[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, June 13, 1996
.1540 
[English]
The Chairman: I'd like to call this meeting to order.
Before I welcome the minister on your behalf, I'd like to draw to your attention a couple of procedural items. Mr. Mills has two motions he would like to move, and since he has to leave early, Minister, I wonder if you would give us the opportunity to deal with those issues. I think we can deal with them fairly quickly.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): You got the first one this morning. It's to reduce vote 10 of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade budget estimates by $64.5 million. This reduction is basically due to the downsizing of UNPROFOR. UNPROFOR doesn't exist any more and is now budgeted at$86 million, and because IFOR has taken over and came into effect April 1, 1996, it seems like an unnecessary budgetary item. It really doesn't change a lot, but it seems that this item shouldn't be in the budget. So I move that motion.
The Chairman: Maybe the parliamentary secretary can tell us how he's spending $84 million on something that doesn't exist.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso): It existed until April.
The member is right that because UNPROFOR no longer exists, the expenditure for UNPROFOR will probably be less than the $86 million budgeted. However, we are unsure how much less, so it would be inappropriate to accept the motion that the member has made because we don't know at this point how much out of that $86 million will be required for the expenditures accruing to that particular operation. In addition, it is possible that there will be other peacekeeping operations. If there were, that would be a budget from which the funds could be drawn.
While I appreciate Mr. Mills' intention in making his motion, I don't think it can be supported because the reduction in expenditures to that operation is not known at this time. I would argue against the motion.
The Chairman: Is that explanation satisfactory, Mr. Mills?
Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): What Mr. LeBlanc has just described is that it's no longer the UNPROFOR budget; it's now a slush fund.
Mr. LeBlanc: That's not what I said.
The Chairman: No, it's the IFOR budget.
Mr. Mills: There is an IFOR budget as well.
Mr. LeBlanc: Two things could happen with the funds if the $86 million is not spent, and it probably won't be spent on UNPROFOR. It will either not be spent or it will be a reserve that could be used in the next year for additional peacekeeping operations Canada may be asked to participate in.
In the past we've had to resort to supplementary estimates for peacekeeping operations, sometimes significant supplementary estimates. I think that for this year the prudent course is to allow the $86 million to be allocated for that item, to see what the item will be next year, and to see how much of that will in fact be spent on peacekeeping, either as UNPROFOR or any successor missions, which of course will be fully discussed before Parliament.
The Chairman: I take it, Mr. Mills, that you wish still to have this -
Mr. Mills: I would rather that the money not be spent and that supplementary estimates be done for new peacekeeping. That keeps it clean and neat, as opposed to sliding it from one place to another without accountability.
.1545
Mr. LeBlanc: In that case, we disagree. I don't think there's any more to be said about it.
The Chairman: I don't think we need to debate this any further. May I suggest that we put it to a vote, Mr. Mills?
Mr. Mills: Sure.
Motion negatived
The Chairman: We'll give you another crack at it, Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills: I move that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, without any further delay, write a letter to the ambassador from the People's Republic of China expressing our disappointment with China's decision to carry out further nuclear tests, and call on the Chinese government to cease these tests immediately and to join in the global moratorium.
The Chairman: I'd like to ask the direction of the committee members. If committee members believe this is an issue we should debate, I will consider this a tabling of the motion and we will debate it after we've heard from the hon. minister. If it finds general acceptance by the members present and they'd like to vote on it right away, we can deal with it immediately.
Mr. LeBlanc.
Mr. LeBlanc: I think your suggestion to table the motion for a period of time is wise.
The Chairman: I will do that, then. I'll consider this a motion to table the motion, Mr. Mills. If you're not able to be here later this afternoon, we'll certainly deal with it before the end of the afternoon. Thank you very much.
Hon. Minister, sorry to keep you waiting. Once again, welcome to the committee. Thank you very much for taking the time to come. I understand you're accompanied by the Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia-Pacific, Mr. Edwards; and by Mr. Garson from CIDA. Welcome.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman and colleagues from the House of Commons. I'm honoured to be asked to the committee.
As the chairman mentioned, accompanying me around this table are Mr. Len Edwards, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia-Pacific, and also Ron Garson from CIDA. Sitting at the back are Pat Malikail, the assistant director in charge of the China desk; Bryan Burton, in charge of the south Asia region; and Ron MacIntosh, my liaison with the department.
Mr. Chairman, in this appearance I would like to concentrate on dealing with the policies and the practical administration of our policy in that region. I will try not to deal with the budgets, as those items will be handled by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, and also maybe by the Minister for International Trade, Art Eggleton.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the Asia-Pacific region represents one of Canada's greatest foreign policy challenges. The Asia-Pacific countries are undergoing a profound social, economic and political transformation. Incomes are rising, people are moving into the cities and travelling internationally. As a result, the emerging middle class in Asia is turning more to considerations of political freedom, improved infrastructure and living conditions, and sustainable economic development. The Asia-Pacific region still has a long way to go in these areas, but the views of this emerging middle class cannot be ignored.
Over the past two and a half years I have travelled extensively through the region promoting Canada's interests. Those interests can be summed up in our overall foreign policy in Asia. It is based on three pillars: economic prosperity, regional security and sustainable development, including human rights issues and the rule of law. I would like to take a moment to speak about each of these three pillars.
In 1993 our government was elected on an agenda of jobs and growth. One of the key goals of that agenda is to dramatically increase Canada's trade activity in the rapidly expanding Asia-Pacific region. I'm pleased to report that Canada is doing really well in this region, better than ever before. After a one-year increase of 20% in 1994, 1995 exports rose by another 30% to $26.5 billion, over half of our non-United States trade. Last year our sales to Japan rose a remarkable 24% to over $12 billion in 1995. In Hong Kong our sales increased by 50%, in Malaysia by 96%, in India by 64%, and in Pakistan by over 100%.
.1550
The Asia-Pacific region offers some of the fastest-growing markets in the world. These markets are as varied as the countries themselves. They present opportunities for almost every sector of Canadian business, and they present a challenge. The language, society and business culture are very different from North America's. However, the dynamic markets and the sheer size of the opportunities make the challenge worth while.
