Philippe Paré

[Foreign Affairs, February 13th, 1995]

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

Almost a year ago, the Government of Vietnam threw Tran Trieu Quan, a Canadian citizen, in jail without laying any charges against him. Last December, Hanoi, through the good offices of Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs, put a price on Mr. Tran's freedom by demanding that his family pay what amounts to a $100,000 ransom. Two weeks ago, the Vietnamese government withdrew this offer.

How can the minister explain his decision to give Vietnam several millions of dollars in Canadian aid when that country disregards all rules of basic justice by keeping a Canadian citizen in jail without any formal charges?

[Interest Act, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to rise in the House to ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify an answer to a question I asked the Prime Minister Monday.

I had asked the Prime Minister which customary or parliamentary rule or law dictated that the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition could not meet the American President during the latter's upcoming visit to Ottawa, at the end of February. I also asked whether he considered it normal for a Prime Minister to tell the President of the United States what he can or cannot do.

Instead of answering my question, and being unable to find an excuse for his emotional, partisan and inappropriate reaction outside the House, the Prime Minister got tangled up in strange and confused explanations and talked about the letter the Leader of the Opposition had sent to Mr. Clinton requesting a meeting with him.

Finally, he said that, since the letter was addressed to Mr. Clinton, only he could respond to it. What we must understand from this part of his answer, Mr. Speaker, is that he could not tell the difference between a letter addressed to him and a copy of a letter sent to him as a courtesy.

The Prime Minister also lapsed into vaudeville and the absurd by pointing out to me that a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition was not a universal practice and that he, as Leader of the Opposition, had not always exercised this prerogative.

In fact he reminded me that the President of the United States, Mr. Zedillo, had not met with the Leader of the Opposition during his visit of last December. The Prime Minister must be reminded that Mr. Zedillo is the President of Mexico.

Except for his pitiful medical diagnosis of the Leader of the Opposition's state of health, which would make Hippocrates blush, the Prime Minister in no way answered my question. On what grounds did he decide that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean could not meet with the American President?

After having so clumsily avoided answering my first question, the Prime Minister gave no more of an answer to the second one I put to him. Let me repeat this question: Now that he admits that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has the right to meet with the U.S. president "will the Prime Minister promise he will not use pressure tactics or indulge in any behind-the-scenes manoeuvring to try to discourage the U.S. president from meeting the Leader of the Official Opposition?"

The Prime Minister's answer was short and sweet:

-in the normal course of events, President Clinton's letter should come from Washington, not from Ottawa.

As you can see, this is not a promise not to use pressure tactics. On the contrary. What is the meaning of the expression "in the normal course of events" in his answer? Does it not clearly indicate that, in fact, the Prime Minister is not ruling out a possible attempt to dictate the answer that will come from Washington? The Prime Minister has mastered the art of dodging questions, as he showed us again in this case.

[Department Of External Affairs Act, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today, in third reading, Bill C-47 to amend the Department of External Affairs Act. This is a bill of very little substance, containing almost nothing but changes in wording. It is not very innovative, and does not drastically change the way the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade operates.

All in all, this is a bill of little significance, which fits in nicely with the general level of the bills introduced by this government so far, since the opening of the session, in January 1994. Like the GATT agreements implementation bill, Bill C-47 makes cosmetic changes. It is therefore without much enthusiasm that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill which, after all, rejuvenates somewhat the old Department of External Affairs Act by giving it a more modern name.

However, the government could have taken this opportunity to make changes that could have had the merit of eliminating grey areas and clarifying certain aspects related to the purpose of Canadian foreign policy. We would have liked the new legislation to streamline the department's corporate structure by removing a few positions that have remained vacant since the Liberals came to power and which cannot be all that crucial if they have not been filled. I am referring to the positions of minister responsible for international co-operation, associate deputy minister, and co-ordinator for international economic relations.

