Philippe Paré

[World Development Information Day, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, October 24 is World Development Information Day. This day is most important, especially in light of the fact that a United Nations development program report published last week showed a dramatic increase in the poverty level worldwide.

While extreme poverty is growing at an alarming rate, official development assistance is being cut repeatedly everywhere in the world, including in Canada. The government must respond to the United Nations' invitation because development is the antidote against poverty.

Considering how important it is for Canadians and Quebecers to be better informed on these issues, the official opposition is asking the Liberal government to reinstate CIDA's public participation program to support non-governmental organization initiatives in this area.

[Vietnam, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister has come back from Vietnam empty-handed, can he tell us what he now intends to do to bring about Trân Triêu Quân's release? Does he at least have a strategy in mind, any idea at all?

[Vietnam, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation. During an official visit to Asia last week, the Minister for International Cooperation announced an additional grant of $11 million to Vietnam. Once again, the question of human rights has been overshadowed by the government's desire to secure a good position in the Asian market, particularly in Vietnam.

How can the minister justify so much generosity on the part of Canada towards a country which is showing great willingness in its economic reforms, but a sorry lack of interest when it comes to respecting its own promises concerning the respect of basic civil and political rights?

[Mr. Trân Trieû Quân, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie.

Trân Trieû Quân has just been transferred to a labour camp, somewhere in the Vietnamese jungle, without any advance notice to Canadian consular authorities.

Since the new Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie will go to Hanoi in the coming days, will he pledge to make, on behalf of the Canadian government, an official request for the patriation of Trân Trieû Quân, and will he inform the House of the result of his efforts, as soon as he comes back here?

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate, at third reading, on Bill C-26. As you know, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill, which, like several others introduced in this House since the beginning of the second session of the 35th Parliament, does not at all take into account the interests of the provinces.

More specifically, this bill makes no attempt whatsoever to get the provinces involved in the management of fishery resources. During the debate at report stage, in June, the Bloc Quebecois tabled numerous amendments proposed by the hon. member for Gaspé, who sits on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, precisely to ensure that the provisions contained in the bill would force the federal government to take into account the provinces' interests regarding the management of marine resources.

The bill does refer to the provinces, but merely to put them in the same category as any other organization such as a municipality, a public or private law entity, an aboriginal organization, or a coastal community.

In spite of the nice rhetoric used by the Prime Minister and his lieutenants on progressive and co-operative federalism, the fact is that this government, like its predecessors, is unable to renew federalism because federalism is not renewable.

So, in June, the Bloc proposed amendments to the bill that would have allowed the provinces to get involved in the management of marine resources even though, according to the Constitution of 1867, oceans comes under federal jurisdiction. A true federal-provincial partnership could have been established to ensure the sound management of our marine resources.

Instead of promoting such partnership, the government preferred to turn a deaf ear and flatly rejected all the requests made by the Bloc Quebecois. Clearly, the government is adamant about holding on to these areas of jurisdiction and has no intention of sharing them with the provinces.

What are the arguments used by this government to continue to refuse to share this responsibility with the provinces? One is the requirement to comply with the UN convention on the law of the sea, which came into effect on November 14, 1994. According to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans during the June 10 debate, our proposed amendments went against this international convention.

In fact, on June 10, 1996, the parliamentary secretary said, as we can see on page 3606 of Hansard , and I quote:

Bloc Motions Nos. 15 and 16 regarding the continental shelf make the same erroneous implications, namely that the continental shelf could be within the boundary of a province. The continental shelf is well beyond provincial boundaries. To amend this bill as proposed by the Bloc would make Canada's new ocean statute contravene international law. This is neither proper nor legally correct.

It is important to note, by the way, that it is always easy for government members to accuse us of making erroneous implications rather than debate the real issues.

However, in the United States, the federation closest to Canada, at least physically, the central government shares with the States its responsibilities over part of its coastal territory. That does not mean that the United States are contravening international law. It does not prevent the United States from exercising unfettered jurisdiction over their coasts and territorial waters. It is rather a new vision of federation.

