36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 36
CONTENTS
Monday, November 24, 1997
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-212. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1110
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1205
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-22. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1210
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1310
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1345
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LORIE KANE
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CATRIONA LEMAY DOAN
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1400
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATOR MARCEL PRUD'HOMME
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND MINES
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OLYMPIC INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
1405
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE JUSTICE JOHN SOPINKA
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOURNÉE NATIONALE DES PATRIOTES
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANTI-SEALING LOBBY GROUPS
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1410
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CURLING
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CURTAIN CLUB THEATRE
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1415
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEBANON
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1425
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1435
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REVENUE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1445
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1450
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND MINES
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DAIRY PRODUCTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gilbert Normand |
1455
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORTS CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1500
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINT OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Main Estimates
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1505
1510
1515
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1530
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1535
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1550
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1555
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-286. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Triple E Senate
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1600
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Euthanasia
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-22. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1605
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1610
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1615
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1620
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1625
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1630
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1635
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1640
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1645
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1650
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1655
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1700
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1725
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1810
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to.
|
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1815
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1820
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1825
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1840
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1845
1850
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1855
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1900
1905
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1910
1915
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1920
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1925
1930
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1935
1940
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1945
1950
1955
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
2000
![V](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
2005
2010
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 36
![](/web/20061116185255im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 24, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-212, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young
Offenders Act (capital punishment), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, last week Gallup released the results
of its most recent survey on Canadian support for the death
penalty. According to that poll, if a national referendum were
to be held today a full 63% of the Canadian public would vote in
favour of reinstating capital punishment.
The Reform Party believes that on moral and contentious issues
such as capital punishment Canadians should grapple with their
own consciences and vote according to their personal convictions
in a binding national referendum. We have called for a binding
referendum on the death penalty but the government has said no.
The government has told the people that it knows what is best for
them and that they do not have the choice.
That is why I have introduced the bill. If the government will
not hold a binding referendum at the time of the next federal
election, I believe we should hold a true free vote in the House
of Commons where all MPs can vote the views of their constituents
rather than those of their political bosses or their own personal
beliefs. That would be democracy.
The bill imposes a sentence of capital punishment on all adults
found guilty of first degree murder. First degree murder occurs
when a murder is planned and deliberate, when death occurs during
a sexual assault or kidnapping, or when the victim is a police
officer or a correctional officer. First degree murder is not an
accident. It is cold, calculated and brutal.
To address the concerns people have about the finality of the
death penalty important safeguards have been built into the
legislation. There is an automatic right of appeal at the first
level. Even if convicted people themselves do not appeal they
are deemed to have appealed and the court will review the case on
all questions of fact and law to determine if the conviction is
valid.
All appeals are to be conducted in a timely fashion. If the
jury and court are satisfied that overwhelming evidence shows
someone is guilty beyond doubt there is no reason he or she
should languish on death row for years. The sentence, if upheld,
is to be carried out within a reasonable period of time. The
death penalty is to be carried out by lethal injection. This is
a more humane method of execution than hanging or electrocution.
It ensures a quick and painless end and does not turn the
culmination of a tragic chain of events begun by a brutal murder
into a media and public circus.
People might ask why the bill is necessary. The death penalty
should be reinstated for many reasons. First and foremost is
that the state must protect society. In this debate we cannot
forget the inevitable release of murderers. Between 1986 and
1995, 133 convicts released from prison for first and second
degree murder returned to our communities and committed crimes
again. These included 87 violent crimes and sex offences.
They also included 10 murders. It is clear that our so-called
rehabilitation programs are not working.
1110
Two convicted murderers also escaped, only to murder again. How
does one explain to the families of those victims that 12
murderers were given the opportunity to strike again? How could
anyone possibly defend our justice system to the family of just
one of these victims?
While there are 12 examples that I could use, I draw the
attention of the House to one in particular. Four murders were
committed in 1989 by Allan Legere who escaped from prison while
serving a life sentence for the bloody beating death of an
elderly shopkeeper in 1986. He escaped, only to murder four more
law-abiding innocent Canadians.
I am certain that someone here today will raise the cases of
Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard. All three of
these men spent years of their lives behind bars, convicted of
crimes they did not commit. This is not something any Canadian
is proud of. My hope is that their years of needless suffering
and incarceration have taught us a grave lesson about how easily
justice can be subverted. Their hard won battles have exposed
problems in our system that we must be ever vigilant to avoid
repeating.
When local police departments are under enormous public pressure
to produce a guilty party, that is when we must scrutinize the
evidence presented with an even more critical eye.
No one should be convicted of first degree murder and put to
death based on circumstantial evidence. We now have much
improved DNA technology. These high profile cases have alerted
the public and the justice system to the possibility of
overzealous police forces seeking speedy convictions.
David Milgaard was convicted of second degree murder so he never
would have faced the death penalty in any case. Under the bill
all evidence and facts would have been carefully re-examined in
the convictions of Guy Paul Morin and Donald Marshall. They were
recently exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence. If their
trials had been held today they would have never been convicted.
The DNA tests that proved them innocent could just as easily
prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, someone else's guilt.
We are entering the 21st century and our justice system should
use the latest technology to determine the guilt or innocence of
those charged.
Many people like to quote statistics, telling us that the murder
rate has gone down since 1975. That was the peak year, at three
murders per 100,000 Canadians. Why do they not take it from 1966
when the rate was less than half that, at 1.25 per 100,000? In
1996 the homicide rate was 2.11 per 100,000. Whether we measure
it from 1966 or 1975 it is still far too many.
Another statistic is much more relevant to the debate today. I
quote from a recent Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics
publication known as Juristat. With respect to homicide it
states that first degree murder as a proportion of all homicides
rose steadily from 36% in 1978 to 57% in 1996. That means that in
1978, 238 people were charged with first degree murder. However,
in 1996, 361 people were charged with first degree murder even
though there were 28 fewer murders committed in 1996 than in
1978. Obviously something has changed if the proportion of
planned and deliberate murders has increased by over 50% since
capital punishment was abolished in 1976.
We should not consider the use of the death penalty out of
hunger for vengeance but out of desire for justice. No act of
vengeance can undo the harm done. No punishment can erase a
victim's scars or bring back those who were murdered. The death
penalty is not about vengeance. It is not the business of the
state to exact punishment motivated by vengeance. It is the role
of the state to mete out justice.
Capital punishment is about public safety. The only certain way
to keep extremely dangerous individuals from harming again and
again is to take away their opportunity to do so. Why is it
wrong for society to take the life of someone who has knowingly
violated our most fundamental laws and brutally slain a fellow
human being?
1115
In 1982 one-third of the 300 convicted murderers in Canada said
they would prefer the death penalty over life in prison. In
fact, in 1983 a convicted murdered in Saskatchewan formally
requested the death penalty by lethal injection on the basis that
his life sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. His request
was denied by the court.
Some people believe we should just lock up murderers capable of
the most heinous crimes for a few decades. Some of these people
object to the death penalty strictly on moral grounds. That is
their right and I believe they should be given the opportunity to
voice that view in a referendum.
I take issue with those who object to the death penalty because
they fear our justice system may have convicted an innocent
person. What they are pointing out is not a problem with the
death sentence, but a more fundamental problem with the ability
of our justice system to determine the truth.
If you believe innocent people are being convicted, do not just
object to the death penalty. It is equally wrong to keep an
innocent person in jail for 10 or 20 years. Those who believe
our justice system does not work have a moral obligation to
reform it, to protect all innocent people, not just those facing
a possible death penalty.
There is no question there are problems with our justice system.
According to our laws, taking a human life is wrong. Somehow our
system is seriously out of balance, and I refer specifically to
the Latimer case.
Maybe people believe the second degree conviction of Tracy
Latimer's father was warranted, but others believe it points to
the need for different charges in the Criminal Code. I do not
know whether the Minister of Justice is considering something
like a mercy killing category, but if she is I strongly urge her
to include a significant range of sentencing options to reflect
all Canadians' moral convictions on this highly contentious
issue.
Under the current system the sentencing judge has little
latitude in sentencing Latimer. Some Canadians agree with this
while others do not.
Let me bring another murder case to the attention of the House
today. On Vancouver Island a man was murdered and his murderer
walked. There was no public hue and cry to jail the perpetrator
because the victim was apparently an undesirable person. Because
people did not seem to generally like the victim, they demanded
little or no punishment for the criminal. That is not right.
Somehow I believe our justice system forgot that its role is to
protect all citizens, even those we do not like. As a society we
cannot let individuals take the law into their own hands. We
must prevent vigilantism and have room for compassion for those
who act out of mercy, not malice. The state should have the
option of imposing the severest of penalties for the most heinous
of crimes to protect the citizens.
There is no way to bring the victim back. The death penalty
would not do that. But it will prevent the murderer from
murdering again.
Paul Bernardo may not be getting out for a long time, but his
accomplice will be getting out very soon. Clifford Olson may
have failed in his bid for parole this summer, but eventually he
too may be released into our streets, into the neighbourhoods
where our children are at play.
Do you want people capable of rape, torture and murder living
next to you? Do you want to take the chance with your children
and grandchildren? When they get out, not if, do not count on
them moving to someone else's neighbourhood.
The death penalty may not act as a deterrent for sick
individuals bent on the destruction of other human beings, but if
the death penalty does not deter them, neither does the prospect
of imprisonment for 15, 20 or 25 years. Deterrence is not the
issue. Seventy percent of Canadians who supported the death
penalty in 1996 said they would still support it even if it was
proven not to be a deterrent. Instead, the majority of Canadians
believe that capital punishment is for the protection of society.
In summary, I believe the death penalty should be reinstated for
those guilty of heinous first degree murders. This bill provides
ample opportunity for appeals on the basis of fact and law with
the option of commuting the sentence to life imprisonment.
Capital punishment should be available to society to protect the
citizens from those who have shown no remorse, no guilt and no
possibility of redemption. The appeals process and the sentence
are to be carried out in a timely fashion. Administering a
lethal injection is more humane than hanging or electrocution and
does not reduce the death sentence to a media spectacle.
I and the Reform Party believe that Canadian people should
decide on whether they want to reinstate capital punishment in a
binding national referendum, as I said earlier. Because the
government has said no, as I also said earlier, the next best
thing is a free vote in the House of Commons.
1120
Sixty-three per cent of Canadians want the death penalty
reinstated. It is the duty of members of this House to carry out
the will of their constituents. Therefore, I would seek
unanimous consent of the members present to make Bill C-212
votable.
An hon. member: Democracy denied as usual.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Denied.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
feel compelled to participate in this debate on Bill C-212 which
was introduced by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.
Bill C-212 would reinstate the death penalty for first degree
murder committed by a person 18 years of age or over. This bill
would also provide for an increase in prison terms for first and
second degree murder which can be imposed upon persons under the
age of 18.
I would like first to address the issue of reinstatement of the
death penalty.
Capital punishment was debated extensively in this House prior
to the 1976 vote that abolished it more than 20 years ago.
Capital punishment has been debated a few times since it was
abolished, not only in Parliament, but elsewhere. The most
extensive debate since the abolition of capital punishment took
place in this House in 1987. I clearly remember that debate
because, as a private citizen, it was the first time that I
actually wrote to my MP to encourage him to vote against capital
punishment.
The 1987 debate was on the then government of the day motion and
that motion called upon the House of Commons to support in
principle the reinstatement of capital punishment and to
establish a special committee to provide recommendations on the
offences which should carry the death penalty, and on the method
or methods which should be used to carry out the sentence of
death.
The question as I said earlier was debated at length. There was
a free vote in this House. It seems that some people cannot
understand that a free vote democratically given in Canada has
been done and it was refused. Some people push the agenda all
the time.
A majority of the members then voted against the motion and thus
against the reinstatement of capital punishment in the Criminal
Code. Since that vote, capital punishment has not been an issue
of great national prominence.
Why are we asked to debate the reinstatement of capital
punishment at this time? It is private members hour and a Reform
member has brought it forward. Are there any new circumstances
that require or seriously say that Parliament should re-examine
this issue? Perhaps I would understand if there was a trend
showing a significant increase in the homicide rate. This could
institute a requirement that we should again debate this issue
and would justify reopening this debate on the death penalty.
Surely the hon. member from Prince George—Peace River is not
motivated by an increase in the homicide rate. In fact the rate
for 1996 is the third lowest rate since 1975. The homicide rate
was three per hundred thousand of population in 1975, the last
year when capital punishment was in force for murder. In 1987
when this House held an extensive debate on a government motion
for the reinstatement of capital punishment, the homicide rate
was down to 2.4 per hundred thousand, which means a 20% decrease
compared to 1975.
In 1995 the homicide rate had decreased further to 1.99. This
represents a 33% reduction since 1975, the last year the death
penalty was in force in this country. For 1996 the rate is 2.1.
I want to be clear. I do not underestimate, nor does anybody in
this House, the crime of murder. Today we are all aware of yet
another tragedy in Canada over the weekend.
Every homicide is a tragedy and it raises questions about our
society and raises questions for our society. Every homicide or
murder must be punished with the most serious penalties and it
is.
1125
However, statistics do show us that the homicide rate was three
per one hundred thousand of population when capital punishment
was in force and it is down to around two per one hundred
thousand now that capital punishment is no longer in our system,
having been abolished, as I said, for over 20 years.
This decrease hardly supports the deterrent element of capital
punishment. Not only has the homicide rate not increased with
the abolition of the death penalty, it has actually decreased by
one-third.
What these statistics mean is that there is no evidence that the
death penalty is a useful tool to fight murders. If the death
penalty is not an effective tool against homicides and murders,
we should ask ourselves what useful purpose would be served by
reinstating it.
I personally believe that the death penalty is an excessive
means of achieving the objectives of sentencing. In recent years
at least three well publicized cases have come to light which
would cause one to pause and should cause this society to pause
when considering the reinstatement of the death penalty: the
wrongful murder convictions of Donald Marshall, Jr., Guy-Paul
Morin and David Milgaard.
If capital punishment had been in effect, they may not have had
a second chance at life. Capital punishment is final. There is
no chance to correct the mistakes of the state, however well
intentioned, however strongly we feel and however many inches of
press can be generated. This type of error is also tragic and it
is totally preventable when we do not have capital punishment as
part of our recourse in our justice system.
On practical grounds, these are reasons I personally oppose the
death penalty. The onus is on those who would want to change the
law in such a fundamental way to make a compelling case. For
myself, I am not persuaded by the arguments I have just heard and
those being made.
It is not only on practical grounds that I oppose the death
penalty, but I also oppose it on moral grounds. The issue of
capital punishment raises the question of how we see ourselves as
a country and a people. The trend in the world, at least among
western nations, is to abolish the death penalty. To return to
capital punishment in Canada would be contrary to the
international trend and I personally believe that supporting a
return to the death penalty for murder would be a very regressive
step, one that my hon. colleagues in the Reform Party seem to
wish to embrace.
Do Canadians really believe that they would feel safer living in
a society where capital punishment is meted out? In fact to be
very crass, do they even believe that this would save tax
dollars? Please look to what is going on with our neighbours to
the south. Canadians will find some of those answers.
The hon. member's bill would also increase prison terms for
murder for persons under the age of 18 years. I found it
surprising that he did not address that, seeing as that is part
of the bill, but I am going to comment. I would like to remind
the hon. member that parole eligibility periods for youth
convicted of murder were significantly increased as of December
1, 1995.
I would like to outline for the House the provisions that
currently apply to young offenders who are found guilty of
murder. A youth who is 14 years of age or over at the time of
the commission of the offence of first degree murder or second
degree murder may be transferred to adult court. If convicted of
murder in adult court, the minimum sentence is life imprisonment.
Before December 1, 1995 a youth convicted of either first or
second degree murder in adult court was subject to a prison term
set by the court at between five and ten years inclusive. Since
our government changed this law after December 1, 1995, the
following provisions apply.
First, a 16 or 17 year old youth convicted of first degree
murder must serve a term of at least 10 years in custody. A 16
or 17 year old youth convicted of second degree murder must serve
a term of at least seven years in custody and a youth 14 or 15
years of age who is convicted of either first or second degree
murder in adult court must serve a custody term of between five
and seven years inclusive as set by the court.
If not specified by the judge, then the person must serve a term
of five years.
1130
I want to go back to before December 1, 1995 when youths of any
age convicted of first or second degree murder in youth court
were subject to a maximum sentence of five years less a day which
was composed of two parts. The maximum custodial period was three
years and the maximum period for conditional supervision in the
community was two years less a day.
It is unfortunate that I am out of time because I do have the
facts that could be presented. Maybe one of my colleagues will
finish this.
Right now I need to make the point that all youth convicted of
first degree murder in youth court are subject to a maximum
sentence of ten years which is comprised of a maximum of six
years in custody and a maximum length of conditional supervision
of four years. Youths convicted of second degree murder in youth
court are subject to a maximum sentence of seven years which is
composed of a maximum period of four years in custody and a
period of conditional supervision which may not exceed three
years.
It has only been two years since we have changed these rules. We
have a justice committee looking at it. I am going to suggest
that we let the Minister of Justice, who knows this is an
important issue, deal with this as we have been doing all along.
We take this seriously. In my submission, capital punishment
plays no part in our just society.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I would first like to commend the mover of this piece of
legislation for the work that has gone into it. I read his
private member's bill today and it is clear that a considerable
amount of effort has gone into drafting the legislation. I
commend him for that but, and I am sure this will come as no
surprise to him, I disagree with the contents of the legislation
and the thrust of the private member's bill to reinstate capital
punishment in this country and, as my hon. colleague just
mentioned, to require life imprisonment for certain young
offenders charged and convicted of first degree murder.
In the introduction and debate of this piece of legislation, I
find it interesting that the hon. member said that this is not
about vengeance. He indicated that vengeance plays no part in
seeking the death penalty. He went on to say that it was not
about deterrence. My hon. colleague, who spoke prior to me,
indicated that the statistics are there and there is no evidence
that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to murderers.
Therefore, if it is not about vengeance or deterrence, what is
the purpose of the legislation? The mover says it is about
safety. I presume what he means is that if we take a person who
is convicted of first degree murder and execute them they are not
going to commit murder a second time. The reality is that in
this country we have life imprisonment. The reality is that the
Paul Bernardos and Clifford Olsons, who are talked about by the
mover of this bill, will not be released from prison. The
purpose of prison is safety. If we can achieve the purpose of
safety through prison then what is the point of execution? If we
can achieve safety in a more humane and civilized way then surely
the hon. member will agree, if vengeance is not part of the
issue, and if safety can be achieved in another way, that is the
way we should proceed.
An hon. member: Don't count on it.
Mr. Peter Mancini: I am not. That being said,
consequently there is no necessary rationale for the legislation
that has been brought into the House today. I submit we can
achieve safety in a better way and as a better society. If we
went to Canadians and said that the people who are convicted of
first degree murder in the most heinous circumstances will not be
released from prison unless they avail themselves of Canadians'
will to release them through an application under the faint hope
clause, Canadians would say fine, if safety is the issue and we
know we are safe.
1135
As I have indicated, I think the rationale is then gone for the
piece of legislation.
My hon colleague, the mover of this bill, and I think there were
some members of his party who heckled the member from the Liberal
Party who spoke, said the reason we are having this debate is
public opinion, the reason that we are reintroducing this whole
issue, even though it has been debated not once but twice in this
House, is that 63% according to Gallup want us to talk about this
issue and want capital punishment.
I ask him, then, if public opinion is the rationale, will he put
a caveat into his legislation and say we want the death penalty
but we are going to review it as public opinion shifts? Perhaps
in three years if 55% of the Canadian population according to
some poll says we do not want capital punishment, we will
reintroduce the legislation—
An hon. member: It never happened.
Mr. Peter Mancini: The hon. mover says that it has never
happened. I guess what we are going to do is leave this to a
public relations campaign between the victims rights groups
perhaps on one hand and the council of churches on the other, the
victims rights groups perhaps saying they want the death penalty
and the council of churches saying it does not. Who can ever
engage Canadians and win their support for the day, we will
change the law accordingly.
An hon. member: Public opinion.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Exactly. Let us change each piece of
legislation every year, depending on whether or not certain
groups can present their case on television and in the media and
gain the most public opinion.
Those people who were put to death between let us say 1997 and
the year 2000 when the legislation might come up for review,
well, they were on the wrong side of public opinion for three
years. We will change it again in 2000 and we will not have the
death penalty.
Maybe in 2010 we will change it again and those people between
2000 and 2010, good for them, they won the lottery. They did all
right. Those after will suffer.
We are allowing the Gallup poll to determine legislation in
Parliament where I believe we have been elected to represent our
constituents' interests but also to lead this country into the
next millennium.
That is our purpose and I think that is what we have to do. We
now know there is no rationale for the piece of legislation. We
now know it is being led by public opinion and that is the
purpose of it, I suppose, to gain some points in another Gallup
poll.
It would be Reform justice, I suppose. We know that jurors can
err but I raise another point and I think it is an important
point. In many states in America, our neighbours to the south,
there is capital punishment.
The reality of what happens in study after study is that juries
are reluctant to convict if they know the death penalty is what
awaits the accused.
The mover of this legislation has talked about the Latimer case
and it is interesting to note that jurors who convicted Mr.
Latimer interviewed later on, and this is no secret, it was used
by his defence council, indicated that had they known that the
minimum sentence was 10 years, they would have entered a verdict
of not guilty.
If we accept the statistics of my hon. friend, and I am not sure
I do, let us suppose that 40% of Canadians on moral grounds
opposed the death penalty, if they sit on the jury and cannot
morally accede to the death penalty if it is law, they are left
with no choice but to acquit.
I ask the mover of this legislation to think about that very
carefully because it is a very real consequence in states where
there is a death penalty.
The other side of this in reality is the frustration in the
legal system. The bill makes provision for a mandatory appeal.
It is a very American piece of legislation. I think we have to
say that what we are doing here is free trade on certain kinds of
justice issues.
We are importing American legislation into this country, into a
judicial system and a court structured system that is British in
nature. Let us be clear. We are trying to put a round peg into
a square hole here and it is not going to fit.
1140
If we do look to the American states where this type of
legislation is in place, we see case after case where the appeals
are dragged out for years. It is a fight for someone's life.
