Philippe Paré

[Human Rights, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on February 5, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said: "In terms of international relations, human rights may be considered a fundamental issue that is an immediate element of any relationship regardless of what else is involved".

For three years now, Tran Trieu Quan has been a prisoner in Vietnam in a matter of fraud in which he is the victim rather than the perpetrator. The policy of effective influence based on dialogue and encouragement has not produced any of the results we might expect.

The government continues to prefer a trade approach to international relations combined with a muted human rights policy. In November 1994, during his trip to Asia, the Prime Minister said: "-I prefer opening markets and trading; the walls will eventually come down".

In the prison where he has been languishing for more than three year, Tran Trieu Quan is still waiting for the walls to crack and let in the light of day. When will the government decide to speak up?

[Tran Trieu Quan, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on December 1982, Vietnam became one of the 127 countries that signed the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. By signing this covenant, Vietnam agreed to comply with certain international standards. However, that country is violating, with full impunity, the rights of Tran Trieu Quan, as guaranteed under that treaty.

Since the representations made by the government did not secure Mr. Tran's freedom on humanitarian grounds, the Minister of Foreign Affairs must now show political courage and confront the Vietnamese government, by invoking international law.

Given that the Vietnamese courts seriously violated the international standards outlined in the 1966 covenant, Canada has a right to stand up for Mr. Tran.

Why has the Canadian government not yet lodged an official protest, and what is it waiting for?

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member opposite defend Canada and its symbols. In principle, I have no objection to that.

We must, however, look at the expenses incurred by the Heritage Minister to promote Canada in light of the living conditions of real people. Would the 1.2 million children living below the poverty line in Canada be happy to wave the Canadian flag?

Would the millions of unemployed Canadians, whose number has not decreased since this government came to power, be proud enough to wave the Canadian flag? Are the millions of Canadians on welfare, whose number has actually increased since this government started making drastic cuts to social programs, ready to wave the Canadian flag?

The hon. member asks if it is wrong to promote Canada in Quebec. It is not wrong but it is rather pointless. If Quebecers were proud of the Government of Canada, we would not have to distribute flags. Pride is not based on symbols but on realities.

I will conclude by asking the following question to the hon. member: If Canadians are so proud of their country, why then did we have to give them flags to wave?

[Petitions, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Automobile Association from the Quebec City area remind us that a large part of the Canadian highway system is substandard.

Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to press the federal government to work with the provinces to upgrade our national highway system.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, generally the member for Rosedale shows less partisan politics and more rigour, as well as weighing his words a little more carefully.

To hear him speak just now, one would have thought we were listening to the Prime Minister defending the fact that he had never made promises. In the debate at hand, they are trying to have people believe that the Bloc members are against harmonization. That is absolutely not what it is all about. What it is about, is that their party made commitments during the election campaign.

One of its commitments was to eliminate the GST, because this was a detestable tax. This is not fabrication on our part, the Prime Minister said so.

The Bloc Quebecois is not against harmonization. I wish to ask him the following question, however: if harmonization of the two taxes in the maritime provinces is so desirable, and so favourable to economic development, why did he have to sweeten the pot to the tune of $961 million to get harmonization?

[International Development Week, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, International Development Week gives me an opportunity, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for international co-operation, to recognize the outstanding contribution of non-governmental organizations in this area. Efforts made here and abroad, in the north as well as in the south, to promote sustainable development deserve to be recognized and encouraged.

Over the years, Canada has established a very good reputation in development thanks mainly to the excellent work of our nameless ambassadors who sometimes put their life on the line like Father Pinard did.

Unfortunately, the official development assistance budget has been cut by 28 percent over four years, including the cuts that will be made during the present fiscal year. We have to confess that the present Canadian foreign policy emphasizes trade and not co-operation. Moreover it is ironic that the minister should talk about public education activities during this week, when CIDA has cut by 100 percent the subsidies to NGOs whose mandate it was in the public participation program.

Since the international cooperation minister urges us to think about international development issues, I am taking this opportunity to emphasize that the level of poverty throughout the world is rising, as mentioned in the report of the UN development program made public last October. Sustainable development is the very basis of a lasting solution for millions of people. Let us keep that in mind, especially during this week.

[Petitions, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Automobile Association reminds us that 38 per cent of the highway system is substandard and that both the United States and Mexico are now upgrading their own systems.

Finally, the petitioners call on Parliament to press the federal government to work with the provinces toward upgrading our national highway system.

[Radio Canada International, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, thanks in part to the pressure exerted by the official opposition, we learned yesterday that Radio Canada International was granted a last minute reprieve for another year.

Recently, in Ottawa, the Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed a group of people involved in foreign policy and in the communications and computer industries. The minister then proposed an international information strategy to allow Canada to exert a political, economic and cultural influence in the context of globalization.