I believe the position of Minister for International Co-operation is totally useless, since the current government does not deign to attach enough importance to international development to include in a piece of legislation the mandate and the principles governing the responsible agency. Why appoint another minister, or leave that possibility open, if that minister is going to be accountable to another department? Canadians no longer have the means to afford illusions. The government does not want to abolish positions which are deemed useless since they are currently vacant. Is its insistence that these positions remain in the act due to the fact that it wants to preserve its authority to make discretionary appointments? Do the Liberals have friends looking for jobs?

It is true that, considering the social program reform which they want to impose to Canadians, the Liberals probably do not wish to see their friends out of work. On a more serious note, I will try to show that the government missed a great opportunity to clarify its objectives in the context of official development assistance.

The day after the government tabled its foreign policy statement, it is appropriate to remember that there are three key objectives that will guide the government's activities on the international scene: the promotion of jobs and prosperity; the protection of our security in a stable international framework; and the sharing of our values and our culture.

Among the values that the government wants to promote, the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred, in his speech here yesterday, to generosity, compassion and co-operation. As well, the majority report of the joint committee reviewing Canadian foreign policy proposes that the government set the reduction of poverty in the world as the first objective for official development assistance.

That being said, how are we to interpret clause 7 in Bill C-47, and I quote:

The minister may develop and carry out programs related to his powers, duties and functions for the promotion of Canada's interest abroad, including the fostering of the expansion of Canada's international trade and commerce and the provision of assistance for developing countries.

In committee, the clause was split in two: A and B.

How can a foreign policy focus on promoting Canada's interests and at the same time claim that eliminating poverty is to be the goal of its official development assistance?

During the foreign policy review, many witnesses and experts stressed the need to clarify the objectives of official development assistance. The joint committee also reminded the government that it was not CIDA's role to promote trade. Unfortunately, clause 7 appears to maintain these inconsistencies. We would have liked to see another amendment to the existing legislation, specifically on international development. The official opposition in this House has already suggested that a specific legislative framework was needed for the Canadian International Development Agency. We believe that Bill C-47 could have provided for these changes. In fact, in our dissenting report on Canada's foreign policy review tabled last fall, we recommended such changes.

There would have been a number of advantages to adopting enabling legislation for CIDA. Separating Canadian official development assistance, once and for all, from any involvement in international trade is a prime example. In fact, the confusion today within the Department of Foreign Affairs about interests and objectives as they affect international development exists because there is no separation between trade and aid. The Auditor General made that clear in his latest report.

We certainly do not want to give the impression that it is wrong to promote Canada's trade relations. On the contrary. We too are aware of the fact that over 20 per cent of jobs in Canada are tied to our exports of goods and services. What we do not

agree with is the government's refusal to separate what should be separated, thus making official development assistance dependent on commercial interests. This is no doubt why the government made no commitment either in its policy on the gradual elimination of tied aid, despite the recommendation of the joint foreign policy review committee. The same recommendation was made by the development assistance committee of the OECD.

The official development assistance budget is suffering in all this confusion. Too many Canadian businesses are currently benefiting from CIDA funds that should go instead to international development, because of the ambiguity surrounding this issue. The priorities of the aid program simply cannot be linked to the objectives of Canada's trade policy. It is vital that CIDA be protected from the influence of the various departments it regularly deals with, often to the detriment of the aid itself.

CIDA's mandate should also have been clarified in a constituent act. However, we understand from the government's recent statement on Canadian foreign policy that such an act is not one of its objectives.

Yet the special joint committee responsible for reviewing Canadian foreign policy recommended, in response to pressure by Bloc Quebecois members of the committee, that Parliament pass a bill establishing the fundamental principles of development aid. It also recommended in its majority report that such development aid provided by the government be subject to regular review by committees of the House and of the Senate.

The response of the Canadian government was that, while the intention was noble and justified, the government did not intend to pass such a bill on the grounds that it would not necessarily serve the goals of aid and would reduce program flexibility. In other words, the government was of the opinion that legislation on development aid would be too restrictive.

