EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, September 25, 1996

.1535

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Committee members and temporary committee members, Mr. English, who would normally be chairing the subcommittee, has to be somewhere else, so I'm filling in for him today.

I want to begin by asking whether Mr. Crawford would care to join us at the table. There's lots of room up here and we'd love to have you. It's always pleasant to be visited by other parliamentarians, including Mrs. Finestone.

We can't recall amongst us whether Mr. Martin from the Reform Party was going to be able to be here, but we hope he will appear.

[Translation]

Some documents are in English only and will not be distributed by the parliamentary representatives. The witnesses brought copies and may have distributed them to certain members of the committee.

[English]

The purpose today is to hear from a number of groups on two subjects. I should say on behalf of the subcommittee that our principal work this fall will focus on the issue of child labour in developing countries and the rights of children. But we also recognize that child labour is not an isolated issue, that in various societies around the world there are other very important issues of human rights. We understand as well that our visitors today may have something to say on the larger issue of human rights in the countries in which they're interested.

So with the indulgence of the committee, may it be understood that we will be doing two things at once today: focusing on broader human rights issues in certain countries and, where appropriate, looking at child labour issues in those same countries.

We have four organizations here. Why don't we have everybody introduce themselves?

Dr. Thu-Van Lam (Human Rights Commissioner, Vietnamese Canadian Federation): I am Thu-Van Lam from the Vietnamese Canadian Federation.

Mr. Minh Tri Truong (Vietnamese Canadian Federation): I am Minh Tri Truong, also from the Vietnamese Canadian Federation.

Mr. Hai Ngo (Coordinator, International Committee for a Free Vietnam): My name is Hai Ngo, general coordinator of the International Committee for a Free Vietnam, of which Rex Crawford is the chair.

Mr. Tan Tri Nguyen (Alliance for Democracy in Vietnam): My name is Tri Nguyen. I've had arbitrary detention in Vietnam. I'm from Alliance for Democracy in Vietnam.

Ms Rebecca To (Federation for a Democratic China, Democracy China-Ottawa): I'm Rebecca. I'm here to replace my husband, Michael To, who is the chairman of the Federation for a Democratic China. He is also the chairman of Democracy China Ottawa.

Ms Penny Sangar (Canadian Friends of Burma): We're from Canadian Friends of Burma. My name is Penny Sangar. This is Kevin Heppner.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): What is absolutely wonderful is that all of our guests have huddled and produced an agenda for us, which makes my task remarkably simple. So I think I'll just do as I'm told, basically. I've found in life, particularly married life, it's a very wise principle.

.1540

I don't know how many other members of the committee have received this. Do you all have copies of the agenda that has been drawn up? I think it's being distributed as we speak. I see no reason not to simply follow it.

[Translation]

You have received your copies, Ms Debien and Mr. Paré? Do you agree with the agenda?

[English]

Thus I would invite, as is suggested, the Vietnamese Canadian Federation to begin its presentation, and we'll have a discussion.

May I just ask those who framed this, did you intend that all questions would be saved until the end and that your presentations would take up the full 15 minutes?

Dr. Lam: I'd like to leave the last 20 minutes or half an hour for discussion for everybody.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): What I would suggest is this. The best way for it to be half an hour is for the presentations to be made short. We're starting five minutes early, so that adds another five minutes. Discipline, discipline. Please begin.

Dr. Lam: Before we start, I would like to say thank you to the subcommittee on behalf of all of us in the four organizations working for human rights in Asian countries. We think it's our responsibility to give information on the realities in those countries, which are close trading partners of Canada. We appreciate that you gave us the opportunity to talk about those Asian countries, especially Vietnam.

We greatly appreciate Foreign Affairs for raising the voice of Vietnamese people about the human rights issue at the UN Human Rights Commission in November of last year.

I hope the information we give will be helpful in making aid from Canada more efficient and trade with those countries more beneficial for both sides, Canada and countries such as Burma, China and Vietnam.

Now I invite my colleague, Mr. Tri Truong, to speak first.

Mr. Truong: Thank you.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Vietnamese Canadian Federation, a coordinating body for member associations across Canada. We are primarily made up of Vietnamese refugees who came here in the 1970s and the 1980s.

We wish to give you an account of existing conditions in Vietnam as they relate to Canada's foreign policy. It is our hope that the information and the perspective we provide will help the Canadian government and the Department of Foreign Affairs formulate a more accurate assessment of a country that is becoming a close trading partner with Canada.

In our view, the current reform undertaken in Vietnam by the Communist government constitutes only a superficial approach to the country's many problems, while at the same time exacerbating corruption in that country as well as lawless practices within the system.

.1545

As many of you might know, Vietnam started to experiment with the reform process or program in the late 1980s. Up to now the program has run into many hurdles, and it appears the fundamental problem remains: the political structure in the country, which the government has refused to tackle head-on. It has side-stepped political reform in the country.

What the current reform has failed to achieve is to undo Vietnam's one-party structure. Vietnam's political conservatism represents, in our view, a major stumbling block for the country's reform, whose scope, as we now realize, can no longer be restricted to the economy if long-term growth and sustainable development are to be contemplated, let alone attained.

It appears Vietnam needs to be continuously engaged and persuaded by the international community to formulate and pursue a more productive and far-reaching course of change than is now adopted.

This year Vietnam had its eighth Communist Party congress. That's a major decision-making advance in the country. It's actually the most important event that's held every five years for the ruling party. At that party congress, Vietnam's ambivalence towards change resulted in the ruling party's reassertion of the role of the state within the economy in the midst of government endorsements of continued market liberalization, so there were two conflicting currents being followed.

We feel that such an incoherent position at best reflected the leadership's poor appreciation of the close links between political and economic institutions as well as underlining the necessity of balancing economic with political reforms.

Besides constraining economic liberalization, the continued monopoly of the Communist Party has also resulted in fundamental human rights being violated in Vietnam. That's another set of consequences of the lack of political reform in Vietnam. Severe restrictions are being imposed on the right to religious freedom, the right to free expression and free press as well as the right to peaceful assembly and association.

From 1976 up to now many individuals have been repeatedly arrested for peacefully advocating a pluralist system with more freedom of expression and religious practice. The extent of arbitrary detention in the country has further been compounded by a flawed and politically partial judiciary system.

The United Nations sent a working group on arbitrary detention to the country, and that UN working group formulated a number of recommendations upon its visit to Vietnam in 1994. These recommendations sought to address Vietnam's lack of transparency and lack of impartiality in its judiciary system, but the recommendations have so far been rejected by Vietnamese authorities.

My other colleagues will elaborate on the other consequences of the lack of political freedom in Vietnam, in terms of both prison conditions and how the rights of children are affected in Vietnam.

Given the situation I've outlined, what can Canada do to foster change and development in Vietnam?

.1550

The Vietnamese Canadian community supports the engagement approach adopted so far by Canada in its relationship with Vietnam to the extent that the establishment and expansion of contact channels represent steps towards effective dialogue and preservation. We want contact with Vietnam to be effective in promoting change in that country. In that spirit, the criteria for foreign policy effectiveness may need to be periodically re-examined and fine-tuned, with the focus again being on effectiveness to promote change.

As Canadians of Vietnamese origin, we are conscious of Canada's democratic tradition and of Canada's reputation in the human rights area. We are also aware that in this era of globalization Canada's foreign policy options need to be considered and formulated in conjunction with international and regional imperatives.

Critics favouring accommodation may, for instance, focus on concerns for Canada's competitiveness and argue against the overt use of economic means to foster political change in such countries as Vietnam, the very countries that we think actually need political change.

On the other hand, a broader and comprehensive perspective, one we think takes into account issues of sustainable and democratic development, may justify and call for a more responsible and assertive stance. Such a stance by Canada may in the long run prove most beneficial as it commits to satisfying multilaterally defined objectives as they apply to the people's needs and rights in the partner country; that is, as they are relevant to the Vietnamese people.