Make no mistake, there are organizations in this country that
would find funding to continue appeal after appeal, to look for
clemency to move on.
I think we have to look at the reality of this. It is nice and
easy to say this solves the problem, we are going to have an
execution after we seek leave to appeal.
Since I have one minute left, I will try to wrap up. Like my
colleague, there is so much to say on this issue that I could
speak for a fairly long period of time. However, let me say that
I find it absolutely contradictory and somewhat upsetting that
the mover of this legislation would say that we are in favour of
this and that we are going to do it nice and clean, in a way that
nobody is really bothered, it will not be a public spectacle.
To those in favour of capital punishment, I say bring the
accused into this Chamber, execute him here, watch him foul
himself in this House, eye to eye, and then let them tell me that
they are in favour.
I have not touched on the young offender areas of the bill, nor
have I touched on an interesting little section that requires the
body of the person who has been executed to be buried within the
prison. And my friend says that this is not couched in vengeance.
So much for Christian mercy.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill put forward by the
Reform Party.
There is nothing surprising about this bill, considering that
the Reform Party had tabled a bill during the 35th Parliament—
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on a point of order. This bill is not a Reform bill.
This is my bill, the member for Prince George—Peace River, a
private member's motion. Private members' motions and bills do
not come from a party.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, the hon. member from
the West may be ashamed of his party. Indeed, this is a private
member's bill. Some of us are capable of making that distinction.
That said, during the 35th Parliament another hon. member from
the Reform Party tabled a bill proposing a referendum on the death
penalty. It will be recalled that there was a debate in this
House. Outside of the Reform members, hon. members voted without
exception against that bill. I would remind the hon. member that
the bill in question was C-261. The Reform MPs were in favour of
the bill, while all the rest of the House was against it.
Today—
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on
a point of order. In the 35th Parliament the bill which was just
mentioned by the hon. member was my bill. It was not a Reform
bill. It was a private member's bill. The member needs to get
his facts straight. Reform policy is not quite the same as what
is coming forward in these bills. So he needs to get his facts
right. I do not mind if he criticizes private members' bills,
but do not attach those directly to the party.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, things are not going
well for the Reform Party, because a second member has just
dissociated himself from the party. Things are not going well.
There are another four or five who may do the same.
That said, the bill put forward by the member for Prince
George—Peace River has two parts to it. The aim of the first is
to reinstate capital punishment and that of the second is to ensure
the maximum prison sentence for offenders, people who have
committed serious crimes. The crime is no less serious, but people
under 18 years of age who have committed first degree murder, for
example, would serve a life sentence.
1145
They are amending the Criminal Code by replacing section 235
of the Criminal Code—and I think it important every word of this
bill be understood—with the following:
(a) to death, where the person was eighteen years of age
or more at the time of the commission of the offence; or
(b) to imprisonment for life where the person was under
the age of eighteen at the time of the commission of the
offence.
As we can see, there are two elements to be amended, namely,
the Criminal Code with respect to capital punishment and the Young
Offenders Act.
In the case of the Criminal Code, all of us in this House know
that there was a big debate on the subject in 1975-76, when Canada
still had capital punishment. They wanted to amend it. There was
a moral debate, with the church involved, a political and a social
debate. I think there was a very important debate in 1975-76 on
that. A compromise was reached, because they abolished capital
punishment. The compromise was life imprisonment, with the
possibility of parole after 25 years. It was perhaps not the best
formula, but it was the most accurate representation of the will of
the people at the time.
You have to understand that people, that a society, that a
country can change. Maybe not the Reform Party, but everyone else.
Today we do not think exactly the same way we did 25, 30 or 40 years
ago. I think it is normal in a free and democratic society to deal with
this, especially since with the help of experts and the people
involved, we can review much more objectively the whole situation, which
is rather unpleasant, I must admit. There is nothing pleasant about
first degree murder. When we read the newspapers, there is nothing
pleasant there neither, but I believe that in a society like ours, we
had to get to the bottom of this. That is what we did during those years
and we arrived at a rather satisfactory formula.
However, we improved it over the years. Recently, I think we solved
still other problems by amending the Criminal Code so an individual can
be declared a dangerous offender and denied the possibility of parole.
Perhaps there will be further improvements over the years, but it surely
will not be by going to extremes, as the Reform member wants to do this
morning with Bill C-212, and by imposing capital punishment for first
degree murder.
I would like to read to you some of the objectives we have here.
Why did we go from capital punishment to the system we have today?
France and other European countries had the same social debate we had
here and finally adopted legislation resembling Canada's.
The judge should base his sentence on the objective and subjective
seriousness of the offense so that the sentence is fair and in line with
the offense and the offender.
He should think about the objectives to be achieved by imposing a
sentence. The sentence should be a deterrent for the accused and set an
example for the people in the community, the region and even, in some
cases, the province. But the sentence should also consider the actual or
potential rehabilitation of the offender. The objectives that the judge
has to consider are the following: the protection of society,
retribution, deterrence, example, and the social rehabilitation of the
offender and his protection against other sanctions. Considering all
this, I believe that the present system strikes a balance and, as I was
saying earlier, further improvements can always be made.
Another reason to oppose this bill—and I am saying this on a
personal basis today, but also, knowing rather well my colleagues from
the Bloc Quebecois, I believe there are a number of them that agree with
me—is the possibility of an error in the judicial system. This is an
extremely important reason and I think that even though our judicial
system has proven itself, it is not infallible.
No one in this House is infallible either. No judge is infallible,
and I think there may be cases where individuals are found guilty who
are not really guilty.
1150
In Canada, we have seen people spend 5, 10 or 15 years in jail who
were later found to have been unfairly convicted and who were released
after their files were reopened and a new investigation was conducted.
I know that with the progress made in the medical field and in
other fields, we can make the judicial system better or try to reduce
the risk of mistakes being made, and I am referring here to
deoxyribonucleic acid analysis, better known as DNA analysis.
Such analyses may be used to link a given individual to a murder based
on evidence found on the scene of the crime.
But even the best techniques will not prevent mistakes from being
made and individuals from being convicted of murder in the first degree.
If this House passed the hon. member's bill, these people would be
executed, when it may be found ten years down the road that they were
not guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
Also, before taking a stand on this bill, I did what I had done
before taking a stand on the bill introduced by my Reform colleague
during the 35th Parliament: I read what had been written about it and
checked what the experts had said.
Criminal lawyers are not unanimous, but the vast majority of them,
including Gisèle Côté-Harper, Antoine Manganas and Jean Turgeon, say
that capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect in the case of
first degree murder.
To conclude, as far as young offenders are concerned, the proposed
amendment to the Young Offenders Act would completely upset the balance
of this legislation. For these additional reasons, I am opposed to the
hon. member's bill.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have listened with interest to the debate this morning. During
the last Parliament, as I mentioned earlier, I put forward a bill
which requested, consistent with Reform policy, a binding
referendum on this issue. It requested a binding referendum of
the public, which has in polls, as other members have mentioned,
consistently voted 65% or higher for the past 30 years in favour
of the death penalty being reinstated. That is one thing which
has not changed with time.
An hon. member mentioned how times have changed and how issues
have changed but the fact is that public opinion on this issue
has not changed. What that tells us is that this place, where
members have free votes and vote opposite the will of the people,
is out of step with the people, or the people are out of step
with Parliament. It is one of the two. We have to do something
to bring those two positions more closely together.
One obvious way to do it is to involve the public in a
referendum. There would be extensive public debate. Everybody
would have the opportunity to put forward their point of view. In
the end the community would make the decision about how it wants
the country to run.
An hon. member grossly exaggerated about the way referenda work,
saying we would be into referenda every year, that every five
minutes there would be a referendum. That is a lot of rubbish. I
would challenge that member to point to a place anywhere in the
world where referenda are common and where that happens.
Even Switzerland which has numerous referenda per month in the
cantons simply does not get into the silly nonsense which the
member mentioned of constantly revisiting issues. Certainly they
revisit issues but the timeframe tends to be a lot longer.
Several years is not uncommon for a change in attitudes to alter
something which needs to be brought forward in a referendum.
The fact is that a referendum is a very good tool for getting
public opinion. There is a decent length of time to discuss the
issue.
1155
At the moment it certainly looks as if the public would vote for
the return of capital punishment. In discussions with my own
constituents, because the majority of people in my riding favour
its return, I have asked them what sort of checks and balances
they would put in place if they were to vote to have capital
punishment returned. What checks and balances would they have to
avoid accidentally giving the death penalty to somebody who was
innocent?
The most common suggestion I had is a good one. It is that the
jury which listens to the murder case has the opportunity to
weigh all the evidence, to hear all of the circumstances behind
the murder. If the death penalty were to be returned the
suggestion would be that the jury have the power to recommend to
the judge the death penalty. It would not be automatic. It
would be a recommendation of the jury. That overcomes one of the
problems which was identified by one of the members where juries
are afraid to convict people on that basis.
This suggestion was given to me by one of my constituents. If
we are ever faced with this situation we may get into that
dialogue. If a jury was to have the power to recommend that sort
of thing, then the judge is the final check and balance in
accepting or rejecting the recommendation.
I realize the bill before us today does not make provision for
that. If we were into a referendum type situation a lot of these
suggestions would come forward. It is important to remember
that.
Another member mentioned that the trend was away from capital
punishment. In the United States, which is our closest
neighbour, more and more states have been reintroducing capital
punishment. There is a growing desire for zero tolerance on
crime in many of the United States. Crime authorities are coming
down harder and harder on crime and it is working.
For example, in New York City the police commissioner, who is an
elected official in the United States, some years ago decided he
would take a zero tolerance policy with respect to youth crime
and general crime in the subways. He ordered the police to
arrest people even if they so much as spit on the sidewalk or put
up a bit of graffiti. Within a very few months that zero
tolerance sent a message to the drug dealers, the murderers, the
rapists that crime would not be tolerated and crime dropped
dramatically on the New York subways.
As a result that police commissioner was elected to become the
mayor of the city. He introduced much tougher crime control and
the murder rate dropped something like 35% in about six months.
There was a program on television about this recently. A woman
who lived in one of the black ghettos said that in her entire
lifetime of 30 years she had never had a day when there were not
gunshots fired until that mayor was elected and had a zero
tolerance on crime and started to clean up the way society was
operating.
There is a desire in society to get control of these criminal
elements. I look at youth crime in my area where graffiti is
rampant. I have been in Canada since 1979. In Vancouver
graffiti was almost unknown then. When I came to Ottawa in 1993
there was hardly any graffiti. Now this whole town is covered in
it. My riding is covered in it.
If we had the same zero tolerance approach to things like youth
crime, we would be in a much better situation today than we are.
This bill represents a desire by the public to see their
government, which is us, recognize their concerns and get back to
zero tolerance of these crimes. If we do not step down hard on
things like graffiti, then we will naturally have to accept all
sorts of serious crimes. We saw on the weekend in Victoria where
a 14 year old girl was murdered by a group of her peers. We have
to get the message across that we are not prepared to accept this
type of crime.
1200
Despite what some members have claimed there has been very
consistent public opinion on the issue. They want to see us
return capital punishment to the law books. The fact remains
that this place is out of step with those people and that members
who stand and arrogantly say they will defy the will of their
constituents are doing them no service whatsoever.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as always, even if it was somewhat abbreviated the issue
does end up producing quite a lively debate, as I am sure the
people at home have noticed with some of the heckling back and
forth across the Chamber during the debate.
In the short five minutes that I am given by the process to sum
up, I would like to try to make as many points as possible to
rebut some of what was said by the other representatives of the
parties.
First, it is key to note that the hon. member for London West,
as well as others, denied the ability to put this very important
issue to a vote. In other words justice denied has been justice
denied once more in the House. It is my position and the
position of a lot of people in the Reform Party of Canada that
all Private Members' Business should be put to a vote whether it
is a private member's bill or motion.
Second, I call the attention of the viewing public, or anyone
who wants to follow the debate and do a little research on it, to
the fact that the comments made by the hon. member for London
West almost followed word by word the comments made by one of her
former colleagues, Mr. Gordon Kirkby, who at the time was the
parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, as reported
in Hansard of May 14, 1996, for anyone who would care to
look up the speech.
An hon. member: What happened to him?
Mr. Jay Hill: What happened to him? Exactly. He was not
re-elected in Prince Albert. I am not saying that his position
on capital punishment had anything to do with it, but it may have
had a lot to do with the fact that he was viewed by the majority
of constituents as not representing their wishes in parliament.
That might have had a lot to do with it.
In reply to the hon. member for the NDP, he made some statement
to the effect that if we could achieve public safety without
capital punishment then why put in capital punishment. I would
ask him to ask those 12 families who lost loved ones between the
years 1986 and 1995 because murderers were released, and in one
case escaped, and murdered again. That is not public safety. I
would like the hon. member to remember that when he says that
some of these animals—and that is what I call them—will never
ever be released from prison. Obviously some of them are
released because they are repeat offenders.
In reply to the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois, it is
unfortunate that one of my colleagues and I found it necessary to
rise on points of order during his intervention. I do not like
to see that happen during debate on Private Members' Business,
but his comments clearly indicate that the Bloc Quebecois has no
clue as to what Private Members' Business is all about.
Quite simply Private Members' Business, whether a motion or a
bill, is for the private member. That is why those that are
deemed votable are put to a supposed free vote in the House of
Commons. It is not supposed to be along party lines. Therefore
the member's comments about the fact that we wanted to dissociate
ourselves from the Reform Party is simply not true. I am trying
to represent my constituents, and even though it is not Reform
Party policy I am bringing it forward.
I notice that I have but one minute left. It is such a short
period of time to debate such an important issue. Speakers from
all parties said likewise. It is unfortunate that we did not
have more time, more than just one short hour, to debate an issue
supported by such a great number of Canadians. As was clearly
said the actual support for reinstatement of capital punishment
is increasing after it dipped.
In reply to the statement made by the NDP, it has never fallen
below 50% that the Canadian people speak consistently in favour
of reinstating capital punishment.
1205
My final point is that if the majority of the members of
Parliament do not have the courage to represent their
constituents and reinstate the death penalty for first degree
murder, I would certainly support the position recently
articulated by Stockwell Day of Alberta. Let us release these
animals into the prison population and let them take care of the
justice.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the order that, after second reading, Bill C-22 will
be referred to a committee of the whole, that the House shall be
permitted to consider all stages of the bill in this sitting and
that, if the bill has not been disposed of at the ordinary time
of adjournment, it shall continue to sit until it does dispose of
the bill. There is also agreement that if the House does sit
after 6.30 p.m., no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be
received.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-22, an act to implement the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of
Anti-Personnel Mines and on their destruction, be read the second
time and, by unanimous consent, referred to committee of the
whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very happy this morning to join
with members of Parliament in commenting on the second reading of
a law which would put in place the convention banning the use of
anti-personnel land mines.
[Translation]
First of all, I wish to thank all members of the House for
co-operating in the speedy passage of this bill. I would like to
emphasize that all political parties are prepared to work
together to pass this bill today.
This, to me, says much about the Parliament of Canada. Each
day, our views on taxes, the environment, the Constitution and so
forth may differ widely, but when it comes to debating a bill to
save children and help innocent victims, we can work together.
This is an important message to Canadians and an appeal to
parliamentarians the world over to move swiftly to eliminate
anti-personnel mines.
[English]
The debate today is a very important one, as we understand it,
that unites all parties and through uniting all parties brings
the country together in a very important statement to people
around the world that we are prepared to take action which will
work quite literally, without exception, save the lives of
thousands of people on an annual basis.
Over the last several years members on both sides have expressed
themselves very eloquently and very forcefully on the matter. I
see in the Chamber today a number of members who have personally
taken on the cause and have worked actively to pursue it.
1210
It is important that we act together as a parliament to
demonstrate that we are in a good position when countries come to
Ottawa next week to sign the treaty. The Prime Minister can be
the first to turn over to the UN secretary general a ratification
and begin the second part of the process. It will not just be
the signature but the actual ratification. Within a matter of a
few short months a basic minimum of 40 countries will have
ratified the treaty, at which point it will become a binding
international law requiring signatory countries to live up to its
conditions.
This movement has an interesting history. It began with the
enormous expression of will among thousands of individuals around
the world. It is a prime example of the new face and fact of
international politics. It is no longer just governments that
make decisions. It is what I have called the global commons, the
new democracy of the international arena where NGOs, civil
organizations and individuals are united together through the
power of the new systems of telecommunications and information
banded together over the years to draw to the attention of
governments what a scourge this weapon is and how malicious it is
in its application.
I have seen nothing in my personal experience that more aptly
demonstrates the evil that works in the minds of men than what I
saw in Lebanon a week ago. I visited young children in a
hospital in southern Lebanon who had been maimed and handicapped
by mines that were shaped in the form of toys. The mines were
not designed for military purposes but clearly to entice young
children to pick them up. The mere heat of their hands would
detonate them and they would lose a limb such as an arm.
We are in a position today to take a stand against that kind of
human malevolence. We called together for a meeting 13 months
ago in Ottawa like-minded countries and NGOs to see what we could
do to take advantage of the mobilization of public opinion around
the world and to take advantage of the extraordinary effort of
NGOs.
It became clear the conventional pathways would not work. The
normal corridors of disarmament discussion were becoming
cul-de-sacs. They were closed off to any meaningful approval. At
that point we challenged the countries of the world to come to
Ottawa a year later to sign a treaty. In the first instance, if
one had gauged the reaction, it was more scepticism and sometimes
outright scoffing that any such thing could happen. It was just
not the way things were done.
The proof is that next week we expect over 100 countries to be
in Ottawa to sign the treaty. It shows a new sense of public
participation in developing significant initiative in the
international arena. It is now one of the most powerful,
important and significant developments of our time.
It is a great commentary and tribute to members of Parliament
and their work in various parliamentary associations around the
world. I recall resolutions being passed by groups like the IPU,
the NATO assembly, and others. Members have also played their
own part in mobilizing that effort. In some cases the onus has
clearly moved on to parliamentary systems around the world. It
is now clearly within parliaments that ratification must take
place.
It is important to point out that what was dubbed the Ottawa
process is not simply a signature on a piece of paper. It is not
simply the fact of the treaty. It is the fact that countries
will be coming here not only to indicate their adherence to the
new convention but to become actively involved in discussing how
we can make it work. What we can now call the Ottawa process II
is designed to bring countries together, to mobilize resources
for de-mining and to use the effort that went into placing mines
to now removing them.
There are 110 million land mines around the world, 600 to 800
casualties a month, and 80% of the victims are civilian, children
and other innocents.
1215
Again, if I can just use a personal moment of when I was in the
Golan Heights last week. Our own peacekeepers, Canadians, along
with Austrians and Japanese were required to undertake their
duties in an unmarked area land mass so that each step was a
potential disaster.
Only about a week before I arrived, a young Austrian soldier
lost his leg. Here was a prime example of how the weapons
themselves are not just a threat to fire up lands but in fact
pose a danger to our own Canadian peacekeepers around the world.
This is why our own army and our armed forces have taken such an
active role in places like Cambodia and Bosnia to try to
eliminate the land mines.
I think members of the foreign affairs committee who have just
returned from Bosnia can speak for the fact themselves that that
country, as real as it is with land mines, its ability to
redevelop, to recreate some economic life and substance is
substantially hindered because of the threat and fear that the
next step may be one's last. Who will go and plant a new crop
when the plough may hit a land mine and end forever the life or
certainly maim the individual?
The two purposes of the Ottawa meeting are to bring countries to
sign the treaty and also to mobilize money, skill, commitment and
engagement so that around the world they can engage in the
massive test of taking mines out of the ground, of helping to
rehabilitate the victims, not just to replace their limbs but
also to help them restore a healthier view of life.
Nothing can be more traumatic for a young child who has been
maimed by a land mine, to restore a sense of some confidence that
the world is still a humane place and that the adult world still
believes in them, and also to help the countries which have been
marred and scarred by land mines to begin the slow process of
redevelopment. That will not happen overnight.
That will take years but we can use the meetings in Ottawa next
week to be the catalyst, to start that process and to begin to
engage the commitment and the resources of countries around the
world to begin the massive task of taking out land mines.
Some have said, and there are always comments and critics, that
the land mine treaty does not include some of the big players,
the United States, China, India, but it is important to note that
it is already having its impact.
China has declared a moratorium on exports as has the United
States. The Prime Minister, in his talks with President Yeltsin
in Russia, confirmed that they would continue to provide a
moratorium and may be prepared to come to sign.
It is interesting that even countries that are still in some
ways in a state of conflict, Syria and Israel, have committed to
come to the conference itself to begin exploring how they can
become part of the broad movement to eliminate the world from
land mines.
I am not expecting miracles. I do not expect conversions on the
road to Damascus, but they will be here. They will be part of
the conversation. They will be part of the discussions.
Again, I would encourage colleagues in the House who will have
opportunities to meet with these delegates and talk to them, to
begin to look and to explore how we can work together with many
of these countries to undertake projects in which we can help
de-mine the Golan Heights or to eliminate the sources of conflict
in Cyprus or wherever the case may be, where the mines themselves
have become part of the problem.
It is also true to say that a lot of work will have to be done
in the area of developing more effective technologies to get rid
of land mines. Nothing is more primitive to me than watching a
de-mining activity where trained people are literally out on the
fields with a steel rod probing the ground in the hope that that
prod will not hit the trigger and detonate the mine and then have
to go through the painstaking exercise of slowly clearing the
mines.
I do believe that there is, in the sense of our own technical
excellence in countries around the world, the capacity and the
will to develop new needs by which we can begin to eliminate
these mines and to begin to help the countries affected by them.
I will give one example that struck me as absolutely astounding.
I think it is probably a well known fact that there is a new book
out called Aftermath that talks about the consequences of
war and what happens to it.
France, one of the most sophisticated, civilized countries in
the world, 75 years after the first world war, is still engaged
in an active campaign of de-mining 16 million hectares of some of
the most fertile land in France that is still polluted by the
munitions left over after the first world war.
Lives are lost every year in de-mining activities 75 years
later. Think of what it must mean if that is the problem that
France has. What does it mean in Angola or Cambodia or Nicaragua
where there are not nearly the resources or the capacity to make
that kind of effort?