Team Canada missions to China in 1994 and to India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia this past January have led to over $17 billion in new business deals and follow-up activity. Other missions led by other Canadian ministers and me have also promoted our commercial interests and through that, jobs and growth at home. It is estimated that every $1 billion in trade or export creates 11,000 jobs here in Canada. These missions also demonstrate to Asian leaders that Canada intends to become a major player in this region for many years to come.
When the Canadian Chamber of Commerce recently surveyed executives who participated in the January 1996 mission, it found that 94% of respondents felt that Team Canada helped open doors for them in key markets, and that these initiatives should be continued. As well, 90% saw the mission as giving their companies added momentum in their business development objectives.
The second pillar I would like to briefly address is regional security. Indeed, protecting our security is a key part of our foreign policy. Our economic and commercial objectives in the Asia-Pacific depend on the continuance of peace and stability. The end of the Cold War has changed much in the world, but the regions still have problems and a number of them are of direct interest to Canada.
One important matter we are watching closely is Hong Kong's transition back to China in 1997. Other questions in Asia-Pacific include the possible resumption of tension between China and Taiwan. The progress of talks on trade, economic cooperation, and direct air links and sea links will be key to watch. We face a potentially dangerous conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, especially in the context of continuing nuclear rivalry. We are concerned with the situation on the Korean peninsula. There is a 13-year-old brutal ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka that shows few signs of permanent resolution.
Sustainable development in Asia is critical to global environmental security, and clearly it must also be an integral part of our policy towards Asia. It is estimated that by the year 2000 there will be 30 Asian cities of more than 5 million people. By the year 2015, 17 of the world's 27 major cities will be in Asia.
Finally, I would like to take a moment to touch on the third pillar, the main reason I became involved in politics - human rights. From the experience I had with human rights issues, I decided to contribute to the democracy of my country, Canada, and as a result am proud to be the member of Parliament for Richmond, British Columbia. I'm proud that respect for human rights is an essential part of my government's foreign policy.
.1555
For the past two and a half years I have worked to promote human rights in countries in the Asia-Pacific, while at the same time clearly enunciating that our relationship with countries in the region cannot be reduced or simplified to a trade versus human rights argument. We believe that systematic and wide-ranging contact will lead to calls within Chinese society for greater openness and freedom.
Certainly there is evidence that increased political flexibility is a by-product of economic liberalization, and governments that have opened their markets to international trade are more sensitive to the views and reactions of other countries. An inward-looking society that depends little on trade and international investment is less likely to respond to concerns raised by foreigners. Trade reduces isolationism. Trade also expands the scope of international law and generates the economic growth required to sustain social change and development. Economic liberalization also leads to a pluralization of interest groups in society.
Nevertheless, it is imperative that we as a government continue to raise the matter of human rights with those countries we believe to be in violation thereof at every opportunity. While we respect time-honoured traditions and cultures, our position has always been that the best guarantee for stability and prosperity is a government that is responsive to its people. As a matter of policy, our government will continue to work with other countries to ensure that they respect their obligations under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
On a bilateral basis, we have also expressed our concerns on human rights to the leadership of several countries in the region. Indeed, during my most recent visit to China last month I personally voiced my concern about human rights in China in my meetings with several officials, including the foreign minister, Qian Qichen. I have done the same in many other countries in the region, including Vietnam and Indonesia. I have also met with both human rights officials and activists in India to discuss such issues as the troubled Punjab region in India, and with both Pakistani and Indian officials to discuss the ongoing problems in Kashmir. Indeed, wherever appropriate, I continue to raise Canadian concerns for human rights whenever I meet with my Asian counterparts.
At the same time, our government engages in constructive projects with our Asian partners on questions of human rights. CIDA continues to do great work in this area. As I clearly saw last month in China, for example, CIDA's China program has contributed to China's economic reforms and gradual opening, mainly by creating links between people and institutions; transferring skills, knowledge and technology; and exposing thousands of Chinese to Canada, its values and governance modes.
There are those in Asia who argue that democracy is not appropriate in Asia because it is alien to Asian values such as Confucianism. I totally disagree. As I stated in China last month, the ruling class always elaborates this in its own self-interest and manipulates Confucianism to support its own cause. As far as I'm concerned, democracy and freedom of thought are well entrenched in Confucian thought.
In closing, I'm convinced that our government's focus on the Asia-Pacific and our explanation to Canadians for that focus is perhaps the best example to Canadians of our government's red book philosophy. In short, exports create jobs and jobs create wealth for Canadians, thus helping to reduce the deficit and to maintain many of those programs, such as health care, that have made our country the envy of the world.
The expansion of business ties across the Pacific and throughout Asia will take persistent efforts, but I'm confident those efforts will succeed. I believe we can build on the improved market access resulting from the Uruguay round and the progress made bilaterally with a number of individual countries. It will take well-targeted trade, investment and tourism promotion efforts. It will also benefit by our enthusiastic participation in regional institutions, above all the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC.
.1600
In this regard I was proud to announce last November that Vancouver will serve as the site of the 1997 APEC summit and ministerial meeting. This will provide a great opportunity to showcase Canada to our Asia-Pacific partners. APEC 1997 is an excellent occasion to demonstrate Canada's character as a Pacific nation and an active partner in the region.
Success in the Asia-Pacific means a commitment not only over time but across many fields of human endeavour. It covers personal ties between leaders; acceptance of certain responsibilities in areas such as peace, human rights and democratic development; recognition of the value of educational and cultural links; ensuring of experience in specific areas such as research and development, environmental preservation or other challenges of public policy.
For me there is a special meaning to the engagement - the mobilization of Canadians of Asian origin in the building of our Asia-Pacific partnerships. Canadians of Asian origin, whether representatives of big companies or entrepreneurs from our dynamic small and medium-sized firms, can contribute to the national efforts we need. They will add empathy to our Asia-Pacific ties, the kind of cultural affinity so long of benefit to our North American and European links. Much of our success in realizing our own aspirations in business will have to do with the success we have in linking our peoples.
I've been trying to do my best in this effort and will continue to do so. That's my presentation, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister.
I would ask the members of the committee if we could depart from our usual procedure and let Mr. Bélair go first because he has to be in the House at 4:15 p.m.
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Superior): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've just received a note that debate has been delayed and I will not be speaking. So feel free to go on.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): It's a pleasure to meet you, Minister Chan.