Following are several proposals we wish to make to the Canadian government and the Department of Foreign Affairs: raise the issue of serious human rights violations in Vietnam with Vietnamese government officials and have them show respect for human rights by such acts as the release of non-violent dissidents; and make making them show such respect a condition for improvement of trade ties between Canada and Vietnam. We think democratic reform in Vietnam will ensure greater respect for the rule of law, which, if anything, can facilitate the expansion of trade ties in that country.

The second point is that we ask you to voice our concern to Canada's Prime Minister with regard to the contradiction between the outlined Liberal policy and the Liberal government's current trade agenda, which is dominated by dealings with Asian countries, among them Burma, China and Vietnam, with questionable human rights records.

We do not share the view that trading with the above countries will by itself foster their democratization unless specific conditions are attached and unless these countries are persuaded to adopt the emergence of democracy, such as free elections, fair trials, and the rule of law.

The last point is that we ask Canada to take a leading role in international fora such as APEC, the Francophonie, and the United Nations to sensitize the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to international standards of human rights and to assist in eliciting and monitoring Vietnam's compliance for these standards. We are aware that in the case of APEC Vietnam is only applying to be a member, but we also wish human rights criteria to be applied in the evaluation of candidates to APEC.

Those were the points I wish to make.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you very much. That was a very useful framework for entering into greater detail.

We will move now to the International Committee for a Free Vietnam and Hai Ngo.

.1555

Mr. Ngo: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the International Committee for a Free Vietnam I would like to tell you briefly what it is all about and what our goals and objectives are.

The International Committee for a Free Vietnam was founded in 1984 by the late Dr. Huy and officially inaugurated in December 1986 in Brussels. In 1989 the first International Committee for a Free Vietnam Canada chapter was inaugurated and chaired by David Kilgour, David Walker, and Howard McCurdy. At that time we had 33 members of Parliament. From 1989 to 1994 David was chair. From 1994 to 1996 it was Mr. Ted McWhinney. The current chair of the ICFV Canada chapter is Mr. Rex Crawford. Now we have 97 MPs and former MPs in our organization.

The Canadian chapter was the first one to inaugurate. Now we have the second one, the American chapter for the ICFV.

[Translation]

The American chapter was inaugurated on November 6, 1991, in Washington and chaired by Mr. Paul Vankerkhoven, the international president, with Robert Dornan, an American congressman, as first chair of the American chapter. The American chapter now has 180 members, a group made up of congressmen, senators and other American political personalities.

Another international committee was inaugurated on October 15, 1992, in Canberra, Australia. Mr. Crawford lent his participation, and it was chaired by Mr. Steven Young and General Homer Smith. Senator Jim Short, who is currently Minister of Finance, and Senator Helen Coonan are now chairs of the committee.

Philip Rudock, Minister responsible for Ethnic minorities and Immigration, is also a member.

[English]

We have the goal of promoting democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of information. We are promoting this kind of democracy for the Vietnamese people inside Vietnam with the support of the Vietnamese people overseas. We always raise the question of recommendations, urging the Canadian government and the international community to urge the Vietnamese government to release immediately all persons in prison or detained for peacefully exercising basic civil and political rights.

We also urge the Canadian government, as well as the world community, to urge, push, influence the Vietnamese government to change and to bring the law into conformity with international standards of human rights and to eliminate the abuses of basic human rights of the Vietnamese people.

We would also like to call upon the Canadian government to assist the Vietnamese government in realizing - its legal and penal system, as recommended by the United Nations: a working group on arbitrary detention; for visiting outside observers, requesting access to trials, prisons, labour camps - which are consigned to other forms of detention. They are now doing this with a Buddhist religious leader, isolating him to a certain area. Should a Canadian delegation, especially the foreign affairs committee, visit Vietnam, we would like it to ask for those kinds of access.

I don't want to take any more time. Mr. Tri, a member of the Alliance for Democracy in Vietnam, went to Vietnam to help set up the economic conference. He was a former political prisoner, recently released from Vietnam in 1995. I pass my word to Mr. Tri.

.1600

Mr. Nguyen: Mr. Chairman and members of the foreign affairs committee, my name is Nguyen Tan Tri.

I understand the Vietnamese community in Canada spoke to your committee last year. In their presentation they spoke of human rights abuses in Vietnam by giving examples of some overseas Vietnamese citizens. I was among the many listed in their presentation.

Before I begin, I would like to thank you all - the foreign affairs committee, the House of Commons and the Government of Canada - for your influence and intervention with the Vietnamese Communist government. I am positive that it was your government's collaboration with other free world governments that secured my release as well as that of my colleagues.

I would also like to thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak to you today regarding the current situation in Vietnam.

I will be presenting to you the abuses that occur within Vietnam by the Vietnamese Communist government. You are all probably aware of the the past human rights violations that occurred there. The abuses are still an ongoing reality today in Vietnam. I am not just saying this. I was unfortunately privy to such abuses for a duration of two years.

Please permit me to explain. In 1993 a group of Vietnamese American citizens and I wished to organize a conference in Vietnam. We went to Vietnam to help the movement to unite the people and build democracy in Vietnam by setting up the International Conference for Economic Development in Vietnam. Business groups, government representatives, etc., were to attend this conference in Saigon, Vietnam. Some MPs from the Canadian House of Commons were to attend this conference as well. The topics to be discussed pertained to the economic growth of Vietnam. It is not an unusual activity here in the west.

Although we had asked the Vietnamese Communist government's permission to hold this conference as well as the host hotel, our group was arrested two weeks before the conference was to start. We were charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Everything I have witnessed and endured will be presented to you. Please bear in mind that this experience was not limited to me. I met hundreds of people in the same situation while I was detained.

The Vietnamese Communist government consistently denies any human rights abuses. It has publicly declared to the world that there is respect of freedom, democracy and human rights in Vietnam, to relieve the pressures of the U.S. embargo, then the isolation from the world community.

We live in a multi-party system in the west, and the parliamentary system permits open discussion of all government decisions. In contrast, Vietnam is headed by a small group of leaders in the Vietnamese Communist party and government. They have a complete monopoly over all government activity. They arbitrarily arrest and oppress any organizations, groups or individuals who dare to raise their concerns or let it be known that they desire freedom, democracy and peaceful political change.

As to the economic part of Vietnam, the Vietnamese Communist government is willing to do anything to attract business and foreign investment. They will shut their eyes to the returning Vietnamese overseas population investing and doing business in Vietnam. Once there, the Vietnamese overseas population leaves itself open to confiscation of property and shares in their business ventures. This outrageous practice is illegal here. Yet in Vietnam it cannot be illegal if there is no law to protect the people.

No legal system leads to abuses of power. I experienced that during my detention in Vietnam. To fool global public opinion, Vietnam announced the creation of a justice system with criminal and civil legal components. However, they neither apply nor practise that law. The arrest and the trial depend solely on the decision of the Communist Party local officer.

.1605

In my case, I was arrested and asked to sign a paper of temporary arrest and imprisonment to legally justify a temporary detention. They did this because I am a U.S. citizen. This step is entirely bypassed for Vietnamese citizens. After my temporary arrest and imprisonment paper expired, the Vietnamese Communist government continued to detain me without sentencing, trial or hearing. After many objections and protests, the Vietnamese local authority announced to me that nothing could be done until they received orders from the highest ranking officer. This persisted for the longest time.

Many political prisoners in Vietnam have been arrested and, to date, have never gone to trial. If there is a trial, there is no legal protection for defendants. In political cases, trials are closed to the public, unannounced and almost without legal representation. In my case, we didn't have any legal counsel at all.

When one is arrested, an investigator interviews the accused and writes a report. The report is then submitted as evidence at trial, if one is held. The accused cannot discuss or argue the contents of the investigator's report, even if it is not accurate. The contents of the report, however, can be modified if you have money to bribe the investigator.

