Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 5 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, June 10, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 4:00 p.m. with a parliamentary delegation from France.
Senator John B. Stewart (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have the great privilege this morning of having with us members of the Parliament of the Republic of France, certain members from the National Assembly and some members of the Senate. I anticipate that we will be joined shortly by some members of our House of Commons.
Let me introduce the members of the Senate of Canada who are here this morning. I will start with Senator Ottenheimer, from the East Coast; Senator Corbin, who is from the Province of New Brunswick; Senator Bacon, from Quebec; and I am from Nova Scotia. We all hail from east of the Ottawa River.
I believe, because the group from France comes from both the houses, there is no chairperson. Perhaps someone from the National Assembly would put on the record the names of the deputies, followed by someone from the Senate putting on the record the names of the senators here present.
[Translation]
Mr. Alain Griotteray, Member for Val de Marne: My name is Alain Griotteray and I am the Member for Val de Marne, a district bordering on the capital city of Paris. I also happen to be the director of Le Figaro Magazine. To my right is Jean-Claude Mignon, the Member for Seine-et-Marne which is also located in the Département of Île-de-France. Mr. Mignon is a member of the Foreign Affairs Commission.
I serve on the Finance Commission. Gérard Grignon is quite close to you, since he represents Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon on the Social Affairs Commission. Mr. Yvan Bonnot is the mayor of Perros-Guirec, one of the well-known municipalities at the western tip of France. He is a Breton member in addition to serving on the Production and Trade Commission. All, or nearly all, of the commissions are represented here.
Mr. Victor Reux, General Councillor, Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon: Mr. Jacques Legendre is a senator representing the Département du nord de la France; as well, he is a member of the Cultural Affairs commission, the Secretary General of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians and rapporteur for la Francophonie in the Senate.
Mr. Jean Delaneau, Senator, Indes-et-Loire, Deputy Speaker of the Senate: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jean Delaneau and I am the Deputy Speaker of the Senate, the President of the France-Canada Senate Friendship Group, a member of the Cultural Affairs Commission and rapporteur for the Cultural Commission of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians. I am a surgeon by profession.
Mr. Reux: I am a senator and I represent Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. I am also a member of the Cultural Affairs Commission and, along with Mr. Legendre, a member of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians.
Mr. Philippe Paré, B.Q., Member for Louis-Hébert: I am a member of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee.
Mr. Benoit Sauvageau, B.Q., Member for Terrebonne: I am the International Trade Critic. I am happy to meet you.
[English]
The Chairman: As I look around the table, I believe that everyone here, except myself, speaks French. I propose that those of you who might be tempted to speak English resist that temptation and speak French. I will rely on the translation. However, do not speak too rapidly. Our conversation will be better for all concerned if you feel free to speak in French.
I want to say, now that we know each other, how very welcome you are. It is delightful to have you here and I hope we have a good exchange. I do not know if there are any topics about which you wish to canvass our opinion. I have a topic that I want to raise with you. It is not my wish to go into it very deeply, but your views would be helpful.
Our committee has spent the last year examining the future relations between the European Union and Canada. One of the proposals that has captured our attention has been the proposal for a monetary union. We visited Paris, Bonn, and London in March, and we heard different views. On such visits, very often one's attention is captured by the views expressed by embassy and bureaucracy personnel. Those of us who are politicians, on the other hand, realize how important it is to hear from those who represent the real people.
It would be useful to us if you could tell us what you think are the possibilities that the monetary union project will go ahead. Is it something that we in Canada should see as being part of the European future?
[Translation]
Mr. Delaneau: Mr. Chairman, as you can see, there is a certain amount of cooperation taking place among us. While the question is relevant, the answer is much more difficult to give. As you know, we also have concerns about the introduction of a single currency slated for 1999, that is provided an initial group of countries satisfy the Maastricht treaty criteria.
At present, the only country that truly meets these criteria - and only one country does - is the smallest one, namely Luxembourg. Therefore, we still have a way to go before a single currency system is in place. The problem with a monetary union is that countries or groups of countries that share a common currency must enjoy some currency stability and must have in place rules for currency movements within these various countries or groups of countries. That is certainly possible. However, in my opinion, this problem cannot be resolved until we ourselves have resolved the single currency issue. As you know, Great Britain wants no part of the Euro dollar, a proposed single currency within the present European Union.