Before I begin, I would like to point out that there may have been an omission in one of the versions of your document. On page 4 of the French version, we read:
- Fidèle à sa politique, notre gouvernement continuera de travailler avec les autres pays pour que
la Chine honore ses engagements...
- However, the English version does not mention China and refers instead to the countries of
Asia. It may be useful to point this fact out so that a correction can be made in the document; it
most certainly is an involuntary omission.
[English]
Mr. Chan: Thank you for the question.
It is not only a philosophy; it is in practice that we can see improvement. I'll take the example of China, which I am most familiar with. If you compare China five years ago to now, or the improvement over the last five years and over the last twenty years, twenty years ago China was in a situation like North Korea. The massacre in 1989 was a setback, but after two years, in late 1991 and early 1992, the government started to open up more of the country. Compared with before the massacre, when only fourteen cities along the coast were open to reform, now the whole country is opened up for reform, except places like maybe Tibet, where there is still a lot of political instability. This is a fact.
.1605
Also with individual civil liberties, there's a great improvement in China for the average citizen. We highlighted that the treatment of dissidents and human rights activists is still very harsh. The government takes no time clamping down on human rights activists. But for the average citizens who are not advocating political changes, their freedom has greatly improved in the last three or four years. I will cite three examples.
Before 1991, when they wanted to move between between villages or from the village to the city, they needed a visa. They needed permission from the local authorities or else they could not move out of the village. That condition is gone. People are much freer to move around inside China from village to village, from village to city. The freedom of movement is much improved in the last four years.
Second, the food rationing is gone. Just three years ago they still needed a coupon in order to buy cereals, or else they would have to go to the black market. Because of the free market economy this condition by which they used to control people, the food rationing, is gone. They no longer need a coupon to go to the market and buy cereal. So that's an improvement.
The third example I would like to cite is that before, when you graduated from university, high school or any school, you would be appointed to a job and you didn't have the right to refuse it. Now because of the market economy, there's freedom of choice of career in China.
Those are the improvements induced by economic reform in China. I could cite similar things for other countries.
The Chairman: I was happy, Minister, that you said economic reform. Your earlier use of the term ``reform'' had Mr. Morrison salivating at the thought of a billion votes.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: May I be allowed to answer, even though I may not have time to ask as many questions? I forgot to bring an article by Claude Piché published in La Presse last week, which marked the fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre and referred to an increase in Canadian investment and the persistence of a certain political instability in terms of human rights, children in orphanages, etc.
He wasn't saying exactly the same thing you are today. If ever you could get your hands on that article and comment on it, I would appreciate it. However, I do note that political stability is not a premise for Canadian government investment in the countries identified in your document.
We often hear about a correlation between political instability and problems with economic growth. That's not necessarily the case in Hong Kong, Pakistan or India. The figures that you've given us prove the opposite and I'm very satisfied with them.
Another document published by your department entitled Canadian International Trade Strategy, points out on page 43 that Canada wants to increase its market share in East Asia. Does the government have a specific plan to increase this market share and if so, how does it intend to achieve this?
[English]
Mr. Chan: Yes, we do. Now we have more focus for the countries. For example, in Japan we have a plan with a ten-point focus on sectors that have a competitive edge. We have published a package focusing on India and giving a lot of details about the opportunities in India.
Besides having policies toward the individual countries, we also came up with the idea of the Team Canada concept to give the political support behind our business communities. The Team Canada concept, for example, is one of the biggest diplomatic undertakings by any country's standards. This has really put us at the centre of the map.
.1610
I still remember in the beginning when I took over the portfolio, on my first travels to that region I often encountered statements like, where were you? - that Canada had not been in the region and that our ministerial visits were scarce and far between. But the Team Canada effort really signals to the Asian countries that we are a Pacific nation and that we want to be, and that we are very serious in doing business with them.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Perhaps you forgot my first premise. Can it be said that political stability is not an essential condition to growth and investment or economic growth?
[English]
Mr. Chan: It is, but when we talk about political instability we have to compare now with before because of the openness adopted by most of these countries - for example, Indonesia and India. Because of their open-door policies and the economic reform policies they have adapted, they have created a comparatively stable environment compared to that of the past. This is why it has stimulated economic growth in those regions.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I don't want to enter into a debate, but opening up a country to economic ties is not necessarily synonymous with political stability; I'm referring here to governments. We see the problems of Tibet in China, Hong Kong with Taiwan, India and Pakistan. According to your figures, is political stability an essential condition for the growth of trade with Canada or other countries?
These are not necessarily countries that deserve some kind of award in that big book where Canada is always cited as the best country in the world, especially in terms of political stability, right?
We often hear it said that political stability is absolutely necessary for investment and economic growth. Don't these figures prove of the opposite?
[English]
Mr. Chan: I would challenge your position that economic growth has nothing to do with political stability. The fact is that economic growth has helped improve the living standards of people in those countries, so they have less social unrest. It also provides less of an opportunity for political wrangling within those countries, which is creating stability in the region.
Stability is important in economic growth. For example, at the height of the tensions across the strait with Taiwan, investments started to flow away from China and Taiwan, causing problems. Also, if in India there is not a stable government, it would impact on the economic opportunity in those regions. The creation of a big middle class in those countries also becomes a stabilizing factor there.
The Chairman: Thank you. We have to move on to Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have to realize that the quest for reform is an international phenomenon.
The Chairman: But it was not a trademark before.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Minister, you made a sort of offhand remark that I wanted to ask you about. It certainly isn't the meat of my questions. You spoke of direct air and sea links between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China being in the works. How are they getting back and forth now?
Mr. Chan: The contact has been re-established. One of the top advisers to the Taiwan government was in Beijing three months ago and met with the President of China to dialogue. They are trying to have telecommunications, mail and travelling directly linking the two sides. To us, there would be harmony in the works.
.1615
Mr. Morrison: I guess you didn't understand my question, Mr. Minister. I know that people are travelling from Taiwan to Fuching right now. How are they doing it if there are no sea links? They don't follow with their army. They don't swim.
Mr. Chan: They usually go through either Hong Kong or Japan. This is one of the moving forces for why they want to have direct links. They don't want to cost their citizens more to get to each side, and the trade between them is huge.
Mr. Morrison: Okay, that was just a side issue.