I myself protested the report before the judge regarding false accusations made against me. The court officer dismissed me as though I had not even spoken. Judgment is purely arbitrary, not based on precedent or a codified law.

For example, I was detained with another U.S. citizen, who was part of the conference's organizing committee. At our first trial, we were sentenced to seven years and four years of imprisonment, respectively. I protested the verdict of the court. My friend, Mr. Tran Quang Liem, did not. He did not think protesting would change the time of our sentence. During the second trial, Mr. Liem was absent from the court. Not only did the judge not change my sentence, but Mr. Liem's sentence did not change either. The judge said my verdict was not justified. He then said he would resentence us. The ironic part of this was that he resentenced us to the same sentence we were given at the first trial.

Another example is that during my detention, I shared my cell with a 13-year-old boy, arrested after a fight that injured another boy. The boy was tried as an adult. This boy was sentenced to five years in jail.

These examples show you that the trial and criminal process in Vietnam is an arbitrary one, merely a formality to justify the decisions of the Vietnamese Communist government. The court improperly sets out its verdicts. The judge follows the decision of the high-ranked officers of the Communist Party.

I have witnessed beatings and torture of my cell mates during my detention. Besides the ill treatment of the convicts and political prisoners, the Vietnamese Communist government uses every other means to pressure the prisoner. They threaten the safety of the prisoner's family in Vietnam, they bring him in for questioning in the wee hours of the night. Mentally exhausted, physically drained, the prisoner is at the mercy of his investigators.

Many of you have heard of harsh prison conditions or seen the depiction in movies or books. Let me tell you, it is nothing compared with what you may have expected. It's much worse.

I was put into a small cell of six square metres, with three other prisoners. Each of us had space equivalent to one metre to sleep, sit and walk. We slept on the concrete floor. The cell also had one toilet in it. It was blocked most of the time, so excrement would overflow often. We were given rations of ten litres of water a day for drinking, bathing, cleaning, washing our clothes, etc. The room had only a hole of eleven square centimetres for us to breathe through. In rotation, each of us would put our nose close to the hole to breathe. With such unsanitary conditions it was not unusual for prisoners to be infected with all sorts of diseases, scabies, etc. Any medicine brought by the families and allowed into the jail proved to be useless.

.1610

Political prisoners and religious leaders in Vietnam are detained in a separate and isolated area. They are tortured physically and mentally, their reputation and dignity insulted on a daily basis.

Vietnam does not permit outside groups or international humanitarian organizations to monitor or inspect its jails.

The atrocities you have been presented with are a sad part of the realities of the people of Vietnam. Not only must they endure the hardship of labour, but they do not enjoy the freedom of their land.

I implore your committee to take into consideration the reality of human rights violations that occur in Vietnam. I urge the Canadian government to consider these when dealing with the Vietnamese Communist government. My friend's and my release was the first of its kind in Vietnam since 1975. It was because the governments of the world addressed the issue and put pressure on the Vietnamese government.

The pressure put forth by the U.S. government in conjunction with the Canadian and Australian governments toward the Vietnamese Communist government regarding human rights abuses in Vietnam did have an effect. The Vietnamese Communist government sentenced Professor Nguyen Dinh Huy for fifteen years, as well as other members of the Movement to Unite the People and Build Democracy in 1993 from fourteen years to four years, one week after a visit from the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Christopher. Buddhist leaders and all other political prisoners who raised the issue of freedom and democracy for the Vietnamese people were also sentenced after Mr. Christopher's departure.

With the pressure exerted by the western governments, the Vietnamese Communist government accepted to release me and my friend, Mr. Liem. We were quickly deported from Vietnam and were finally released in 1995. Canada, the United States, Australia and Europe have played key roles in the past with regard to human rights violations by the Vietnamese Communist government. With your continued support, I am confident that freedom and democracy will one day return to Vietnam.

Dear Mr. Chairman, members of the foreign committee, last night I received a fax from Cao Dai religious leaders in Ontario raising the issue of arresting their leaders in Vietnam. We urge you to take appropriate pressure and use your influence to have these Cao Dai leaders in Vietnam released.

Again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chair of the committee and its members for their precious work in pressuring the government of Communist Vietnam to my compatriot Mr. Liem and me. Your task is still unfinished. By seeking the release of Professor Nguyen Dinh Huy and the members of the Movement to Unite the People and Build Democracy and other political prisoners, your work is then fulfilled. Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you, Mr. Tri. I think we all very much appreciate that the firsthand witness of the abuses simply can't be duplicated by reading about it. Thank you.

.1615

We will now turn to Dr. Lam, who for the next fifteen minutes is going to tell us about child labour and the condition of children in Vietnam.

Dr. Lam: Mr. Chair and hon. members of the subcommittee, the condition of children in Vietnam is not better than the condition of women or men. Any discussion of child labour or other labour issues in Vietnam would tend to make evident the lack of a legal framework against which activities and practices may be evaluated. In fact, labour laws in Vietnam remain inadequate and fail to address such key issues as wage regulation, workers' health protection, workers' safety and trade unions.

Employees and workers have no right to set up independent trade unions to voice their own concerns but are expected to join state-sponsored trade unions. This means that strikes are severely restricted by the government. There is also no age limit for the recruitment of workers, which makes under-age employment a common practice. Hiring is often based on informality outside the workplace and it also can be facilitated by bribing. Under-age employees are preferred because of the lower wages.

More data are needed on labour issues as well as on other spheres of activity in Vietnam, but Vietnam tends to regard any international fact-finding as interference in its internal affairs. As a result, existing documentation is based on private sources such as foreign or domestic newspapers.

These news sources help provide a glimpse of conditions in major urban centres, where the poor migrate in large numbers from the hunger-stricken countryside in the central regions. A common scene in the cities is that of children trying to make a living as street vendors of newspapers, rice cakes, lotteries, charcoal. They may be shoeshiners, merchandise carriers, or rickshaw operators as helpers in state cooperatives. How much money do they make daily? Sometimes it is 40¢ to 60¢ U.S. a day.

While these constitute very low-paying jobs, they involve less potential for abuse compared with those in restaurants or hotel services, which may easily lead to prostitution. Paris-match of June 1994 says: ``Among the 100,000 registered prostitutes, mostly trained by the government through its tourism offices, half were not older than 18.'' When Jean-Claude Guillebaud recounted his visit to a nightclub financed by the Hanoi city police, he had to concede that the waitresses for many purposes were teenagers, who in Europe might not be allowed in a bar because of their young age.

Another activity is begging in the street for tourists' money or leftovers. Around the restaurants there was always a cohort of children 6 to 10 years old, anemic and skinny, waiting to jump in to finish the food that customers left behind them. Also, many children can be seen at garbage dumps searching for reusable objects or material that can be resold. All those children are reportedly susceptible to countless diseases due to lack of hygiene and poor nutrition.

.1620

In the countryside or the mountains, it is common that children between 7 and 15 help their parents in their work. Many children also skip school to babysit their young siblings. In a district near Ho Chi Minh City, over 11,000 children out of 56,000 could not go to school because they had to help their families make a living.

Of greatest concern are teenage girls under 16 who are sold to professional prostitution rings or sex tourism organizations. These girls are most vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases, as they are not protected by any preventive health measures. As a result, AIDS is on the rise in Vietnam, as in Cambodia, and may no longer be controllable.

Statistics show the following: prostitutes under 16, 7%; drug addiction under 15, 8%; and prostitutes with sexually transmitted disease, 10%. Very often those teenagers on the street may end up in prison, where they are detained with adult common criminals or political prisoners, exposed to every kind of abuse.