We have an opportunity at the meetings that will take place in
Ottawa next week to remind countries that a treaty is really the
first step. The next step is to make the treaty come to life, to
give it meaning, to give it the tools and the resources needed to
make it work.
1220
The bill before members today is a way of ensuring that under
the laws of Canada we are in a position to fully implement the
treaty. Bill C-22 does several important things.
First, it bans the production, use, storage and transfer of
anti-personnel mines in Canada. It requires the destruction of
all anti-personnel mines, except for training purposes. It
outlines provisions for the verification measures that the
convention provides to ensure compliance with the provisions of
the convention.
Bill C-22 also criminalizes in Canadian law activities
prohibited under the convention. We have appended a text of the
convention to the bill. It demonstrates the integral
relationship between Bill C-22 and the treaty that we are
sponsoring next week in Ottawa.
The legislation proposed was prepared in a short timeframe. In
reviewing it further we thought it important to address some
charter concerns. In this context, we will be introducing an
amendment to subsection 11.2 which provides charter safeguards to
persons who are requested to provide information to the
government concerning the acquisition or possession of land
mines.
In this respect, the bill addresses potential charter concerns
where appropriate warrants must be secured if fact finding
missions wish to gain access to private facilities or residences.
That way, once again we can use the protection of our courts as
prescribed under our Criminal Code to ensure that there will be
no abuse under the human rights provision.
The bill and the convention differ slightly in some respects.
The definition of mine and anti-personnel mine have been altered
to make it more precise under Canadian law, not in any way to
weaken it, but in fact to strengthen it so that any
interpretation by the courts would be more clear and more
effective. In fact, these definitions are even stronger than
those that are contained in the convention itself.
The bill also includes provisions exempting properly
de-activated mines that might used, for example, museum displays
or kept as souvenirs. It also exempts Canadian force members or
peace officers, or appropriate officials who may need to
temporarily possess anti-personnel mines in the context of their
duties, for example, when delivering them for destruction.
At home the legislation gives us the legal basis for ensuring
that Canada can remain mine free for all time. By legislating
this bill into law, we formalize our commitment to stay out of
the anti-personnel mine business forever. It means that we can
send a message to all other countries of the same kind. We can
set a real example by being the first to ratify. This will speed
the process of getting the other 39 countries that are needed to
bring the convention into binding force.
The clock can start counting down today as we pass the bill
which sets a measure and standard for all other countries to
follow.
The process can begin here in this Chamber. I do not use the
words lightly, but I do think this is a defining moment for this
country, for the House of Commons and for the Parliament of
Canada that we can once again take a major step of leadership.
We have an opportunity to demonstrate our dedication to peace and
to the elimination of suffering and to the welfare of children in
mine affected countries.
I call on all members of the House to join me in supporting Bill
C-22, as they have in the past, as all members of Parliament of
all parties have given their co-operation, involvement and in
many cases their passion and engagement.
It is interesting that the most effective and eloquent way of
explaining the purpose and what we are doing comes not from long
experienced parliamentarians, but oftentimes from the mouths of
children. In Toronto on Thursday I participated in a UNICEF
event where a number of young children from Ancaster school had
come together to launch a new videotape that is being sent to
schools across Canada and, in fact, to schools in Cambodia to
talk about the problems of land mines.
These young grade four students of their own volition undertook
to write their own treaty. I thought a fitting end to my opening
speech would be just to recount to the members of the treaty what
they had to say as they presented this treaty to me.
This is a bill of rights for children who live in countries where
there are land mines. These are the words they used:
children have the right to know what land mines look like, and to
learn about them
children have the right to know where land mines are located
children have the right to be in a land mine free area
children have the right not to be teased when they are hurt by
land mines
children have the right to have the best possible medical
treatment at no cost to the family
children have the right to be supervised
children have the right to have fun and respect, even when they
are hurt
children have the right to play and not get hurt
c. Children have the right to go to school, even if they are
hurt
1225
The children of Ancaster asked me to bring this children's
treaty on land mines to the House of Commons to share it with my
colleagues. It demonstrates that this generation believes that
Canada can make a difference.
I recommend Bill C-22 to members of the House. I ask members to
make speedy passage possible and to say to the rest of the world
that Canada will continue to take the lead to ensure that the
world is land mine free for the children who wrote this treaty
and who speak for children around the world.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am proud to speak on behalf of the Reform Party in
supporting Bill C-22. This bill is an example of what the House
can do when members co-operate on an issue which is important to
Canadians. It is something which we stand for as a nation. It
goes to the very root of being Canadian. Canada is a country for
peace, it is a country for fairness and it is a country which
looks to building a better world for all people.
Bill C-22 is an example of what this House can do in the future.
Reform has supported this process from the word “go”. I hope
this bill will be an example of what the government and the House
can do in the future with respect to foreign policy as land mines
are but a small part of the larger picture of conflict and
conflict prevention in the late 20th century.
I know that the minister and members of the Department of
Foreign Affairs are interested in moving beyond this bill in
developing foreign policy which deals not with the management of
conflict but with the prevention of conflict. We are approaching
an era in foreign policy when Canada can use its moral suasive
power to lead other like-minded nations in developing a more
peaceful world.
These are not just words. Rooted in them are pragmatic
solutions which we can apply in the area of foreign policy.
I would like to reflect on when I joined this process. I was
working in southern Africa on the Mozambique border in the
mid-1980s and early 1990s. At that time Mozambique was one of
the worst countries in the world. It was a nation racked by
civil war and it was heavily mined.
The hospital was 20 kilometres from the border. Fifty thousand
refugees had crossed the border looking for a better life. They
were looking for a safe haven. Tragically, some of them had
their legs blown off.
My last experience was in 1992 when I went to visit my old boss
in the hospital. I was there on a social visit. After being
there for 15 minutes the call went out that someone had stepped
on a land mine. We rushed to the emergency department and then
went directly to the operating room. I remember this very
vividly.
As we went through the operating room there, wide awake, sitting
up, was a young 18 year old Mozambiquan lad. He was looking
toward the lower half of his body. His leg was torn to pieces.
His foot was turned the other way around. Most of the muscle,
tissue and sinew had been torn off his lower leg. He had
shrapnel injuries in his groin and lower abdomen. He was very
conscious of what was going on.
He was leaving Mozambique for South Africa for a better future
for a safe future. He wanted to get a job and live in peace.
Instead, that day he stepped and heard a click that would change
his life forever.
1230
That young man is but an example of over 30,000 individuals from
around the world who silently step on these devices and are blown
to pieces. Some die but many actually survive and they go on to
live a life of poverty, a life of insecurity and a life that is
only a shadow of what it could have been.
To give an indication of what this young man's life will be
like, the leg was blown off. We took three hours to amputate his
leg above the knee. He will probably require other surgeries in
the future because he will be faced with infection, further
revisions of his amputation. He was lucky that the injury did
not go further up or that the anti-personnel mine was not larger.
Many people have their legs blown off at the hip.
As the minister mentioned, some of these devices, if you can
imagine, are actually designed like toys. Some are designed like
butterflies. The children would pick them up naturally as they
would and have their arms blown off; not to kill but to maim.
The perverse logic behind these devices is not that they are
meant to kill, because that would be too simple. They are meant
to maim. They are meant to maim because the person who is maimed
is a constant reminder in that society of what mines can do and
what the opposition, their enemy, can do to them.
They are a constant economic drain to society. They are a
constant reminder, a constant example of fear that exists within
the community to the people there. These people are not
belligerents. They are not warriors. They are not soldiers. They
are generally the public. Land mines are not designed to affect
soldiers primarily, contrary to popular belief. Land mines are
primarily designed to address and terrorize innocent civilians.
They are a weapon of terror. They are not, generally speaking, a
weapon used by military.
When I was in Mozambique, to give an indication of what they
were used for, mines were used to put around people's fields.
They were used to place around people's watering holes. They were
used to put around people's fields so that those individuals
would have to pay money or allegiance to the opposing
belligerents. Otherwise they would be blown up and they could
not feed themselves.
Mines also were used by guerrillas. When areas such as dams
were mined, guerrillas would go in, pick up the mines and use
those mines to blow up the dam or the watering area. They do not
have an appropriate military use in the 1990s, contrary to
popular belief.
The international committee of the Red Cross demonstrated this
very conclusively and we are indebted to the hard work it did to
give us the information, to diffuse the comments that land mines
were actually a useful tool in war in the late 20th century.
They are not. That was the primary argument that was used
against this process, that mines are useful. They are supposed
to be used for military purposes. They are not. They are a
weapon of terror, a weapon against the public, and that is why
this bill is being put forward, to ban.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the very important
contribution that was made by members of the public from Canada,
members of the international community and especially Mines
Action Canada who have done an outstanding job of pursuing and
pushing this agenda for the last four years.
Reform has been on it right from the beginning, because we put
forward private members' bills starting at the beginning of 1995
and when Mr. Ouellet came on board to support it, we were very
happy, and when the Minister of Foreign Affairs came on board to
support it and start the Ottawa process, we were also happy to
support that initiative.
Members from the Department of Foreign Affairs such Jill
Sinclair, Bob Lawson, Ralph Lysyshyn have done an outstanding job
in pushing this issue within the department and also
internationally. I might also say that their work in Oslo was
something Canadians can be proud of.
The Americans tried to water this treaty down. They tried to
water it down so there were huge loopholes through it that would
have made it not worth the paper it was written on. Instead, a
charge was led by Canadian members of the Department of Foreign
Affairs who were there who managed to mobilize support from other
countries to ensure that the bill that was constructed in Oslo
was going to be a bill we were proud of, a bill with teeth, a
bill that would actually be effective for once in trying to ban
these land mines.
That is something that we as Canadians can be very proud of.
1235
I would like for a few minutes to illustrate the scope of the
problem of land mines. There are over 30,000 seeded all over the
world. They inflict damages in various countries that are
absolutely horrendous. In Angola 1 in 270 people is a mine
victim and a similar number in Cambodia.
It goes beyond that. Land mines sit in the ground for over 50
years. As the minister mentioned, France has land mines that are
blowing up people today. The most land mined country in the
world is Egypt. Those land mines were seeded in the second world
war and continue to blow up people every day. Land mines also
continue to sit in the soil and cause huge economic devastation
to countries that do not need this.
Let us not forget that most of these land mines are seeded in
countries among the poorest of the world. The land mines sitting
there for over 50 years prevent countries from economically
getting on their feet. It has become such a serious problem in
countries such as Angola and Mozambique that innocent civilians
are prepared to go into mined areas to plough their fields to
feed themselves. It now becomes a choice, chancing getting blown
up or starving to death. Those are the cold hard realities, the
cold hard choices that some of the poorest people in the world
have to make every day. We should be ashamed that these devices
were ever constructed and allowed to be tossed out in the manner
which they have done for the last 80 plus years.
Those costs are enormous. In Croatia over thousands and
thousands of hectares are mined, costing over a quarter of a
billion dollars each year in lost productivity. Countries from
Angola to Cambodia to Chechnya are so mined that they cannot get
on their feet economically for decades.
The overall cost of demining is estimated at over $50 billion
per year. These devices cost as little as $7 to $30 to make, yet
each mine costs between $300 and $1,000 to remove. This cost
will not be borne by the countries that are mined. It will be
borne by the international community. We as nations do not have
the money to do this. That is why this bill is so important.
That this bill went through in such a rapid motion is something
that Canadians can be proud of.
The process started four years ago and by international
standards took place at light speed. There a few interesting
things we can learn from this. First, we were not prepared as a
nation to settle for a treaty that was going to be merely one
which was developed by consensus. Usually when you push forth a
treaty by consensus we get a piece of paper that is pabulum. We
get a treaty that is not worth the paper it is written on because
there as so many loopholes it becomes unworkable and
unmanageable.
Instead we did not settle for second best. We settled for a
situation that we knew the majority of the countries of the world
would support. We went by a process of majority. Therefore we
have a treaty which has teeth for a change. We also set a
deadline. The minister set a deadline a year ago that this
December would be the month we would settle on a treaty. It is
something that we as Reformers can heartily support.
We are sick and tired of treaties taking decades to push forward
when we know the majority of the international community will
support them. While we dither on many of these issues lives are
lost, countries are laid to waste, economies are destroyed and in
fact we domestically pay a penalty.
When wars take place half a world away they do come to roost
with us. Wars create refugees. Because we signed the convention
on refugees we are obligated to bring refugees on to our soil.
These tragic souls who would prefer to live in their own nations
come to us looking for reprieve. It costs Canadians $75,000 per
refugee to integrate them, a cost which is put on our already
burdened social programs. Our defence budgets also incur great
costs.
1240
As a result we also put our soldiers in harm's way. Land mines
have racked an enormous toll not only on people far away but on
our own military. Peacekeepers fear land mines more than they
fear the sniper's bullet. If we look at the casualties that we
have incurred of our peacekeepers the majority are as a result of
land mines.
In fact, we have the tragic case of a peacekeeper whose parents
live on the northern part of Vancouver Island. Their son was
tragically blown up in the former Yugoslavia by a land mine. They
have worked very hard to bring this issue to the forefront. This
is a cost that we all bear.
Further, when countries are trying to get back on their feet our
aid and development budgets come into play in trying to demine
and reconstruct societies and economies that have been laid to
waste by war, and land mines contribute to this continual
destruction within their economies.
The Ottawa process is important because it heralds a new
co-operation between NGOs, non-governmental organizations, and
government. We must not let this process die. For within this
process lies hope to use and apply these lessons learned into
other foreign policy initiatives in the future.
From 1945 to 1985 the international community has lurched from
one conflict to another. We have watched the precursors to
conflict exist right in front of our eyes. From Rwanda to the
former Soviet Union, Cambodia, Burma, Central America wars have
littered this globe and internecine conflicts have destroyed many
economies and cost millions of lives.
We live in a world where rules are based on what was created
after 1945. That world has changed. Between 1945 and 1985 the
United Nations put forth six peacekeeping operations which cost
roughly $3 billion. Between 1985 and now we have had over 26
peacekeeping operations.
The post-cold war era has set forth a new era, a new set of
rules and a new set of challenges. We have not met those
challenges. In fact, we have failed abysmally.
Rather than trying to prevent conflict, we have tried to manage
it with all the costs that are incurred in that. We have watched
in front of our eyes as nations have imploded, millions of people
killed, economies destroyed and the seeds of ethnic hatred and
discontent laid to bear and sewn for generations to come.
This is a penalty we will all pay. It is high time that we
started to recognize that conflict management is not acceptable
in foreign policy any more. We have to look ahead at preventing
conflict and move our foreign policies from conflict management
to conflict prevention.
This is where the Ottawa process can come into play. The NGO
community is usually the first group in the trenches witnessing
the precursors to conflict and the rapid inappropriate
militarization, the human rights abuses, the collapse of
governmental and judicial structures. All these things are
witnessed by NGOs. They often communicate their wishes to
governmental structures but it hits the usual inertia that exists
within government and within international governments in
particular.
As a result of this inertia, as a result of this inaction, we
have paid the price. Those who live far away have paid a far
greater price. We have to change this thinking.
It is important that we use the NGO community, use the
conglomeration of NGOs part of this Ottawa process, as an early
warning system that can identify countries that are ready to
implode, identify the precursors to conflict and funnel this
information directly to a central organization, an early warning
system.
Perhaps the most logical choice would be the UN crisis centre in
New York. For all that can be said about the United Nations with
all of its inefficiencies, it is perhaps the only choice we have
today. Even if the United Nations were to be removed or were to
fall apart, we would have to create something to take its place.
Therein lies another challenge which I might get to later on in
my speech, the restructuring and revamping of the United Nations.
1245
The UN crisis centre could take all the information that is
presented to it as an early warning organization and feed it
directly into the United Nations. We must then have an existing
group of responses by the international community to respond to
these precursors. Such responses could be diplomatic
initiatives, peace building initiatives and the introduction of
positive information to dispel propaganda that is often used at
the start of a conflict.
If we look at conflicts from Rwanda to the former Yugoslavia,
one of the favoured tools that is used by a small number of
individuals is to put forth negative propaganda to demonize
another group. As Michael Ignatieff said in one of his articles,
often these groups are very similar but they exist on the
narcissism of their differences. They exist on demonizing the
small differences that exist between different ethnic groups. In
doing this, they polarize the ethnic groups which enables them to
create an engendered fear, hatred, loathing and ultimately war.
That cycle must be broken. It can be broken. Once the
precursors are identified, positive propaganda can be put in
there. In fact the United Nations already has the power to do
that through shortwave radio and existing communications tools
that it has. It is exceedingly important that the UN get involved
through diplomatic initiatives and positive propaganda.
Furthermore a tool that is not being used often is the tool of
economics. Many of these countries rely on international
financial institutions in order to survive. They also spend
moneys given to them by the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund and other IFIs on inappropriate militarization and
to cause conflict. Wars need money. You cannot run a war without
money. Therefore, if this is occurring, choke off the money
supply.
The IFIs can be used not only as a stick but also as a carrot.
As a stick we can withhold further loans, withhold their ability
to renegotiate loans, moneys and grants and call back loans if
necessary. We can also use them to freeze the assets of rulers
who are patently engaging in activities that are going to
compromise their people.
We could freeze the assets of rulers such as the late Mobutu
Sese Seko who was one of the richest men in the world. There are
the assets of Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya, when he engages in
efforts to try to kill different ethnic groups within his
country, when he tries to pit Kalenjin against Masai or Masai
against Kikuyu. These kinds of activities can be stopped by
directly addressing the people responsible who are often a small
cadre of individuals within a nation.
The IFIs could also be used as a carrot. By lending money to
provide peacemaking initiatives between different groups, by
supporting peace building initiatives, by supporting activities
that bring both of the groups together, by micro credit for
minority groups so that they can get on their feet economically,
by rewarding efforts to build structures of good governance and
peace within a country, we can help to diffuse the precursors to
war.
This is a big task. Again it is going to require organizations
such as NGOs and governments to do this. When it comes to nation
states taking a role in this, I believe that no other nation
would be better at it than Canada, not alone but as an organizer.
In the late 20th century going into the 21st century there
exists a void in foreign policy. The bipolar world created a
world where two superpowers glared at each other at the end of a
nuclear arsenal and under the absurd notion of mutual
destruction.
The world has changed. As that bipolar world collapsed, the
shackles that held ethnic groups apart and kept ethnic hatreds
simmering were removed and conflicts existed.
1250
Countries such as the United States and many members of the
security council cannot be the nation states that will bring
other countries together. They are either perceived, rightly or
wrongly, as having imperialistic tendencies or they have their
own colonial baggage.
The world is looking for a new group of individuals to bring
nation states together. I believe that responsibility will fall
on the middle powers such as Austria, Australia, Costa Rica, New
Zealand, Norway and Canada. Many of these nations are working in
isolation on peace building initiatives. It is more efficient
for these nations to work together in a multilateral fashion but
no one is assuming the leadership role that would bring these
countries together.
Canada can be that country. We have proven through the land
mines issue that we have the moral suasive power to do this. We
have proven through our Nobel peace prize for our peacekeeping
efforts that we can develop international consensus for peace
building. We have the diplomatic skills. We have the personnel
in the Department of Foreign Affairs and we have an international
reputation that is virtually unrivalled. We also have the
security aspect and are involved with people from the Pacific Rim
to Europe and to points south. We are in an enviable position to
do that.
As we end the 20th century and enter the 21st century, I can
only ask the minister to work with his colleagues in countries
such as those I have mentioned. He could ask them to come to
Canada to attend a small summit, a summit of the middle powers.
He could bring these countries together, put the cards on the
table and determine what everyone is working on in peace
building.
I was in Norway at the Oslo treaty signing on land mines. I
spoke to members of other countries, such as the Norwegians. I
was interested to learn about their work. I found it remarkable
that their work is very similar to our work. It is unfortunate
that we are working in isolation. Our power to move
international foreign policy forward can come about more
expeditiously if we work together. There will be a lot of
co-operation and like-mindedness if we pursue that.
I ask the foreign minister, the government and other members in
this House to come together to pursue this course. Only if we do
this can we get the required changes to stop the international
bureaucratic inertia in international foreign policy. We could
then address the security issues that affect us all. By security
challenges and issues I refer not only to military security
challenges but also to environmental security issues.
Environmental issues range from our problems at the north pole to
nuclear issues and to issues of the environment. All will
require international co-operation.
By working with six to ten countries we can develop that
nucleus. With that nucleus we can all sing from the same
songbook and bring other countries together much as we did in the
Ottawa process. The Ottawa process did not start with 100
countries all wanting to ban land mines. It started with a
handful of countries, with the leadership of the NGO community
and with the leadership of Canada and a few other nations. We can
apply that same principle to pursue larger security issues and
larger security challenges in the future.
I hope that we as a nation and as a Parliament can look forward
to a future of addressing these larger security challenges. If
we continue to lurch from conflict to conflict and do not try to
prevent conflict, then we will be set with an unsustainable
situation in the near future. We can no longer afford to see the
implosion of nation states across this globe. We can no longer
afford to see the proliferation of this destruction.
If we want to speak pragmatically and domestically, these issues
that occur half a world away will sooner or later come to roost
in our own backyard. It is imperative that we deal with it now.
1255
It has often been said in the medical profession that prevention
is worth much more than dealing with the person's medical problem
after the fact. I hope we can apply that principle to foreign
policy.
When I spoke to Jody Williams, the Nobel peace prize winner
about this, she said that those were nice words. I did not
remind her that when we were pursuing the course of banning land
mines four years ago, people said that it was a utopian dream and
that those were nice words. Well these are more than nice words.
There are pragmatic solutions.
If we do not seek to dream and look to the future, to building a
new stronger, better world by using our expertise, by using
pragmatic tools and solutions, by using the leadership that we as
a nation can put forward, then we have nothing. We can and must
use our moral suasive power, use the tools that are at our
fingertips to build a better, more peaceful world for all people.
I will close by saying once again that this is an issue of which
all Canadians can be proud. Reform is very proud to be part of
the process because we have been pursuing peacekeeping
initiatives for many, many years and we will continue to do so.
