Hon. Thanh Hai Ngo, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That the Senate note that, by adopting the Journey to Freedom Day Act on April 23, 2015, and taking into account the first two elements of the preamble of the said Act, the Parliament of Canada unequivocally recognized violations of:

(a)the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam and its protocols (Paris Peace Accords); and

(b)the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam; and

That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to call upon six or more of the current parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam, which include Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, amongst others, to agree to the reconvention of the International Conference on Viet-Nam pursuant to Article 7(b) of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam in order to settle disputes between the signatory parties due to the violations of the terms of the Paris Peace Accords and the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today on a matter of great importance: to reintroduce my motion for the Government of Canada to call upon six or more of the current parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to agree to reconvene the International Conference on Viet-Nam. As you may recall, my motion died on the Order Paper because of the 2021 federal election. Today, I am delivering my speech and reiterating the same arguments that I raised on June 29.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, in an effort to end the Vietnam War and come to a lasting resolution, the Agreement On Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam and its protocols, commonly known as the Paris Peace Accords, were signed by the U.S.; the Republic of Vietnam, called South Vietnam; the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, called North Vietnam; and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Vietnam, called Viet Cong, in Paris on January 27, 1973.

[English]

According to Article 19 of the Paris Peace Accords, from February 26 to March 2, a second international conference was held again in Paris, which, among other things, established the International Commission of Control and Supervision rules of conduct and its reporting mechanisms to support the agreement’s implementation. The conference was concluded on March 2, 1973, by the signing of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam, wherein the parties of the Paris Peace Accords and eight other countries — Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, the U.K., the Soviet Union and China — pledged they would, henceforth, not only uphold and support its terms but also abide by its provisions, including those related to foreign interference. Both the Paris Peace Accords and the act were registered with the UN Secretariat on May 13, 1974.

In addition to the many Canadian soldiers who died during the Vietnam War, Canada made significant contributions toward the effort to reach a lasting peace in Vietnam. It was part of the first International Commission for the Supervision and Control — Vietnam, established by the 1954 Geneva Agreements. It was also the part of the second International Commission of Control and Supervision, the ICCS, established by the Paris Peace Accords, sending peacekeeping forces in 1973 to investigate compliance and uphold its provisions. More importantly, it is a signatory to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

[Translation]

As one of the signatories to the act, Canada played an integral supervisory role in the effort to support peace. As part of the ICCS — along with Poland, Hungary and Indonesia, which were at the time, respectively, communist countries and dictatorships — Canada made key contributions by investigating and overseeing that respect of the ceasefire, withdrawal of troops and return of captured military and civilian personnel were maintained.

[English]

Despite the subsequent invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam’s Communist forces in 1975, in absolute violation of the Paris Peace Accords and of the act, I believe they remain valuable diplomatic tools for the resolution of disputes between signatory parties that arise from violations of their terms.

I wish to draw your attention to Articles 7(a) and 7(b) of the act, which provide a useful mechanism for dispute settlement in the event the Paris Peace Accords are infringed upon. Article 7(a) allows the parties to determine necessary remedial measures:

In the event of a violation of the Agreement or the Protocols which threatens the peace, the independence, sovereignty, unity, or territorial integrity of Viet-Nam, or the right of the South Vietnamese people to self-determination . . . .

Article 7(b) states that:

The International Conference on Viet-Nam shall be reconvened upon a joint request by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam on behalf of the parties signatory to the Agreement or upon a request by six or more of the Parties to this Act.

[Translation]

Canada has a vested interest in continuing to uphold stability, peace and democracy in Asia. To this end, it is incumbent upon Canada’s government to call upon six or more of the current parties to the act to agree to reconvene the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

There are compelling arguments that indicate there are sufficient grounds to engage Article 7(b) of the act and thereby reconvene the said conference.

[English]

On April 23, 2015, the Journey to Freedom Day Act was adopted. The first two elements of its preamble acknowledge the involvement of Canadian Armed Forces by assisting in the enforcement of the Paris Peace Accords and the subsequent invasion of South Vietnam by military forces of the Vietnam People’s Army, and the National Liberation Front in 1975. Considering these two elements of the said preamble, the Parliament of Canada unequivocally recognized violations of the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam and its Protocols; and the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

Not only are there no provisions within the Paris Agreement allowing the parties to terminate it, but also the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides the mechanisms for states to either withdraw, terminate or suspend treaties, is inapplicable in this case because it came into force after the Paris agreement was reached. Article 4 of the Vienna Convention regarding its non-retroactivity makes it impossible to invoke it. Furthermore, the United States has never ratified it.

[Translation]

Additionally, when the U.S. and Vietnam decided to establish diplomatic relations after the fall of Saigon and the reunification of South and North Vietnam, public statements referring to the Paris Agreement were made by their respective officials, thus suggesting it could be considered as still in force, at least in part.