As witness, a Vietnamese poet, Nguyen Chi Thien, who was a prisoner for 26 years for his writings, talked about children in prison in Vietnam as cell mates:

These children typical of the regime
Looked real cute when they first went to jail!
Tiny running around, they did not need pants
Since their prison shirts came down to their ankles

There is another poem called Little One:

O mankind, can you even suspect such a thing?
One eight-year-old prison inmate!
Yet on my prison trail which for years I have walked
I have met thousands like him

In order to understand why children have to resort to so many activities for survival it is important to assess the general condition of children in Vietnam. According to the World Bank, Vietnam is one of the poorest countries in the world, even though since 1993 Vietnam has been the third-most important rice exporter.

According to a January 1996 report from CIDA, per capita income for Vietnam is $170 U.S. International and bilateral assistance through organizations such as the World Bank, UNICEF, the Francophonie and CIDA has not prevented social conditions from going downhill in Vietnam. Mostly it has repercussions on children's health and education.

In an authoritarian and coercive regime like Vietnam, most of the national budget is devoted to so-called security sectors involving the army and the police. Only a small share of the budget is allocated to social programs such as health care, culture and education. Health services are provided only for a fee.

At the hospital, patients have to pay for their rooms, cover medication expenses and doctors' consultations, and bribe other hospital workers for adequate care. The mortality rate is 54% for those under one year old. Another 25% of the population suffers from nutritional problems and 45% of children under five years of age are underweight. But Vietnam is known as the third-most important rice exporter.

In spite of rice shortages in north and central Vietnam, the government continues to increase the country's rice exports. This problem results from an inadequate assessment of needs coupled with poor coordination of economic policies.

In education, teachers are severely underpaid and must take up additional jobs selling black-market medicines, giving private lessons, holding bake sales, and driving taxis. Schools are poorly furnished and under-equipped, even though students have to pay tuition to attend public primary and secondary schools.

.1625

Registration may be made contingent on additional costly, so-called contributions, without which applications are rejected by school officials. Thus, over 30% of children between 10 and 18 cannot go to school. Many of them have to join the labour force.

In the Los Angeles Times in 1995, the editor reported that the government's export-import company had 100 under-age employees.

Suppose the schooling were completed. Job prospects remain bleak for graduates while business skills offer much better chances for a good living.

Education is thus not socially or economically valued. For many, going to school is simply not worth the trouble and children are often needed to seek additional income for their families.

For the above reasons, in an official statistic taken in Hanoi in December 1994 we saw that there are 2.2 million illiterate out of 29 million. That's 8% in the 15- to 35-year-old population. Fifty thousand children under 18 live on the streets in Hanoi; it's the same number for Ho Chi Minh City. Those children are exposed to malnutrition, poor hygiene, drug addiction, violence, sexual abuse, prostitution, and crimes.

In conclusion, the situation of children in Vietnam is a reason for serious concern. The nation's future appears bleak, as any country's future lies with its youth. Genuine development may be difficult to achieve if children are not cared for and educated.

We believe the Vietnamese government has failed in its task to bring up a new generation for the future and must once again over-rely on foreign aid and investment. We think that while such agencies as CIDA will provide developmental assistance, recipient countries also need to play an active role in educating and preparing their citizens.

In his statement at the 52nd session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 1996 the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy said that there is perhaps no greater injustice in the world than the violation of the rights of the child. Canada has recently announced that children will become the central focus of our foreign policy. I invite other countries to join us in that priority.

We hope that in its bilateral and multilateral assistance to Vietnam, Canada will urge Vietnam to give priority to children's health and education in order to achieve sustainable development with genuine social justice.

Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you, Dr. Lam.

That brought in the second theme of the afternoon: the rights of children. We now continue with that theme with Kevin Heppner from the Canadian Friends of Burma, who is going to talk to us about the condition of children in Burma.

Mr. Kevin Heppner (Director, Karen Human Rights Group, Canadian Friends of Burma): Thank you.

Actually, I was hoping that Christine Harmston could start for me and explain what she saw in her recent trip to parts of Burma and what Friends of Burma are doing here in Canada.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): That will be fine.

Ms Christine Harmston (Coordinator, Canadian Friends of Burma): I was able to go to Burma during May and June of this year. I was there during the National League for Democracy's congress in Rangoon and had the opportunity to meet and speak with Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as with numerous League for Democracy members who during the night were taken away, arrested, and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

.1630

I was able to go throughout Rangoon up country to the ethnic states to various cities throughout Burma and see for myself and hear firsthand reports of what is happening to the human rights situation in that country. I can assure that it's worsening since Suu Kyi's release. SLORC is emboldened by foreign investment, which is perpetuating its existence, by the lack of protocol interference by other ASEAN countries. Basically while other western countries, such as the EU and the United States, are becoming firmer on Burma, SLORC is still very much in power and in control of the people.

While I was there I was able to see children everywhere breaking rocks on the side of the roads for hours, with soldiers standing near, their guns pointed at them. There's widespread forced labour throughout the country. These children are very often forced to fill the quotas that are given to the families to carry out this forced labour, because the parent cannot afford to leave the fields where their food is being grown or don't want to lose their jobs because of missing some time to do this forced labour. So it's very often the children who are filling the quotas.

They themselves do not go to school. There's this new political party, the Union and Solidarity Development Association, which now is sort of a political party of SLORC. Children are forced to attend these rallies denouncing the democracy movement in Burma and hailing the activities of the SLORC. If they do not attend these rallies, they will be expelled from school.

I saw child soldiers in the SLORC army, who told me they were 13 and 14. I heard reports of 12-year-olds defecting from the SLORC army. They had no idea why they were fighting. They basically had been forced into the army. They knew who their enemies were. They just knew they had to be killed. A lot of these child soldiers are given drugs and alcohol prior to going into battle so that they will be mindless and very aggressive and will carry out these human rights abuses that are being condemned throughout the global community, throughout the UN. Again, they also are threatened that if they do not beat the civilians and carry out these abuses, they themselves or their families will be hurt.

Also, the trafficking of children, of young girls and boys, into the prostitution rings in Thailand continues unabated. I met with religious leaders in the ethnic states, who were seeing every day young girls being drawn into cars driven by women. The girls were told they were going off to Thailand to get money and work; obviously they did not know they were going into prostitution. But that's where they would end up.

There has been a new wave of crackdowns on the democracy movement since I was there. There have been massive arrests of everybody but Suu Kyi in the democracy movement - people attending her weekend rallies, anyone who is doing anything remotely anti-government. It's reaching a very state-of-emergency-like situation. There are growing threats to Suu Kyi and to the whole party itself.

The whole general population has hit rock bottom. Everyone was speaking of a spark. They said the spark has to happen soon. Some change has to happen soon. We cannot continue like this.

The children, the youngest citizens, are certainly the youngest victims in this and are playing a huge part in building the infrastructure of Burma. They are the ones who are building the roads, building the army bases, building the railways. And especially in the gas pipeline area of southern Burma, they are suffering horrible abuses and many are dying.

The SLORC spends less than 2% of its national budget on health care. A huge proportion, I believe 55%, of the children of Burma do not go past the fifth level. Only 5% go up to a few more years of education. Therefore, the health and education standards in Burma are deplorable.

.1635

I'll stop there, but I'll just say that from seeing firsthand the reports that all of us are receiving through the media and what Canadian Friends of Burma receives on a daily basis, the situation is worsening there.

Kevin Heppner will now speak. Kevin is going to Brussels in a few days to testify in front of the European Union on the issue of forced labour in Burma. Then Penny will tell you a bit about what Canadian Friends of Burma is doing on this issue.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mr. Heppner.

Mr. Heppner: I'm the director of the Karen Human Rights Group. We operate in rural areas of Burma by going into the country through territories that the SLORC junta does not control, and then having people go into villages and going into villages ourselves, interviewing villagers and refugees and gathering photographs and evidence of what's happening in the countryside.

When you look at Burma now, I think it's important to note that it's a country still at civil war, regardless of what SLORC says. There are still organizations actively fighting the regime and controlling territory. SLORC likes to promote the idea that it's made ceasefires with a lot of groups, but actually these are very shaky and do not address any political issues.