Mr. Griotteray: Mr. Chairman, since we are all elected representatives, we can speak freely. I would not be French if I did not hold a different view from most of my fellow countrymen in so far as the single currency is concerned. I am opposed to it. My colleague here may not have said so, but I am opposed to it.
However, monetary union and single currency are not synonymous. A monetary union in the not-too-distant future with Canada would seem to me to be desirable, but it does pose problems with your own relations with the United States and the U.S. dollar. How then does one address this question, since one must take it one step at a time?
[English]
The Chairman: We have been joined by a member of great distinction of the House of Commons, Mr. Francis LeBlanc from Nova Scotia. He just happens to represent the area from which I come, so I treat him with great deference.
I have asked the first question. Are there topics that you, as our guests, would like to raise?
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Grignon, Member for Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon: You raised the matter of the relationship between Canada and the European Economic Community. One of your proposals was the establishment of a monetary union. We are among parliamentarians. I see that some of my neighbours are here, since you are from Nova Scotia, Mr. Chairman, and so too is Mr. LeBlanc.
I represent St. Pierre and Miquelon along with Senator Victor Reux. St. Pierre and Miquelon is not an integral part of the European community. Rather it has a special status. Indeed, we are considered an overseas territory or an associate European community country. From an economic standpoint, we present some interesting options for Canadian companies interested in processing or manufacturing products in St. Pierre and Miquelon for export to the community market. Such products would bear a European label and would enter the community market duty free.
St. Pierre offers another option. As you know, the islands are situated on the shipping line linking Canada and the European Economic Community. From the vantage point of St. Pierre and Miquelon, we can see the ships pass by. According to one provision in the community text, an overseas country or territory can collect community customs duties, provided these duties are levied at the same rate as that applied when goods enter Europe.
What advantage to this would there be for a Canadian exporter? As you know, customs duties are levied on the price of goods and to this is added insurance and transportation costs. For example, when a boat leaves Sept-Îles and arrives in St. Pierre and Miquelon, it has travelled only a very small distance. It has not yet crossed the Atlantic.
By collecting customs duties in St. Pierre and Miquelon, there may be a difference of 1 or 1.5 per cent in the amount paid, which could help to make the Canadian product competitive on the European economic market. We are working on making this possible. All products would not be affected. For example, Canada is a major exporter of paper and this is one product that would be affected. So too would aluminum, albeit not all aluminum products. It would depend on how the product is sold. Farm machinery would also be covered, and there are many other products which have already been identified. I simply wanted to point this out to you.
[English]
The Chairman: It is most interesting. I had never thought of the implications for Canada of the fact that St. Pierre and Miquelon is to the west of the area where Senator Ottenheimer lives. It is the kind of buckle on the belt. That is very interesting and we must explore it further.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: On another subject, at a recent meeting of Nobel peace prize recipients, an alarm was sounded about the social ills of globalization which has resulted in ruthless competition. Globalization has led to a decline in social and working standards and has weakened the middle classes.
Do French politicians share this perspective? If so, do you have any plans to take action within the international institutions to which you belong in an effort to make some adjustments?
Mr. Yvan Bonnot, Member for Côtes d'Armor: We are all concerned about the problems of globalization and earlier on, you referred to the monetary union. It is true that we are somewhat guilty in France of wanting to move quickly to implement a monetary union, often to the detriment of jobs and social benefits.
As well, we are also directly concerned by the problem of globalization. These problems are apparent in all areas. It would be interesting to discuss trade options in certain high tech and other fields. Later on, this would be an interesting point to discuss.
Mr. Delaneau: This problem concerns all of us. We have all observed the changes taking place. We hoped that development would result in an gradual increase in the standard of living in certain countries. What we have observed is that while some countries have benefited from globalization, with major changes coming sometimes very quickly, others continue their downward slide, despite their efforts and despite receiving international assistance, whether from the International Monetary Fund or from other countries as part of bilateral agreements. This is true not only of African nations.
At present, in the European country of Romania, the standard of living is steadily declining. I think developed nations will have to try a different approach. However, because of public opinion, this will be very difficult. Developed countries will have to abandon a number of delocalized activities so that certain countries can shake off their inertia and achieve a better standard of living for their people.
