Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Ngo for bringing this motion forward. The issue, both in the context of the Journey to Freedom Day Act of 2015 and the application of the agreement on ending the war and restoring peace in Vietnam, and its protocols, known as the Paris Peace Accords of 1975, is of great concern to our colleague and, indeed, to many Canadians of Vietnamese origin — as well it should be.

Indeed, countless people like Senator Ngo and thousands of Vietnamese first came to our shores fleeing conflict and/or persecution. The reasons to leave were traumatic enough, to say nothing of the journey to a new land and ultimately arriving in a strange new place to call home, where refugees face new challenges.

My parents faced a similar situation in losing their land, property and possessions during World War II, after which they came to Canada as refugees. We are all touched by such stories; they are integral to the fabric and the folk memory of so many Canadians.

Nonetheless, while I appreciate the spirit of this motion, I oppose its passage. I will explain why.

Colleagues, this motion calls upon the Government of Canada to reconvene a meeting of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to discuss events that took place 45 years ago, within the framework of that treaty, and of that conference that is just as old. Further, some of the members with which Canada worked at the time, such as Hungary and Poland, were then part of the Soviet bloc. Things have changed somewhat in 45 years, including the fall of the U.S.S.R., which among other points, resulted in these countries completely changing their constitutions and systems of government.

It is not clear to me why Canada should expend great energy, not to mention international political capital, to re-engage in a discussion for which, in my view, there would not be much appetite from other parties to reopen. Also, I do not know what will be included in the government’s forthcoming Indo-Pacific strategy, but I would wager that reconvening the International Conference on Viet-Nam will not be in it, and I am not a betting man.

In bilateral terms — that is, the relationship between Canada and Vietnam — I am convinced that this motion would be seen in a negative light by Vietnam, a country with which Canada has enjoyed friendship and cooperation for many decades. That is no small thing, colleagues. Vietnam is a member of the ASEAN group with which both the government of Prime Minister Harper and the current government have sought to achieve closer ties. Vietnam, along with Canada, is a member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as the CPTPP, that is already showing positive signs for both countries and, indeed, all members. Our two-way trade last year was nearly $9 billion, making Vietnam Canada’s largest trading partner among ASEAN countries.

Would it not be more constructive for Canada to focus on developing our positive relationship with Vietnam within the framework of the Canada-Vietnam partnership, where there can be engagement on a comprehensive agenda that could, and in fact does, include economic and political reforms?

Symbolic gestures — and this motion represents just that — can have negative consequences. I have made this important point in the chamber before, colleagues.

I would also note that our dialogue with the government of Vietnam includes larger geostrategic questions, military cooperation that concerns Vietnam, scientific and academic cooperation, clean technologies and cooperation on the Green Climate Fund. It also includes discussions about the ASEAN countries, large neighbouring countries and the wider Pacific region.

We need to work with friends and allies all over the world, the Indo-Pacific region being no exception, particularly when we see ourselves aggrieved or unfairly treated by other countries. Canada has had some recent experience in this regard.

In his speech supporting the motion, our colleague Senator Patterson referred to the international rules-based order. We have had one since 1945 through the United Nations and the Bretton Woods Institutions, and it has changed and expanded over the years with decolonization; the development of regional groupings and alliances, in many of which Canada enjoys membership; the collapse of the Soviet Union; the development of the European Union; regular global and regional summits; and the list goes on.

The end of the Vietnam War falls into that rubric.

There are international norms and rules that are set out that should be followed by all countries. We all know this is not always the case.

I recognize that the concern expressed by Senators Ngo and Patterson revolve around human rights and the development of Vietnam since the peace treaty was signed. Various Canadian governments have, in the interval, raised these issues with the government since 1975, in bilateral terms. But what I consider very important is the multilateral element, as shown in the Universal Periodic Review that Canada had undertaken in the UN system to assess Vietnam’s efforts on human rights and the harmonization of its laws with international standards. That is the development in the UN system that has also occurred since 1975, when the peace treaties were signed.

In the last round in 2019, Canada recommended that Vietnam revise its penal code and cybersecurity laws to align with international standards for freedom of expression, association and assembly; to ensure due process rights and the right to a fair trial; to allow religious groups to practise freely; and to allow for the establishment of independent labour unions and gender-equality issues.

That is the way to achieve progress, colleagues: peer review and multilateral engagement, the push that the CPTPP brings today for all parties to step up and continue bilateral dialogue. The solution is not to return to an instrument from 45 years ago, regardless of any perceived symbolic value or reassurance and hope it might provide to our valued and respected community of Vietnamese Canadians, of which our dear colleague is an illustrious member.

Honourable senators, the chances of getting six parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to agree to reopen the conference are well nigh impossible.

As I have said before with respect to motions on international affairs in this chamber, we must keep in mind that the management of Canada’s international affairs falls within the Royal Prerogative. While the Senate and the House of Commons can certainly provide indications of what should be done, what actually can be done resides solely with the government of the day.

If we pass motions, they need to be realistic and reflect well on our institution — the Senate of Canada. I don’t think this one does.

In my view, our government would need to think long and hard before committing its international political capital toward returning to an issue that, for many people and countries, was settled long ago.

It is for those reasons that, with the greatest respect for our colleague Senator Ngo, I oppose this motion.