Getting into the meat of your presentation, you referred to political stability and somehow equated it with human rights. The two are not necessarily synonymous. Some of the most stable areas have no human rights - pax Romana, if you will.
To carry on with Mr. Sauvageau's line of questioning, I don't think anyone, at least in my party, is suggesting using trade as a weapon to enforce our idea of human rights on others. It's not likely to work because if we cut our trade, there will be others more than delighted to move in and take our place. But what about aid? If we cut aid to abusers of human rights, there isn't going to be a stampede of other countries wanting to replace us as aid givers. This is our call.
I find it difficult to accept that we continue to use our foreign aid program as a leverage arm, if you will, of DFAIT. I want to know why we continue to give foreign aid, for example, to Indonesia and China. How can this be justified if you treat it as aid and not as a foreign policy lever?
Mr. Chan: First, Mr. Morrison, I never equate stability with human rights. I equate economic reform with human rights improvements, and I equate economic reform with stability. I agree with you that sometimes the countries that abuse human rights the most at least appear to have that stability at the outset.
On the question of aid, I understand that Mr. Pettigrew, our minister in charge of CIDA, was here earlier this morning and he must have touched on this. I would like to say that our aid policies are directed into two very important areas. One is sustainable development, which deals with environmental issues like pollution that have a global effect. Continuing to help those countries resolve those problems helps Canada as well and helps everybody else in the world.
Also, part of our aid is targeted towards institution building and human resource development, and also to the rule of law and the improvement of judicial systems and so on. It's easy for us to ask China to have rule of law, but they don't have enough judges or lawyers or people who understand what a modern government looks like. So in China we're helping them complete a judge institute, which by the time it's finished will be able to train 200 or 300 judges at a time. We can also bring our judicial expertise to China and invite them to come to us.
On the question of Indonesia, 70% or a high percentage of our assistance in Indonesia goes to East Timor, trying to strengthen its economic capacity and the education level of the people in East Timor such that they could be more integrated in society and depend less on the government.
.1620
Our aid performance in those countries is constructive for sustainable development, which affects the environment; to security issues, because we try to alleviate the differences between or among countries; and also to human rights and good governance issues, which also contribute to the security issues that would affect Canada significantly.
Mr. Morrison: Thank you for that answer. That's the first cogent response I've ever received to that question, and I've asked it many times.
You spoke about the Team Canada effort. I have had some communication with people who went on that safari. I have been given to understand that most of the deals that were reported were merely agreements to begin negotiations. In other words, they were deals that we would make deals. For example, with the alleged sales of CANDU reactors, as I understand it, all that was agreed to was that we would talk about selling CANDU reactors.
Is that the correct interpretation? If it is, what percentage of these hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of business allegedly brought home from the Team Canada safari is real, where you actually have ink on paper or a deposit in the bank or financing arrangements on the go? What percentage of these deals are concrete?
Mr. Chan: Mr. Morrison, I would be glad to report to you on the example of the Team Canada China mission. Out of the $9 billion of contracts we have signed, about $3 billion are real contracts. They are done deals. About $4 billion is related to the CANDU reactor, which is now in the phase of commercial contract negotiations. We have some differences between us and it's the last hurdle we have to overcome. We are coming very close. We have the support of the business community and other industries in that deal. I am quite confident the deal can be wrapped up very soon.
On the other contracts, we have monitored their progress and 90% are still active. I'm sure we will have a very high success rate on those deals.
For the trip to India, about 30% of the deals we signed in India are solid contracts. The others are MOUs and letters of intent.
I think the important thing about Team Canada is not how many contracts we sign on a trip. Yes, they are important to profile the mission, but at the same time I think the connections we have helped those businesses to build with their host country are the important part. It is also important that we have given Canada such a high profile that the Asian countries start to know that our technologies are competitive, that we can compete with the best industries from other countries and win.
There is one other side effect that really exceeded our expectations. I was on the plane with the delegates and they kept telling me that when they were all put on a plane, all these Canadians, they started doing business amongst themselves. They started to meet each other and started to go into joint ventures to explore foreign markets. Those other effects are irreplaceable.
Mr. Morrison: Was there a bar on the plane?
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bélair.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair: First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for being here today.
.1625
In your opening statement, you alluded to APEC,
[English]
the Asia Pacific Economic Corporation,
[Translation]
which held a first conference in 1992. For us as Canadians, this conference followed the Free Trade Agreement signed with the Americans. There was some discussion that after the signature of NAFTA in 1993, Canada would maintain much closer economic links and extend the tentacles of NAFTA all the way to the Pacific.
Minister, can you tell the committee whether talks have begun, whether concrete results have been achieved or if negotiations are presently under way to come to such an arrangement?
[English]
Mr. Chan: There is a strong reluctance by the Americans to accept Asian partners in NAFTA. I don't think there's any progress right now regarding other Asian partners joining NAFTA.
Because of participation in APEC and also because in 1994 and 1995 APEC endorsed a free trade approach amongst the members...in 1994 in Bogor, Indonesia, the leaders agreed to have free trade by 2010 among the APEC members, the developed nations of APEC, and by 2020 with the developing nations of APEC.
That was the agreement. Subsequently, in the year 1995, when we had the summit meeting in Osaka, many of the APEC countries voluntarily came up with their list of tariff reductions. For example, China has 4,000 items for which they decreased the tariff by 30% to 40%. Malaysia has done the same. Malaysia is one of the countries that is most resistant to APEC, since it wants to promote more of the Asian trading bloc, but even the Malaysians have come up with their list of goods with tariffs reduced. So I would say they are moving towards a much lower barrier for trade.
Mr. Bélair: Yes, but progress is very slow.
Mr. Chan: Progress is slow, yes.
Mr. Bélair: To summarize, it's very slow.
Mr. Chan: Yes, because APEC doesn't go by rules and regulations. It builds a consensus. It believes in voluntary actions rather than in imposing actions on other countries.
Mr. Bélair: My second question, Mr. Chairman, deals with Hong Kong.
As we all know, on January 1 Hong Kong will be a Chinese province. Looking at the list of our trade partners, I see it's number ten with Canada - $1.7 billion worth. How are Canadian interests being protected? The United Kingdom is part of the Commonwealth also, so have we assured our position perhaps through the United Kingdom that the products we sell today and our economic development with Hong Kong will remain stable?