I want to relate to you a story told to me by the prefect of Tamanrasset, an Algerian city in the southern Sahara region. He related to me how people coming from the Sahel, undoubtedly the poorest or most desperate region in the Sahara, were setting up underground workshops in the city of Tamanrasset.
When people from less developed countries view another country as being a little more developed than their own, even if this development is not very advanced, they have a tendency to flock there. Assistance must be provided to those countries that are borderline, that is neither underdeveloped or developing, to help them progress more quickly since they take in people from countries in even more dire straits. This is a very difficult social and moral problem for us.
I think we have no choice but to target our activities differently. If we do not, all we will be doing is helping these countries and their populations survive with the surpluses we have accumulated as developed nations. There is indeed a problem here. You talked about globalization. It can be a good thing, but for the moment, because of the difficult employment situation we are experiencing, public opinion is not receptive to our allocating even more resources to developing countries. Yet, if we fail to act, we must expect to encounter major problems. People will migrate to countries where they believe their situation will improve and we can expect open hostility between developed and developing nations.
Mr. Griotteray: I share your concerns. In my view, industrialized or developed countries are guilty of the sin of pride. Their main fault was believing that other countries are just like them, that the same inputs produce the same results everywhere, automatically, and that all they have to do is to provide material assistance to developing nations. That is not true. Some countries to the East have managed to achieve remarkable development without assistance from the international community.
The examples that come to mind are Korea, Formosa and Taiwan. Conversely, some of the countries which receive aid from us continue to stagnate. The problem may be the way we help them, and the fact that they stop producing goods that we supply to them. Quite often, we unwittingly destroy these countries' economy through our carelessness or boastfulness. I think your comments are well-founded.
I do not know if France's Parliament is truly aware of this fact. Mr. Delaneau related to you the prevailing atmosphere there. However, these same concerns are being voiced by the media and by the experts.
Mr. Jacques Legendre, Senator, l'Oise: We are talking about two issues which, while related, are somewhat different. On the one hand, the world is becoming a global village. On the other hand, because of uneven global development, people from underdeveloped areas are tempted to migrate to our countries.
In France and indeed in Europe, we are facing a host of immigration problems with which you may be somewhat familiar. Several days ago, I was in Mauritania with the French Minister of Cooperation. He stated very clearly to this country's representatives that we could not take in all of the people from developing countries who were looking for work and at the same time, assure them of good conditions here.
Consequently, our first duty is to help these countries develop on-site activities. This is in their best interest, but it is also in ours. If we fail to do this, we will continue to have immigration problems that we cannot handle. This creates a difficult situation because the jobs available at home are often jobs which were given to people with few technological skills. And if these individuals no longer have these jobs, then we do not know quite what to do with them. One of our concerns is that the number of people who receive income support in France will increase. In fact, the number is already rapidly increasing.
However, aside from this problem, there is also the problem of the pressure being put on the middle class. Where once they had stable jobs, the middle class now find themselves in jobs which are increasingly less stable. Where once they were qualified, now their skills are in jeopardy and they are being threatened with loss of income. The middle class must contend with a widening wage gap.
There is, I believe, a growing sentiment in our society. A portion of the middle class can no longer be assured of any stability for itself and for its children, even if they get a degree, and in the past this guarantee was a given. The population is calling upon our government not to let forms of liberalism completely take hold.
In France, we have a television program where a group of puppets, known as the World Company, depict political life. The World Company does whatever it wants. It transfers jobs from one location to another and lays people off. These puppets accurately depict the anguish gripping society. Often we feel powerless. This is one of the major issues that politicians currently have to contend with.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed, in my view.
Mr. Jean-Claude Mignon, Member for Seine-et-Marne: I have no comment on this aspect of the discussion, but there is one aspect of the Europe question that intrigues me. Is there a generational aspect to France's support for the union? When I was first in France in the early 1970s, I was impressed by the pro-Europe movement at the time. I observed, and I do not know if this was a reflection of the times, that it was primarily young people who were pro-Europe supporters. Some of you were young people at the time.
Senator Corbin: You are still young, Mr. Mignon.