By clearly establishing the goals of development aid and the mandate of the agency responsible for carrying out international cooperation programs, the government would evidently be forced to follow strict rules of conduct. It would probably no longer be possible to promote international trade via development programs or, at least, this would be somewhat awkward for a government which prides itself on being in charge of one of the most generous countries in the world.

Small gestures most often reveal the underlying agenda of a government, and, in this regard, clause 7 is quite revealing. Although the ministers of this government make speeches about eliminating poverty and reducing the gap between rich and poor countries, when bills are tabled in the House of Commons, other considerations always take precedence over Canadian and Quebecois values, even though the government claims it wants to promote them.

This comes as no surprise, considering that, in its February 1994 budget, the government cut the official development assistance budget, tightened unemployment insurance eligibility and forgot to address the inequities in the tax system that the official opposition had been pointing out for months.

It was with the same agenda that the government claimed to go ahead with social program reforms, while its real goal, which was finally announced by the Minister of Human Resources Development, was to cut the social program budget by $15 billion over 5 years.

Therefore, the government's method is the same whether it is dealing with domestic or foreign policy: it says one thing, but does another. Thus the meaning of the slogan of the foreign affairs committee's former chairman is becoming clearer: foreign policy reflects domestic policy and domestic policy reflects foreign policy.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois criticizes the government for not having clarified in this bill where it is going with its aid programs for the poorest countries of the planet. Instead, it satisfied itself with simply changing the name of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Instead of checking into a spa to rejuvenate and revitalize, it preferred to slap on more make-up. We can only wait for the next attempt.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, February 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to discuss the policy statement tabled in this House by the government. The numerous upheavals which occurred on the international scene over the last few years have made it more urgent than ever for Canada to review its position and to define what its new role should be.

This morning, the government finally released the new objectives of Canada's foreign policy. Bloc Quebecois members played an active role in the work of the special joint committee reviewing Canadian foreign policy. Canada's participation in UN peacekeeping missions, its development assistance, as well as its efforts to promote human and democratic rights explain to a large extent our country's international reputation.

Bloc Quebecois members hope that this will continue to be the case, and it is with that in mind that they took part in the work of the committee.

However, I wish to remind the minister that the Bloc Quebecois felt it had to express a dissenting opinion regarding certain recommendations contained in the majority report. Indeed, we felt that these recommendations were not likely to promote major changes in Canadian foreign policy. Consequently, we made recommendations to the government, based on what we feel is a more adequate reflection of the notion which Quebecers, among others, have of the world surrounding them.

We sought to propose to the government another foreign policy which would reflect our abilities, serve our real interests, and which would be based on our experience. It is obvious, when you look at the policy statement released today, that the government missed the boat. There is virtually no concrete commitment in that statement, except for a confirmation of the about-face made by the government, which is resolutely turning its back on the promotion of human and democratic rights, thus

relinquishing its historic responsibilities. I will get back to this later on.

Let me take a few moments to discuss the key objectives which, from now on, will guide the government on the international scene. The hon. member for Verchères will deal more specifically with the government's first objective, which is to promote prosperity and employment, while I will mainly discuss the second and third ones, which are the promotion of security and of Canadian values and culture.

First, as regards the issue of security, it is clear that the intentions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs are not supported by concrete action. Indeed, in spite of his being in favour of UN reform, which the minister feels is a pressing issue, he has no immediate steps to propose. Instead of immediately announcing the gist of the reforms this government will propose on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the UN, the minister has indicated he will wait until then to announce Canada's position on possible reforms.

Meanwhile, the UN remains incapable of taking effective action in the field, to prevent tragedies like those we have witnessed in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, the Sudan, and the list goes on. The minister does not seem to realize that reforms are urgently needed at the UN. The minister has been musing about this for more than fifteen months, but when will we see some concrete decisions? In fact, the minister is postponing decisions that should be made today.

What the minister had to say about some very important matters like the Arctic and non-proliferation of nuclear arms also merits careful scrutiny. The Arctic, the scene of constantly escalating militarism during the Cold War, should be given more serious consideration than what transpired from the minister's proposals. Instead of coming out in favour of a military withdrawal, pure and simple, from this territory, the minister proposes a plan for sustainable development to be implemented by the countries that share this immense territory.

