up armed defence.

It should come as no surprise that the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale represent more than 100 humanitarian agencies. These NGOs depend on the generosity and dedication of thousands of volunteers who donate their time and money to help the poorest and neediest men, women and children on this planet. Development aid must help reinforce co-operation between institutions and Canadian citizens and those in the third world, and the best vehicle to achieve that is the NGOs, whose people become part of the community they are helping.

Are we to conclude that with these new budgetary measures, the government has abandoned this network of solidarity between Canadians and the people of the third world?

Canada's annual budget for National Defence is around $10 billion; while the budget for development aid is only $2 billion. We can assume that the defence industry is anxious to keep it that way. However, the Canadian government cannot aid and abet these questionable choices indefinitely. To maintain this kind of gap between military spending and development aid is unacceptable.

If they are not prepared to be generous, the political leaders of this country should at least realize that development aid can be profitable for industrialized countries. In Canada alone, development assistance creates 45,000 jobs, supports 2,000 businesses and provides economic spinoffs for 80 colleges and universities. Every dollar invested, and it is indeed an investment, directly generates $6.42 in Canada.

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after strangely downplaying the importance of the increased number of suicides in the Canadian armed forces, and, in particular, among the military returning from peacekeeping missions, the Minister of Defence finally agreed yesterday to look into these tragic incidents.

The situation is very distressing. Why are members of the military more inclined to use external rather than internal resources to overcome the difficulties they face in adjusting on their return?

The official opposition wants answers to these troubling questions. It calls on the government to act quickly in this matter and make public the results of the Minister of Defence's internal inquiry.

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate on maintaining peacekeepers in Bosnia and Croatia more out of a sense of duty than of pleasure.

More out of a sense of duty, because it is impossible to remain indifferent to the drama taking place in the former Yugoslavia. It is not for pleasure, because the government is putting us in a very awkward situation. It is claiming to consult us, but we know that the UN mandate ends in 24 hours.

Moreover, the government never really took steps to inform the House of the results of earlier peacekeeping missions. Finally, it probably made its decision to renew the mandate several weeks ago.

They better not try to say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs consulted us seriously on March 14, asking us our opinion on the fly. They also better not say that our criticism of the government is criticism of Canadian peacekeepers.

The Leader of the Opposition was very clear on this point. He paid hommage to Canadian peacekeepers for their courage, their devotion and their professionalism. I therefore ask the hon. Liberal member to distinguish between criticism of the government and criticism of the peacekeepers. In fact, there is no criticism of the peacekeepers.

We have just reviewed Canadian foreign policy. Throughout our meetings, the former Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, now a senator, made light of Canada's situation describing Canada as the UN's emergency service. We have just issued a statement of policy. In the fall, the government issued its defence policy. Is there anything really different in the process we are starting today? Not a thing. It is the same as before.

At the San Francisco conference, which led to the establishment of the UN on June 26, 1945, following the second world War, people wanted to ensure that history would not repeat itself. Unfortunately, we have to admit that history has repeated itself. The UN charter introduced a new idea of universal security, and it was a Canadian politician, Lester B. Pearson, who, in the end, created peace missions as we know them today.

The new face of war and the increasing number of areas of conflict around the world require action by the international community. Finding ways to regulate and ensure international peace and security is one of Canada's responsibilities as well. Canada, a country renowned the world over as a leader in peacekeeping missions, can hardly run for cover now.

This debate also allows us to reflect on a certain number of subjects more or less on the periphery of the issue at hand. I would like to begin by reflecting on the role that television plays on the international community's responsibility. As much as we denounce the gratuitous violence typical of today's television shows, we must recognize that the journalists covering international issues heighten awareness in the international community, and in Canada, of the situation reigning in countries in conflict.

On this issue, I think that MPs cannot simply follow public opinion. It would be too easy to conduct surveys and then to apply the decision corresponding exactly to what Canadians and Quebecers want to see. MPs have a role to play in shaping public opinion and they cannot hedge on this issue indefinitely.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of renewing the peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia and Croatia, but I am in full agreement with the reservations which my colleagues have already expressed. I think that we should react to this situation in the way that we would if we were to see a person in distress.