Mr. Mignon: Am I correct in thinking that one's point of view changes depending on one's age or as one grows older?
Mr. Griotteray: Indeed you are correct. There was a time when the generations who had lived through the war or the post-war generation lived in fear that conflicts of this nature would occur again in France - I should say in Europe - and consequently, there was a very strong desire for peace at all costs, without there being a clear understanding of why Europe, Europe, Europe, as General de Gaulle used to say, must resolve all of its problems. It is also true that young people were fed information - I was going to say propaganda, but that is pejorative - about Europe which made them pro-Europe supporters, caught up in the desire to move freely and to feel at home everywhere on the continent.
Obviously, 10 or 15 years ago, perhaps even before that, European sentiment was running very high, particularly in France. The European elections clearly reflected this fact; in France, voter turnout was high. Without really knowing which Europe they were in the process of building, people had the impression of supporting Europe. This phenomenon was much more widespread in France than in all other European countries, including Germany, of course.
Times have changed. Pro-Europe supporters of Europe are likely to be members of the older generation, although some people in this age group are among the staunchest opponents. However, they are the minority. The majority of older people are pro-Europe.
However, a recent poll showed that young people were extremely distrustful and had a total disregard for past events; the war does not concern them and consequently, they are free to think and to behave in a totally different way than their predecessors. A very special type of evolution is taking place.
In Europe, the Europe that we now know, there is widespread European sentiment. For both supporters and opponents, the Europe that now exists is the highly centralized one based in Brussels. Young people were led to believe that the unemployment problem would be resolved. This is basically what people were told when asked to support Maastricht They were asked to vote yes because the consequences of a no vote would be dramatic. They were told that a yes vote would mean jobs. Young people have come to realize that this was untrue and consequently, they are even more distrustful than they should be about Europe.
Mr. Mignon: I do not know if I am more European, but I do feel that something has happened since 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Clearly, for some people, Europe today must be different than what it was before the Berlin Wall crumbled.
Many of us are also members of another assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. When I listen to all of my parliamentary colleagues, I am struck by the fact that when these men and women from central and eastern European countries share their problems with us, we are really quite unaware of what they are experiencing.
A while ago, Senator Delaneau talked about Romania and mentioned that the standard of living was continuing to decline in that country. We cannot compare apples and oranges. Today, it is very difficult to compare the standard of living in these countries with that in France or in Canada because the starting point is very different.
I am very pleased that Canada has applied for observer status within the Council of Europe, much like the United States and Japan did. I am confident that when you sit next to us on the Council of Europe, we as founding members and you as observers will come to understand, even discover, a number of things and you will get another perspective of things. Each time we are asked questions, it is about the European Union, the Europe of 15.
Nonetheless, it is very frustrating that other countries on the European continent are seemingly ignored.
For someone like myself who was born after the war, I find that when I discuss issues with some of my young fellow countrymen, they have trouble understanding why we seem to be ignoring our fellow Europeans and completely excluding them from European Union level talks.
Mr. Francis LeBlanc, MP for Cap Breton Highland-Canso: I would like to come back to the development problem that our French colleagues mentioned, in response to the very important question put by my colleague, Mr. Paré, about certain specific situations.
Right now, Canada is close to a decision on whether it should renew its mandate in Haiti to help with the reconstruction of this nation under the auspices of the UN or quite possibly within some other context.
As you know, Haiti is a developing francophone country currently experiencing major political and economic unrest. France has a unique responsibility toward other Third World francophone countries, including certain African nations. My question is this: one important deciding factor in whether or not we will maintain our involvement in Haiti and in what our exact level of commitment will be will depend a little on the public support we receive. Public tolerance will be a factor in our decision as to whether to maintain a presence in this country. The long-term cost implications will also be a determining factor.
Given France's involvement in developing countries and given how important it is for it to participate in economic development, as you mentioned, how does public opinion in France currently affect foreign policy directions and the level of aid granted to developing countries such as Haiti? Support implies a substantial investment in terms of economic policy.
I know that Canada will soon have to make a decision where Haiti is concerned. I recently attended a meeting in Haiti with one of my colleagues, Mr. Bergeron. We know that the mission there is far from being completed. We know that in order to do the job that needs to be done, a considerable investment is required.