The result is a situation where you can look at human rights abuses both in the context of what you might call conflict areas, where there is potential for conflict happening, and non-conflict areas, where SLORC is in complete control.

In the context of the conflict areas, since the end of 1995 we've seen that SLORC has redone its military tactics in a much more hardline way. They are not shooting as strongly for ceasefires now. What they're bringing in now as their new military tactic is that in any area where there's any potential of an opposition force, they will define a geographic area and issue orders to every single village in that area, which can be several hundred square kilometres, to move within five to seven days or after the deadline be shot on sight. The orders are issued in written form to villages. We collect examples of them and they often specify that after the movement deadlines, men, women and children seen in the villages will be shot on sight as enemies. The people are then moved into military labour camps, where they are used for so-called infrastructure development projects, which are mostly roads and railways to consolidate military control over the areas of the ethnic peoples in the country.

This all ties in with their whole strategy called ``four cuts'', in which their whole policy of conducting the civil war is to cut off support for the opposition groups by the civilians, to try to separate the two. They do this by attacking the civilian population rather than trying to militarily attack the opposition groups. This means they have campaigns going on right now in several regions to systematically go through areas at harvest time and burn all the food supplies, burn villages and force people into relocation camps. For example, in Shan State, since February of this year, about 450 villages, possibly 80,000 people, have been ordered to move out of their villages or be shot on sight. In Kayah State about 200 villages have been issued the same orders. SLORC sends more and more army battalions into these areas, destroying all these villages.

The people, of course, do not want to go to these labour camps where no food or medicine is provided. They're often not allowed to leave, so once they run out of whatever rice they've brought with them, they begin to starve and have to try to escape. They don't want to go there and do forced labour, so most of them try to flee into hiding in the forests. Entire areas are becoming free-fire zones, where the only way people can live is in clusters of one or two families hiding in the jungle, where they face execution if they are found by SLORC patrols. They'll be executed or be taken as permanent forced labour, because they'll be accused of being rebel sympathizers.

.1640

So we have a huge crisis of internally displaced people. The people who make it to neighbouring countries, the refugees in Thailand and other neighbouring countries, are the tip of the iceberg, yet we're looking at about 120,000 in refugee camps in Thailand and probably another half million in hiding in Thai cities. We have 300,000 in Bangladesh who mostly have been forcibly repatriated but are now running again, and similar situations in other parts of the country.

However, even when you look at the areas of the country completely controlled by SLORC, where there is no fighting and no potential fighting, we see somewhat similar circumstances, because SLORC has doubled the size of its army since 1988. Its announced target is a standing army of half a million.

This is all aimed at controlling the population. They are flooding not only conflict areas with more military battalions all the time but also non-conflict areas in the centre of the country. More battalions are being stationed around every area.

The easiest way is to paint an example of a typical rural village. You will probably have one or two army battalions in your area, new ones moving in all the time. In some areas the numbers of battalions around a village have gone from one to five or six in the last couple of years. Each time a battalion comes into your area, it confiscates a lot of farm land, kicks you off it and then uses you for forced labour to build army camps and then to go on rotating forced labour duties as servants or as munitions porters.

You also have to receive orders, usually every week or every month, specifically stating that, for example, your village has to send 50 labourers tomorrow morning at 6 a.m. If they do not arrive, artillery shells will be fired into the village. Village elders are arrested, tortured and often executed if villages fail to comply with forced labour demands.

At the same time, army battalions, especially if there's no fighting to be done, are getting more and more into money-spinning schemes. This means they will confiscate farm land and then force the local villagers to do labour, growing cash crops, often for export and often for sale to foreign companies who want to repatriate their profits. They cannot repatriate their Burmese profits in kyat, the domestic currency, because it's worthless paper, so they use it to buy agricultural produce that is often produced by confiscated land and forced labour.

At the same time your village has to send all this kind of labour, you will face regular groups of soldiers coming into the village, looting your livestock and possessions. You will have to pay money every month to the army, each battalion in your area. You face arrest at any time for any perception of being against the government.

Another situation is quotas. When they can't be bothered to confiscate your farm land, all farmers have to pay crop quotas to SLORC. These are rising all the time. You have to hand over up to half or more of your crop to the army for little or no pay. SLORC is using a lot of this rice to export in order to show the world how much they are improving the economy by increasing exports. Meanwhile, it's creating a rice crisis within the country. Rice prices have doubled or tripled since last year, and people are starving all over the place.

People right in Rangoon, Mandalay, the urban centres, are having to survive on rice gruel - they can't even buy enough rice to eat - or the water the rice has been boiled in. They have to buy that and subsist on it.

.1645

So you have this situation pertaining all the way through the country, across the board. The whole social fabric is really being ripped apart. The economy, contrary to government figures, is going right down the toilet. A very small group of people is getting rich. The majority is getting very poor. Increased foreign investment is fuelling spiralling inflation on basic commodities. People cannot afford to survive anymore, even if they have jobs.

Even in non-conflict areas we find a lot of cases where, in a normal village that sees no fighting, up to 20% of the population has had to flee the village because they simply cannot survive there anymore. They cannot do all the forced labour.

Children are, of course, among the worst victims of this. They face the direct results of the disintegration of their communities as well as forced labour. As Christine started to talk about, the rule in Burma is that children have to do forced labour as soon as they're big enough to break or to carry a rock. That usually means 8 to 10 years old. If it's front-line munitions portering duty, they will usually want you to be a bit older. In that case, the girls might have to be 12. The boys might have to be about 12 as well to go into the front line carrying 10 or 20 kilos of mortar shells.

Usually the written orders sent to the villages demanding labour do not specify who has to come. Usually it will be a rotating system. Often it asks for one or two people per house in the village - no exceptions. That means whether you are a family with seven children or a widowed grandmother with an 8-year-old daughter, your house has to provide that forced labour.

As a result, you get a lot of kids doing the forced labour, especially in growing season, because in the rainy season the family has to try to grow a crop to survive for the next year. They're subsistence farmers. So the kids end up having to go for the forced labour shifts because the parents have to grow the crop or else the family will starve.

Rainy season, of course, is also the most dangerous time to do forced labour on these infrastructure development projects. That's when embankments collapse and kids are buried alive, and so on.

You also have forced conscription. The army in most areas will force a village to hand over one or two recruits per month. It's usually done on a lottery basis. They go for the kids because they can influence them the most.

Most of the SLORC deserters I have encountered are in the area of 14 to 16 years old. Some of them have been in the army for two years or more already. Once they're in the army they have no communication with their families. They're not allowed leave. They're often automatically re-enlisted after several years. The officers will force them into human rights abuses by confiscating all of their rations, selling them on the black market and then telling them to go loot their food from the villages. They also tell them to go round up forced labour in the village. If they don't bring back the number of people requested, they will be beaten themselves. The kids get dragged into the whole web of this thing and they see no way out. They don't even know what it's all about.

Infant mortality is extremely high. Malnutrition exists everywhere, including in the cities. More and more beggars are in the streets. As I said, there is this rice crisis going on, driving people into desperation. You have several hundred economic refugees fleeing Burma into Thailand every day, where they end up on construction sites, bonded labour, brothels and so on.

This situation is one where it's just not enough to say, for example, we should pour some money into UNICEF, which goes in and hands out band-aids. In this situation you have to look at things in the political context. This is not going to improve by handing out food in Burma or anything like that. We have to look at the basic political situation.

.1650

I think some governments are starting to realize that. I know the Canadian foreign ministry is not actively promoting trade there. The European Community is holding hearings next week to revoke SLORC's trade privileges. The American government has had discussions on sanctions. Various governments are getting fed up with this, so hopefully this kind of thing can continue. But it's really Canadian Friends of Burma that is more into the recommendations.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you. Mindful of the time and the splendid discipline that's been observed by the group, I wonder if Ms Sangar wants to have a minute in conclusion. Or would you prefer to wait until there are questions so that we can perhaps amplify some of the things your associates have said?