If I were at home in my apartment and heard gunshots in the next apartment, I could not just shrug it off. Why should we then close our eyes and refuse to act when it comes to the international scene?

The role of peacekeepers is extremely important. It is essential in Bosnia-Hercegovina. They bring food and medical supplies, among other things, to people who are undeniably the victims in the situation.

They also ensure that some lines of communication remain open, without which life would become unbearable. They also logistically support NGOs like the Red Cross and the High Commissioner's Office for Refugees, which play a crucial role which could not possibly be undertaken without the peacekeepers.

Finally, regarding the need for the mission, everybody recognizes that if we pulled out of Bosnia, we would leave behind a void which would be filled with massive fireworks, it would literally be hell on earth.

I said earlier that we had begun to review Canadian foreign policy. We must realize that borders are a thing of the past. There is no denying the interdependencies between peoples. When someone pollutes the environment elsewhere, we in Canada are affected. Poverty in developing countries is also our problem because we all are responsible for what happens in the world. We cannot remain passive when we see human rights being violated. Population migrations always end up affecting us.

Some 50 Bosnian refugees recently immigrated to my riding. We cannot close our eyes and say: "It is none of our business. If they want to fight, let them fight among themselves". No. We have a moral and ethical responsibility in these matters.

Humanitarian action is one of the responsibilities of the international community. I recently attended a forum in Sainte-Adèle, north of Montreal, in which experts tried to link state sovereignty with the responsibility to take action against gross violations of human rights. We are moving toward the right to interfere, and the international community will have to come to terms with this in the future.

Of course, we have a number of reservations about the presence of peacekeepers over there. My colleagues talked about the psychological trauma experienced by our soldiers after or before they return home. I suppose that the Canadian Forces could do a number of things, perhaps better choose the soldiers or prepare them better. However, I do not think we can base our refusal to get involved on this factor, as tragic as it may be.

We often hear Canadians say that we cannot afford to intervene. May I remind this House that Canada spends $10 billion on national defence. I think it is a false argument to say that we cannot afford it.

The Canadian Forces should look for a new orientation. In the report on the policy statement, we suggested that the government review the make-up of the Canadian Armed Forces. Since peacekeeping is really what we are best at and are involved in on a regular basis, the whole National Defence structure should focus on this new make-up.

Mr. Speaker, I am out of time. But I would just like to remind the House that, if people are able to fight and kill one another, it is because there are others out there who are manufacturing weapons. in that regard, I want to denounce the fact that four permanent members of the Security Council manufacture 80 per cent of all weapons produced in the world. We will never denounce enough this kind of hypocrisy.

I will conclude with a quote from the Leader of the Opposition who stated on January 25, 1994: "what matters for the moment is to bear in mind that we must continue, insofar as our capabilities allow it, to fulfil our fair part of the obligations that result from our allegiance to the values of democracy, peace and justice, values which, given their universality, deserve our efforts to further them abroad".

[Burundi, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa told the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs that a wave of massacres, the likes of which swept through Rwanda last year, could hit Burundi this year.

By saying this, the Secretary of State has aligned herself with the Bloc Quebecois, which has already expressed concern about the deterioration of the political and social situation in Burundi.

In fact, the ethnic make-up of the two countries is very similar, Burundian extremists have been stepping up their operations and political crises keep on erupting. In addition, there has been no improvement in the situation of Rwandans who have fled to Burundi.

The federal government, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, must support the people and the Government of Burundi in their effort to find a lasting solution in their country. Canada cannot wait for a catastrophe to hit Burundi before acting.

[Tribute To Jackie Robinson, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in October 1945, Hector Racine, then president of the Montreal Royals, announced that Jackie Robinson was joining his baseball team. This signalled the beginning of the end of racial segregation in American and Canadian professional sport.

Yesterday, as we marked the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Montrealers paid tribute to Jackie Robinson, the first black to play baseball professionally.

Mr. Robinson played one year with the Montreal club, in 1946, before joining the Brooklyn Dodgers for a remarkable professional career.

On behalf of all those who remember Jackie Robinson, I would like to pay tribute once again to this great adopted son of Montreal, who led his team to victory in the international league in 1946.