Another argument used to refuse to clearly state the role provinces could play in the management of marine resources is that it would go against the Constitution of Canada and it is not up to this House to make constitutional amendments. But that is nothing new. For the federal government, everything that is in Quebec's

interest goes against the Constitution. Again, I find such an argument rather astonishing.

Since the throne speech last February, the Prime Minister keeps on saying that Canadian federalism is constantly evolving, that we do not need constitutional amendments for the provinces to become more involved in various areas, that administrative arrangements are the way to go in the future.

In fact, when the time comes to adopt clear legislative provisions, when the time comes to share jurisdictions with the provinces or even to respect the provinces's jurisdictions, the federal government rejects Quebec's demands and falls back on a Constitution that is cast in stone.

Indeed the federal government shows little respect for the Constitution when it wants to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. That was the main point I wanted to make concerning this bill which, like many others, does not show any willingness to co-operate with Quebec and the other provinces on the part of the federal government.

This government is showing us once again that it does not want things to change, and Quebecers will clearly express their feeling about that the next time they are consulted about Quebec's future.

Of course, I am concerned about other aspects of this bill, particularly about the impact they will have on Quebec ridings that have a port.

First of all, concerning the whole issue of fees for services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, we feel the government is acting much too fast. The maritime industry is not totally opposed to some charging of fees, but it does want studies in order to find out the effects this would have. This is the reason the great majority of witnesses heard by the fisheries and oceans committee have called for a moratorium on coast guard fees. The impression we get from the government's attitude is that it wants to get its hands on considerable amounts of money without any regard for the consequences.

Another aspect of this bill which affects all ridings is the fees for pleasure craft. If such fees were charged, organizations in all ridings would be affected.

Non-profit organizations concerned with preserving the flora and fauna of our rivers and educating the public about these issues would be affected.

Funding of these organizations is partially public and partially private, and they will have to face the consequences. A group can own 10 war-canoes, 120 canoes or 20 kayaks, while another has 10 rowboats, 26 pedal boats, and so on. They will be affected by the fees provided for in the bill. The survival of these groups, which have always played an important role in the economic and social activities of the communities in which they are located, will be compromised.

[Oceans Act, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester, and I cannot help but conclude that this is just more double talk from a government that keeps quoting fine principles.

For example, the member said: "The spirit of this legislation is to bring stakeholders together. It is about national goals and national priorities. It is about sharing and working together". At the same time, this bill divides Canada into three different zones as far as navigational aids are concerned, each zone having different conditions, which means different fees. In the end, what we have here is the old philosophy of dividing and ruling.

[Petitions, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, of all Canadian institutions, surely the most controversial is the other house.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, the petitioners, 2379 in number, are calling upon Parliament to take steps to abolish the Senate.

[The Minister Of International Co-Operation, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in recent public statements, often partisan ones, the Minister of International Co-operation has criticized the official opposition for not having asked him anything in the House since his appointment.

In his speeches, the minister refers very little to international co-operation, preferring mostly to entertain his audience with questions relating to Canadian unity or the constitutional debate, since he realizes that his colleague in Intergovernmental Affairs enjoys precious little credibility in Quebec.

Yet, it would be worth his while to do more in his own area, and to question the unacceptable decisions made by his predecessor, André Ouellet, such as the abolition of the public awareness program, the use of double talk in defending human rights, the watering down of official development assistance through the NGOs and the propensity to favour only the private sector.

As you can see, we have an urgent situation here.

[New Agenda For Africa, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the UN carried out a mid-term review of its new agenda for Africa. This five-year program is aimed at helping the 47 nations on that disaster-stricken continent, including the 35 poorest countries in the world. Canada maintained only a discreet presence at this rather important meeting to deal with the pressing poverty problem.

Eliminating world poverty is one of the priorities of Canada's foreign policy. Despite this and although Canada has always favoured international forums, the government did not see fit to

send a ministerial representative to this meeting to debate these vital issues.