Ms Sangar: I'll just take half a minute to say that I'm very glad to be back here to point out to this committee and its predecessors.... I believe this is the fourth time I've been here, and Kevin has been here before. I see familiar faces, people who I know are concerned about Burma. We have seen no change in government policy. We ourselves look forward to discussing with you at the conclusion of this session some of the initiatives we are now taking because of this lack of change. We hope for your support. Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you very much.

We're right on time, and I thank everyone for that. We now complete our rather full tour of Asia, having done Vietnam and Burma, with a look at China. Mrs. To.

Ms To: Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee - and Dr. Lam, thank you for inviting the representative from China - I apologize that my husband is out of town. I hope I can do the job well for him.

I am here to represent two organizations. The first is the Federation for a Democratic China. It's an international organization with 200 to 500 members around the world. The other organization is Democracy China Ottawa. This is a local organization with members from different walks of life and different nationalities. We are for the peaceful movement of democratic movement in China.

I'd like to start by saying that we are aware that the foreign minister of China, Mr. Qian Qichen, was here in Ottawa last Thursday. The Globe and Mail subsequently reported on September 20 that Mr. Qian expressed the view that China is not concerned with what the rest of the world thinks of its human rights reputation. This, of course, is very disappointing. Canada has worked hard over the past seven years to convey to the Chinese authority that it is important for all governments to recognize the universal value of human rights. This means we have more work to do on the China case. Democracy China Ottawa would like to work with the subcommittee to further the cause of human rights in China.

In the past year we have detected a significant deterioration in the condition of human rights in China. We believe the Chinese authority is emboldened by the lack of strong protest from the international community, Canada included. Persecution in China in the three major areas is increasing at an alarming rate. The three areas are political, religious and the treatment of minorities.

On the political front the leading dissident, Wei Jinjsheng, was resentenced to another fourteen years of prison after finishing serving a fourteen-and-a-half-year prison term. He was merely trying to arrange an art exhibit to help the victim families of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Another leading dissident, Chen Ziming, was sent back to jail despite his medical condition. He suffered cancer, hepatitis B and heart disease and he was denied treatment.

.1655

Student leader Wang Dan was taken away on May 25, 1995, without a warrant. His current whereabouts are still unknown.

Mr. Bao Tong, a top aide to former Premier Zao Ziyang, is not allowed to return home after he has served his full sentence of seven years.

Torture and inhumane treatment is widely used in Chinese prisons. Many tortures have led to death. Mr. Chen Longde, a dissident from Zhejiang province, was so severely tortured this year he attempted suicide. The wife of the dissident was also taken in this year and tortured. She too attempted suicide. This is happening despite the fact that China is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture.

Since April this year, untold members were arrested in Xin-Jian for minority uprisings. We still don't know how many were executed or arrested.

Chinese oppression against Uighur and Tibetan people continues. As you are aware, China has selected their own child reincarnate for the Panchen Lama. This is a clear violation of Tibetans' religious rights. The Tibetan-selected child reincarnate for the Panchen Lama is in Chinese hands. We do not know his whereabouts or whether he is still alive.

Mr. Chairman, clearly our soft approach has produced a more intransigent attitude, as exemplified by the attitude of Mr. Qian, the foreign minister. It is unacceptable to the world community that China continues to persecute and torture her political dissidents, her national minorities and religious groups.

Mr. Chairman, we call on the subcommittee to be more explicit and forthright with the Chinese government from now on. We look forward to continue working with you on the China human rights issue.

As well, we have some recommendations. We believe it is inconsistent for China, as well as any other country, to be a member of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, since it has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We urge the Chinese government to sign and uphold these documents immediately.

We also urge China to implement the treaties it has signed, for example, the Convention Against Torture and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

We also urge the Chinese government to ensure the continued protection of human rights of the citizens of Hong Kong, as agreed to in the joint declaration and set out in basic law and the Hong Kong bill of rights.

We would like to support the linkage of development aid to human rights performance in order that such aid is not used to enhance the repressive capabilities of the Chinese government. Canada's foreign aid to China should be evaluated on a project-by-project basis, with input from concerned non-governmental organizations.

We support ongoing trade links between private Canadian companies and their partners in China. However, we feel that the cost of human rights will be well served by establishing a code of conduct for Canadian companies that trade with or invest in China. Such a code will prevent companies from engaging in business that enhances state control, exposing workers to unsafe conditions and restricting the ability of workers to organize themselves democratically.

Although China has signed the International Convention Against Torture, there is every indication that the convention is not being observed. We urge the Chinese government to allow an international committee of the Red Cross access to Chinese prisons to ensure that the prisoners are being treated humanely.

Thank you.

.1700

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you very much.

Thank you all for so helpfully organizing the meeting. You've done so well, we actually do have half an hour, as Dr. Lam had hoped we would, for questions.

I have to apologize in advance here, because I suspect that around 5:30 p.m. we'll hear a bell go. We have a vote at 5:45 p.m.

[Translation]

I suggest that we begin by giving ten minutes to the members of the Bloc Québécois. I don't know if you will be sharing that time amongst yourselves. We shall see after.

Ms Debien (Laval East): I would first of all like to thank all our guests for having agreed to participate in our work.

You have painted quite a dramatic and somber picture of the status of human rights in Vietnam and China in particular. I will leave Burma and the violations of children's rights there aside for now, because I'm told, and you yourself confirmed this, that the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs and his American counterpart are currently imposing a number of restrictions on trade with that country. Canada continues, however, to carry on extensive trade with Vietnam and China.

That would be the context for the first part of my question. You have presented a certain number of proposals to us and to the Canadian government. One of them is a request for government assistance to allow Vietnam to implement reforms in its judicial system. You have asked Canada to urge Vietnam to release certain persons who are being detained, and to respect the law. You have asked the Canadian government to study all cases of human rights violations in Vietnam. You also insisted that Vietnam be reminded of human rights violations. There is an additional element here. We are asked to set conditions if we are to continue to trade with Vietnam. The witness who spoke to us about problems in China also raised that possibility.

However, you know that at this time, in applying its foreign policy, as we can see by the most recent acts of the Canadian government, Canada is focusing on milder diplomatic measures in order not to prejudice Canada's commercial interests; I am still referring here, of course, to human rights.

I would like you to tell me, in light of the serious situation you have described, especially in Vietnam and China, whether you support the Canadian use of diplomatic measures which I would describe as muted to urge Vietnam and China to show greater respect for human rights.

I would like to make one last comment. One witness, the first we heard if I remember correctly, pointed out that Canada had to have a more responsible position on the violation of human rights, in Vietnam and China in particular. I would like to ask him to define what he meant by a more responsible position on the part of Canada, especially insofar as Vietnam is concerned, since he was from that country.

That is the gist of my first query.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Perhaps we could start with Vietnam.

Mr. Truong: About Canada's responsible position, I wanted to say that we would like to see Canada adopt a position that does not only take trade into account, but also such factors as development in Vietnam and the moral leadership which Canada exercises on the international scene. That is what I meant by responsible.

.1705

If Canada wants to insist on trade as a factor, it should introduce efficiency criteria because we feel that trade could be one way of exerting an influence to promote change in Vietnam. If those means proved to be ineffective, they would have to be reviewed, as would the criteria, and perhaps commercial advantages or restrictions could be considered if need be.

Mr. Ngo: We should also discuss the bilateral or multilateral relationship between the Canadian government and Vietnamese government. We are not opposed in principle to a relationship between Vietnam and Canada because both countries have mutual interests.

But whenever there are discussions on economic or humanitarian well-being, I would like to see Canada raise the issue of human rights. Certain conditions should be set before any aid is granted to anyone. We have raised doing the same thing for about twenty years. We have asked questions and made requests, and what have we accomplished? Nothing at all. We have continued to provide millions and millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers' pockets. Personally, I am against pursuing this.