What is the use of supporting this kind of scheme, attractive though it may be, if it is not supported by a firm Canadian position on the demilitarization of the area? Canada's firm position is reflected in a decision to spend $1 billion on submarines, as provided in the latest white paper on Canada's defence policy. Is that what the minister means by sustainable development in the Arctic? Would it not be preferable to start discussions on this very worthwhile objective now with our partners the United States, Russia and the Scandinavian countries?

The non-proliferation of nuclear arms is another case of the government not practising what it preaches. How can we expect Canada to have any credibility, when our position is in no way reflected in concrete policies? Would the minister not have done better to make exercising real control over our exports of nuclear products part of the government's trade policy?

As a world leader in the production of these strategic commodities, Canada undeniably has sufficient clout among the nations that buy our products. Here again, the minister prefers to take refuge in comments that seldom have much more than a cosmetic impact. It is really too bad the Minister of Foreign Affairs obviously was not listening to the many recommendations made by a host of witnesses who appeared before the joint committees on foreign affairs and defence.

Since it was elected, this government has constantly used consultations as an excuse, consultations that, unfortunately, are useless since the government lacks the political will to defend the convictions shared by Canadians and Quebecers.

With respect to the government's third objective, culture, the spearhead of Canadian foreign policy, I would like to point out right off that, once again, the Government of Canada is refusing to acknowledge and to address the problem of Canada's two constituent nations.

In their dissenting report, Bloc Quebecois members acknowledged that Canada needed anchoring against the overpowering culture of the United States. The government's approach in cultural matters, however, is based on the false premise that this is one nation with a single culture, a so-called Canadian culture. What is this Canadian culture, exactly?

Clearly Canada is having great difficulty defining itself. Its existential problem is that it is being torn apart by a double identity. The government's only response to this difficulty was to introduce the policy of multiculturalism. The minister is doubtless aware, as a Quebecer, that this policy is based not so much on a sociological analysis of the place of ethnic groups within Canada as on a desire to impose a single and common vision of Canada.

In our opinion, however, any policy intended to project the image of a homogeneous and unified Canada abroad can only lead to a denial of Quebec's culture. What the federal government is trying to do, in fact, is to use culture as a tool abroad to further marginalize and downplay Quebec's identity. Quebecers see through its scheme.

Before broaching the subject of international aid, I would like to consider for a few moments the issue of human rights. In his policy statement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated, and I quote, "Human rights will remain a priority in the area of international aid". And later on, "The government will give priority to supporting democracy throughout the world in the years to come". In fact there is nothing concrete to support this wishful thinking on the part of the government.

What aspect of the policy statement released today establishes democracy and human rights as fundamental elements of Canada's foreign policy? Could the minister tell us this? What are the fundamental elements of foreign policy? The government simply dismissed this role, which suits its purposes, all the while refusing to truly entrench it as one of the basic principles of its foreign policy. It does nevertheless include some of the values shared by Canadians and Quebecers as a whole.

Canada's foreign policy should instead demonstrate unfailing consistency and openness in this regard if it wishes to maintain the wealth of respect and prestige acquired by Canada and which a sovereign Quebec nation would like to perpetuate.

The government quite simply lacked the will to ensure that the key elements of its foreign policy in respect of democracy and human rights be made into guidelines by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and by CIDA. The government could have done this with the collaboration of non-governmental agencies and commercial corporations.

Such guidelines might have included a compulsory schedule for analyzing situations involving systematic and flagrant violations of human rights and could have been developed quickly. Instead, the government is satisfied with a statement that is meaningless since it suggests no concrete action.

Regarding international aid, the government has once again missed the opportunity to be innovative in the renewal of its foreign policy. While, as we know, CIDA is being submitted to all kinds of pressures, preventing the agency from meeting its main objectives, the government failed to give it a constituent act clearly defining its powers and mandate. Currently, too many commercial considerations enter into some of the projets funded by CIDA.