It just so happens that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in New York this week for the opening of the 51st session of the UN General Assembly. In light of the major differences between the two Canadian delegations, we question the government's real commitment to a priority it set itself. We hope this is only an honest mistake and not a decision to turn away from Africa and even from the UN.

[Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the ten clauses making up Bill C-54 have been pretty thoroughly covered. I will therefore take the opportunity provided by this bill to reflect on some of the important questions facing the international community.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the Soviet Union, a wind of liberalization and globalization of trade has swept the planet. And I imagine that, for the world's greatest economic power, the United States, it must be extremely frustrating to see that Cuba, a tiny country in Latin America, is standing in the way of this free trade movement.

Cuba is to the United States as David was to Goliath. For over 30 years, the Americans have tried by all the means at their disposal to bring down the Castro regime, but success has so far eluded them.

They undoubtedly thought that the liberalization of trade sweeping the planet would also sweep away the dictatorship in Cuba. However, I think they are reading it the wrong way. Instead of applying an even tighter embargo against Cuba, if they had taken the opposite approach a number of years ago, the Cubans themselves would probably have taken steps to throw off this dictatorship.

But the reaction of the Cuban people now that they are feeling oppressed by the United States is to stand behind their leader, and this is why the regime continues on, despite everything. It could have been completely different, of course. The whole Cuba-U.S. matter could have been different.

I remember a television program reviewing some of the main failed appointments in the history of mankind. What happened between Cuba and the U.S. was one of these failed appointments. The host of the show pointed out that, months if not weeks before President Kennedy's assassination, a French reporter had been hired to act as an intermediary between Fidel Castro and President Kennedy in organizing what would no doubt have been a historical meeting, which would probably have led to the resolution of this huge conflict between the two countries.

However, we know what happened in November 1963. President Kennedy was killed and the program host reminded us that Fidel Castro was crushed by this news, because he hoped the confrontation with the United States was coming to an end.

Of course, there is a direct link between the Helms-Burton legislation and the election, we must not delude ourselves about that. Just as we can almost be sure that there is a link between the United States' recent intervention in Iraq and the upcoming American elections, and that is unfortunate.

Obviously, this legislation is, or at least was, to strengthen the embargo around Cuba, in order to attract the votes of Spanish Americans.

Helms-Burton is an anachronistic measure since it goes against the tendency toward freer trade that has emerged over the last few years. Think about the length of the negotiations known as the Uruguay Round which led, in 1993, to the creation of the WTO. They lasted seven years. They were supposed to give us freer trade. Think about the NAFTA negotiations under the leadership of, if I am not mistaken, the United States. And here we are today faced with a piece of legislation that goes completely against this strong tendency toward freer trade.

Helms-Burton is an example of the inability of the United States to accept the fact that smaller countries also have rights and privileges. After the free trade agreement was finalized, we had the case of Norsk Hydro, a Quebec company, when the United States tried in every way it could to counter the effects of free trade and was finally successful.

We are all familiar with the softwood lumber story. The agreement was signed to promote free trade between Mexico, Canada and the United States and subsequently, the United States tried in every possible way, either directly or indirectly, to revise the content of the agreement. Finally, Canada was obliged to sign a schedule that would limit exports of softwood lumber to the United States for five years.

I will finish with a fable by La Fontaine. If we look at the U.S. attitude to trade, it is just like the fable of the wolf and the lamb. A little lamb was drinking water in a river, and the wolf was drinking up river. The wolf accused the little lamb of making the water murky, and the lamb answered: How could I, since I am down river? The wolf answered: If you did not do it today, you did six months ago. The lamb answered: I had not been not born six months ago. The wolf added: If you did not do it six months ago, it must have been your parents. The fable ends with the wolf eating the lamb. I think this is a little like the attitude of the Americans to measures they themselves created. They are just sabotaging the agreements they signed of their own free will.