Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Dai Trang Nguyen, and I'm from the Canada-Vietnam Trade Council. I'm also a representative of the Canada-Vietnam Association. I'm a college professor in international business and international development in Toronto.

I'm here today with two objectives. My first objective is to bring the Vietnamese Canadian community together, and my second is to restore fundamental freedoms for many community members.

The first objective depends on the second one. In this presentation I seek to make three recommendations to amend Bill S-219. The first is to change the date of commemoration to July 27; the second is to change the title of the bill to “appreciation of Canada by Vietnamese refugees”; and the third is to remove war-related content from the bill.

In this presentation I will discuss three main points: first, what's wrong with this bill; second, what the negative impacts of this bill on the community are; and third, what amendments are necessary to bring the community together.

What's wrong with this bill is that it appears to be about three positive things but in reality is about two negative things. The bill creates a good impression that it is about the commemoration of Vietnamese refugees, the community's appreciation of Canada for accepting them, and Canada's recognition of the community's contribution. In reality, what it is about is imposing another version of Vietnamese history and war history that favours the old Saigon regime and, based on that, criticizing the current government of Vietnam.

The three positive things bring the community together and all Canadians together; the two negative things divide the community. There are disagreements not just from those who oppose the bill, thinking that it has gone too far, but also from those who support it, thinking that it doesn't go far enough.

For the last 40 years, there has been only one accepted political voice in the Vietnamese Canadian community, and all other voices are suppressed. The first wave of Vietnamese, who arrived in 1975 and 1976, were a few thousand associated with the old Saigon regime. They have since imposed an anti-communist stance on community members who came later, including 60,000 refugees who arrived in 1979 and 1980, at least 100,000 economic migrants who came after 1972, and those who were born in Canada.

Community members are not supposed to have anything to do with “back home”, including research and education, trade and investment, music, cultural events, and so on. No one has ever come out to declare an alternative stance, mainly because of the necessity of making a living and taking care of family. The official flag of Vietnam has never been shown in community events, and the old Saigon flag is still being used.

Bill S-219 set off a movement in the community that had never happened before. In early February, 22 representatives courageously signed an open letter to oppose this bill, and you have a copy of it in both languages. This prompted hundreds of others to follow suit to sign it, and hundreds more started to speak out. The division between the anti-communist old Saigon regime and their followers and members who seek an alternative stance is now in the open.

I'm here to call for fundamental freedoms for many if not the majority of Vietnamese Canadians, specifically freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The focus of this bill should be about three positive things that help bring the community together. It should not be about the war or the current situation of Vietnam, because that will cause emotion and disagreement and further divide the community.

We therefore have three recommendations.

The first is to change the date. The date, April 30, is not appropriate, because this is the date that the Vietnam War ended.

This bill is not about the Vietnam War. This bill is about the Vietnamese refugees. Therefore, if you choose July 27, the date when the first flight of Vietnamese refugees landed in Canada, the bill will remind the community from all sides of what Canada has done for us and of the effort we need to make to contribute to Canadian society.

The second recommendation is to change the title. The title now, the “journey to freedom day act”, is not appropriate considering the need to restore fundamental freedoms for many members and the claims by many members that they did not come to Canada to search for freedom. We need a new title that is agreeable to all members, such as, for example, “appreciation of Canada by Vietnamese refugees”.

The third recommendation is to remove war-related content. In order to have consensus among all community members, we need to remove from the bill the content about the war, especially the words “black April”.

At the same time, Mr. Chair, I would like to mention that we need to rebuild the community. Many members lack access to English or French, young people are still struggling to find good jobs, and domestic violence is still not addressed properly in the community.

In conclusion, although the bill has had some divisive impacts so far in the community, I believe that it can be an opportunity to open a dialogue for all. It can be an opportunity to rebuild our community and to give everyone a voice in an inclusive process if it focuses on the three positive points above.

Thank you.

Transcript

Discussions (0)