We look forward to working with the government in pursuing
pragmatic, effective peacekeeping and peacemaking solutions in
the future. We hope that we will be able to do this in a way that
will make Canadians proud. We can build on our history of Pearson
diplomacy now with the land mines process, and live up to our
heritage as Canadians and as peacemakers and pursue a course that
will build a stronger, safer future for nation states around the
world.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker,
when Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, decided to establish
the prizes that would make his name a household word, he said that
the main dividends of his invention should be used to promote peace
in the world.
In 1997, the dividends went to the International Campaign to
Ban Land Mines and its co-ordinator, Jody Williams, in recognition
of more than six years of intense efforts by more than a thousand
non-governmental organizations in over 60 countries.
Thanks to this campaign, described by the former Secretary General
of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as the most important
and effective exercise in civilian society since World War II,
several countries banned the export of anti-personnel mines,
destroyed or began to destroy their stocks of mines, banned or
halted their use, or announced that they were ceasing production of
them.
These efforts by civilian society, which thus forced all
governments the world over to react to the scourge of
anti-personnel mines, would probably never have resulted in the
convention to ban these mines, but for the initiative and
determination of Canada's current Minister of Foreign Affairs.
By bringing together representatives of governments,
international organizations and NGOs in the federal capital in
October 1996, and by initiating the Ottawa process, the minister
assumed a leadership role that will culminate in the signing, on
December 3 and 4, of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on
their Destruction.
The Ottawa process was marked not only by unprecedented
co-operation on the part of government and non-government actors
in the international community, but particularly by its speed of
execution.
1300
Whether in Vienna, Bonn or Brussels, these numerous players always
kept in mind the deadline proposed by the Canadian Minister of Foreign
Affairs, in October 1996. Less than a year after the challenge issued by
the minister, on September 18, in Oslo, they approved the text of a
convention to totally prohibit anti-personnel mines. Bill C-22 seeks to
implement this convention, and the House is being asked to give speedy
approval to it today, both at second and third readings.
I am pleased to say that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-22,
subject to a number of amendments being considered, so as to improve
this implementing legislation.
Support for the bill is first and foremost support for a convention to
work together to maintain international peace and security, as stated in
the preamble to the UN charter, to which Canada is a signatory, and
which a sovereign Quebec will fully support when it joins the other
nations of the world.
It is an instrument which primarily seeks to eliminate deadly
weapons, namely anti-personnel mines, by prohibiting their use,
stockpiling, production, conservation and transfer. Hopefully, the
general obligations assumed by the states will put an end to the use of
anti-personnel mines, which is still a serious problem, given that for
every mine removed, 20 new ones are installed.
This convention will contribute to the destruction of the 110
million mines distributed throughout more than 70 countries in the
world, which mutilate in excess of 25,000 people yearly, 80% of
them civilians. Anti-personnel mines claim 70 new victims every
day, or one person every 20 minutes. During the time I am speaking
here today, one more person will be killed, or if lucky only maimed
by this little instrument of death. This victim is likely to be a
child, probably a child in Afghanistan, Cambodia or Somalia, since
many of the deaths and injuries caused by land mines in those
countries involve children.
This convention will also encourage the destruction of
anti-personnel mines in mined areas and will oblige signatory
states to ensure that mines are destroyed within ten years of the
effective date of the convention, at the very latest. These will
be onerous obligations, very much so, for states such as
Bosnia-Hercegovina, which alone has more than one million mines
hidden in its territory as I learned during a recent
parliamentary mission. But they will also be onerous for
developing countries such as Angola, Croatia, Eritrea, Iraq,
Mozambique, the Sudan and Vietnam.
Farm lands remain unworked and large grazing areas unused, and
will remain so as long as the land remains riddled with
anti-personnel mines and burden these countries with deaths and
injuries, and the costs related to victim assistance.
In this connection, the convention rightly promises
international co-operation and assistance, without which the
objectives of the convention cannot be met.
The convention gives each state party the right to seek and to
obtain assistance from other signatory states, if possible and
insofar as possible. The state parties that are in a position to
do so commit, moreover, to provide assistance for the care of mine
victims, as well as assistance in mine removal.
In article 9 of the convention, the state parties also commit
to “all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures,
including the imposition of penal sanctions, to prevent and
suppress any activity prohibited to a State Party under this
Convention undertaken by persons or on territory under its
jurisdiction or control”.
1305
Bill C-22 seems to be the primary legislative means of
assuming this obligation, and seeks to give legal effect in Canada
to the Convention as a whole.
I have examined the text of Bill C-22 closely and it seems to
me to contain the necessary provisions for performance in good
faith of the anti-personnel mines convention, as required by the
pacta sunt servanda rule set out in article 26 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties. There are, however, certain
amendments that could improve this implementing legislation and I
will have an opportunity shortly, in committee at report stage, to
present and explain the amendments the Bloc Quebecois would like to
see made to Bill C-22.
As with other foreign affairs issues, the Bloc Quebecois is
motivated by the values and convictions common to the government
party and to other parties in the House. In this instance, the
values of international peace and security are involved, as are the
values associated with promoting and protecting rights and
freedoms, particularly the most basic right, the right to life.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to support Bill C-22
and the convention it is intended to implement, as they are both
the reflection of such values. In a few moments, the Bloc
Quebecois will submit to the House suggested amendments to
improve the bill and to make more democratic the process by which
possible amendments to it would be passed in future.
The passage of Bill C-22 by the House of Commons, its
subsequent approval by the Senate, and assent will enable the
Government of Canada to complete phase 1 of the Ottawa process.
And although phase 1 of the process will have been effective, phase
2, which will focus on international assistance and co-operation,
must succeed if we want to see the objectives of the anti-personnel
mines convention achieved. Other measures will have to be
implemented, and the Bloc Quebecois will continue to support those
that will help attain the convention's objectives.
In another moment of insight, and wisdom it should be added,
the Swede Alfred Nobel said, and I quote:
[English]
<“My factories may make an end of war sooner than your
congresses. The day when two army corps can annihilate each
other in one second, all civilized nations, it is to be hoped,
will recoil from war and discharge their troops”.
[Translation]
Parliaments the world over must go on repeating the wishes
expressed by Alfred Nobel. They must join forces with civilian
society and international organizations in promoting peace and
protecting humankind from the scourge of war so that humanity can
triumph.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this historic debate
today on behalf of the New Democratic Party and my colleagues in
the federal NDP caucus.
I want to extend congratulations to the minister on what I am
sure must be one of the happier days of his ministry at foreign
affairs. From having worked with the minister before when we
were both lowly opposition foreign affairs critics, I know his
time in office is not always replete with the ability to do some
of the things he called for.
I know today must be a special day for him, being able to live
up to the expectations that he has and that we share with him for
Canada as a country that shows leadership in the building of an
international regime which leads toward the prevention of war and
the elimination of the kind of violence that land mines stand
for.
1310
It was interesting listening to the hon. member from Vancouver
Island. One got a sense of the revulsion that in this case
medical personnel who have worked with the consequences of land
mines bring to this debate. I also had an image of an earlier
revulsion that people had coming out of the first world war with
respect to the effect of chemical weapons and the effort that was
made after that to ensure they would not be used again as a
matter of course in the exercise of war.
It is too bad I suppose that we did not learn the lesson about
land mines 80 years ago. It was mentioned that France is still
suffering from the effects of the first world war and I recall
that when I was part of a parliamentary delegation to Vimy in
1992 it was reported to me that some 26 farmers in the previous
year had been killed by land mines still embedded in the earth in
France, this in the 1990s.
We see that land mines are in some ways a symbol of what has
happened in the 20th century. Civilians as much or more in many
respects than military personnel have come to be the objects of
military technology.
The point I want to emphasize in today's debate is I hope that
today might be the beginning by example of what I regard to be an
equally and perhaps ultimately in the planetary sense a more
important effort and that is to ban another kind of weapon which
has as its primary target civilians and not military personnel.
Of course what I am speaking about are nuclear weapons.
I am sure the minister shares this hope and I would urge him to
build on the example of the anti-mine campaign that it would be
wonderful in the greatest and most full sense of being wonderful
if we could have a similar campaign with respect to the abolition
of nuclear weapons.
There are a lot of people of course around the world who are
working on this but they are a minority. They need to become a
majority in government circles and in international circles. The
example we need to take from this is not just the successful way
in which governments, in particular in this case the Canadian
government, led the way, but governments, international agencies,
NGOs, interested individuals, political parties and non-partisan
co-operation. We also need to take the example that this was done
by Canada without insisting on what we sometimes, it seems to me
too often, insist on and that is that we have to have the United
States on board before something can be signed, before there can
be a consensus.
Obviously when it comes to nuclear weapons, if we do not have
the people with nuclear weapons on board, we do not have much of
a treaty or an accomplishment. But there are other things that
can be done with respect to the testing of nuclear weapons
technology and the trading of nuclear related products and so on.
There are a number of ways in which we could begin to build an
international consensus against those things which contribute to
the continued existence of nuclear weapons.
We should take this action on mines as an example of what we can
do when we are prepared to act without the consent or approval of
the United States or for that matter other major powers.
1315
We do not feel we are doing anything less important today
because the United States has not agreed. If the United States
had agreed and if Russia and other larger countries had joined,
in a practical sense we would feel much more was being
accomplished. That does not take away from what is being
accomplished at the lesser practical level but also at the moral
and political levels.
As the minister I am sure hopes and as all of us here hope, it
may be that the other countries which have not yet done so will
some day sign on to this treaty.
A couple of years ago I participated in one of the earlier round
table discussions on this topic. It was held at the National
Conference Centre. It was stressed that we should do whatever we
could to successfully abolish anti-personnel mines. At that time
we were still dreaming of what is now unfolding.
I will repeat the point I made that day. I said that this would
become a prototype for what we could do with respect to other
problems which needed to be addressed, in particular that of
nuclear weapons. We need to abolish them while we have this
window of opportunity after the cold war and before another
situation occurs between the nuclear powers which would make the
abolition of nuclear weapons very remote once again.
The NDP has been supportive of the initiative from the
beginning. We have presented a number of private members'
motions on it over the years, as have other parties. We are very
glad to see it come to fruition.
We extend our congratulations to the NGOs that have been
involved and organizations such as Mines Action Canada, the Red
Cross, UNICEF and all others that laid the groundwork for public
support for a ban on land mines. A very important thing is
happening out there which the minister has acknowledged.
A tremendous critical mass that developed at the political, the
NGO, the bureaucratic and the parliamentary levels has made this
kind of thing possible and has given it the kind of momentum that
made it irresistible to many other countries. At a certain point
people want to become part of a good thing that is happening. We
need to make other good things happen that people will want to
become part of.
We also want to commemorate the tremendous role Princess Diana
played in raising awareness of the daunting task of banning land
mines. We also want to extend our congratulations to Jodie
Williams, the American activist who spearheaded the international
campaign to ban land mines, and all the NGOs involved in that
campaign around the world.
This is an example of how Canadian diplomacy can succeed if
effort and energy are focused on items other than trade
promotion. It seems to me that one unfortunate aspect of Canadian
foreign policy over the last several years has been the almost
exclusive focus on trade promotion. It has taken away from our
efforts in other areas.
I say almost exclusive because obviously it was not exclusive.
There were other things going on like this.
1320
Our argument today is that the government could do a lot more if
it freed up some of its energy, mental, fiscal and political; if
it spent less time on trade promotion and team Canada, and if it
spent more time trying to develop team world when it comes to
banning land mines and nuclear weapons and developing a way to
deal with other global problems of such urgency.
The federal government has to be very careful to back up the
treaty with the financial support it will need. When it does so
we want to make clear that it will have the support of members
from this corner of the House. It will not be cheap in a
worldwide sense or in any sense to support the kind of de-mining
that needs to go on and to rehabilitate victims. We urge the
minister to find the resources necessary. We hope that will be
one way in which the government can make an ongoing commitment to
the values and the policies to which we are committing ourselves
today in this debate.
This is a good day for parliament and a good day for Canada. I
hope 20 years from now we will be able to look back on this day,
look back on the Ottawa process and say this became a model, a
prototype, a paradigm for how we deal with other pressing
disarmament issues. In particular I hope we will look back on it
and say it became a model for eventually bringing the world to
the point where we were able to abolish, not just land mines and
small gun trade but nuclear weapons and the threat to creation
and to the human prospect that continued existence of these
weapons poses for all humankind.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have listened to the debate today in the House. It
has really been a pleasure to hear honest and concerned
parliamentarians address issues found in a civil society that are
very disturbing and detrimental to the well-being and health of
ordinary children, farmers and our peacekeepers. We see land
mines of all shapes and forms.
I had the distinct privilege to go with the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. His manner is profoundly founded in a belief of the
importance of ridding the world of land mines. It is not only a
matter of de-mining but also a matter of education and
sensitization. First and foremost it is a matter of having the
world agree that unacceptable mines which destroy the lives and
the limbs of young children and others in society do not reflect
the best interests of anybody.
I listened to what my hon. colleague had to say. What role does
he think each and every one of us could play internationally as
well as nationally? In our ridings we have a right and
responsibility to indicate to people how devilish these
instruments are as we do to colleagues we have had the privilege
of meeting around the world through the international
associations with which we are affiliated.
1325
We should encourage our members to be in touch with members in
other countries to enable legislation, this treaty or this
declaration, to be put forward in a way that would be expeditious
and constructive and to ensure the financing is behind it in each
of country of the world, even countries which at the moment are
not prepared to sign but have the means to rehabilitate, educate
and train those who have been affected and those who could be
affected.
How would the hon. member look at that issue?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question.
We all have a responsibility to use every opportunity that
presents itself and not to be afraid to be intense about it when
we are in contact with members of Parliament, legislators and
political people from all parts of the world. We have plenty of
those opportunities as individual members of Parliament in the
various parliamentary associations we belong to and the various
international fora we participate in as members of a Canadian
delegation.
At these meetings and in life generally there is a tendency for
people to back off when somebody is intense about something,
trying to be persuasive and trying to make the case that this is
something we should do. It is sort of not cool to be like that.
We put certain things on the record. They are there and we can
always say that we said them.
We need to go beyond that whenever we have the chance to
buttonhole people over dinner, in the corridors or through
concerted pressure to make sure these items are on the agenda,
that they are discussed and that decisions are taken. People
should be put on the spot and made to think about it. These are
the kinds of things Canadians can do in various international
gatherings.
In the past we have attended many gatherings where we have met
all kinds of people. In this case we could be corresponding with
legislators in countries that have not signed on and trying to
make the case that their countries should sign on, or at least
put a little pressure on them to put a little pressure on their
executive to get with it and follow the Canadian example.
Hon. Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the hon. member. I am pleased he
mentioned emotion.
Exhibits are being planned for either the railway room or the
reading room. I hope the member will invite people he knows to
come here. He should even welcome to Canada those
parliamentarians he does not know. He should be a host in the
name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The exhibits will make us heartsick. We will see dreadful
little mines in the form toys that attract children so that they
will pick them up to have them explode in their hands.
We saw children with lost hands, lost legs and damaged limbs. It
is very easy to speak with the emotion the member referred to. I
am happy he raised it.
We have a truly international cause. I believe Canada could do
an excellent job, certainly our parliamentarians and our
international parliamentary organizations. One day I hope the
Reform Party decides to join to find out what is going on outside
the boundaries of Canada and to learn about the world.
I thank the member for that observation. Would he care to
respond about the Reform Party in particular?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I do not care to respond
because I do not want to spoil what I think is a co-operative
non-partisan effort going on here today. There will be other
opportunities to reflect on the differences that exist between
the parties with respect to participation in some parliamentary
associations and not others.
1330
I just want to say that when we think about the mines that are
constructed to appear to be toys so that children will pick them
up, it makes us kind of ashamed to be human beings when we think
that these weapons were devised by the human mind and constructed
by human hands.
It is hard to conceive of a world in which this would be
possible but this is the world we are confronted with and against
which we set ourselves today as a country alongside so many other
countries.
From a theological and biblical point of view, it reminds us of
what a sinful world we live in. However, we look to the words of
Isaiah. We want to finally beat swords into ploughshares and
spears into pruning hooks. By finally getting rid of land mines
in many countries, as the member from the Reform Party said, we
actually want to create a world that is safe for ploughshares. So
many people cannot plough and grow food and cannot economically
develop because of land mines.
The old metaphor about swords into ploughshares and spears into
pruning hooks seems to be doubly applicable here. It is not just
a question of beating swords into ploughshares. It is a case of
creating a world in which ploughshares can be employed without
danger to life and limb.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I just want to mention that the member for Mount Royal is
deliberately misleading this House when she mentions—
An hon. member: A point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The whip.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
do not think that is a point of order. It is possibly a matter
of debate but I certainly do not think we should take the House
down this path on a day where such an issue is being debated.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Would the hon. member
care to rephrase his comments?
Mr. Keith Martin: Yes, Madam Speaker. The member for
Mount Royal, perhaps unwittingly, misled this House by saying
that the Reform Party did not understand what was going on
outside of its borders. I did not want to bring this up during
this debate but I will have her know that it was the Reform Party
that in this House in 1994 started the process on land mines by
presenting a private member's bill in this House calling for a
ban on land mines. It was the government that refused—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid you are
going into debate right now. We will resume debate with the hon.
member for Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker,
Canadians should feel a great deal of pride in this significant
accomplishment today. Canada has regained for a brief moment its
traditional role as a middle power and has relinked human rights
and foreign policy which many Canadians have been concerned about
since 1993.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has demonstrated leadership in
championing the ban on anti-personnel mines and it has paid off.
On behalf of my party, I congratulate the minister on this
accomplishment. I would also like to take the time to
congratulate Jody Williams as well as all the NGOs and
individuals, including Princess Diana, who provided an
international focus and a popular focus on this very important
issue at a time when it needed that critical mass of support
internationally.
Every year more than 20,000 people are injured by land mines.
These people are not all soldiers trying to take a hill. Most of
these people are not even soldiers trying to clear land mines.
1335
The people that are most vulnerable to these land mines are
civilians. Two weeks ago I travelled to Bosnia as part of a
delegation of MPs from the Defence and Foreign Affairs
committees. In Bosnia I witnessed first hand the devastation and
suffering caused by land mines. Canadian peacekeepers provide
mine awareness programs in elementary schools.
I was surprised and, in fact, disturbed by the level of
familiarity that children already have with land mines. Children
have nicknames for land mines. Some are called Skoal mines
because they are shaped like a tobacco can. Some mines similarly
are called camera mines because they resemble a camera. Some are
called pineapple mines because of the fact that they resemble
pineapples.
It seems to me that the innocence of childhood cannot coexist
with an intimate knowledge of and familiarity with land mines. In
Bosnia, mines are being redeployed around houses to prevent the
return of refugees and displaced people to their homes. Mines are
being redeployed around farmers' fields to prevent theft. In
some cases, farmers' fields have been rendered useless by land
mines.
SFOR's mandate does not include clearing farmers' fields. In
order for their fields to be cleared by SFOR, some farmers have
become resourceful and are actually placing mines or relocating
mines to the sides of roads near their fields to try to draw
attention to and create a sense of priority with regard to the
clearing of land mines from their own fields. Six million mines
were deployed in Bosnia during the war and to date the UN
estimates there are still 3 million mines left in Bosnia.
The problem for the peacekeepers is that millions of mines are
unaccounted for across the country. Several weeks ago a tractor
trailer overturned near Banka Luka and the trailer rolled over a
land mine, causing an explosion. This was an area that had
previously been de-mined and thus had been re-mined. Mines had
been redeployed to this area.
As Canadians, it is sometimes difficult to imagine the constant
fear of living in an area that is plagued by the scourge of land
mines. For me on a personal level, in Canada something I enjoy
doing every morning is my morning run. We were warned when we
were in Bosnia in the Velika Kladusa area, as well as in other
areas, not to run in the mornings. You cannot go off the
pavement. If you go off the pavement on to the shoulder of the
road, you may hit a land mine.
I grew up in rural Nova Scotia. Having returned from Bosnia, I
no longer take for granted the peacefulness and the tranquility
and safety of the surroundings that I took for granted as a
child. As a child I was able to run through and play in fields
with no risk and no fear of being maimed or killed by a land
mine.
Farmers, mothers, fathers, children, innocent people, these are
the people paying for these wars that were fought and, to a
considerable extent, are now over. Land mines do not require
sophisticated technology to manufacture and this is part of the
problem. Sometimes the least stable states are producing land
mines now and people are producing land mines in their basements
because of the availability of the resources and the tools
necessary to make land mines.
It is a difficult problem to control and to contain. As with
any major humanitarian effort, this ban will require a great deal
of expertise and resources. The Minister of Foreign Affairs
earlier referred to the need for investments in sophisticated
technology and equipment in the removal of land mines. This is
critical as well. It will take a long time before all the land
mines are cleared from countries like Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda,
Angola, Afghanistan, Egypt, just to name a few.
Canadians have a very important role to play in this effort. Our
peacekeepers are among the best in the world. That is something
I would like to mention. Upon returning from Bosnia, I came back
with a tremendous pride in our peacekeepers and also the
recognition that one of the things that is unique to Canadians is
our peacekeeping prowess, which is internationally recognized.
I would also remind my colleagues from the Bloc that one of the
first casualties of a divided Canada would be our ability to
participate fully and meaningfully in international peacekeeping
and in other types of international fora.
Not only do Canadians need a strong united Canada but the world
needs a strong united Canada.
1340
We have contributed over $11 million to the humanitarian efforts
to clear land mines. As the minister mentioned, we must continue
to invest in technology and perhaps create opportunities for
Canadian companies like Bombardier which may have the ability to
develop new technologies for this very important task at hand.
It can take 10 peacekeepers up to a full day to manually clear a
minefield the size of a gymnasium. Mine removal requires
significant and sustained resources that are very costly. Over
the past few years two million to five million more land mines
have been deployed. This number, combined with the number
already in the ground means that at current de-mining rates it
could take decades to rid the world of the current mines in the
ground. During that time span, thousands more will be injured or
killed, even with the signing of this agreement.
That is why after this week we cannot forget the need for
continued vigilance in ensuring that the necessary resources are
provided to ensure that the task that is beginning with the
signing of this land mine treaty will continue over the next
several years as part of our international participation in this
effort. Conditionality must be used and can be used with IMF
funding to ensure the full co-operation of resources of countries
that seek IMF funding. By passing this bill Canadians will be
demonstrating to other countries the need to quickly and
decisively act in ratifying the treaty.