Mr. Chan: Yes. I think the most important part is to make sure Canadians continue to function freely and openly in Hong Kong. We have about 100,000 Canadians working in Hong Kong and promoting our interests. Over 150 companies have their regional quarters in Hong Kong. Canadian companies are using Hong Kong as a hub, not only to China but also to the region. This is why Hong Kong is so important to us, besides the people link we have. Many Canadians have relatives and friends in Hong Kong. On the humanitarian side, it's a great concern to us. On the business side, it's also important for us to continue to function and to have the permanent resident status in Hong Kong - that is, to go in and out.
.1630
Mr. Bélair: Have there been any discussions with the Government of China on this?
Mr. Chan: Yes, that was one of my main objectives when I visited China last month. For a long time we've been debating dual citizenship, but China does not recognize dual citizenship. They always look at overseas Chinese as Chinese citizens.
Mr. Bélair: I'm talking about Hong Kong only, the business aspect of Hong Kong.
Mr. Chan: The problem is that after July 1, 1997, Hong Kong will come under China's sovereignty. They will have jurisdiction over the citizenship issue on Hong Kong. The problem before was that any Chinese Canadians going back to Hong Kong would be regarded as Chinese rather than as Canadian. They wouldn't be subjected to consular assistance when they got into trouble, which was creating some fear among Canadians at that time. So we thought about it in Foreign Affairs and then proposed a solution to the Chinese government.
Mr. Bélair: Was it accepted?
Mr. Chan: It has been verbally accepted. What we requested was that Canadians be able to enter Hong Kong as Canadian citizens; they would give up their Chinese citizenship and would then have consular protection. That was verbally accepted. However, we do not want to engage the Chinese in detailed negotiation. If we do that, we are jeopardizing the authority that the Hong Kong regional government would have over immigration issues. We respect that jurisdiction. The details on how it is carried out in the future will depend on the negotiations between the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government.
We raised both issues to both the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government. Both governments agree with our position, and they will incorporate our concerns in their expert negotiations.
Mr. Bélair: Will Canadian investments be protected?
Mr. Chan: We are now trying to negotiate an investment protection agreement with the Chinese. Hopefully it will include Hong Kong in the process.
Mr. Bélair: Hopefully.
Mr. Chan: Yes.
Mr. Bélair: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bélair.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré.
Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): Minister, I would like to discuss canadian foreign policy, and particularly the third pillar of foreign policy.
I'm somewhat concerned with the way you seem to think that because Canada's foreign policy includes some desire to project Canada's values abroad, this will be done somewhat automatically. I think that's a mistake.
Recently, we heard that globalization had increased child labour, among other things. Nobel prize recipients gathered recently and stated that they were extremely concerned about the consequences of globalization and neo-liberalism, which are increasing the gap between rich and poor and, for all intents and purposes, are leading to the disappearance of the middle class.
You were asked to touch on Indonesia and East Timor. When I hear that we have trade relations with Indonesia and that we provide aid to East Timor, I can't help but think of this image of the right hand giving spinach to a torturer while the left hand is trying to bandage the victim's wounds.
.1635
I get the impression that that's what we're doing, in a way, when we maintain trade relations with Indonesia and also try to provide aid to East Timor.
I will close by coming back to the statements you made at the end of your presentation, when you said that you hoped that Canada would call upon its citizens of Asian origin to help launch its trade relations with Asian countries. I can't stop myself from telling you about the case of Tran Trieu Quan, who did just that. Everyone acknowledges that this Canadian from my riding, who intervened as an intermediary in trade relations, is innocent. He's been in prison for two years and has even been chained by the feet for a few months now.
The Vietnamese Minister of Culture can't find anything better to say than that in his country, when people are sentenced to life imprisonment, it's part of their culture to chain them up. He's a Canadian citizen. I think it's scandalous that Canada is maintaining trade relations and pushing them forward in this way.
I understand that it's your mandate to do this, but this is a human tragedy that we have to take into account. I would like the Minister responsible for Asia-Pacific to be sensitive to this tragedy.
[English]
Mr. Chan: Thank you very much for your question, but I would feel really bad if you thought I take the human rights issue casually. That's what I said in my speech. I haven't read it all out.
I got involved in politics because of the human rights movement. Every trip I make to Asia, to whatever country, I try to meet with the human rights activists whenever I can. The reason is that I want to give them political endorsement, sometimes even over the objections of the local government.
There are many, many issues on human rights: child labour, women's rights, political prisoners, civil liberties. They're all part of human rights. Even though sometimes we might be able to progress on some of it but not all of it, it doesn't mean that we should not do what we need to do.
You talk about the Indonesian model. Yes, we continue to trade with Indonesia - not that much with the government, but very much with the business community. Through trade, Indonesia is building up a middle class that is less dependent on the government. It's controlled less by the government.
If you go to Jakarta, you'll see that the city is booming. You see that many Indonesians are starting to acquire their education. They are starting to understand their rights. Through trade, we have also been able to force the Indonesian government to commit to and carry out the establishment of a human rights commission. They recently allowed for the first time the United Nations Commission of Human Rights to send delegates there. They might be able to establish an office in Jakarta. So there are improvements in that sense.
In Indonesia I met with a lawyers network, which is almost like a revolutionary group, to talk about where we can help them to strengthen their computer network and their fights inside Indonesia.
So that's not true. We tell them we will give them trade, that we will trade with them, and that hopefully their human rights conditions will improve. We work proactively in those areas, and we're not ashamed of it at all.
In the case of Vietnam, Mr. Quan's case, this is the number one file ever undertaken by the Canadian government on behalf of Canadians overseas. Since the case started, the file has built up to a couple of feet high. We continue to raise our concern with them.
We're on top of the file. You know that it was only recently that we were able to locate Mr. Morgan, who has a lot to do with that trial. Our department is helping them to find out the facts so we can help Mr. Quan to clear the case. But we cannot interfere in the judicial process within that country. We tried our best to represent Mr. Quan, and we're doing it.
.1640
In the case of Vietnam, I have had feedback from Vietnamese who have returned to Vietnam to work. Their comment about the situation in Vietnam - and I agree with them - is that civil liberties of the individuals are better...even before the South Vietnam regime.