From now on, international aid will have to serve Canadian commercial interests first and foremost. The government made itself very clear on that. We believe, on the contrary, that the main objective of aid should be to provide the poorest nations of the world with the tools necessary to develop at a sustainable pace.

What kind of mechanism is the government putting in place to ensure that public aid to development is only used to this end? No matter how hard we look, we cannot find any. Instead, the fact that priority will be given to commercial interests will result in cancelling the benefits of the Canadian public program of aid to development and contribute to widening the gap between rich and poor nations. The Quebec association of international co-operation agencies had also pointed this out to the governement.

As far as enhancing the role of NGOs in the delivery of aid programs, the government is saying no. The Bloc Quebecois' dissenting report and the committee's majority report agreed, however, on this issue: NGOs should have been granted a larger percentage of official development assistance.

In conclusion, I am inclined to say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have benefitted from attentively reading and taking into consideration the recommendations made by the official opposition in its dissenting report.

The government preferred not to respond to the observations and recommendations made by the official opposition in its dissenting report; this did not enhance democracy. Unfortunately, the policy statement issued by the minister this morning gives very few specifics. It is incoherent and short-sighted and is another demonstration of the federal government's inability to respond to the vision that Quebecers have of the world that surrounds them.

It is more important than ever that Quebec finally be able to be fully active on the international scene, to express its own hopes and to defend its own interests.

[U.S. President's Visit, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, now that he no longer objects publicly to a meeting between Mr. Clinton and the Leader of the Official Opposition, will the Prime Minister promise he will not use pressure tactics or indulge in any behind-the-scenes manoeuvring to try to discourage the U.S. president from meeting the Leader of the Official Opposition?

[U.S. President's Visit, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Obviously put out by the Leader of the Official Opposition's request for a meeting with U.S. president Clinton during his official visit to Ottawa on February 23 and 24, the Prime Minister objected to such a meeting. Yesterday, his Minister of Foreign Affairs set the record straight and stated that the government would not object to a meeting between the American president and the leader of the official opposition.

Could the Prime Minister indicate on what grounds he objected to this meeting on Friday? Could he also explain since when a Canadian Prime Minister dictates whom an American president may or may not meet?

[Message From The Senate, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 9, I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister about the Prime Minister's timid stand on human rights and the Canadian government's inability to guarantee the security of Canadian business people travelling abroad.

I made particular reference to the case of Mr. Tran Trieu Quan, a citizen from the Quebec City area who has been held prisoner in Hanoi for over eight months by the Vietnamese authorities. Charges have yet to be laid against him, which leads us to conclude that Mr. Tran is being unjustly held and that the Canadian government should demand his unconditional release without delay.

In answer to the first part of the question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade said that "the Canadian government has raised the issue on several occasions". We in the Official Opposition cannot forget that during his Asian Tour with Team Canada, the Prime Minister never talked publicly about the important issue of human rights. To justify his cowardice, the Prime Minister said that he was afraid that Canada would be made fun of.

As regards the outrageous situation experienced by this Canadian who has been held prisoner in Hanoi for more than eight months now, the parliamentary secretary is merely taking note of the question.

Why is the Canadian government unable to impose the only possible solution, that is to say the release of Mr. Tran, who is being held illegally in a country where Canada just opened a chancellery in Hanoi and a trade office in Ho Chi Minh City, in addition to having been involved in the settlement of the arrears owed to the International Monetary Fund? Let us be frank: the Government of Canada is directly financing a government that is holding a Canadian prisoner. Some justice, Mr. Speaker!

The second part of my question dealt with the Canadian government's inability to ensure the security of Canadian business people abroad. In this regard, this whole affair has already taken its toll on the Quebec business community. For instance, the Sainte-Foy Chamber of Commerce recommended that its members stop trading with Vietnam. Last Friday, this organization also announced that it would recommend that chambers of commerce across Canada and Quebec adopt the same policy as long as Mr. Tran is held prisoner by the Vietnamese authorities.