I have a further note on my trip to Bosnia. In one of our
briefings we were alerted to the fact that an anti-tank mine can
be converted into an anti-personnel mine. This can be done with
a band saw in some cases. The TMA-3, which looks like a film
reel, can be cut into thirds by an ordinary band saw. This
converts it to three anti-personnel mines.
The definition of an anti-personnel mine is found on the first
page of the bill. It states:
—“anti-personnel mine” means a mine that is designed,
altered or intended to be exploded by the presence, proximity or
contact of a person—. Mines that are designed, altered or
intended to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of
a vehicle as opposed to a person—are not considered to be
anti-personnel mines—
We must be vigilant in ensuring that the TMA-3 anti-tank mine
cannot slip through a loophole in this bill. Canadian companies
could conceivably still manufacture a TMA-3 model anti-tank mine
and sell it to another country with the proper export permit.
Within the other country that mine could be turned into three
anti-personnel mines. Nothing can stop the buyer from the other
country from altering the mine if that country is not a signatory
to this treaty. Once the mine leaves Canada, the responsibility
is out of our hands. Therefore, during this debate I am seeking
clarification from the government on how the definition will be
applied to avoid that type of situation.
It is a great accomplishment to have 100 countries sign the
treaty. However, the major countries that have not signed, with
the exception of the U.S., are the countries where the greatest
military uncertainty lies. We must continue to use every lever
we have as a middle power through international fora to ensure
these other countries do sign.
I leave the House with the words of the former secretary general
of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali: “No nation alone can prevent
the killing fields full of land mines. No nation alone can
prevent inhumane weapons from being deployed, but all nations
united with a single purpose can make this world more secure for
generations to come”.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate my friend from Kings—Hants for a
wonderful and eloquent speech on this important day and on this
important issue. Once again he has demonstrated his commitment
to foreign policy which he has done since he came to this
Parliament, and he continues to do so in a very eloquent manner.
1345
I wanted to bring to his attention, although he probably already
knows, that in the maritimes there exist a number of groups very
active in the processes of demining and have been working all
across the world as Canadians and as maritimers to pursue
demining and have done Canadians proud.
By their actions they have saved many lives and are continuing
to further the important issue of how we get these hundreds of
millions of land mines out of the ground.
I hope the hon. member will work with these groups and give them
the help they require for the betterment of Canadians and for the
betterment of people abroad.
Just to refer to the comments by the member for Mount Royal, a
point of clarification, we as the Reform Party are happy to
engage in international initiatives but we want to make sure that
when we go on international trips these trips are work trips,
that these trips are meant so that we actually gain some
experience and expertise and that they are a productive use of
taxpayer money.
We have not and are not interested in pursuing any course that
will take us abroad where we will deal with international trips
that are going to be a waste of taxpayer money, a waste of our
time.
In these times of difficult financial strain placed on so many
Canadians and on our budgets, we in the Reform Party are very
sensitive to this and that is why we continue to assess each trip
abroad with the potential benefits and merits of that trip. We
will only go on these trips where there is a demonstrable need
and where we are going to gain and have some effective input into
these trips.
I would like to again congratulate the member for Kings—Hants
and ask if he can tell us if he has any ideas on any
opportunities that he can present to this House or any ideas that
he has on how Canada can continue to engage in the important
process of demining.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's mention of the many maritimers who are involved as
peacekeepers. I met some of them in the SFOR mission. There are
organizations in the maritimes and some individuals in my riding
who have been adamant and constant in their support of this type
of initiative.
I guess it is part of being a maritimer, humble and
self-deprecating individuals, that we do not like to toot our
horn too much. We appreciate it when we do get this type of
support from the west.
We are proud of all Canadians who have been participating in
this effort. It is a gain. I do consider this a national unity
issue because I think, frankly, if we do more to inform Canadians
of the importance of this leadership and do more to inform
Canadians of the prowess of our peacekeepers internationally, we
give Canadians more reasons to be proud and more reasons to
maintain a strong and united Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker, I am very
happy to speak today on the bill to ban land mines.
It is not often that I find a reason to congratulate the
government, especially in the area of foreign affairs, but today I
salute the minister's efforts.
Canadians should be proud that it was Canada who played a
leading role in the negotiation of the land mines treaty. It is
in keeping with Canada's proud history of making the world a
safer place.
This will be most widely felt in countries such as Cambodia and
Angola and Mozambique, where it is civilians earning a living in
the fields and children playing who suffer as a result of land
mines.
My colleague from Kings-Hants recently travelled to Bosnia where
he met farmers who could not plough their fields because they
were fearful that they would blow themselves up with land mines.
Others use mines to protect their crops.
1350
This treaty addresses this problem, and I am sure that all
members in this House and all Canadians are proud that this
initiative was led by Canada. So again, I offer my warmest
congratulations to the government.
I do have some concerns, however, and my concerns are both
domestic and international in nature. It seems to me that there
are companies in Canada that manufacture devices that could be
found in land mines. I am told that these mines do not require
complicated technology to work. There are a lot of pieces
required, however.
My concern is the following: What will happen in the years and
months ahead, when it is discovered that the triggering device or
a spring or any part of a land mine being used somewhere else was
in fact manufactured in Canada?
We have in this country many major electronics companies that
manufacture all sorts of little odds and ends that make up
components in computer, radios, televisions and telephones. It
would prove most embarrassing if it turned out that a product
from a major Canadian form was inadvertently used as a trigger in
a land mine. Are there any measures to prevent this from
happening?
My concerns that deal with international affairs are perhaps not
as traightforward. My first concern has to do with the United
States. It is my impression that the American gouvernement did
what it could to be a part of this treaty but in the end, when
international security considerations were discussed, the United
States could not take part.
What I am about to say is very important and cannot be
orverlooked. There is a big difference between land mines in a
field in Angola, which prevent farmers from earning a living, and
land mines. used to protect the rights and freedoms of South
Koreans against their dangerous Communist neighbours to the
North. While the land mines this treaty seeks to ban will harm
people, the land mines laid by our friends and allies, the
Americans, are there to protect people.
I cannot emphasize this enough, so I will say it again: This
treaty is useful in that it is an effort to rid the world of
land mines form wars gone by.
When a conflict is over and soldiers have returned home, there
has to be an opportunity to return to normalisation. Part of this
process means that fields should be deared of mines so innocent
men, women and children can work and play, build and prosper,
without fear.
This is not the situation on the 38th parallel, the border
between South Korea and North Korea. The situation is much
different. This is not a case of war gone by. This is a clear
case of a conflict that still exists. The 37,000 U.S. troops are
there to protect our Pacific ally from invasion. The zone where
American land mines have been laid is a zone of conflict. It is
monitored by the South Koreans as well as by the Americans.
We must not forget that, on November 11, Canadians stop to pay
Tribute to our veterans who served in World War I and World War II
and also our veterans who fought for the freedom of South Korea
during the Korean War.
That freedom is still in jeopardy because of the military threat
of North Korea. This is not an area where farmers would otherwise
be tilling the soil. This is not a playground for children. This
is a military zone. The United States is Canada's close friend and
ally. It has not signed this treaty. The American government
studied the matter and concluded that to do so would jeopardize
its position in Korea and thus jeapardize the lives of its 37,000
soldiers and the lives of South Koreans and the freedoms that
exist there and that have been fought for.
1355
On Friday, it was announced that in December North Korea will
enter into peace talks with South Korea, that will include China
and the United States. We will wait and see, hoping that real
progress is made.
There are other things that should be widely known about the
American effort as we approach the day when this treaty is
signed. The United States is trying to find a replacement for the
anti-personnel land mines currently being used in the Korean
peninsula. The United States has said eager to help rid the world
of land mines by the year 2010 and plans to contribute over $100
million to the global de-mining effort in the next year.
The list of countries that signed this treaty is long. It is,
however, missing some very important players. Especially Russia,
China, North Korea, South Korea, India and Pakistan.
I encourage the government to continue to put pressure on these
countries.
In fact, two countries where land mines have been most harmful
to civilians in recent years are Afghanistan and Cambodia. These
mines are left over from the Communist regime.
I have been told that there are mines left over from the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan that were made deliberately to look like
toys. It was a deliberate attempt to kill children and to
terrorize the Afghans into submission.
It is important that Canada lead the way not only to rid the
world of these lands mines, but to take every opportunity to tell
Canadians that the countries I just mentioned did not sign this
treaty for reasons that are quite different from the reasons for
which Americans did not sign. When the world does become a safer
place, American protection of our weaker allies will become less
and less necessary.
My other concern that involves international consideration is
APEC, the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting that is taking
place in Vancouver as we speak.
I understand that the APEC meeting wil not address human rights
concerns, but only economic issues.
That is not right, and I know that many Canadians feel the same
way.
I suggest that Canada should bring up the issue of the land
mines fully and publicly and not just at bilateral meetings. If
the governement is really serious about ridding the world of land
mines, the APEC summit would be a timely opportunity to challenge
countries to join.
Also, I want to congratulate the government, and in particular,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his efforts.
I sincerely hope that the government will take my comments
seriously, and take them into consideration.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, we still have time for
comments and questions, but as it is nearly 2 o'clock, you will
have the floor again following Oral Question Period. Right now,
however, we will proceed with Statements by Members beginning with
the hon. member for Egmont.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LORIE KANE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a great
moment in Canadian sport occurred this past weekend when Lorie
Kane, a native of Prince Edward Island, tied for first place in
regulation play in the LPGA tour championship.
The top 30 women golfers of the world came together in Las Vegas
for the final tournament of the year to determine who was the
best.
To have a Canadian and a Prince Edward Islander tie for first
place was a great achievement for Lorie and for Canadian women's
golf. The fact that Lorie lost after three playoff holes to the
top money winner and player of the year, Annika Sorenstam, does
not diminish the pride all islanders feel in her performance.
Rightly or wrongly, a golfer's success is measured by money
earned. By this standard Lorie's earnings of over $425,000 U.S.
have established her as the best female Canadian golfer in
history. To accomplish this as a rookie on the tour makes it all
the more impressive.
Lorie is a great ambassador for the sport, for P.E.I. and for
Canada. She always remembers those who have helped her along the
road.
Lorie, we congratulate you and wish you continued success.
* * *
CATRIONA LEMAY DOAN
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to add this name to the long list of great Canadian
athletes: Catriona LeMay Doan.
1400
On Saturday, Ms. LeMay Doan became the first woman to shatter
two speed skating world records within an hour of one another in
the 500 metre and 1,000 metre races. Ms. LeMay Doan is the best
female speed skating sprinter in the world and she represents
Canada.
On behalf of the residents of Calgary West who hosted the World
Cup Sprints at the Olympic Oval, I ask all parliamentary
representatives to stand now and honour this remarkable
achievement.
* * *
[Translation]
SENATOR MARCEL PRUD'HOMME
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, laid low by a
heart attack a week ago, Senator Marcel Prud'homme is now
recovering in Montreal's Hôtel-Dieu hospital.
A colourful and loquacious politician, he had a successful
parliamentary career in Ottawa from 1964 to 1993 as the Liberal
member for Saint-Denis in Montreal. He was appointed to the Senate
as an independent in 1993.
Here's wishing you a speedy recovery, Marcel, from your
friends among the members and employees of the House of Commons in
Ottawa.
* * *
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one year
after the tabling of the report by the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples, I rise to criticize the government's failure to
act on its main recommendations.
They include self-government, and negotiations on this point
are still dragging on. This issue, however, is a fundamental
right, which will allow Native peoples to free themselves from
financial dependence on Ottawa.
The commission raised many social problems, which require the
government's immediate and effective attention. Need I remind this
House that the conditions Native people live in are beneath human
dignity. Their health is precarious. The levels of drug and
alcohol abuse and of suicide among Aboriginal people are the
highest in Canada, and they are among the most poorly housed
Canadians.
In Quebec, on the other hand, the statistics are much more
positive.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I urge the government to act
in this matter. I ask it to draw on the commission's
recommendations, which aim at correcting this unfortunate
situation.
* * *
[English]
DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November is Diabetes Awareness Month.
Nearly 1.5 million Canadians have diabetes which is a major
cause of premature death and other significant health problems.
The chances of having diabetes increase with age. It affects
more than 11% of Canadians between 65 and 74.
Diabetes rates for aboriginals are three times that of the
general population. That is why in the Speech from the Throne
this government identified the need to develop new initiatives to
address the rapid increase of diabetes in aboriginal communities.
Health Canada plays an important role in the fight against
diabetes by supporting research through the Medical Research
Council, by facilitating the operation of the multisectoral
Diabetes Council of Canada and by working with First Nations
communities to develop effective diabetes programming.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in wishing the Canadian Diabetes
Association and its many volunteers a very successful Diabetes
Awareness Month.
* * *
LAND MINES
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks a historic day for Canada when we will pass
in this House a law which will ban the use, production and sale
of anti-personnel mines.
By doing this, Canada will be one of the first nations in the
world to actually have a law banning these heinous devices that
claim over 30,000 lives a year and lays to waste economies of
some of the poorest nations of the world.
Canada, along with NGOs, has led the charge to ban these
devices. Mines Action Canada, foreign affairs personnel and
members of Parliament have stood together to pursue this. This
is an example of what Canada can do on the international stage.
Now we must move beyond land mines and use this Ottawa process
to address the larger security issues that affect us all. We
must move from a reactive foreign policy to a proactive one. The
21st century needs a leader to pursue these objectives and Canada
can be this leader.
The 21st century belongs to Canada. We must seize the day and
move forward.
* * *
OLYMPIC INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to inform the House of a remarkable event that will be
held in Hamilton. The executive members of the International
Children's Games have unanimously supported that the city of
Hamilton host the first Olympic International Children's Festival
July 1, Canada Day, through July 8 in the year 2000.
1405
The plan calls for a program of 13 sports as well as a cultural
festival and celebration of the Olympics being held that year in
Australia.
As host, Hamilton's organizing committee's goal is to involve
100 cities and approximately 5,000 athletes from across Canada
and the world in a celebration of sport and culture in the new
millennium.
The festival's theme “The Spirit Unites” represents the
aspirations of youth across the globe to come together and
embrace the Olympic spirit. What a great way for Canadian youth
to celebrate unity with each other and with youth from around the
world.
The city of Hamilton hopes to count on the support of the
Government of Canada as it prepares to host what will be one of
the premier millennium events in Canada.
* * *
THE LATE JUSTICE JOHN SOPINKA
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all
learned with great regret this morning of the sudden passing of
Supreme Court Justice John Sopinka after a short illness.
[Translation]
Mr. Justice Sopinka was appointed to the Supreme Court of
Canada in June 1988. He was born in 1933 in Broderick,
Saskatchewan. He was educated in Hamilton, Ontario, and graduated
from the University of Toronto in 1958. Prior to his appointment
to the Supreme Court, he was one of Canada's most renowned lawyers
and had been called to the bar in five provinces and two
territories.
[English]
Justice Sopinka was a great jurist who will be remembered for
his contributions both to the court and to the Canadian justice
system which he served with great distinction.
On behalf of all members of this House I wish to extend my
deepest sympathies to the members of his family.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNÉE NATIONALE DES PATRIOTES
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Journée nationale des Patriotes was celebrated yesterday in
Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu. This day was set aside to honour the
memory of Quebec's patriots. This year is particularly
significant because it marks the 160th anniversary of the events
of 1837 and the 10th anniversary of the death of one of our
greatest patriots, the late René Lévesque.
On October 30, 1995, nearly 94% of Quebeckers made their
wishes known democratically on their collective future. However,
for our precious democratic heritage that allows us to hold this
basic exercise of consultation in an atmosphere of calm, civility
and mutual respect, we must thank the patriots of a century ago.
We must put to good use their gift to us and the sacrifices
they made so that today we might enjoy the individual and political
freedoms so dear to us and the democratic and responsible
institutions of which we are so proud.
We know that the noble mission of the patriots remains
unfulfilled, but the people of Quebec following in their footsteps
have resolutely chosen the road to sovereignty.
* * *
[English]
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since 1993 the Liberals have failed to address B.C.'s concerns.
The Liberals have their own agenda for APEC. It is not human
rights, it is not job creation, it is not making BC the eighth
tiger of the Pacific Rim. It is a failed attempt to heal the
wounds. Real job creators for B.C., fish, wood and environmental
products, have not made APEC's to do list.
The Liberals have failed to negotiate a Pacific salmon treaty
with the U.S. It has turned off Pacific lighthouses. It has
ripped the heart out of the Pacific coast guard. It has even
closed CFB Chilliwack and left B.C. without emergency
preparedness.
The Liberals have cut out the voice of British Columbians by
excluding 25 BC MPs from participation at APEC. The Liberals
would have preferred to have hosted APEC in Toronto or Montreal.
The Liberals are fanning the fires of B.C. alienation with $65
million. They are not creating jobs for B.C. British Columbians
are too smart to be fooled by Liberals.
* * *
ANTI-SEALING LOBBY GROUPS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
all members are aware, there has been an intense campaign by
anti-sealing lobby groups using a 1-800 number and television
ads. Members of the public are provided with scripts and told to
phone their local MP.
My colleague the member for Mississauga West took objection to
this practice and returned all phone calls directed to him. In
addition he wrote a letter to the Toronto Star correcting
certain factual errors in the presentation.
The response he received from the animal rights group was a
letter from their lawyer instructing him to engage counsel. In
other words, do not speak out on this issue, do not correct
factual errors and do not ask pointed questions or we will sue
you.
This is an outrageous abuse of a member's freedom of speech and
duties and cannot be tolerated in a civil society. It is a
disgraceful attempt to silence a member's right to speak on a
subject of interest to Canadians. Simply put, it is wrong.
* * *
1410
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the political leadership of the European Union has announced that
it will set job targets and establish programs to combat
unemployment. Meanwhile the Liberal Government of Canada seems
content to have unemployment stay at 9% and rejects NDP proposals
to set targets and timetables for job creation.
Indeed last week the Bank of Canada governor said that Canada's
economy could reach full capacity next year at 8.9% unemployment.
It seems that the Liberals and the Bank of Canada regard 1.5
million unemployed Canadians as redundant, as effectively
non-participants in the economy.
This is a shameful approach. It should be replaced with a
commitment to real jobs for real people instead of this
idolatrous fascination for certain economic indicators and the
false economic theories that they are a part of.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday, the government announced a reduction in employment
insurance premiums, which represents a tax break of $1.4 billion.
Starting January 1, 1998, the contribution rate for workers
will drop from $2.90 to $2.70 per $100 in insurable earnings. As
for the employers' share, their contribution rate will drop from
$4.06 to $3.78. These reductions are the result of more optimistic
federal government forecasts relating to its public finances.
The government, moreover, has indicated its desire to reduce
contribution rates in future as much as possible.
This government action is part of a broader objective to take
every approach possible to ensuring the growth of the Canadian
economy. That growth is linked to job creation and the maintaining
of optimum conditions for public and private investment.
* * *
[English]
CURLING
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to inform the House of a great Canadian contribution
to the sport of curling.
Next year in Nagano, Japan the Winter Olympics will include
curling as a medal sport. This week in Brandon, Manitoba, my
hometown, Canada is choosing its men's and women's
representatives for those Olympics.
Canadians are being treated to the most awesome display of
curling talent ever assembled under one roof. Canada's ten best
men and ten best women's rinks are competing for the honour to be
called Canadian Olympians. Needless to say I do have a
provincial bias as four of those teams come from Manitoba.
Nevertheless when the victors are crowned this weekend,
regardless of what province they come from they will have the
support of all Canadians in their quest for gold.
Congratulations to the Brandon organizing committee's President
Pam Horn and the 900 volunteers who are once again showcasing
southwestern Manitoba and the sport of curling. Brandon has
earned its reputation as a host community and the distinction of
the curling capital of Canada.
* * *
DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November is Diabetes Awareness Month. On November 14 Insulin Day
was celebrated worldwide. These events are especially significant
to me because the discoverer of insulin, Sir Frederick Banting,
was born in the township of New Tecumseh which is part of my
riding of Simcoe—Gray.
Dr. Banting has long held a special place in the hearts of
Canadians and indeed the entire world for his discovery of a cure
for diabetes. I am sure that each of us have a family member,
friend or a neighbour who has directly benefited from Dr.
Banting's discovery.
In memory of a great man and a great Canadian, I encourage
everyone to actively promote the role of education in the
prevention and care of diabetes. Diabetes is a serious and
rising health problem throughout the world, disabling more than
100 million people.
We owe a debt to Dr. Banting. We can repay our debt through
active participation in the prevention and care of diabetes.
Colleagues, join me in this challenge.
* * *
CURTAIN CLUB THEATRE
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November 21 marked the 25th anniversary of the Curtain Club
Theatre at its location on Newkirk Road in Richmond Hill.
The Curtain Club has a proud tradition dating back to 1952. It
has provided the residents of Richmond Hill and surrounding areas
with first class theatre productions from comedies to tragedies,
laughter and tears.
We are fortunate to have such a professional organization in our
community and a group of very committed and dedicated volunteers
who are involved in the production, the creation of sets and the
superlative acting.
It should also be noted that the Royal Canadian Air Farce which
is also celebrating its 25th anniversary had its first show in
Richmond Hill at the Curtain Club Theatre. That tremendous
Canadian comedy team has delighted Canadian audiences with their
satirical comedy and down to earth humour. Their first radio
broadcast was from Richmond Hill's Curtain Club.
Canadian theatre has been enriched by the dedication and
commitment of individuals who are prepared to devote long hours
of preparation, hours of hard work and effort to present
entertainment to the community.
I salute both the Curtain Club Theatre and the Royal Canadian
Air Farce.
* * *
1415
[Translation]
LEBANON
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
draw attention to the presence here of the former President of
Lebanon, Amin Gemayel.
Mr. Gemayel, who is visiting Canada with his lovely wife, is
known to us as a staunch defender of the independence and
territorial integrity of Lebanon.
We would like him to know how grateful all Lebanese are to
him, not only those still in Lebanon but also all those throughout
this country, who share his hopes and struggle for a true Lebanese
territory and peace after 17 years of conflict.