[English]

As is the case with the Paris Peace Accords, the act is bereft of provisions that allow for its termination or sunset clauses to apply. Also, since the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties came into effect after the act, the convention is also inapplicable to the act. Contrary to the Paris Peace Accords, where customary international law makes it difficult to give a clear-cut and conclusive answer because of the ambiguity regarding its status, in this particular case one must look to customary international law to interpret the act. Such an interpretation would imply that the act continues to be in force, as it specifically provides a mechanism for the international conference to be reconvened without the U.S. and Vietnam jointly requesting it. Therefore, the act continues to be binding on the other eight signatory countries. Furthermore, the act is also listed among multi-party treaties and agreements by the U.S. Department of State as still being in force as of January 1, 2020, with Canada still listed as one of the parties.

For the purpose of reconvening the international conference in accordance with Article 7(b) in fine, Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, the U.K., the U.S., Russia and China — most of which are democratic countries, including Hungary, Indonesia and Poland, which were not at that time — should be considered as being the current parties to the act. To reconvene the international conference, at least six of them must agree. Alternatively, and pursuant to Article 7(b) in limine, the reconvening of the conference could also happen if the U.S. and Vietnam jointly request it, provided that Vietnam clearly states its intention to continue North Vietnam’s participation in the act.

Ultimately, if there is consensus among the parties that the Paris Agreement continues to be in force, it can be reopened and renegotiated. The same applies to the act; in its case, it would allow for the international conference to be reconvened in accordance with Article 7(b).

Reconvening this international conference can also be a valuable mechanism in initiating negotiations in some of the most pressing geopolitical issues in Asia today, such as the South China Sea dispute. Articles 4 and 5 of the act indicate that its signatories, including China:

. . . solemnly recognize and strictly respect the fundamental national rights of the Vietnamese people, i.e., the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Viet-Nam, as well as the right of the South Vietnamese people to self-determination. The Parties to this Act shall strictly respect the Agreement and the Protocols by refraining from any action at variance with their provisions.

In 1974 and 1988, China invaded Vietnam’s Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands respectively. These invasions are in violation of the act, allowing any signatory country to reconvene the international conference as per the conditions set out in Article 7(b) of the act.

On December 30, 1974, President Ford signed Public Law 93-559. Section 34(b)(4) requires the U.S. executive branch to reconvene the international conference in the eventuality of any violation of the Paris Peace Accords. By the intermediary of Article 7 of the act, and by invoking the spirit of public law 93-559, the U.S. has legal grounds to initiate a reconvening of the international conference and to force signatory governments to the conference table.

This past April, during an appearance at the House of Commons Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, Minister Harjit Sajjan, the Minister of National Defence at that time, said:

. . . Canada opposes land reclamation projects and building outposts in disputed areas for military purposes. We support lawful commerce, freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight in accordance with international law.

We will continue supporting our allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region, especially in the face of unilateral actions that undermine peace and stability.

The minister also delivered a similar speech during the twelfth annual Conference on the South China Sea held in Vietnam in November 2020. It’s worth mentioning that Canada is also actively maintaining a naval presence in that region.

Colleagues, for all of these reasons, it is therefore of the utmost importance to reopen this important debate and give serious consideration to reconvening the historic, multilateral forum that is the international conference on Vietnam. I truly believe this would be a vital policy tool and a useful means for diplomatic and peaceful resolution of conflicts in Asia, and I ask for your support. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Senator Quinn: Thank you, Senator Gold. A supplementary, if I may.

Other countries are making significant investments in critical infrastructure to alleviate supply chain disruptions. Their investments will no doubt put competitive pressures on our seaports, railways and trucking industries.

What assurances do we have that appropriate investments will be made in New Brunswick and other Maritime provinces where critical infrastructure is vital for enhancing Canada’s competitive position and for providing necessary options for the smooth delivery of goods to all areas of Canada?

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Peter Harder: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to the role and mandate of the RCMP, the skills and capabilities required for it to fulfill its role and mandate, and how it should be organized and resourced in the 21st century.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, senator.

The government is well aware that immigration is essential to the vitality of our francophone minority communities. That is why the government has announced additional measures for francophone and bilingual applicants under the Express Entry program. The government is committed to finding new ways to attract francophones, including the development of a francophone integration pathway and programs like the Welcoming Francophone Communities Initiative.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the series of questions, all of which are important and none of which I can answer with any precision today. With your indulgence, I will make inquiries and report back.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I will certainly make initial inquiries, and first and foremost, with regard to the situation in the United States. The hundreds of countries elsewhere in the world each have their own sovereign right to determine access and the conditions under which tourists and others can visit. To determine the situation around the world will take much longer, even for a government that is well known for finding answers very quickly. I will do my best to get as many answers as I can and as quickly as I can.