I would like to know how the public in France views this level of involvement.
M. Legendre: Where the French public is concerned, there has always been an undercurrent of hostility, or at least some reservations when it comes to providing aid to developing countries. In the 1950s and 1960s, Jacques Chirac had yet to be elected in his riding of Corrèze. However, a significant portion of the population has always been in favour of helping troubled nations. Aside from State taxation and action, many people volunteer their efforts. For example, local communities are involved in decentralized cooperation. They are under no obligation to do so. Districts, departments and regions are spontaneously involved in helping far-off countries through twinning or aid programs.
Such efforts are widespread. Given the current crisis, the French public is above all concerned by its own problems. For example, in my city 16 per cent of the population is unemployed. The textile industry is important to our community. How does one explain to the people that the textile industry is going to be cut even further so that assistance can be provided to a developing country, when the local rate of unemployment is 16 per cent If you ask this question, you will get this kind of answer. However, you will also have people telling you upon further reflection that efforts must still be made to help other countries develop. We have to find markets where they will not be in competition with us. If we fail to do this, more and more people will be knocking at our door and will be trying to enter the country any way they can. We will continue to have immigration problems.
Therefore, questions and polls will not give us the answer we are seeking. Based on the question asked, we might get two totally different responses.
I feel that we must nevertheless maintain our interest in this area. Our states are required to allocate a significant share of aid to developing countries. However, the money does not necessarily have to come in the form of state aid.
Mr. Delaneau: To add to what Mr. Legendre just said, your question also referred to the problem of investments for reconstruction or equipment. Everyone is rushing to get to countries that have experienced a disaster of some sort, whether as a result of the war in the Middle East or perhaps government carelessness, as was the case in Haiti. Everyone is rushing to countries where the basic economy needs to be rebuilt.
Often, large groups become involved. There is one group in France that keeps turning up everywhere, whether in Lebanon or in Kuwait. I would imagine that they will also turn up in Haiti.
However, as Mr. Legendre pointed out, when it comes to investing, what can our companies do? I am talking about companies that produce goods that will have to be sold somewhere? These countries are often unable to purchase themselves the goods that they are being asked to produce. This brings us back to the delocalization problem discussed earlier in response to Mr. Paré's question.
It is not easy. As far as Haiti is concerned, France cannot be a disinterested party because of its history with the country. Theoretically, Haiti has been a free country since the 1800s. It was a republic. Unfortunately, it has always been ruled by a local dictator or by a neighbouring country which needed to use it as a base of operations.
If the political problems in Haiti are not resolved, there is no chance that the country's economy will develop. From a cultural standpoint, there is a very strong connection between France and other francophone nations. To give you an example, at the upcoming Avignon festival, theatrical performances will depict the tragedy of King Christophe and Césaire. Césaire was from the Caribbean. Owing to a number of factors, France will maintain its presence in this part of the world. I know that Canada is also committed and that it has fairly close ties with France.
The first thing we need to do is restore law and order to this country. Together we have much work to do.
Mr. Griotteray: Your question was right on the mark. On the one hand, we need to decide what we are going to do right now if the UN decides to discontinue official aid as a result of China's veto.
For the moment, it is clear that the situation has improved slightly in Haiti, one of the most traumatized nations in the world. The improvement is due to the fact that police officers and French, Canadian, and I believe Senegalese, troops are stationed there. However, once they leave, we will be back to square one and perhaps worse right away.
We have to address this problem before we tackle investments in the country. Investments will follow if order is maintained. What we need to decide is whether we want to maintain the kind of system of law and order that prevailed during the colonial era, which was not all bad. It is vital that order be maintained because once French or Canadian officials pull out, the law enforcement body that we have established will disappear overnight. It will simply pull up stakes and go home.
We are facing a dilemma: Either we go along with China's veto or, as you mentioned earlier, we courageously resume our flow of aid.
We consider ourselves an intermediary, even without the UN mission. You were correct in bringing this matter up. Nobody does and this is hypocrisy.
[English]
The Chairman: Time is marching on. In the short time that remains, since we have been asking the questions of our guests, perhaps we should give them an opportunity to test our generosity. Are there questions that you would like to raise with us?