There was a lot more of a political clamp-down on the rights of individuals than there is with this current government. It's also building up a middle class in Vietnam. Eventually, if Vietnam continues with the open-door policy and with the economic reform they have, things will change inside Vietnam.
I don't think a government can do anything more. Sometimes as a government...I'm as frustrated as you are, as frustrated as the human rights activists are. We can achieve more on the trade side and less on the human rights side. Just because the host government usually responds much better on the trade side and less on the human rights side, it doesn't mean that our government isn't trying our best to do it.
I assure you once again that we're trying our best and will continue to try our best withMr. Quan's case and with any other human rights case around the world.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, it's good to have you here. I know I discussed the human rights issue with you in the past, privately in the government lobby. As you said, one of the reasons I'm here is human rights violation, which I am very much concerned with.
Mr. Minister, I'd like to ask you to make a comparison, if it's possible, between the end of the communist U.S.S.R. period - now CIS countries - before the collapse of communism and the beginning of their new market economy system, and China now.
Everybody here knows that one of the reasons Russia, the U.S.S.R., collapsed in a disorderly fashion, so to speak, was the speedy movement of human rights or political freedom along with economic freedom. There was no balance.
I think in some ways China is trying to balance that, because you're talking about 1.3 billion people. If similar chaos takes place in China, I think it would be much more disastrous for civilization, not only for the region, than what happened in Russia, the Chechnya war, or what have you. It's just a consequence of the sudden collapse of the communist regime.
How would you compare the Chinese improvement of the political situation to that of the Russian situation? That's point one.
If I may be allowed, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to present a motion here. Maybe I can do it after he answers the question. It's a motion regarding the situation in Vietnam.
The Chairman: I wonder if I might make this suggestion, Mr. Assadourian. The clerk advised me she's spoken to the clerk of the human rights committee, and they have a translation of that resolution. Perhaps we can hold it until we get the French version; then we'll have both versions before us. It will be here in ten minutes. We'll wait.
Mr. Assadourian: By then he probably will have answered the question.
The Chairman: Maybe we'll reserve it and deal with it just before 5 p.m.
Mr. Assadourian: Okay.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chan: Thank you very much for the question.
The situation in China is very different from the situation in Russia. You had it quite correct. However, we have to remember that in 1989, when the crush between the reformers and the conservatives inside China took place, along with the demonstrations of the students, China had already gone through 15 years of economic reform.
What happened is that the slow evolution of the political system limited the economic growth of the country. The authority the government has on many, many issues caused extensive corruption and abuse of power, so it was limiting the economic growth. This is where the crash comes into it.
.1645
After Deng Xiaopeng sent in the tanks and ` `re-established stability'', for two years they were inward-looking. They sealed off the border. They clamped down on those who advocated for reforms. But for two years the economy was starting to collapse. They understood at that time that they had to go back to the right path. This is why at the end of 1991 Deng Xiaopeng made a trip to the south and announced that they had to open the whole country. That's what they did and it carries on today.
At the same time, I guess, we really have to look at the political debates inside the government. One important issue is that we cannot look at China's leadership as one solid piece. They are like us. We have people who are small ``l'' liberal or capital ``L'' Liberal in our parties, and so do they.
The hardliners might advocate what they call a cage economy, that you allow economic growth within that framework or cage, limited to the cage. Many people feel this is going back to central planning and is bad for economic reform. But they don't understand that the cage economy would also allow the cage to grow. If the economic reform demands more freedom, if it needs more political reform, the cage should grow and the political side should grow along with it.
Right now, I would have to give the Chinese government credit. For the last two years they have been able to deal with the inflation matter. They have been able to deal with financial institutions. Before, they had a central bank that not only set policies but also did commercial banking. A lot of authority was delegated to the local governments and they were draining the central coffer. They have had very successful reform on that. They are trying to float their dollars and they have built up a reserve. They have been doing the right thing for the last year and a half. We have to give them credit for what they're doing.
The balance they seek right now is quite appropriate, but at the same time we have to raise concern on the human rights activists. They have a role to play to highlight the problems inside that country. In Russia, because they have not gone through this kind of economic reform to give individuals better living conditions and have not dealt with their food supply issue, which China has, I think it caused a lot of social instability inside Russia. In China, because they have been able to deal with those issues successfully, it has allowed them to continue with reform.
Mr. Assadourian: I have one more question, if I may.
The Chairman: I'm afraid we have to move on, but thank you, Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Minister, in your speech you didn't get much into geopolitics. I would like your opinion on something.
For centuries China has not been a big player on the world stage, and suddenly it is with it's terribly fast-growing economy. It's burgeoning. It's going to be a powerhouse beyond measure. So far, China as it is today has never made major imperialistic gestures against anyone except Tibet and to a lesser extent Vietnam. But you do have the lingering threat, of course, of Taiwan.
What I'm most concerned about, and I'd like your opinion on this, is the possibility that at some point they might decide to move north into Mongolia, or in a really nightmarish scenario into Manchuria. Is this a possibility within perhaps a decade, depending upon what happens with the former Soviet Union, if it continues to deteriorate? Is there a chance, in your opinion, of China's trying to capitalize on the weakness of its neighbours and expand?
.1650
Mr. Chan: I don't think I can make any educated prediction on that matter, but it's important that we work to eliminate that opportunity or to help alleviate that scenario from being developed.
As long as China continues to integrate itself into the global economy such that any military venture would impede its well-being, this would be a retarding force to seeking that kind of venture. I think if we continue to communicate with them, not only with the leaders but with the people of China, to let them understand that global security and peaceful co-existence are important for economic growth and also for humanitarian reasons; to make them recognize more the globalization process going on; to make them realize about multiculturalism, about equal rights for all and so on; and also to give them a better understanding of global affairs, then we have a better chance of that not happening.
It's important to understand that leadership is not the core of the problem in China. If you look back to people like Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaopeng and Zhou Enlai, all these Communist leaders before they became leaders, when they were activists and revolutionaries, pledged democracy, human rights and freedom. But it's the political culture that makes them feel they are the only solution for China after they have the power. It's important for us to work with the Chinese people at large to make sure they think like we do, as a peace-loving nation.
The Chairman: Mr. Dupuy.
Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): My question also concerns security. You quite appropriately referred to the security of the Asia-Pacific region in your introductory statements. There are no major wars now in the region, in a region that has known major wars over the past few decades. But something seems to be lacking, and that is a security system.
There are so many points of conflict. You mentioned some of them, but if we looked at even the territorial disputes, there are many. While security has tended in the past to be largely in the hands of powers that were either outside the region, like the British in the good old days and the Americans, or in the vicinity of the heart of the region, like the Soviet Union, now these factors have declined. Therefore security will increasingly have to come from the region itself.
The question about China, of course, is highly relevant to the point I'm raising, and you answered it in a very interesting way. But this lack of a security system is currently resulting in an arms race almost everywhere. China is increasing its military forces. So is India and so is Pakistan. All the small countries that do not feel the security of a security system are arming, and the effect is a profound distortion of allocation of resources precisely away from the good direction you were suggesting - economic progress.
How do you perceive the evolution of the situation? Is this lack of a security system eventually leading to the resumption of local wars of some magnitude? Or is there a way of ensuring that out of the region itself will come a security system, a balance of power or another form of security system to allow this recourse to arms to abate and the progress towards economic development to happen?
.1655
Mr. Chan: Mr. Dupuy, you have a very keen observation. I think the security issue is the weakest in the region right now. You pointed out so correctly that it's the lack of a security system or forum or institution in the region that is hindering economic progress.
I think this is exactly why Canada has been an active player in the region on the security side. We are members of the ASEAN regional forum, the only forum where people can get together to talk about security in that region. We think that besides the economic relationship, we have to establish a security relationship among the players in that region.
For example, in the north Asia region we are proposing dialogues, not necessarily between the governments at this point but at least among the scholars, the academics and the major players in the region. In south Asia, we're encouraging a south Asia security forum to continue the dialogue on the Kashmir issue. CIDA is putting money and resources into supporting that. On Spratly Island we are helping to establish a forum among those stakeholders to talk about those issues.
On the security side I have to say that the development is in its infancy, but Canada is very proactive in pursuing that agenda. With our good relationship with these countries, hopefully because they trust us they will allow us to pull them together to pursue that subject.
The Chairman: Monsieur Sauvageau.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Because of the order in which the questions were put, my comments may seem inappropriate, but before I ask you my two questions, I want to point out once again that you surprised me earlier when you said, if I understood you correctly, that during visits by Team Canada, the contracts or the amounts of the contracts were not what was important; it was the contacts that were made that were the main thing.
I want to say to you that the Prime Minister's communications service as well as the photographers present led us to believe that the contracts were important.
Perhaps it's a communication problem. Their press releases referred to so many billion dollars and the message led one to assume that it was the number of contracts and the amount that was important. If you're telling us that the main point was the contacts, that's wonderful.
You also explained that the United States were not inclined to go forward quickly in forming a free trade zone with Asia-Pacific. Until then, does your government intend to sign bilateral accords with certain countries of the Asia-Pacific region, through you, Minister, as was done with Chile, since such countries cannot become part of NAFTA immediately?
Given the slowness demonstrated by the United States in joining this type of market, does Canada intend to sign free trade agreements on its own with certain Asia-Pacific countries or partnership agreements such as the one with Korea? That's my first question.
My second question is very simple: In principle, what are the priorities that should be on the agenda of the APEC summit in Vancouver in 1997? Have they been defined?
[English]
Mr. Chan: First, to answer your question about the impact of Team Canada, both the contract and the contacts are important. If you look at the business build-up by increasing our exports by 30%, it translated into about $6 billion every year. That is not just because the Prime Minister and Team Canada were there. It's because of the contact that was built over the years. The Team Canada mission did add significantly to that contract. The contracts are important too, because every billion dollars of export creates 11,000 jobs.
.1700
On the APEC agenda, in 1997 we are focusing on sustainable development. We will also try to carry on with the promotion of more liberal trade among the APEC nations, carry on with the Osaka...and the Philippine summit later this year. I think those are two major agendas.
As for the bilateral trade agreement with the other Asian countries, it really depends on which country. For example, right now we're having negotiations with Singapore, but Singapore has practically zero tariffs on their imports while we have tariffs on our imports. So in negotiating a free trade agreement with them, we will really have to look at what benefit we have.
We've found out that the financial sector in Singapore is not open, so there is an opportunity for us to get into the financial sector. If that could be achieved, we will move into a free trade agreement with them.
That kind of thing needs to be looked at individually, from country to country. I think Korea would be a very good target country for us to explore that potential. Canada would not be hesitant to sign bilateral free trade agreements with them, providing that they contribute to a global free trade environment and that GATT or World Trade Organization philosophy is compatible.
Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you.
The Chairman: Minister, we're a bit over time, but can you stay a couple of more minutes with us to accommodate Mr. Loney, who has a question for you? Can you give us a few more minutes of your time?
Mr. Chan: Yes. I think the latest I have to leave is about 10 after.
The Chairman: We'll be just two minutes.
Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): Thank you, Minister.
Minister, considering the success of the first Team Canada trade tour, I understand that a second tour is being planned for January. Can you comment on what the proposed itinerary might be and what type of business people will be invited to accompany the minister on the tour?
Mr. Chan: Mr. Loney, actually we have had two Team Canada trips already. The first was to China, the second to India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Both were very successful. It has been demanded by the business community and the foreign country that we assemble a third Team Canada mission.
Unfortunately, before we can make it public knowledge, we have to decide on the countries we will target. Announcing them prematurely would create difficulty for our work, so I cannot tell you which country we have targeted, but we are thinking about Asian countries and some countries in North Asia.
Mr. Loney: So the itinerary is not in place at the moment.
Mr. Chan: Supposedly we're planning for January. The date is about right, but we cannot talk about a country. We'll be concentrating on the strength of our industry, namely the environment or energy sector. When we talk about energy, we talk about power generation, transmission lines, oil and gas technologies, telecommunication, and transportation. We're good in our railway technology; our locomotive is one of the best in the world. The light rapid transit system we have in Vancouver is very marketable in Asia. Those are the sectors we'll be focusing on.
Mr. Loney: Could you give any indication when that information will be made available?
Mr. Chan: I would imagine two months before the trip that information has to be there. It will be widely distributed. I'm sure we can provide to any member who wants information a complete package.