We are honoured to have this visit by former President and
Mrs. Gemayel.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CANADA POST
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are now in the sixth day of a postal strike that is crippling the
country from coast to coast. The cost to businesses and families
is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Thousands of workers
are being laid off already.
Over the weekend this government mused about legislating the
postal workers back to work, but that is all it was. It seemed
to be musings and idle chatter.
I would like to ask the government how many more days and weeks
is this postal strike going to go on? When is this government
going to get these postal workers back to work?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are monitoring the situation very closely. The
government is very concerned about the situation.
What we want is for the parties to get back to the table and
come up with a collective agreement.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will tell you who is monitoring the situation. It is families
with businesses like the Lorenzes in northern Alberta and
thousands of family businesses like them.
This family decided to go into the mail order book business and
to pay for it they mortgaged their own home. All they had to do
was work hard and it would pay off for them, or so they thought.
But then along came the postal strike. The Lorenzes could now
lose their business, their dream and even their family home. So
this kind of answer is not good enough.
Let me ask the government, which is monitoring this whole thing
so clearly, when and what does it have to say to these thousands
of people whose very lives are affected by this postal strike?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot imagine a party which always pushed for less
government now pushing for more interference by government.
This is a process that has worked. Let the process work and let
the parties come up with an agreement.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this official opposition is a party which is pushing for final
offer arbitration so we do not need to get into these strike
situations all the time, as this government talks about.
The labour minister has been saying day after day in the House
of Commons that the government is not going to legislate an end
to the strike, it is simply going to monitor the situation. Yet
the public works minister mused over the weekend and said to the
Canadian Direct Marketing Association in August that he would
legislate this back to work.
I want to ask simply who is telling the truth here, flip or
flop?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, final offer selection is a form of arbitration. Quite
simply, we are not at that stage yet. What we want is a
collective agreement. Final offer selection is a process that
works in specific areas only and is not useful in this situation.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
back to work legislation also includes a strike alternative to
settle the dispute.
It is well known the government is in a position of conflict
of interest due to its plans to have Canada Post reap huge
profits which it then turns over to a cash hungry Liberal
government.
Given this conflict of interest what impartial dispute
settlement mechanism does the government intend to use when it
finally gets off its you know what?
1420
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have offered both sides the assistance of a mediator
to help get them back to the table and come up with a collective
agreement.
I ask my hon. colleague to let both sides deal with the issue
and come up with an agreement that is better for both sides and
let the mediator do his or her work.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, strike in 1987, legislation; strike in 1991,
legislation. Now we have a strike in 1997. The cost is
thousands of layoffs with Christmas coming, a one hundred million
dollar a day cost to business, an erosion of Canada Post
Corporation and the ultimate loss of jobs for CUPW.
How many strikes is it going to take before this government
recognizes the need to protect Canada's 30 million people and
bring in a permanent no strike, no lockout solution to Canada
Post disputes?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated previously to the House, I am bringing in
legislation to bring Part I of the Canada Labour Code up to date.
There were consultations over the last two years and one thing
that neither labour nor management pushed for was to take the
collective bargaining rights away.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Prime Minister was firmly opposed to special
legislation to force people back to work at Canada Post. He said,
and I quote:
Yesterday, however, the minister responsible for Canada Post
was talking about bringing in special legislation.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the government
will go with the Prime Minister's option of respecting the
bargaining process, or that of the minister responsible for Canada
Post, who spends his time threatening special legislation?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, I have not indicated
anything about back to work legislation.
What I have tried to do is let the system work. I ask my hon.
colleague to do the same, to let them get back to the table and
come up with an agreement that will be better for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would really like to believe the Minister of Labour, but the fact
is that his colleague, the minister responsible for Canada Post,
has constantly brandished the threat of special legislation.
I ask the minister responsible for Canada Post if he realizes
that, by his actions, he has hurt negotiations, which could lead
directly to an impasse.
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are many things stated during negotiations but,
quite simply, we have a process in this country. Under Part I of
the code, it is my responsibility to see that the process is let
work.
There are a number of stages in the process and that is what we
are going through. Let the system work.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since August
we have known that the situation at Canada Post would worsen,
because the minister responsible accidently announced his plan for
a special bill, long before the employees decided to strike.
Does the government not realize that it is entirely
responsible for the mess Canada Post is in for having taken two
different positions, with the Minister of Labour saying he wanted
negotiations to take their course and the minister responsible for
Canada Post promising special legislation for the past three
months?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have indicated previously, I have offered the
services of a mediator to both parties to let them get back to
the table and come up with an agreement. Why not let CUPW and
the post office use a mediator and come up with an agreement that
will be better for all Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, did the
minister not simply serve postal employees up to Canada Post
Corporation with a promise from the start to deprive them early on
of their right to strike with special legislation?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have made no promises. All I have done is agree to
follow the law of this country, and Part I of the Canada Labour
Code happens to be part of the law of this country. I am going
to see that it is followed. There are a number of stages. We are
in this stage at the moment.
1425
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week
the Minister of Labour was promoting a negotiated solution to the
dispute at Canada Post. He even acknowledged that back to work
legislation would hinder negotiations. However, the minister
responsible for Canada Post is now threatening to impose special
legislation.
Why does the minister want to sabotage negotiations rather
then allow the talks to take their course?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is anyone who did not sabotage the negotiations
it is I. I made sure that the collective bargaining system had
a chance to work in this country. I made sure that we followed
the laws of this country and I am going to make sure that we do
follow the laws of this country.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, now we
are seeing the good cop and the bad cop routine being played out
on the floor of the House of Commons.
The labour minister was told earlier today that without
government meddling Canada Post and its employees could reach an
agreement within 72 hours. Earlier in question period this
minister acknowledged that without interference the parties could
negotiate an agreement.
Will the labour minister reaffirm his commitment to a negotiated
settlement by insisting that the planned back to work legislation
be put on ice?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague is the one who is bringing up the
subject of back to work legislation. What I have indicated is
that I offered the services of a mediator from the labour
program. What I am trying to do is assist the process. I am
trying to assist CUPW and the post office to come to a collective
agreement.
We should let them do their work. We should let the mediator do
his work.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the government announced on Friday that it would be reducing EI
premiums by only 20 cents, from $2.90 to $2.70.
Business leaders all over the country agree that EI premiums
could be reduced by 60 cents to 70 cents. Even the actuary for the EI
account says the fund could be sustained if premiums
were reduced by 90 cents.
Why did the Minister of Human Resources Development choose to
put the interests of the Minister of Finance ahead of giving
Canadians the tax relief they need, especially in view of the $11
billion tax hike—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would say that the House
was pretty pleased to learn on Friday morning that there was a
second 10 cent decrease. Canadians were very pleased to hear
that for the fourth year in a row the premiums are decreasing.
That is good news.
Canadian business people and employees are very pleased to see
that they have a system which will be sustainable for the future,
not which will go into debt as it used to, because we are
responsible.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it would be sustainable at $2.00.
Last week finance officials led the finance committee to believe
that the auditor general agreed not to be the auditor for the CPP
board. The auditor general had to send a letter to the finance
committee to clarify his position. He clearly indicated that he
believes he should be the auditor for the CPP board, yet on
Friday the Minister of Finance persisted in saying that this is
not the auditor general's position.
Does the minister now have his facts straight and can he tell
the House why his officials misled the finance committee?
The Speaker: I would prefer, colleagues, that we stay
away from using such words. I will permit the hon. Minister of
Finance to answer if he wants to.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us be very clear. It is unworthy of the hon. member
and I would hope that he would withdraw the allegation that any
official of this government would mislead a committee.
That being said, let me say that the auditor general will be
given complete access to all the information in order to
perform his audit. There is an opportunity for him to be chosen
as the auditor. The fact is that will be up to the independent
investment board, which is arm's length from government.
I would remind the hon. member that it is not only a federal
government initiative but it is also a provincial government
initiative.
1430
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the finance minister announced a cut to EI premiums that
works out to less than a dime a day for Canadians—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Monte Solberg: —and they are clapping for it. That
is embarrassing.
If Canadians work seven days a week and take their huge tax
windfall, they will be lucky to have a down payment on a cup of
coffee. That is what it works out to. When is the finance
minister going to quit nickel and diming Canadians and give them
real tax relief, not a dime a day?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a tax cut which represents one billion four
hundred million dollars. It is the second largest reduction in
UI premiums in the history of the fund. It follows, as my
colleague has said, three previous years, in each and every one
of which there was a reduction in EI premiums. The fact is we
have reversed the tendency toward increasing these premiums which
were created by the previous government.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
while the minister is dropping EI premiums by 10 cents a day, he
will begin hiking CPP payroll taxes by $1.90 a day on January 1,
$3.80 for the self-employed.
When is the minister going to quit this shell game and admit
that taxes are going up and not down as he is trying to lead
Canadians to believe?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I really believe that the finance critic for the Reform
Party has a responsibility to Canadians to do his homework. The
premiums for the Canada pension plan do not go into the
government's coffers. They go into a separate fund which is
invested for the benefit of premium contributors.
If he is so upset in his question about income taxes, would he
please explain this to his colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill who
has suggested a 25% increase in personal income taxes in order to
make up for the $600 million liability.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The investigation of Option Canada by the Directeur général des
élections du Québec has revealed a flagrant lack of co-operation
by the former administrators of that organization. Its former
director of operations, René Lemaire, refusing to open Option
Canada's books, lawyer Michel Hudon, who incorporated Option
Canada, refusing to say what its activities were, and so on.
Is it standard practice, within 20 days of incorporation, to
give close to $5 million to people who—
The Speaker: The Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the amount awarded matched the full amount donated to
Option souveraineté by Mr. Duhaime.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
Claude Dauphin, former president of Option Canada, former
Liberal MP and board member of the Council for Canadian Unity, has
stated, moreover, that Option Canada was the political arm of the
Council for Canadian Unity.
What political activities has the Minister of Canadian
Heritage managed to finance?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member across the way is making certain
allegations concerning statements that have been made.
I would suggest he take care, because it must be kept in mind
that, on January 16, 1997, the Quebec minister of finance said of
the Government of Quebec's financial statements in connection with
the referendum, “It would be negligent on our part to make public
the financial plan of the Government of Quebec in connection with
the referendum”. This statement was made by the finance minister
of the PQ government of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the poor member for Calgary—Nose Hill never ever
suggested a 25% increase. That is a fabrication by the Minister
of Finance. In the same way, he is trying to fabricate a very
private audit of the CPP investment board although the auditor
general has said that his department should do that audit.
Why does the Minister of Finance not want the auditor general,
Canada's auditor general, to be the watch dog over this huge CPP
investment fund? What is he trying to hide?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, that option is open to the investment board.
As to the reference made by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill
that the $600 billion liability would be made up by an income tax
increase, that income tax increase is 25%. This statement is a
matter of public record. If that is not the case, will the hon.
member now stand up and tell us how they will fund the $600
billion liability or is it their intention to renege on the
contributions and obligations to Canadians?
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is wrong not once but twice
in his response.
I will deal with the investment fund. The fact is that the
legislation shows that the CPP Investment Board will hire its own
private auditor for the board. The auditor general will not be
involved in that audit.
I will ask the Minister of Finance again. If the auditor
general says that he can do it and it would be more efficient and
cost effective, why will the Minister of Finance not allow public
scrutiny of the CPP Investment Board? What is he trying to hide?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, there will be complete public scrutiny. All of
the information will be made available. The auditor general will
have it all made available to him and he will report on it.
The investment board has the option of either appointing an
outside auditor who has greater expertise than the auditor
general or in fact of appointing the auditor general. The member
should read the legislation.
Why does the hon. member refuse to talk about the $600 billion
liability? Is the Reform Party going to renege on the
obligations to Canadians? Why is it afraid to stand up and say
what it is prepared to do? Do Canadians have a reason to be
afraid of what the Reform—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, $4.8 million
of taxpayers' money was used by we know not whom, nor do we know
why, exactly how, and when, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage
is still refusing to answer any questions about Option Canada.
I would sincerely like to know the answer to the following
question: Does the minister, who has on a number of occasions told
the courts she has nothing to hide, not think that her most
fundamental responsibility, as the minister responsible, is to
answer all these questions frankly and without delay?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member is so interested in public spending, perhaps
he could take a little look at what the Government of Quebec spent
on the separatist option: studies by the Secrétariat à la
restructuration, $9.4 million; the Le Hir report, everyone
remembers the Le Hir report, poof; the Commission régionale et
nationale sur l'avenir du Québec, $8.5 million; grants to the
Conseil de la souveraineté, $4 million; mailings to all citizens,
$2 million and $3 million; hiring—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is
precisely what I am asking her for. Quebec's figures are public
knowledge. We want to hear Ottawa's figures.
Does the minister not realize that by taking this tack, by
giving any old answer, she is guilty of a cover-up?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the amounts spent by the Government of Canada are in the
public accounts. We cannot, therefore, be accused of keeping them
a secret.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
last few days we have had several incidents in Coquitlam and
Saanich, B.C. and Calgary and Sunbury, Alberta, my home town, of
teenage thugs savagely beating both youths and adults. In
Saanich, B.C. they took a young girl's life and threw her body
into a gorge.
Is the justice minister going to scrap this Liberal Young
Offenders Act which is absolutely no deterrent to youth and has
been proven to be absolutely useless?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. In fact, as the hon. member is probably aware, my
department is preparing a government response to the standing
committee report on the Young Offenders Act which was filed in
this House in April. My provincial colleagues and I will be
meeting in Montreal next week and the Young Offenders Act will be
one of the most important items on that agenda.
1440
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is not news. We have heard these kinds of things before.
They fly around the country with the elite. They visit the
elite. They are supposed to be doing all this consulting. There
is not a member in this House, including yourself, Mr. Speaker,
that could stand on any street corner in this country and not
hear everybody in society say: “Scrap the Young Offenders Act.
It is no good.”
When is this minister going to get her priorities straight? When
is she going to quit talking about useless things and start
getting after some meaningful things, or leave her seat and get
somebody in there that will do the job?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon.
member that I believe most Canadians understand that the problem
of youth crime is much more complex than that perhaps suggested
by comments of the hon. member.
Let me reassure the hon. member and all Canadians that we take
the problem of youth crime very seriously and that is why in fact
we are consulting with provincial counterparts. We are
consulting with those. We work with young offenders to make sure
that when we reform this law, we get it right.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I know we get a little bit
excited in question period, but I am having a tough time even
hearing the answers. I would ask you please to keep it down a
bit.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of the Environment.
After environmental groups, the Canadian environmental
ambassador and the Government of Quebec condemned the Regina accord
on greenhouse gas emissions, we have learned this morning that a
number of industrialized countries have reached a consensus at
Tokyo to stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005,
not 2010, as set out in the Regina accord.
Is the Minister of the Environment prepared to revisit the
Regina accord in order to endorse this compromise position?
The Speaker: The Minister of the Environment.
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said last week that the agreement that
we reached in Regina was a good consensus, but it was not the
definitive time line and target of the federal government.
We will make our announcement about our target before Kyoto, but
at the moment we are continuing to negotiate not only with
developed nations, but developing nations as well around this
very serious issue to try to make sure that we have a consensus
when we go to Kyoto.
* * *
[Translation]
REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National
Revenue.
Canadian taxpayers are concerned about the confidentiality of
their tax files after what happened in Quebec City last week. If
taxpayers are to have faith in the taxation system, we must ensure
the confidentiality of the information provided beyond a shadow of
doubt.
Can the parliamentary secretary assure this House and all
Canadians that the information provided by taxpayers is kept
confidential at Revenue Canada?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
[English]
Absolutely. Client confidentiality, whether it is an individual
or a corporation, is the cornerstone of our system of taxation in
this country. It is voluntary compliance and we would take
seriously any efforts to access information. This is a serious
matter and I would like to clearly state that Revenue Canada is
well aware of this obligation and that recent press reports do
not involve the department.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister said last Thursday that he does not feel bound
by the November 12 federal-provincial agreement to stabilize
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010.
It is the provinces that have to deal with the emissions. It is
the provinces that will take the economic hit after the Kyoto
agreement.
Why did the Prime Minister waste the time of the provinces when
he had a different timetable in mind all along?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the provinces
recognize that climate change is a serious and real issue that
must be addressed, but they also recognize the many opportunities
associated with this.
1445
This morning I signed an agreement for the federal government
with ENMAX and Vision Quest in Alberta. Our federal department
will be buying green power through wind power created in Alberta.
Why cannot the Reform Party understand the opportunities
associated with climate change?
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of wind power, we are getting an awful lot of it from
the other side.
We are a week away from the signing of the treaty in Kyoto and
Canada is the only G-7 country that has not put its position
forward because of the government's fumbling. The provinces have
agreed to emission levels at 1990 standards by 2010. Now the
Prime Minister is saying 2007.
With the Kyoto signing only days away, will the minister tell
the House, tell Canadians, what is the plan and how it will be
implemented?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the hot air gases in the Chamber come
from the Reform Party on this issue.
This morning Petro-Canada, based in Calgary, and the Ottawa
biotechnology company, Iogen, signed a landmark deal to produce
pollution free motor fuels from converted agricultural and wood
waste.
This issue represents many opportunities for Canada, Canadian
business, industry and individuals. When will the Reform Party
understand the issue is serious and attached to many important
economic opportunities?
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when
the Liberals were in opposition they wrote a report that said
Canada Post should not pay income tax and should only generate
enough profits to pay for its operating costs and to improve
services to Canadians.
Today the Liberal government is demanding that Canada Post pay
dividends of $294 million over five years and $131 million in
income tax. This strike could be settled today if the government
withdrew its unreasonable demand for profits.
Will the minister of government services direct Canada Post to
return to the table without the demand for dividends that is the
root cause of this strike?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has been
at the table from the beginning and continues to be at the table.
It has a mandate to negotiate and we believe in a negotiated
settlement.
In terms of the other part of the question, the member should
know that in 1996 Canada Post's mandate was reviewed. There was
a one year study. There was a report that looked at all the
possibilities of how the corporation should be run and what were
the financial implications.
The government took the report, answered the report and gave a
new mandate to Canada Post. I am sure with the negotiated
settlement that mandate can be achieved.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada Post is not supposed to be a cash cow to be milked by the
federal government. The government's demand for profits and
dividends from Canada Post has all the earmarks of getting the
corporation ready for the auction block. It is like fattening up
a calf before bringing it to market.
Will the minister of public works withdraw the demand for
dividends from Canada Post and assure the House today that the
government will never sell off and privatize this valuable asset?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how
many times I have to say it in French and English. We do not
want to privatize Canada Post Corporation. We want Canada Post
to continue to deliver the mail. It is a good corporation in the
global economy.
The hon. member should do as much business as we do outside
Canada. Canada Post has to make a profit so it can renew its
equipment and invest in modern technology.
We want to look at the future, not at the past like the New
Democrats.
* * *
APEC
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs has warned APEC of irrelevancy if it
does not expand its scope to include human rights and
environmental issues.
Canada's EDC is backing the Three Gorges project with $172
million worth of Canadian taxpayers money, when the World Bank,
CIDA and the U.S. Ex-Im Bank will not back the Three Gorges
project based on environmental and human rights concerns.
Based on his own criteria stated at APEC, does the Minister of
Foreign Affairs feel that Canada's foreign policy with Asia has
become irrelevant?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the APEC ministerial meeting this past week a
couple of important steps were taken.
First, it was agreed by all ministers that questions dealing
with the consequences of economic change and trade liberalization
impacts upon labour markets would be a matter for consideration
under the human resource working group of ministers.
That would involve a combination of labour and management
consultations to ensure we are able to examine the full
consequences.
1450
Second, the ministers also decided to sponsor support of a
ministerial meeting on women's issues which will be held in the
Philippines next year.
* * *
LAND MINES
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
In early December nations from more than 100 countries will come
to Ottawa to sign the treaty banning anti-personnel mines.
Recently I contacted the minister to suggest that the government
spearhead an effort to exhibit Canada's leading edge land mine
clearing technology at this conference.
Could the minister advise the House what progress has been made
by his department on this suggestion?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I solute the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton who came
forward with this suggestion.
As a result I am pleased to advise the House that we will be
hosting a Canadian de-mining showcase in Ottawa on December 3 and
4, concurrently with the signing of the Ottawa declaration.
The availability of technology is not only to give effect to the
terms of the treaty in which Canada has played such an important
role but to give availability of solutions to people whose lives
have disrupted by the unfortunate consequence of land mines.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
week I informed the House that the president of EDC, Export
Development Corporation, Ian Gillespie, told the foreign affairs
committee that EDC is reluctant to sign the code of ethics
championed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
How can Canadian corporations be asked to sign this code of
ethics when Canadian crown agencies will not play by the same
rules? Will the Minister for International Trade restore
relevancy to Canada's foreign policy by ensuring that EDC signs
the code of ethics of the Minister of Foreign Affairs?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Economic
Development Corporation must subscribe to the policies of the
federal government which de facto make it subscribe to a code of
ethics set down by the government.
The code of ethics described there is for businesses that are
not signed on and it is voluntary.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
riding I represent is made up of small business people, single
parents, working families and seniors. They are trying to make
ends meet. These Canadians do not want government handouts. All
they want is the government to take its hands out their pockets.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. His so-called
latest tax relief is simply nickels and dimes. When will he
listen to these Canadians and commit today to bringing in real
tax relief for small businesses, single parents, working families
and seniors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, $1.4 billion may be nickels and dimes to the hon.
member. To Canadians that happens to be real money.
At the same time the $850 million my colleague, the Minister of
Human Resources, put forth in terms of the child tax benefit, the
second $850 million that will be coming, also happens to be real
money.
The tax relief that is being provided to students happens to be
real money. The fact that the government has succeeded as a
result of a clean-up of the balance sheet in bringing down
mortgage rates and bringing down car purchase rates happens to be
real money.
* * *
[Translation]
DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
imports of mixtures of oil, butter and sugar, which are used in the
manufacture of ice cream for example, have been flooding our
markets increasingly since 1995. Our dairy producers are the ones
to bear the brunt.
Is the Minister of Agriculture aware of the danger of allowing
the situation to worsen and does he intend to continue to take the
appropriate action to protect our dairy producers whose quotas have
dropped by nearly 3%?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food) (Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
the hon. member raised the question, which is indeed of concern to
our dairy producers.