How then are we to understand the Deputy Prime Minister's answer, and I quote: "I have personally reviewed every comment made by the Premier of Quebec when he was the host of the governor of a Chinese province and, each time, he adopted the same policy as the Government of Canada"? First, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister that Vietnam is a sovereign state and not a Chinese province. Second, I would remind her that if I want to question the Government of Quebec, I would not do it through the House of Commons.

Lastly, I am pleased to see that the Deputy Prime Minister admits that Quebec has the ability and the know-how to establish an international policy independent of the federal govern-

ment's. If that were not the case, I would really like to know why she would waste her time reading and studying the public statements made by the Premier of Quebec on various subjects relating to foreign affairs.

However, this partisan stand of the Deputy Prime Minister clearly shows the Canadian government's insensitivity to the fate of Mr. Tran, a Quebecer held prisoner in Vietnam.

[Human Rights, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, seeing that the Canadian government is unable to resolve the Quan case and obtain guarantees for the safety of Canadian businesspeople, how can the Deputy Prime Minister pretend that business executives will accept such risks in their future trade relations with Asia?

[Human Rights, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. A few weeks after the Prime Minister's pompous economic mission to Asia, it is important to bring up the sad story of Tran Trieu Quan, a Canadian businessman held prisoner in Hanoi for over eight months without any charges being laid against him. This case could help us better understand the new attitude of a government that considers respect for human rights less important than trade relations.

Are we to understand that if the Prime Minister took such a timid stand for human rights in Asia, it was because of his inability to protect the fundamental rights of this Canadian prisoner in Vietnam?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to emphasize the following point: federalists seem to have been caught unawares and to be panic-stricken. They use everything, every false statement they can think of, to try to show that the process initiated by Quebecers does not meet their standards.

The leader of the Reform Party started by saying that he thinks that the Quebec government's draft bill is illegal. I am sure that the Premier of Quebec had everything checked out before initiating this process. In fact, we are confident that the bill is in accordance with Quebec's Referendum Act.

Second, federalists have been talking all morning about democracy. This has me very puzzled. Federalists are now trying everything to convince Quebecers, especially federalists, not to take part in this process. If democracy is being abused, it is by the federalists who are trying very hard to ensure that Quebec federalists do not take part in this democratic experience.

If we were dealing with an extremely complex draft bill, comprised of hundreds of clauses that the average citizen would have a hard time understanding, they might have good reasons to be concerned. But the draft bill is made up of just 16 very straightforward clauses that only set out the definition of sovereignty that is generally accepted in Quebec. So, this definition does not take anyone by surprise, except the federalists who still think that they can convince Quebecers by making empty speeches on the beauty and the sheer size of Canada.

For the last 50 years, Quebecers have been trying slowly but surely to show that they do not feel at ease within the Canadian federation. They have been expressing their feelings in a very special and original way, by creating brand new political parties that can be found nowhere else but in Quebec. Here are a few of those parties: the Action libérale nationale, the Union nationale, the Bloc populaire, the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale, the Rassemblement national, the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. Why have Quebecers felt, for the last 50 years, the need to have their own tools to promote Quebec's interests? Obviously because the big parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, federalists by definition, have never been able to get in touch with the soul of Quebec. So do not talk to us about democracy!

Federalists also seem to have forgotten some important historical events. I would like to remind them that 14 countries were present at the Madrid Conference in 1880. In 1920, 47 countries were represented at the very first general assembly of the League of Nations. In 1945, representatives of 50 countries witnessed the signing of the Charter of the United Nations, in San Francisco. In 1990, there were 175 countries and it is estimated that in 5 or 10 years, the number of countries will reach 200. This goes to show that nations have understood that sovereignty helps to correct inequities. By becoming sovereign,

smaller nations reach the same level as bigger countries. This is essentially what Quebec wants.

In conclusion, I would like to put a question to the leader of the Reform Party: Does he think that the people of Quebec are a nation?