The government is making the broadcast of Canadian culture and values a priority in its foreign policy. According to the minister, we must find a way to put our new technologies and expertise at the service of our country abroad, and to promote Canada throughout the world.

However, some consistency is required. If we are to keep open Canada's window on the world, it is essential to ensure the long term survival of Radio Canada International.

[United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to rise on this important day, on which the international community celebrates the 48th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It was no doubt at the time an important event. It was the end of the second world war and of all the atrocities it engendered. At the time, the 48 members of the League of Nations felt there should be a charter that would serve, as my colleague from Mount Royal said, as a sort of measure to assess progress or the lack of it.

However, certain questions arise. Was it a real desire to mark a new stage in the respect of human rights or was it rather vague declarations that might be described in popular language as wishful thinking? The answer no doubt lies somewhere in between the two. There was wishful thinking, because not a whole lot of progress has been made.

I refer, as proof, to the latest report of Amnesty International, which appeared in June of this year and which mentioned, and I will take the liberty of reading a few paragraphs: "Torture,

arbitrary detention, rape, mass executions, disappearances and human rights violations occurred in 146 countries in 1995". The report obviously criticizes the inaction of the international community.

We learned that there were human rights violations in 146 countries. The report goes on to say that 4,500 prisoners were tortured to death, 140,000 people disappeared and 2,900 people were executed. We might well ask then whether any progress has been made and whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights achieved the importance it might have.

We could talk about the complicity of the international community, because, in the end, countries are always trying to defend certain interests. There are outrageous paradoxes that we will never understand. How is it, for example, that the five permanent members of the Security Council alone manufacture 80 per cent of the world's armaments? And yet there they are on the Security Council. Do the words still have any meaning?

My colleague, the member for Bourassa, referred earlier to the sad history of genocides. He gave some examples. One is, of course, the elimination of six million Jews. Another is the cruel treatment of Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge. Another is the endless war in the Sudan, now in its tenth year, that is no longer even mentioned in the press, where the government is systematically fighting people in the south, who practice a different religion. There is the former Yugoslavia, of course, where Muslims have undoubtedly been persecuted by Croats and Serbs in equal measure. There is Rwanda, where close to a million people have died in ethnic wars.

The worst thing in the case of Rwanda is that the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development led a mission there in 1992.

They described what they said were all the conditions needed for genocide to happen. The report was submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations, nothing was done, and the inevitable happened. The genocide took place, and now we find ourselves in an extremely difficult situation in this region.

One of the major problems is the whole question of impunity. Rwanda, Haiti, and the former Yugoslavia are examples. Crimes against humanity are committed and the international community is unable to bring the guilty parties to trial and sentence them.

Remember what happened in Haiti after the military coup. General Cédras was finally persuaded to leave. He was showered with money to help him make up his mind. It was tragic to hear President Aristide, on his return, talking as though reconciliation were possible, when the rule of impunity was in place. In my view, reconciliation-and this is undoubtedly true in Rwanda as well-is not possible unless a minimum of justice has been done.

My colleague, the member for Bourassa, spoke of the need for tribunals. That is elementary. Ad hoc tribunals with minimal powers are established and, eventually, as it just happened in the former Yugoslavia, they try some individuals very low in the hierarchy, but the real culprits always manage to elude pursuit.

What can ordinary citizens do? There are a number of things that can be done. I referred earlier to Amnesty International. Any man or woman in this country may choose to work with Amnesty International to help free prisoners of conscience.

This morning, at the foreign affairs committee, we heard from a NGO known as PEN Canada. There is also a PEN Québec and PEN International. This organization is dedicated to having journalists and authors released from prison. It handles the cases of 900 individuals jailed for their ideas. This is another NGO the public can support financially or through volunteer work.

Here, we have the international centre for human rights, which is government subsidized. This is one of the good things this government has done in terms of human rights. The centre is already operating in a dozen countries, helping non-governmental organizations involved in human rights and other organizations in the civil society get established to ensure that they gradually develop the capacity to face arbitrary or military powers in these countries.

What is missing is any real political will. It is true in many countries, and in Canada as well, unfortunately. In its last foreign policy statement, Canada put trade relations before human rights. Such an action certainly does not do much in terms of promoting human rights around the world.

[Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on December 10, 1948, the members of the United Nations Organization signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In so doing, the political leaders of the time wished to record their determination to ensure that the horrors of the second world war would never be repeated.

The countries which have joined the United Nations since that time have also been bound by this declaration, which is as valid today as it ever was. One needs only to glance at a newspaper to realize that, in many parts of the world, numerous human rights violations are still taking place to this day.

On the occasion of this anniversary, we must recall to mind the events which prompted the international community to adopt this declaration, and we must remind ourselves that human rights are an integral part of every human activity, whether political or economic.

In this era of universalization, where world wide trade turns its back on social considerations, we must keep the commitment that joins us together clearly in mind, and we must make sure that our actions are in line with our words.