1455
An agreement has been signed on import products, including
butter. At the moment this product meets the requirements of the
agreement. We are looking at ways to amend the agreement, but if
we amend the agreement for butter oil, we also have to amend it for
the other products.
* * *
[English]
PORTS CANADA
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. In July the
Vancouver detachment of Ports Canada police was disbanded. The
Vancouver Port Corporation charged multinational shipping
companies a fee for using the port facilities, part of which paid
for the ports police services at no cost to Canadian taxpayers.
Since July the Vancouver police department took over ports
policing. That cost was supposed to be $1 million. There are
indications that just since July it may be $1.5 million.
Given that the government promised the disbanding of Ports
Canada police would not cost Canadian taxpayers—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Markham.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, if I understood
him, the Minister of Finance indicated the CPP investment board
would choose its own auditors. The minister said that someone
from the outside may have more expertise. An auditor's job is
not to protect the board of directors but to protect the
shareholders, Canadians.
Why is the auditor general not given access through the
legislation to the information that will allow him to ensure
Canadians are protected?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has made it very clear that the auditor
general will be given complete access to all the information he
requires to complete his audit. He will be auditing the Canada
pension plan.
If in fact the legislation is not sufficiently clear we have
indicated that we will make it clear in order to ensure that very
thing.
The investment board will have the option of either choosing an
outside auditor or the auditor general. The fact is it may well
decide, because the provinces are also involved, that an outside
auditor would have far greater expertise in that specific area.
That is a decision for the board to make.
* * *
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In its first mandate the government tackled youth unemployment
head on by establishing the youth employment strategy. However
unemployment continues to be a serious problem for Canada's young
people.
What initiatives has the minister taken to address this
important issue?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Mississauga West who I know cares very much about youth
employment.
Indeed our youth employment strategy was a $350 million strategy
for three years, helping 110,000 young Canadians to make the
transition from school to work. Five thousand Canadians have
been helped by Youth Service Canada.
Almost 20,000 youngsters have been helped by Youth Internship
Canada, 60,000 by the student career plan, 60,000 youths who got
summer jobs, and another 60,000 got jobs related to their actual
studies.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, each year the government opposite takes $5 billion out
of the motoring public in fuel taxes. Of that $5 billion it
returns to the provinces something in the order of 6%. As a
result we are finding provinces going out in co-operation and
tolling roads.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. The Canadian
Automobile Association has stated on numerous occasions that 20%
of the taxes being returned from that fuel tax would solve our
problem. When will the minister return 20%—
The Speaker: The Minister of Transport.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been involved in
assisting the provinces with highway construction since 1919 so
in effect a national highways program has been going on for many
years.
The question is not should we have such a program but what
conditions should we attach to its continuation and how much
money is involved. On the specific question of taxes this is
something I am sure that other colleagues will deal with, perhaps
the Minister of Finance, at a later date.
There is no question that we have a program. We have just
announced the extension of the agreement with New Brunswick. I
hope we can continue that over the years.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
President of Treasury Board has always placed a ceiling of $1.3
billion on any pay equity settlement with its employees.
1500
The Minister responsible for the Status of Women, however, has
just stated that the federal government apparently has more money
available to end this dispute.
So why is the President of the Treasury Board delaying
settlement of the pay equity issue, when we now know he has more
money in his pocket to resolve matters?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect
to the issue of pay equity, last April we offered a settlement
that would have amounted to $842 million.
We increased this offer by $500 million between April and
August, and during that time the union made no concessions with
respect to its demands. Negotiating consists basically of two
parties reaching a compromise.
We are waiting for the union to make a reasonable compromise,
and we will then be ready to negotiate a solution.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, that would bring to a close
our question period.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would like to draw to
your attention the presence in the gallery of my brother Speaker,
the Honourable Dale Lovick, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
of British Columbia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINT OF ORDER
MAIN ESTIMATES
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point or order with respect to the main estimates which were
tabled in the House on Wednesday, October 1, 1997 and which have
just been returned from committee study and are to be concurred
in shortly.
My point of order concerns irregularities with certain of these
estimates. However, I would like to point out that as Madam
Speaker Sauvé said on June 12, 1981, as recorded in Hansard
at page 10546, it matters not whether the amount spent is a large
sum or simply $1.
It is the parliamentary process to which I am objecting today.
1505
In this regard I would like to bring to your attention several
votes which I believe to be out of order and inappropriate for
inclusion in the subsequent appropriation bill flowing from these
estimates.
Going as far back as 1971, members of this House have repeatedly
objected to the government's use of the estimates as a vehicle to
amend legislation and to seek authority to spend money on
programs that have not received legislative authority. Your
distinguished predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have consistently ruled
in support of these arguments for striking votes from the
estimates on March 10, 1971, March 22, 1977, December 7, 1977,
March 25, 1981, June 12, 1981, June 21, 1981, March 21, 1983 and
March 21, 1984.
Mr. Speaker Jerome in a landmark ruling on March 22, 1977, at
page 4221 of the Debates, stated that the government received
from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of
legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized
action through the passage by Parliament of an Appropriation Act.
This decision flowed in part from rulings of Mr. Speaker
Lamoureux who, on February 5, 1973, at pages 94 and 95 of
Journals, stated that the authorizing bill must become law before
the authorization of the relevant estimates by the Appropriation
Act.
That legislation is a necessary precondition to sanction grants
of supply is also based upon ancient constitutional usage as
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice 25th edition states at
page 689.
Flowing from early British laws and customs through the
Constitution Act and on to Standing Order 80(1), it is claimed
that all aids and supplies granted to the sovereign are the sole
gift of the House of Commons.
Although the task of governing belongs to the crown, it cannot
possibly provide as many services to the people unless the funds
in the consolidated revenue fund are made available to it. These
funds can only be made available to the crown by the House of
Commons.
The House insists that the crown, when requesting funds, must
specify the particular purposes for which the funds are required.
It is therefore this claim to the right of control over the purse
strings of the nation that we must defend vigorously and retain
for this House alone.
In this defence I now bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the
fact that eight votes in the main estimates are not properly
before this House. Five votes in the estimates seek
parliamentary approval for funds which have not yet received
legislative authority. Three votes are attempting to legislate
through the application of the Appropriation Acts.
First, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food in its vote
No. 1, operating expenditures, has an activity entitled “Policy
and Farm Programs” which, among other things, concerns the
Canadian Wheat Board.
As outlined in its part III, expenditure plans, the department
will implement changes which centre on revamping the Canadian
Wheat Board. However, no such legislation has been passed to
permit this action.
Such changes were introduced in the last Parliament as Bill
C-72. The bill only reached report stage before dissolution. It
was, however, reintroduced as Bill C-4 on September 25, 1997 and,
as of this date, has not received royal assent.
I should note here that the part II book, commonly referred to
as the blue book, listing the estimates as they will appear in a
subsequent Appropriation Act, does not give sufficient detail
concerning each vote. Thus, it is necessary to refer to the part
IIIs for details of departmental plans and priorities with
respect to the funds they are requesting this House to approve.
We must use the part II book since it mirrors the proposed
Appropriation Act approving the estimates.
As it is difficult to determine precisely the amount of any
particular item within each respective vote, I therefore ask you,
Mr. Speaker, to strike vote No. 1 of the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-food from the estimates since it contains
funds to finance programs which have yet to receive parliamentary
approval.
1510
Second, the Immigration and Refugee Board under vote 15, program
expenditures, in its convention refugee determination division
activity, has indicated that it would begin single member
hearings in mid-1997 which is in conflict with the Immigration
Act.
Legislation that was introduced in the last Parliament, Bill
C-49 to amend section 69.1 of the Immigration Act, died on the
Order Paper before receiving second reading. As a result, the
board, as indicated in part III and inherently in part II in the
estimates, is operating outside legislative authority for its
funds as presented in the estimates.
Again, since we must use the part II book containing the
estimates and as it is difficult to determine precisely the
amount of this particular item within the vote, I therefore ask
you, Mr. Speaker, to remove vote 15 of the Immigration and
Refugee Board from the estimates.
A similar situation is occurring at Environment Canada. Within
its vote 1, operating expenditures, the department has activities
called “healthy environment” and “safety from environmental
hazards” wherein it has set a key initiative to fully implement
the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Canada
Endangered Species Protection Act. Neither of these two pieces
of legislation has received royal assent.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was introduced in the
last Parliament as Bill C-74 on December 10, 1996 but did not
receive second reading. The Canadian Endangered Species
Protection Act, Bill C-65 in the previous Parliament, reached
report stage before Parliament was dissolved.
Again, since we must use the part II book containing the
estimates and as it is difficult to determine precisely the
amount of this particular item within the vote, I therefore ask
you, Mr. Speaker, to strike vote 1 of Environment Canada from the
estimates.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
within its Indian and Inuit affairs program at vote 5, operating
expenditures, under the sub-activity of lands and trusts
services, is working toward devolution and economic opportunities
through sustainable development of natural resources with the
help of various pieces of legislation that were introduced in the
last Parliament but did not receive royal assent.
Some of these bills have been reintroduced, namely C-6,
Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and C-8, the
Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Act. However, the modifications to the
Indian Act, formerly Bill C-79, have yet to be presented to this
House.
Again, we must use the part II book containing the estimates,
and since it is difficult to determine precisely the amount of
this particular item within the vote, I therefore ask you, Mr.
Speaker, to delete vote 5 of the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development from the estimates.
My fifth point concerns Transport Canada. The department's vote
1, operating expenditures, under its business lines entitled
policy and programs and divestitures, is asking the House to
appropriate funds from the consolidated revenue fund to, among
other matters, incorporate Canada's major ports, establish a not
for profit corporation to run the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway
system and to permit pilotage authorities to recover all the
costs of their services in addition to winding down the Canada
Ports Corporation.
A bill to authorize these undertakings was introduced in the
last Parliament as Bill C-44, but it only reached the third
reading stage on April 16, 1997 before dying on the Order Paper.
Today, Bill C-9, a repeat of the former Bill C-44, is at report
stage and Bill C-9 includes clause 197 which repeals the Canada
Ports Corporation.
The departmental estimates show that payments to the Canada
Ports Corporation have been reduced to zero which indicates that
the department is in fact implementing C-9, which leads me to
believe that the other items of Bill C-9 which require the
expenditure of funds is also contained within the vote. With the
corporation's budget being reduced to zero, how else would the
department be able to operate?
1515
Once again we must use the part II book that contains the
estimates. As it is difficult to determine precisely the amount
of this item within the vote, I therefore ask Mr. Speaker to
strike vote 1 of the Department of Transport from the
estimates.
The next group of three departments and agencies indicated in
part III seeks parliamentary approval for funds for operational
needs but in doing so is amending legislation through the use of
an appropriation act. In this regard I refer to Speaker Jerome's
ruling on March 22, 1977 at page 4220 of Debates when he
said that changes in legislation ought to be dealt with by
legislation and not by supply items.
The Speaker: Colleagues, this point of order could
have far reaching effects. I would like to hear what the hon.
member has to say. If you have other meetings I would invite you
please to use the lobbies. I would very much like to hear this
point of order and I am being a little distracted. I return to
the hon. member for St. Albert.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, first is the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal which through vote 35 on program
expenditures is extending its mandate with the implementation of
the agreement on government procurement. To date there is no
legislative authority to extend the tribunal's mandate, as set
out in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, allowing it
to hear complaints pursuant to this agreement which has yet to be
brought before Parliament for confirmation.
Again we must use the part II book containing the estimates. As
it is difficult to determine precisely the amount of this item
within the vote, I therefore ask Mr. Speaker to strike vote 35 of
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal from the estimates.
A second irregularity comes from the Department of Public Works
and Government Services. Under the supply and services program
vote 15, program expenditures, is the Canada Communication
Group's revolving fund, which is a special operating agency. It
was established in 1990 in part pursuant to section 29.1 of the
Financial Administration Act and is responsible for the
government's printing and publishing operations.
In March 1997 the department officially privatized the Canada
Communications Group. Parliament is now being asked to increase
the CCG revolving fund by $21 million due to the sale of the
printing services and distribution logistics services of CCG
according to part I book of the estimates.
Privatization of the government's printing operation requires
amendments to the Department of Public Works and Government
Services Act, section 19. This section requires that the
minister appoint an officer of his department as the Queen's
printer for Canada responsible for printing and publishing
operations of the Government of Canada. To date no such
legislation has been introduced into this House to amend this
act. The department is in effect legislating through the use of
an appropriation act.
It is important to note that although the CCG item in the
estimates is listed as a statutory item, it is not placed there
just for information, as used to be the case with previous
legislative items such as salaries for ministers.
1520
I draw attention to the fact that since 1991, section 29(1) of
the Financial Administration Act allowed revolving fund agencies
to use appropriation acts to change the purposes and draw down
limits, thereby giving Parliament the right to be involved in
their affairs. As a consequence, I ask that this item, as
indicated at page 1-58 of the part II book of estimates, be
deleted.
Finally, there is an unusual establishment of the Canada
Information Office and its vote 40, program expenditures. This
office was established by order in council on July 9, 1996 under
the authority of the Financial Administration Act, section
3(1)(a) by renaming the voluntary action program as the Canada
Information Office and placing it under schedule I(1) of the
Financial Administration Act.
The Financial Administration Act permits the governor in council
to add the name of any division or branch of the public service
to schedule I(1). However, the voluntary action program was
neither a division nor a branch of either the department of
communications or the Department of Canadian Heritage.
In addition, it should be noted that the Financial
Administration Act uses the word add, not the word create,
thereby justifying my argument.
Furthermore, I would argue establishing an agency by an order in
council certainly does not meet the definition of legislative
authority as expressed by Speaker Jerome who said in part on
December 7, 1977, as recorded in Hansard at page 1642 that
the legislative process requires three readings, committee stage
and, in other words, ample time for members to participate in
debate and amendment.
The Canada Information Office subsequently sought to obtain
legislative status through the supplementary estimates in an
appropriation act. Nevertheless on March 22, 1977 at page 4220
of Hansard, Speaker Jerome ruled that supplementary
estimates ought not to be used as a means to seek funds for new
programs, as these supplementary estimates are only for short
duration.
This point was reiterated by Madam Speaker Sauvé on June 12,
1981 at page 10546 of Debates when she said that the
Appropriation Act is not the place to seek authority to do
something such as to establish a new program. Rather, that act
should only seek authority to spend money for a program that has
been previously authorized by statute.
Again, as quoted in Beauchesne's sixth edition at citation 938,
she expanded on this on March 21, 1983 at page 23968 of
Hansard by declaring that the previous amendment of
legislation by an appropriation act cannot justify a repeated use
of an item in the estimates to amend legislation.
Therefore, in accordance with these Speaker's rulings, I ask
that vote 40 of the Canada Information Office be deleted from the
estimates.
I must at this time indicate my dismay with the practices of
this government. The main estimates for the fiscal year 1997-98
were tabled in this House on February 20, 1997.
Because Parliament was dissolved, the main estimates were not
approved by June in accordance with the standing orders. As a
consequence, the government had to reintroduce in this Parliament
the estimates but it reintroduced the same old package on October
1, 1997, even though it was quite aware that not all its
legislative program on which these estimates were based had been
completed.
In my view this action is an expression of this government's
contempt of this House which requires this House to defend
vigorously its sole right to grant supply. I submit that the
votes I cited, Mr. Speaker, are in fact all out of order. I
respectfully ask that you so rule.
In conclusion, if we are to protect this institution in our role
as the sole granter of aids and supplies from misuse by the
crown, then surely it is imperative that we follow the proper
parliamentary procedures with respect to that supply process and
within the rule of law which was so often quoted by the Minister
of Justice in the last Parliament with respect to another issue.
1525
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I will not be quite as long as my colleague.
The official opposition is bringing this to your attention today
because we feel it strikes at the very heart of this democratic
institution we have here. The government is attempting to usurp
the authority and responsibility of this House and its members.
This is far from a routine point of order. This is and has been
a study. It is an analysis and it is a very serious issue of a
fundamental question. Does government operate through the
legislation of the people or does government operate outside of
the very legislation it expects all citizens to be guided by?
As you are aware, this responsibility of the House represents a
basic principle of our Constitution. The fundamental principle
that the crown has no power to tax except by grant of Parliament
is to be found even in the Magna Carta. The bill of rights of
1689 declares: “Levying money for or to the use of the crown
by pretence of prerogative without grant of Parliament for longer
time or in another manner than the same is or shall be granted is
illegal”.
The principle that Parliament approve expenditures for the
specific purposes for which they were intended began as far back
as Charles II and was developed under William and Mary. As a
result, we are governed today by rules that make it illegal for
the executive to make expenditures except those expenditures that
are approved by Parliament in ways approved by Parliament.
The member for St. Albert has argued that certain items in the
main estimates have breached these rules because they lack the
sanctioning of necessary legislation. To support his argument, I
refer to citation 937 of Beauchesne's sixth edition:
The test which items must meet to be included in the Estimates
is whether or not the government is putting forward a spending
estimate under authority it already possesses, or whether it is
really seeking new legislative authority to do something. It
makes no difference whether an item attempts to spend a large sum
or simply one dollar. The government may not, by the use of an
appropriation act, obtain authority it does not have under
existing legislation.
Our extensive research by a number of well qualified people
finds that no authority exists in the areas we have defined.
Citation 935 puts it simply like this:
I would support the member's claim that the amounts objected to
in vote 35 concerning the Canadian International Trade Tribunal,
vote 15 of the department of public works, and vote 40 concerning
the Canada Information Office are without legislative authority.
The member for St. Albert has also objected to the amounts in
vote 1 of the department of agriculture, vote 15 concerning the
Immigration and Refugee Board, vote 1 of environment, vote 5
concerning the department of Indian affairs and vote 1 of the
Department of Transport. He argues that these items seek
spending authority in legislation not yet passed in Parliament.
Citation 941 of Beauchesne's sixth edition makes the case:
If a vote in the Estimates relates to a bill not yet passed by
Parliament then the authorizing bill must become law before the
authorization of the relevant vote in the Estimates by an
appropriation act.
This is a mandate, not a request.
Citation 942 points out:
Asking for money in the Estimates before legislation is passed
to establish programmes “puts the cart before the horse”.
Through these items in the main estimates the government is
attempting to spend the dowry and plan the honeymoon before
popping the question.
Our rules are based on tradition, and before the government books
the honeymoon suite in the Niagara Falls Hilton, it must take us
out on three successful dates: second reading, report stage and
third reading. It must also court our neighbours next door, not
to mention the final approval from dad in Rideau Hall.
1530
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your
attention a reference from the introduction of the main estimates
document part II, the very document which introduces these
estimates. It states: “Proposals included in votes seek
authority during the 1997-98 fiscal year to make expenditures
necessary to deliver various mandates which are under the
administration of a minister and are contained in legislation
approved by Parliament”.
That in fact is not true. The very document which contains
breaches of our parliamentary rules ironically sets those rules
out in its introduction. To knowingly state the rules and then
ignore those rules makes a mockery of every member in this House
and those who elected us.
This represents another disturbing attempt by the government to
erode the influence of the Commons and render its members
irrelevant. It has demonstrated this by introducing bills in the
Senate, advertising the passage of bills before they are passed
and setting up bodies based on legislation not yet approved by
Parliament, this House.
Today the government is going too far with this attempt to spend
money without legislative authority. We ask that you protect the
ancient constitutional right of the Commons to insist on
legislative authority as a precondition to sanction grants of
supply.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the core argument today is the
following.
The only words that go into the appropriation act are the words
that appear in part II of the estimates. As we know, last year
the part IIIs of the estimates were tabled only later because
they include information on subsequent years. Nothing in part I
or part III appears in the appropriation act. Only the precise
wording in part II appears in the appropriation act and therefore
has the force of law. Our procedure depends on the wording in
part II only and in nothing else.
Mr. Speaker, before going too much further in this intervention,
I would like to point out that the government has shown high
respect for this House in the way it has handled the estimates
process and everything else.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: Before the election was called—
The Speaker: I appeal to you, my colleagues. I want to
hear what is being said, so I would ask you please to refrain
from heckling.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, before the election was
called, the government sought interim supply to last through the
election period. In so doing, it obtained the consent of this
House for the functioning of Parliament both during the election
period and in the subsequent period. This is something that has
seldom been done before, if ever.
Second, immediately after the election and contrary to what had
been done in many previous parliaments, if not all of them, no
Governor General's warrants were issued although those would have
been totally appropriate and in conformity with the Financial
Administration Act. Out of respect for this House everything was
done to do things in a timely fashion and in order to avoid the
use of Governor General's warrants.
I would like to add there was co-operation of members on all
sides of the House, and the House leaders in particular, who saw
fit to arrive at a formula whereby we could debate supply and
provide for the number of opposition days and arrive at the day
at which we will have arrived tomorrow, which is the final day
for debating supply and the subsequent appropriation bill. This
was done with the consent of all parties and I thank all hon.
members.
1535
Fundamentally it was the will of the government to adhere not
only to the rules of the House, but to ensure that certain
vehicles such as the use of Governor General's warrants were
avoided in order to show nothing but the highest of respect for
the institution. Although as I said, the use of such warrants
would have been permitted.
The part IIIs of course do not form the principal element of
this issue. As I indicated previously they are a rather recent
invention. As a matter of fact, last year they were not even
tabled at the same time as the estimates. They were tabled at
some point later so that additional information could be put in
the part IIIs in regard to subsequent years and in conformity
with one of the campaign commitments that we made prior to the
1993 election. We believe that this formula has allowed members
to participate more fully.
I want to address a few of the issues that have been raised in
detail by the hon. member. It has been said that the wheat board
item should be set aside because appropriation is being sought
where according to the opposition no government bill setting out
the details has yet been passed. A similar argument is being
made about vote 15 for the Immigration and Refugee Board. The
same is alleged with regard to Environment Canada vote I.
I would like to suggest two things. First is that every one of
these bills that is before the House where necessary has a royal
recommendation regarding the crown's prerogative to spend money.
Second is that of course this could not be done without having
proper supply.
To that extent I want to indicate first that this is not an
expenditure in itself. This is merely an action by these
estimates providing for the funding for the expenditure. The
expenditure itself will only come if and when the legislation is
passed. Of course the money would not be spent either without the
bill or the attending royal recommendation if such is required
under a particular act.