I agree with considerations of public interest and with the fact that both countries have mutual interests, but a few minimum conditions have to be set, i.e., if you comply with the first condition, you will be given a certain amount; if you comply with the second condition, you will be given a further amount. The Canadian investor who signs a contract deals with the elite or government leaders. Contracts are not signed with small Vietnamese entrepreneurs over there. So, indirectly, you are contributing to the enrichment of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Vietnamese government. That type of trade between our two countries only benefits a small number of people, members of the Vietnamese communist elite. But the Vietnamese people get nothing at all. That is what I wanted to add. Thank you.

[English]

Mrs. Finestone (Mount Royal): Mr. Chairman, can I add to that question?

[Translation]

Your question is very relevant.

What I find difficult, quite frankly, Mr. Ngo, is that it is all well and good to say that we should act in a certain way, but what will we do if the government reacts with intransigence and no longer wants to deal with us? Since you are from that culture, you have experience, you know the language and you are familiar with business practices. Can you tell us what we could do to break through that wall?

[English]

You know, it reminds me of the little sailors you might shrink to go through the veins or the arteries. What's the entry point? If you do business, if you sign your contract with a front man - unfortunately, Dr. Lam, I don't think it's ever a ``front woman'', but if there are front women, they could be equally difficult - how do you get to ensure that the filter gets down to the people?

One of the other things I want to know is this. If there's no freedom of speech, therefore there's no access to television, there's no access to radio. I was trying to think of East Germany, where the wall finally fell because you knocked and hammered and the drip of water finally got through. But there was telecommunications. You don't have a society with telecommunications that is so spread out.

So how do you answer Maud and those of us who've listened to you, and with an open heart and a really caring mind - or maybe vice versa, whichever - to be able to answer your questions? To close the door and walk away and not do business is, I think, counter-productive.

.170

Mr. Ngo: Let me put it this way. When a big company goes to Vietnam, they go through government channels. In 1994 the Canadian government led a delegation that spoke with government's highest officials. So what did you do over there? You met with high officials from the other side.

So if you go into Vietnam, to the ministry person.... If I'm with Coca-Cola, for example, and I go to Vietnam to knock on doors, perhaps I'll go to see the commerce minister to ask if he could please introduce me to Vietnamese people who have some interest in doing business. Of course, you have to bribe the commerce official in order to have some kind of input over there, but at least you get something. If you go with that big delegation, the big high official, you're going to see the other side of the same level. You're not going to the small people at all.

Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Chairman, may I add to the question?

Maud, you can pick it up if you want.

Mrs. Debien: No, that's okay.

Mrs. Finestone: So what are you saying? In order words, if you send a delegation, you say to the Vietnamese government, the five of us are going as part of the Canadian delegation and we're going to ask five of you to join us, and we'll take the minister - not the minister will take us, but we'll take the minister. Will that have any effect over time?

Mr. Ngo: If you go there, don't have an official visit at the minister's level. You can ask them -

Mrs. Finestone: I thought you were taking the minister.

Mr. Ngo: - if they could introduce you to some local interpreter in Ho Chi Minh City or whatever, to a small factory here or there. Don't do big things, because the big things are always controlled by the government. They create the façade outside so you can have a look at it.

But you can go through small people. You can tell them you're interested in their company, and you can ask them about their work and so on. You can ask them how you can invest in them. If you talk to the local interpreter you might succeed at these things. Big companies and big high officials always sign with big high officials and interpreters on the other side.

Mrs. Finestone: The muck-a-mucks.

Mr. Ngo: Yes.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mr. Paré.

Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Tan Tri's description of his imprisonment and trial reminded me of the case of a citizen from my riding, Trân Triêu Quân, who is currently imprisoned in Vietnam and who had to endure exactly the same situation: mock trials where judges act as Crown attorneys and where defence lawyers don't even have the right to talk to the citizens they are supposed to be defending.

I find that situation extremely objectionable and I would say that the international community, including Canada, is implicitly condoning it. It is tragic to think that as we speak, four or five members of the House of Commons are listening to these first-hand accounts and being moved by them and that tomorrow they will go back to their usual lives without having been able to influence the Canadian government. It's appalling.

I sent a letter recently to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Trân Triêu Quân case. In the rather lengthy two-page reply the Minister sent me, he listed all of the more or less political and diplomatic measures the government had taken. Those diplomatic efforts are obviously totally useless since after two years of them, Trân Triêu Quân is still in jail. First he was condemned to life imprisonment, then his sentence was changed to 20 years of forced labour. Although the government claims that it will continue to do everything it can to help, it refuses to take some of the steps it could take, according to me.

It seems ridiculous to me that on such fundamental issues government members and Opposition members cannot seem to arrive at a consensus and fight for the same things, shoulder to shoulder. Everyone sides with his political party; Opposition members shout and government members support the government, or, even worse, they say nothing. This is completely mad; it is scandalous to behave this way.

.1715

There is one step toward a solution that the government refuses to take. One of our witnesses, Mr. Tri if I remember correctly, said that Vietnam was extremely eager to attract foreign investors - and I would continue the sentence by adding - that that should give Canada, the United States, and all of the international community some leverage to force the Vietnamese government to abide by a certain number of rules if it wants to do business with them.

I'd like to get back to what Ms Finestone was saying. I agree that we can't just cut Canadian aid, that that would be counterproductive. Canada could say that it will interrupt bilateral aid to Vietnam until it has met with certain conditions, and that Canada will in future provide official development assistance through Canadian and Vietnamese non government organizations. In that way, the aid that Canadians provide to Vietnam might possibly reach those who need it, not just those who are in power.

I am surprised that the Canadian Vietnamese community which is made up, I believe, of several hundred thousand Canadians, hasn't managed to influence the government. Your community is made up of men and women who vote - electors. How is it that you haven't managed to budge the Canadian government and make it change its course with regard to human rights?

Mr. Truong: Our community is made of approximately 150,000 Canadians of Vietnamese origin. We have begun to make representations to the Canadian government; we are getting organized. We are beginning to put in place mechanisms to allow us to have a dialogue with the government of Canada to urge it to exert pressure on Vietnam, but all of this seems to be taking a long time. I agree with you. I think Ms Dre Lam would like to add something.

Ms Lam: I would like to answer Mr. Paré's question. We still don't have a solution. We are Canadians of Vietnamese origin who have been here for 20 years, refugees who fled the Communist regime in Vietnam. We are well acquainted with the situation in Vietnam.

We have tried to give information to the government of Canada to prevent it from becoming an accomplice in the crimes committed by the Communists.

We are doing everything we can. Now, as to whether there is a will to act on the part of the government or not, and as to whether it is responsible or not, I think that it is very difficult to determine, because economic interests always prevail. What can we do? When you talk about the moral values of Canada or of the human race as a whole, you always come up against others who talk about economic interests. Our presence here today is to urge not only Vietnam, but also the other countries to seek a solution together with Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I'm not surprised that the Vietnamese refugees who came here have not been able to change the situation in Vietnam.

.1720

It's very difficult when you're dealing with Communism and especially with Asian Communism. It's not like in Europe. Everyone thought in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell that the same thing would happen in Asia, but nothing budged there. We all have to work together to make things change.

Things can evolve; there can be slow but steady progress. Isolating those countries economically is not a solution; it doesn't work. Cuba was isolated long ago and remains a Communist country; nothing has changed. We have to find another solution.

In light of the information I have received from CIDA or others, I would say that a more active process has to be undertaken. Certain demands have to be addressed to Vietnam. We can't ask them to go elsewhere, nor replace them with someone else. That is impossible. We must, for instance, ask them to institute judicial institutions, to recognize certain laws and apply them correctly, and not in a flexible way, according to their interests. I think that the persons who meet with the government of Vietnam could suggest those solutions.