[Translation]
Mr. Delaneau: One question is going to come to the forefront soon in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. At the end of this year, American and Canadian troops are scheduled to pull out. What will happen then? Is your foreign affairs ministry aware of any multilateral groups waiting to take up the slack? If there are none, we feel certain that ethnic turmoil will return to the former Yugoslavia.
As Europeans, we are concerned about this problem because Europe has demonstrated that in its present state, it is unable to resolve a problem within its own borders. This is not a pleasant realization, but we are looking to the United States and its presence to calm matters down.
I do not think we can expect order to be maintained unless there is some presence after January 1, albeit in a different form.
Mr. LeBlanc: I cannot speak for the minister even though I am his parliamentary secretary. I know that Canada has made some rather substantial commitments since the start of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, whether as part of the UN or the NATO contingents.
The most important thing that Canada can do is to support the return of democracy to this region.
We have contributed to this goal and we do assure a presence in the region with the help of election observers. We have even helped to set in place the infrastructure for future elections. The following questions now come to mind: Are the conditions ripe for elections or should the international military presence be maintained for a while longer to allow favourable conditions to take root?
This is a matter of concern to Canada at the present time. This is how we view this situation.
[English]
The Chairman: It certainly is a most difficult problem.
I should mention that we have been joined by Senator Prud'homme. Welcome, Senator Prud'homme.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: I was absent for a good reason. I attended the special graduation ceremony of Mr. Alain Juppé at my university. He received an honorary doctorate this morning. That is why I could not be here. Otherwise, I would have been the first one here. I do, however, have a question, Mr. Chairman.
Canada has a great many responsibilities and we are also facing financial problems. We have troops in Haiti. Everyone is pulling out of Haiti. We are not sure what we are going to do. Are we going to be the only country left there?
Canada and France are always asked to ensure a presence, but what about other countries? Where are they?
What about major countries like Italy and Japan? Eventually, other countries will have to assume their responsibilities and help us out because increasingly, we are going to have to contend with problems everywhere.
I do not know what is going to happen in the Middle East but I am certain that we will be asked to help out in this region once again. I would have liked to have asked a question about the Middle East. It is indeed one of my favourite subjects, but I would not want to take advantage of the situation.
Mr. Griotteray: I can see that we all have the same concerns and that no one has all the answers.
Mr. Delaneau: Getting back to Haiti, I have to wonder if it might not be a good thing if Canada and France were virtually the only countries to intervene in this country? This is only my opinion.
I think that in the case of a certain number of countries, we will have to restore a type of protectorate system. I think this could be done humanely, taking into account the specific characteristics of these countries and in a manner respectful of the population.
I wonder if perhaps we may not have to reinvent a way of doing things, not the way things were done 50 or 70 years ago after World War I, but some other way, as if we were providing some guidance. Superiority or inferiority are not the issue here. The point is ensuring some economic stability. I think such a mechanism would work in countries with a long democratic history, countries that have already overcome a number of obstacles.
Senator Prud'homme: In response to Senator Delaneau's suggestion that we turn back the clock to an era when the League of Nations assigned mandates to countries that had the means to maintain or re-establish order - or to establish democracy because a while ago someone mentioned restoring democracy - there never was a democracy in the former Yugoslavia.
The former Yugoslavia was a totally artificial country invented by France after World War 1. It was totally artificial, and ruled by dictator King Alexander, and later by Tito.
Aside from this fact, the factions in this country are automatically combative. Only one dictatorship was able to maintain peace at the expense, of course, of individual freedom. Clearly, as we approach the end of the second millennium, this is a dramatic problem for us. Do we really want to become global law enforcement officers? Judging from what we read in the newspapers, all of Africa, all of black Africa, is an uproar. Let us not even talk about the situation in Northern Africa.
[English]
The Chairman: I notice the time, honourable senators and members of the House of Commons, and our guests have another commitment at eleven o'clock.
I am prompted to say, by the discussion that we have had, that this discussion ought to be continued at leisure, and then I see the possibility of the development of something that might be called the "new alliance." Those of us who are of Scottish ancestry think of the old alliance between Scotland and France. I am now proposing a new alliance between Canada and France to deal with some of the serious problems that face us.
The committee adjourned.