.1705
Mr. Loney: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. This is just a wrap-up question.
I draw to your attention that this committee completed the day before a report on small and medium-sized businesses in the export market. One of the chapters in there is on the multicultural community. It was one of our beliefs from the evidence we heard that small and medium-sized businesses that wished to penetrate foreign markets that had cultural or linguistic impediments to that penetration are almost exclusively the preserve of our multicultural community in this country, which has the linguistic and cultural skills to deal with those markets.
In my own riding you get many Chinese immigrants who are able to move small service providers and others into China in a way that I, myself, or other ordinary people without those skills wouldn't be able to.
One of the problems we had in preparing the report was that there's very little concrete evidence of this. It's sort of intuitive, people believe it, and we have heard anecdotal evidence about it, but there's very little concrete evidence.
I wondered whether your department was doing any work in this area, particularly in the area of the service trade with the emerging Asian markets. That, too, is an area that is very hard to get any serious statistical handle on because of the complexity of the service-providing market and how it works.
It's very difficult even to understand our service trade with the United States, let alone with the Asian markets. Those are two areas in which I know the members of the committee would be interested. If your departmental officials could help us in any way to understand those two phenomena, we would appreciate any advice you could give us.
Mr. Chan: I think it might be difficult to assemble statistics to look at the people involved in tying up those trades, but the evidence is basically there in China and in India. In China, when we were witnessing the signing ceremony, 80% of the participants were of Chinese origin. We could understand that 50% of them were, because we're doing business with China, but the other 25% or 30% are Chinese-Canadians helping companies make the links.
The same is true when we are in India. Even though people in India speak English and English is one of the most used official languages, in the signing ceremony you'll see many Indo-Canadians helping out.
The evidence is there, but I just don't see how we can carry out a survey. Maybe a voluntary response could be part of it.
On the small and medium-sized enterprises, I think they're definitely doing a good job. Right now we see a lot of bilateral business associations. For example, in Malaysia we have a Malaysia-Canada business association, which is very active in helping us out. For almost every Asian country, there is such an association in Canada.
What was your last question?
The Chairman: It was about the service provision.
Mr. Chan: On the service provision, I agree it's very difficult.
When we were in Shanghai, I was amazed that there were about 40 or 50 engineering or architectural companies providing service.
The Chairman: I was pleased to hear that you were training all these judges. That will create a need for more lawyers, so that's a wonderful start, Mr. Minister. Thank you very much.
Minister, I note you said that you had to go at 10 minutes past. Thank you very much for coming to the committee. We appreciate both your frank and helpful answers to the questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: In one of the documents that we received, we learned that imports from China are in the order of 4.5 billion dollars a year whereas our exports are 3.9 billion dollars, which translates into a negative balance of 1.1 billion dollars. Will this trend continue to escalate or will it be reversed?
[English]
Mr. Chan: Actually, the gap has been narrowing. Also the percentage of our market share stopped dropping, because the total economy of Asia has been growing so rapidly for ten years. Even though we were doing better, year after year we were losing our market share in Asia, but because of our efforts our market share has stopped dropping. Also because of our increase in export, the increase in our imports is much faster. Our imports increased very slowly compared with our exports. This is why the gap is narrowing. In some of the countries, such as China, we're more or less balanced now.
.1710
The Chairman: Minister, thank you very much for your helpful participation.
Mr. Chan: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: They were very, very helpful answers.
Members, please don't leave yet. Mr. Assadourian has given notice that he intends to move a motion respecting the case of Mr. Tran Trieu Quan.
Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, as you see from this draft motion - we circulated the translation - I scratched out the bottom part that applies to the whole preamble.
The Chairman: You're taking out the preamble and want to stick with just the motion.
Mr. Assadourian: I'd like the motion to read as follows:
- That the Chair of the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Trade write a
letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Ambassador of Vietnam expressing the
Standing Committee's concern about the Vietnamese Government's abuses of fundamental
human rights, including its disregard for the rights of Mr. Tran Trieu Quan (a Canadian
businessman) and that the Chair, on behalf of the Committee, urge the Minister to continue his
strong actions to pressure the Government of Vietnam to respect the fundamental human rights
of Canadians and all others.
Mr. Assadourian: There are slight changes there. I hope you take note of the changes, because this motion was from the human rights and disabled persons committee.
The Chairman: As I understand it, your proposal is that you would instruct me to write to the ambassador, as well as to the Minister of Foreign Affairs -
Mr. Assadourian: That's correct, yes.
The Chairman: - and given the minister's evidence about what they're doing at the moment, you've changed the wording of the last part of the sentence to provide that we urge the minister to continue the strong actions being taken.
Mr. Assadourian: It's obvious to me and I'm sure to everybody else that action has been taken very strongly and continues to be taken.
The Chairman: It doesn't hurt to urge them to continue.
Is there any comment, discussion? Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: I like the original wording better. To say ``to take stronger action'' does not imply that no action has been taken. It just says to take stronger action.
I think that's the intent of your motion, Mr. Assadourian. I think you should leave your wording the way you had it.
Mr. Assadourian: I said this before the minister spoke. I think we should continue taking stronger action. That's my interpretation of it.
The Chairman: Stronger actions may need a gun boat.
Mr. Assadourian: We don't believe in gun boat diplomacy.
Mr. LeBlanc: Perhaps Mr. Morrison could tell us what types of stronger action he would recommend.
The Chairman: That wouldn't cost any money.
Mr. LeBlanc: That he would accept.
The Chairman: Is there any comment? Those in favour?
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I appreciate that.
I take it we've stood the motion on the matter of nuclear tests. Do you want to deal with it now? Should we deal with it now?
Mr. Morrison: He wants to have it dealt with today.
The Chairman: The motion reads:
- I move that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, without any
further delay, write a letter to the Ambassador from the Peoples Republic of China, expressing
our disappointment with China's decision to carry out further nuclear tests, and call on the
Chinese government to cease these tests immediately and to join in a global moratorium.
Mr. Assadourian, could I ask you to please not leave the room until we have your support.
[Translation]
You support this motion?
Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): For China?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Bergeron: Of course!
Motion carried
.1715
[English]
The Chairman: We're adjourned until Monday at 11:15 a.m. Please be a couple of minutes early for the Crown Prince of Jordan.