Recently we noted an improvement in Canada's attitude toward Vietnam. Rather than limiting himself to quiet diplomacy, Mr. Raymond Chan spoke out publicly and asked that human rights be given more of a priority. Will this have any effect? We shall see, but there has already been a certain progress. I thank the government for that.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Thank you.

I have a question that actually relates to what Mrs. Finestone was asking, and to what was just said. It's a big question, which probably would take us through the night. It may be that the answer is different for the three countries, and I'd be interested in hearing it. Then perhaps we might start with the countries that haven't been heard from since we started the questioning.

In the case of each country, is it more effective in the long run to focus narrowly on human rights and try to change an existing regime through whatever methodology? Are they susceptible to that kind of change if the same people are in place? Or is it the case that we would be better off simply working to overthrow those regimes - I use the words dramatically - to hope that the kind of thing Mrs. Finestone referred to in eastern Europe or wherever it would take place...that we should be working to inundate them with rock music or whatever it is that overthrows regimes successfully around the world. In other words, we should cut to the chase. These are not people we can influence, who are going to be impressed by this.

So where should we put the bulk of our effort? The answer may vary from country to country.

We might have a word first from Burma and then from China.

Ms Sangar: I'd like to start off with Burma.

I think it's a very simple question. I think there are certainly regimes, and Burma is one of them, where not only are we not able to have any effect on them at all with our present form of engagement, but the engagement is further entrenching them because of the rules of the land. They are out there, we can all see them.

You go in and find, as Petro-Canada found and as other private investors are finding, that you pay key money to all of them. You have to take the SLORC's word for where you can work and how you operate.

I think your question has to vary for each country, but certainly in our experience over five years with Burma, you cannot work with this regime as it is now. More importantly, if we go on as we're going now we are entrenching it, further strengthening it. That's substantiated in all sorts of figures we see daily.

.1725

Mr. Heppner: Something that I think is stated often by people in Burma is that they recognize that whatever final change has to come, has to come from within the country. Yet at the same time they look to the international community to act in a way that lends them support to achieve what they want. That means not financially supporting SLORC through investment, and they've called for sanctions. It means not getting friendly with SLORC, and giving the democracy movement political support in international fora.

Something was brought up in the first question that I'd like to clarify. I don't know if something I said led to a misunderstanding, but it was stated that Canada had imposed trade restrictions to do with Burma. Actually, Canada has imposed absolutely no trade restrictions. When companies consult the ministry of foreign affairs about whether they should go into Burma, the ministry of foreign affairs suggests that they look at the situation and consider not going in. However, there are no restrictions. In fact, Canada is lagging behind the European Union and the American government in this respect, and Canadian investment is increasing, particularly in the mining sector.

One of the great fears in Burma is that Mr. ``Toxic Bob'' Friedland from Vancouver is going into Burma right now. This guy is notorious, and if you look at the damage he's caused in countries that have regulations, it's horrifying to think what he might manage to do in Burma. I'm afraid that if we are back here next year, given his and other increasing Canadian mining investments in Burma, we might end up having to sit here and tell you about land confiscation, homelessness and death being caused by Canadian mining investment.

Ms Harmston: I just wanted to say that we should also recognize the vote of the people. In 1990 they voted the democracy movement in, and the illegal regime that is in power now overthrew that vote. We shouldn't be recognizing this regime. We shouldn't be dealing with this regime at all, but seeking ways to remove them so that the true people who were voted in can come back into power.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): I wanted to give Mrs. To a chance.

Ms To: I think in the case of China it's amazing what money can do. It's a big market and people will just look at money [Inaudible - Editor] with everything else. The foreign minister has said he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks because he knows everybody is rushing in to do business in China. I think the consistent bringing up of human rights and a democratic system and also helping them set up their judicial system, bringing in trained judges, going through that avenue may be better than, say, overthrowing this government. I don't think it's possible. Don't give up, but bring up the issue consistently all the time and I'm optimistic that eventually it will happen.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): You've answered the question indirectly, but maybe you want to answer it....

Mr. Nguyen: I'm sorry, my English is not....

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Please feel free to reply in French if you feel more comfortable.

[English]

Mr. Nguyen: I cannot speak French. Can I speak Vietnamese and my friends will translate for me?

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Sure.

Mr. Nguyen (Interpretation): To overthrow the existing government in the present situation I don't think is easy to do. What we should do is put pressure in order to have that government change slowly. The first priority we have is human rights. Once a country has basic human rights, then the people will slowly change that government.

.1730

At the present time, the Vietnamese Communist government is arresting all the political prisoners who raise the issue of change for democracy and freedom in a peaceful fashion. If they do not, arresting those people, such as, for example, in the Movement to Unite the People and Build Democracy.... These people are asking for peaceful change, and they do not have any intention whatsoever of overthrowing the government.

For example, among the Movement to Unite the People and Build Democracy, among others, and political prisoners such as Dr. Que or Professor Hoat, the desire is to ask for a peaceful solution to change to Vietnam. They have been arrested. When I went back to Vietnam in 1993 to organize a conference, my desire was also for a solution of peaceful change.

We would like the Canadian government to keep on pressuring the Vietnamese government to change slowly and peacefully through asking about human right violations and basic civil liberties for the Vietnamese people.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): Mrs. Gaffney.

Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): I too want to thank you for coming here today. I don't think anyone in this room doesn't have the same hopes and aspirations as you do for your individual countries. We are horrified by what goes on. At the same time, we're very sympathetic and want to move in that direction.

I would refer to something Mr. Paré said. In the previous government, I sat on the subcommittee on international human rights. You were concerned that we, as members of Parliament, can't make a difference. I disagree with that. I think we, as members of Parliament, can make a difference.

I have met many of these people before. I commend them for constantly chipping at this. We made many strong recommendations as a subcommittee to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Human rights crosses party lines. We have to be united in this committee to try to drive this message home to our government, to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I think we need to be united in that way.

I think you're quite right that governments are not going to change rapidly. They're going to change slowly, and we have to recognize that. I look at two countries in particular that I have visited on two different occasions, El Salvador and Guatemala. Look at what has happened in those two countries where the old Communist governments - or whatever they were - have fallen by the wayside. They do have a more democratic system of election down there now.

I don't really have a question, but I do want to say something. I'm trying to give a positive spin on this that we as a committee should be looking at. The greatest hope that was ever given to me was from a Canadian priest in Burma. I got a letter from him one day. He had been listening one morning to Radio Canada International and I was being interviewed. He said, imagine my surprise when I'm awakened at 5 a.m. by a fellow Canadian who is giving me hope that somebody in the rest of the world does know what we're trying to do inside Burma.

.1735

I think it's that kind of thing; we have to have that hope. I don't really have a question. I'm just trying to -

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): No, because we have a bell.

A quick comment, please.

Mrs. Finestone: First of all, I think that the friends of Vietnam is a non-partisan organization, and I hope,

[Translation]

Mr. Paré, that you will be a member of the organization.

[English]

My question, to which I'd like a written answer if possible, because I'd like to see if there is a practical way we could start in some measure, is whether it would be constructive or productive if we could identify any products to which child labour is attached. If you are aware through your contacts of where there is child labour and where the products are sold in Canada, perhaps we could have an impact there.

Would this be a good idea? Should we do it? Can you give us some advice, perhaps by contacting the chair at another time? We do have another obligation to go and vote. It is a question that builds very well on the question that you posed before and that Mrs. Debien and Mr. Paré also expressed along with my other colleagues.

I unfortunately learned too much listening, and it's like a heartbreak. But I'd love some answers to that.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Godfrey): If you wouldn't mind that being your homework, we would very much appreciate hearing from you. We will circulate that information not only to the regular members of the committee but to those who were here today and expressed an interest, like Mrs. Finestone.

Before leaving you in a bit of a hurry, may I ask that you all stay behind to talk to the clerk if you have any notes about what you said. She will want to make sure we have a complete record.

I declare the meeting adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page