Senator Boisvenu: Senator Gold, according to the information I received, Ms. Levesque’s family was offered $2 million in compensation — $2 million. There must be a very good reason the Parole Board decided to offer Marylène Levesque’s family that much money, and we would like to know what that reason is.

Does Public Safety Canada acknowledge its responsibility for the murder of this 22-year-old woman who was stabbed more than 30 times?

Senator Gold: I cannot answer for the minister, and as to correctional services and the board I was formerly a member of, they have their own chain of command. Once again, I will ask the government for information and get back to you.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. The government continues to provide funding under the National Trade Corridors Fund and announced yesterday funding for $4.1 million to the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to help with bottlenecks and supply chain issues in British Columbia. I have been advised and assured that the government is monitoring supply chain issues in the Atlantic provinces, as well as in the rest of the country, caused by the combination of weather and the pandemic. I’ve been informed as well that the government continues to work closely with industry and provincial partners to assess transport needs going forward and to smooth out supply issues that continue to emerge.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government has been and will continue to work with provincial and territorial farmers and stakeholders to ensure that the damage they suffer is dealt with and treated fairly. I have no specific answer to the question of compensation, but no doubt the government and its provincial counterparts will be seized with this issue.

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my next question is for the government leader as well and concerns the cost-of-living crisis in our country.

Last week, Statistics Canada reported that inflation is at its highest level in 18 years. In August, during the federal election campaign, the Prime Minister admitted that he doesn’t think about monetary policies. I believe him. It is clear he never thinks about these. But massive inflation is making everyday life unaffordable for Canadians. These Canadians are thinking about monetary policies.

On December 31, the agreement between the Bank of Canada and the Government of Canada on our country’s inflation-control target will lapse — just over a month away. We still don’t know the Trudeau government’s position on this. Leader, you didn’t have an answer for Senator Bellemare yesterday, so perhaps I will have better luck. Will the inflation-control target be renewed at its current rate of 1 to 3%, yes or no?

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, there are some points I would like to make on this important issue. One of the realities we need to acknowledge is that we are not the same demographic as those serving in the other place. Many senators are older or have underlying conditions and that does require us to be more vigilant and take more precautions than our counterparts. That is why, in principle, I am in favour of continuing hybrid sittings.

However, before we vote on this motion, I want to put on the record something that we are all aware of but maybe are not actively considering — not every Canadian has access to the same level of internet service required to fully participate in Senate proceedings. In Nunavut, the entire territory lost its internet connection when it rained on a satellite dish in Saskatchewan. That may sound odd, but that is the reality of our satellite-based internet services. I know there are other senators who would be joining our proceedings from rural or remote locations, and I know and share their frustrations when the signal drops in the middle of a statement or when asking a question.

The fact of the matter is that Canada consistently underperforms when compared to internet and wireless service delivery across the world. A recent study conducted by Opensignal showed that Canada came second to last in nearly every category when benchmarked against 24 different OECD countries. We did come first in one category, though; cost per gigabyte. Yes, we have the second-worst availability in service, but we have the highest cost per gigabyte out of the 24 countries examined. I could go on about the fact that Canada is one of the last countries that uses a spectrum auction to line its coffers, as opposed to using it as an opportunity to allocate a vital public resource.

I could talk about the absurdity of only having 60 megahertz available for auction when the International Telecommunications Union has set a standard for 200 megahertz of capacity per provider in order to ensure that consumers receive the proper level of service. Or I could go on about the loopholes being created by our current policy of set-asides and the need for better and stronger measures to foster competition in our telecommunications market.

Instead, I will only say that we clearly have a broken system and poor infrastructure, because it is relevant to this debate. When senators are forced to stay home due to medical reasons or pandemic restrictions, and then are not able to access the level of internet required to fully and actively participate in Senate proceedings and committee work, I would go so far as to say — and I believe — that it’s an infringement of our privileges. We must ensure that we have the tools and every opportunity available to us to exercise our duty and privilege to participate in the work of the Senate.

In the short term, that may mean new technology that ensures we have strong, stable signals when attending the Senate virtually. In the long term, to me that means we need to be firm and consistent in our demand for change. We need to ensure we have better, more transparent, accountable and streamlined decision making when it comes to telecommunications policy.

It means we need to make smart and strategic investments in future infrastructure, and it means we need to really hold our institutions to their promises of making internet affordable and service delivery competitive in every region of this vast and beautiful country. Thank you. Qujannamiik.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)

[Translation]

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. Notwithstanding that health is a provincial jurisdiction, the Canadian government, the Ministry of Health and their counterparts have been working with their provincial and territorial counterparts in all kinds of ways. The chamber knows the effort that the federal government has made to move and help move personnel from place to place as need be. Military personnel and the like continue to work with their provincial counterparts to make sure that we can do our part collectively to make sure the human resources that are necessary for a vital health care system are strengthened, nurtured and promoted.