There is another thing which I believe is quite important for
the Chair to consider. Those very same expenditures were voted
on in the interim supply last March. I submit to the Chair that
if this argument on the part of the opposition is all that valid,
we have to wonder why it was not valid according to the same
sources and the same people only a few months ago.
If the House had no problem in voting interim supply on the
exact same wording as part IIs last March, I submit that the
House is equally qualified to vote on these same estimates as
they are when it votes on these estimates presumably late in the
day tomorrow.
It could very well be that the President of the Treasury Board
might want to add to the comments I have just made. Nothing I
have said should be equated with my speaking on his behalf.
On behalf of the government generally, in terms of how these
estimates were put together, I do believe that they were
constructed in a good and appropriate way according to the
customs of the House and not only that, but according to the way
the House voted on many of the same items only a few months ago,
namely in March 1997.
That is the submission I wish to make to the Chair. I ask the
Chair to consider that the point made by hon. members across is
not valid and that the estimates as they are presently printed
are in order and should be disposed of at the appropriate time
which could be tomorrow.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two or three points I would like to raise on this same point
of order. I can tell that all members of the House realize the
importance of this point of order not only to the government but
to the opposition and to Parliament itself. This cuts to the very
core of why we are here, which is to approve legislation and the
funding required to carry it out.
If we follow through on the government's request, to follow the
logic of the government House leader, he says that just because
we approve the estimates is no big deal because nothing happens
until the legislation is passed.
If that is true, then the entire estimates process is a sham.
1540
We approve the estimates in good faith assuming that the
government will follow through on the spending contained therein.
To bypass the estimates process, which is to scrutinize it to
make sure that the money is spent where and when it is authorized
and so on, is truly putting the cart before the horse. The
expenditures are being approved before legislation is in place to
give the government the authority to do so.
Second, I would point out that the goodwill arrangement and the
negotiations that go on between the government and opposition
parties with respect to supply days is carried out in good faith.
Again that is irrelevant to this argument today, which is that
supply cannot be voted on unless the legislation has been
approved. We can negotiate in good faith and arrange days for
debate. There is a supply day tomorrow but that is irrelevant to
the point of order which is before you today, Mr. Speaker, which
again comes down to which comes first, the law or the estimates?
Third, earlier in this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on a
point of order that I brought forward with respect to the
creation of an investment board by Bill C-2, which is a bill not
yet passed. Although you ruled at that time that because no
money had been spent the bill was not contradicting my privileges
as a parliamentarian, you did admonish the government. You said
words to the effect that you took this very seriously. You
admonished the finance department and those responsible for
putting these types of things together. You said that they were
pushing the edge, and I realize I am ad libbing here. They were
right at the edge and you said that you took it very seriously.
You said that this was not the first time it had happened and
that you hoped it would not happen again.
Tomorrow if you allow the estimates to proceed as tabled, we
will not only be near the edge, we will be down in the abyss, at
the bottom looking up at what used to be a very noble procedure
where laws were put in place and then appropriations were given.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to look at the arguments presented
by members on this side of the House today. To not do what was
asked by the hon. member for St. Albert would be to neuter the
role of parliamentarians in their attempts to bring all the light
which is necessary to bear on the estimates process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to realize that the line has been
crossed. I urge you to make the proper decision tomorrow, which
I hope will be that these estimates votes be deleted from
tomorrow's voting.
The Speaker: Is the hon. government House leader rising
to present new information?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment pursuant
to the last remark that was made and not comment on anything that
was said previously pursuant to how you instructed us. Commenting
only on what the hon. member has just said and adding new
information to that, the reverse of what the hon. member has just
stated would be totally illogical.
If one could ever conceive that this government would pass all
kinds of legislation and royal recommendations inherent involving
the spending of money and provide no funding within its estimates
for the programs it was planning to deliver, this would
essentially mean that all of us would be legislating and no
program could ever be put together in the same calendar year.
You would have to provide funding only for subsequent years
because you would never be providing funding in order to make it
happen. A situation like that would be totally irresponsible and
unworkable.
Conversely, if governments were to plan to spend money in
legislation and never have anything in the estimates in the same
year to provide for it and to go ahead with it right away, it
would be the same people across the way challenging the
government.
They would be indicating, and probably quite correctly, that in
fact the government is undertaking new expenditures for which it
has received no authority under appropriation. It cannot be both
ways.
1545
I do not believe the last point raised adds to the point made
before by the hon. member. What has just been stated now adds to
the credibility of the government and the way in which the
estimates were put together.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have just a couple
of quick points, if you would indulge me.
The first is that in reply to the statement previously made by
the hon. House leader of the government, I was under the
impression that the reasoning behind the practice of
supplementary estimates, not the main estimates, is to ensure the
government has a vehicle in which it can bring forward
legislation and actually get it under way in the same calendar
year.
Second, just briefly on the issue, it is a longstanding
tradition that ministers appear before the standing committees.
Speaking as the chief opposition critic for the minister of
agriculture, the minister responsible for this first disputed
item, vote 1, policy and farm programs, has not given the
opportunity to members of Parliament and me as the critic to
question him about that expenditure. Had that happened perhaps
some of this could have been avoided.
I am informed a large number of ministers have not appeared. Now
with the seventh and last supply day being tomorrow, as was
indicated by agreement effectively if ministers appear
subsequently they will not actually be debating the estimates or
have any effect on whether those estimates can be reduced
following their cross-examination at committee.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
one small point again in rebuttal to the government House leader.
Much legislation died on the order paper when parliament was
dissolved last April and that included the main estimates. The
main estimates were reintroduced without any changes whatsoever
on October 1. However, because the government did not
reintroduce the legislation that died, it was obvious its agenda
had changed.
If the government's agenda had changed, if its decision about
what was to be spent and what was not to be spent had changed,
surely it had an obligation to the House to amend and introduce
the estimates to reflect its agenda after the election, not the
one before.
The Speaker: To say the least an interesting point of
order has been raised. I will surely take into consideration the
information and the opinions of both sides.
I will take all the information and I will do my own study of
it. I will return to the House not today but hopefully in very
short order. I will take all these things into consideration and
report to the House after I have reviewed everything.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of information. I presume you are telling us
that you would report back to the House prior to the vote on the
estimates tomorrow night.
The Speaker: My intention would be to do as much
research as I can, but I am sure the hon. member would not want
me to make a decision if I did not have all the information I
could possibly have in front of me. I will endeavour to do that
and hopefully I will be able to do that.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, we are saying in effect
that a vote on the current estimates is quite frankly illegal. It
would be inappropriate for the House to vote on the estimates as
they stand.
The Speaker: I will take all of this into consideration
in trying to make my decision. I will make a decision not based
upon the pressures of time necessarily, although it is a factor,
but I will base my decision on the material I can gather to make
a decision for the House that I will not have to overrule or
overturn some place down the road. I want to be sure of my
grounds.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1550
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both officials languages, the government's response to six
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the first report of the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
May I take this opportunity to thank the members and staff of
both committees, defence and foreign affairs, who travelled to
Bosnia and saw firsthand what a great job our troops were doing
not only in keeping peace but also helping so many citizens to
pick up the pieces and to rebuild their lives. They have made a
great impression on the international community and have made
Canadians everywhere proud and happy to live in such a beautiful
country.
I am pleased to table the report which was adopted unanimously
by all parties that were in agreement that our presence in Bosnia
should be continued until June 1998.
In closing, I also wish to extend an acknowledgement of extreme
gratitude to the troops, embassy staff and Canadians who greeted
us with open arms and made sure that our visit was complete and
all inclusive.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the second report of the Standing Committee of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade.
In order to assist the government in its decision on whether to
recommend Canadian military personnel to participate in the
international stabilization force currently operating in Bosnia,
a delegation of four members of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade and four members of the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, as mentioned
by my colleague, the chairman of the committee, visited Bosnia
two weeks ago.
The report contains our recommendations, including one to
continue our participation until the end of the S-4 mandate in
June 1998. These recommendations are based on this trip, a
public hearing and a debate of the issue before our two
committees.
[Translation]
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all those
who provided us with assistance during our visit and to say how
impressed we were with the work being done by the Canadian
military, diplomatic and NGO staff in the region.
[English]
INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the third report
of the Standing Committee on Industry.
In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, October
22, 1997, our committee has considered Bill C-5, an act
respecting co-operatives, and has agreed on Thursday, November
20, 1997, to report it with amendment.
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) your committee proceeded to
review the circumstances leading up to and surrounding its
consideration of Bill C-16. The report was undertaken by your
committee. It addresses certain concerns we had and to which I
alluded when I tabled our first report on Bill C-16, the
so-called Feney bill, about 10 days ago.
Because the report relates to the ability of members of the
House of Commons to function effectively, we have taken the
additional step of requesting that the government provide us with
a response to the report in accordance with Standing Order 109.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 12th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of
some committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 12th report later this day.
* * *
1555
[Translation]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-286, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and
amending the National Archives of Canada Act as a consequence
(destruction and falsification of documents and access to confidences of
the Privy Council).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to introduce in
this House, at first reading, a bill to amend the Access to Information
Act and the National Archives of Canada Act, particularly as regards the
destruction and falsification of documents.
The proposed amendments are very important, given what is regularly
reported by the media, since they would allow us to have access to
documents of the Privy Council which are currently confidential.
The Access to Information Act does not have enough teeth, as a
number of people have said, including the information commissioner in
his most recent report, and it does not meet current needs.
I can assure you that my proposed amendments to these two acts
reflect in every way the information commissioner's concerns and
expectations.
I hope that all members of this House will support my initiative, so as
to give more visibility, more access and more teeth to the Access to
Information Act, and particularly to include penalties for those who do
their utmost to prevent its application.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 12th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
TRIPLE E SENATE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition from the
people of Medicine Hat calling upon parliament to affirm its
commitment to a triple E Senate and immediately move to permit
the election of senators by the people of the province of
Alberta.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
another petition calls upon parliament to affirm the duty of
parents to responsibly raise their children according to their
own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's
Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
PENSIONS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition calls upon Parliament to enact legislation to wind
down the Canada pension plan while protecting the pensions of
current seniors and that Canadians contribute to mandatory RRSPs
of their own choosing.
HEALTH
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour and a privilege to rise pursuant to Standing
Order 36 to present a petition from constituents of my riding of
Okanagan—Coquihalla.
It contains over 1,500 signatures of people concerned that the
Codex committee on nutrition and foods for dietary use has
proposed legislation that will lead to drastic changes in
legislation and that would have significant and very negative
effects on the health and well-being of thousands of Canadians,
especially the elderly and the chronically ill.
The petitioners request that parliament oppose the regulation of
dietary supplements.
1600
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have four
petitions from members of my constituency to present today.
The first one is on the issue of health foods, similar to the
preceding one presented by my colleague, stating that health
foods are valuable as a preventive measure for all Canadians.
ABORTION
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the second
petition, the petitioners ask for a binding national referendum
to be held at the time of the next election, asking Canadians
whether or not they are in favour of federal government funding
for abortion on demand.
EUTHANASIA
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, finally, I
wish to present two petitions that decry the sanctioning of the
act of euthanasia.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I suggest that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an
act to implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and
on their Destruction, be read the second time and referred to
committee of the whole.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr.
Milliken in the Chair.)
The Chairman: Order, please. House in committee of the
whole on Bill C-22, An Act to implement the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of
Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to)
[Translation]
(On clause 6)
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning I tabled a proposed amendment intended to clarify the
introduction to a provision in the convention itself in the
implementation legislation, because clause 6 of the bill refers to
only two of the general obligations contained in the draft treaty.
I discussed the matter with representatives of the justice
department and they told me it is not necessary to integrate this
provision with clause 6 of the bill.
1605
I am not convinced by their arguments and I feel that, for
enhanced clarity and in order to send a message to all those who
wish to make this general obligation part of the legislation, I
feel it would be useful to add subsection 6(1)(c) as I suggest, so
that the convention will be better integrated into Canadian law.
That is therefore the proposal I am submitting to the House.
The Speaker: If the hon. member wishes to move his amendment,
would he please read it?
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-22, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 15
on page 3 the following:
“(c) assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in
any activity prohibited to a State Party under the Convention.”
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the amendment to remind
members of the House that the convention is already covered by
section 21 of the Criminal Code.
If we were to specifically reference those specific items again,
it might lead to the suggestion that the Criminal Code only
applies where it is specifically referred to. This could have
the effect of complicating the Crown's ability to apply the
Criminal Code to other aspects of the legislation. It would
require specific references to the Criminal Code in each and
every kind of reference.
The amendment would actually have the impact of re-enacting the
Criminal Code. I do not think anyone in the House wants to gets
into that business. We have been through that before. I would
suggest to hon. members that this is already covered in the
Criminal Code. This would simply complicate any interpretation
and might lead to some difficulties with court interpretation on
the matter.
The Chairman: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment. All those
in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chairman: I declare the amendment defeated.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
[Translation]
(Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 10)
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman,
the Bloc Quebecois once again proposes a way to better introduce
the treaty into domestic law and, to this end, I noted on reading
the implementation legislation that an important part of article 3
of the convention had been omitted from clause 10.
1610
I take this opportunity as well to point out that, at a
meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, a representative of the International Campaign
to Ban Land Mines pointed out the importance of this provision and
of the part on the minimum number of anti-personnel mines that
should be kept by the states.
Accordingly, I would like the bill to be amended to include
the last section of article 3.1 of the treaty in clause 10.
I move:
That Bill C-22, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 39
on page 4 the following:
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, we support the hon. member's amendment.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, although this amendment has some good points, it is
really irrelevant to this bill. It is not necessary, adds
nothing to the bill and we oppose this amendment.
The Chairman: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 10, as amended, agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 11 carry?
(On clause 11)
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the government has an amendment to this clause.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my speech during second reading
stage, when we looked at this clause we wanted to absolutely
ensure that the charter requirement is absolutely honoured. I
therefore move:
That Bill C-22, in clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 13
to 16 on page 5 with the following:
Application for Court Order
“(2) If a person objects to providing or fails to provide any
requested document or information within the specified time, the
minister may apply to a judge of a superior court or the Federal
Court-Trial Division for an order requiring the person to provide
it,
Notice of Hearing
(3) The minister shall give the person at least seven days
notice of the hearing of the application.
Order
(4) On hearing the application, the judge may order the person
to provide the document or information if the judge concludes
that, in the circumstances of the case, the production of the
document or information is necessary to ensure Canada's
compliance with the convention and that the public interest
outweighs in importance the privacy interests of the person.”
1615
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I
simply want to ensure that the legislation is properly translated
in the French version. I think the subclause (2) should read
“division de première instance” rather than “section de première
instance”.
If this is so, I would like the word “section” replaced by the
word “division” in subclause (2) of the French version of the
amendment introduced by the minister. I understand someone is
checking on this.
The Chairman: Perhaps while this is being considered we could
hear from the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who wants to
speak to this debate.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, I wonder from the minister and his advisors what he
believes reasonable grounds are and what provisions exist within
this part of the bill to protect the privacy of members of the
public.
It seems to be somewhat heavy handed in that it gives the
minister and extraordinary amount of power to enter or require
information from people. I would like to have him define what
reasonable grounds are.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, it is for the reason the hon. member mentions that
we are proposing the amendment.
Rather than simply having the minister declare that information
must be provided as is required under the convention concerning
the possession or acquisition of land mines, we are proposing an
amendment that would require us to ask a judge to give a court
order after hearing the proper evidence that the requirements of
the treaty would outweigh the public interests or privacy
interests. We are giving the court the authority to make that
judgment, not the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I have noticed that this
amendment seems to involve an amendment to another provision of the
bill, clause 21, and that, if I understood correctly, contravention
of clause 11(2) will no longer be considered an offence, as was
originally provided in clause 21.
I would like to know why clause 11(2) is no longer mentioned
in clause 21 under the subsequent amendment. I want an explanation
for why 11(2) is being removed from the list in clause 21.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the reason why we take
out the reference to 11(2) in 21 is that we do not want to
presume or pre-empt a judgment by a judge. I have always been
very careful in my career never to try to presume what a judge is
going to do. It would be very wise in this case to do the same.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is there now agreement regarding the wording of
the French version?
1620
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we are
waiting a few moments to have the translation of the terms queried
by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry checked.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could move on to other clauses of the
bill for the time being. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed
(Clauses 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to)
[English]
(On Clause 15)
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I have a
question about clause 15(4). Basically it talks about not
getting a warrant. We did have legal counsel explain to us that
this is when mines are being rushed out the back door and we want
to apprehend people. I guess that is all right. The only thing
is it seems there is room for abuse. Is there any way to fix that
or tighten it up?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, that was put in there explicitly to take into
account that the House is presently considering what are called
the Feney amendments to the Criminal Code. They take into
account these extenuating circumstances. This is meant to be
consistent with the particular Criminal Code change which is
being made.
(Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to)
[Translation]
(On clause 17)
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman,
guided by the attention to accuracy characteristic of our political
party, particularly when it comes to the French version of
legislation, I would like the French version only of clause 17
amended to include the adjective humaine after the word dignité so
that it is consistent with the English text, which speaks of human
dignity.
I know there have been some objections, but I have checked in
a number of international texts in which the words dignité humaine
are used in French with the same meaning as the words human dignity
in English.
I therefore move:
That Bill C-22, in Clause 17, be amended by
replacing, in the French version, line 27 on page 8 with the
following:
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, we are in agreement.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 17, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 17, as amended, agreed to)
[Translation]
(On Clause 19)
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Quebecois does not propose
any amendment regarding clause 19, but I would like to ask a question to
the minister. It seems that, as a minimum, regulations should be made to
give effect to the convention. In fact, there is a reference to such
regulations in clause 6(2) of the implementing legislation.
I would like to know whether the minister intends to propose
regulations that would complement the act and ensure full legislative
and regulatory implementation of the convention and, if so, when exactly
he intends to do so?
1625
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, it is a good question. We would bring in any
pertaining regulation once it is actually signed and in place.
That really would apply to the Export-Import Control Act and we
would apply it but we have to have the treaty actually completed
first and deposited with the secretary general before we would
move toward bringing in those regulations.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that the
government is not in a position to have the regulations adopted before
the treaty is signed and ratified by the government?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, that is basically the
intent. We would have to wait for the actual signing of the
treaty which will take place next week. It will then be
deposited by the prime minister with the secretary general. We
would then have to bring in the regulation which pertains
directly to the Export-Import Control Act. We will repromulgate
that regulation at that point in time.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, if I unerstand correctly, the
government is not in a position to have the regulations adopted before
the treaty is signed and ratified because the deadlines do not leave
enough time.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, it does get into
somewhat of the arcane way these matters work, which I know the
hon. member is well acquainted with from his academic career.
As it is, we cannot promulgate new regulations until the treaty
is actually signed. It then gives the governor in council the
authority to go ahead and apply the treaty as set out in the
legislation. We cannot make that application until we have
actually signed the treaty.
[Translation]
(Clause 19 agreed to)
(On Clause 20)
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman, our
proposed amendment raises an issue which is certainly more fundamental,
and the debate on the bill provides an opportunity to discuss the
participation of parliament, especially of the House of Commons, in the
conclusion and the implementation of treaties.
This is an important issue, since it raises the question of the
role of elected representatives and of the House of Commons as a whole
in the conclusion of treaties. The treaty to be implemented was
negotiated and concluded by the executive branch and it will be signed
and ratified by the same, without parliamentarians and the House of
Commons having truly taken part in the process.
Since clause 20 sets out that this convention will be amended,
and that subsequent to the amendment changes to the legislation can
be made by order, it seemed worthwhile to debate the role of
Parliament and to ensure that Parliament is involved in approving
a treaty which would amend this new convention on anti-personnel
mines, even before the Government of Canada moves to accept such an
amending treaty.
We would therefore like to see this bill include parliamentary
participation and a debate in Parliament before the government
accepts an amendment to the treaty. We therefore propose that this
clause be amended. This would be an amendment which might
significantly the practice of treaty approval, which in Canada is
totally inconsistent.
1630
It is a practice in which the House of Commons has no
significant participation, and other parliaments could serve as an
example, such as the Parliament of the United Kingdom which has for
some years now been more actively involved in discussion and debate
around treaties which the executive plans to sign and ratify on
behalf of the government.
This is therefore an opportunity to stir up debate and to find
out the Minister of Foreign Affairs' position on this question and
whether he wants Parliament to be more involved in the treaty
process.
I therefore move that:
That Bill C-22, in Clause 20, be amended by
replacing lines 18 to 24 on page 9 with the following:
“Amendment to the Convention
20. Where an amendment to the Convention is adopted at
an Amendment Conference under Article 13 of the Convention,
(a) the Minister shall cause the amendment to be laid before
Parliament within fifteen days after it is adopted by the
Amendment Conference;
(b) on approval of the amendment by Parliament, the
instrument of acceptance by Canada shall be deposited with
the Depositary; and
(c) the Minister shall, by order, amend the schedule to this
Act accordingly and shall cause the text of the amending
order to be laid before Parliament on any of the first
fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting
after the order is made.”
[English]
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the point raised by the
hon. member is an interesting point of general principle and
theory. The hon. member has raised it within the standing
committee on foreign affairs of this Parliament and the standing
committee has created a task force or a subcommittee which is
studying the matter of general principle.
I can say without exaggeration that this is a very strong
subcommittee in the sense, as has often been said, of very strong
courts. Our view would be that the amendment would affect a
fundamental change, as is clearly intended, in the constitutional
law of parliament. We leave open positions on this, but our
suggestion would be that it is not proper to make it within the
interstices of an amendment to a technical law before parliament.
It should be considered as a matter of general principle as has
already been foreseen by the standing committee on foreign
affairs in creating the task force.
Our suggestion to the hon. member, therefore, would be that he
should withdraw the proposed amendment at this stage. We would
undertake that the general principle would be discussed by the
task force. It would always be appropriate, if and when the task
force makes a recommendation, to propose amendments to the
legislation and others, if and when it is adopted. That would be
our position.
In a technical sense it is constitutionally inelegant to propose
a fundamental constitutional change in the law of parliament by
indirection. Therefore we would suggest to the hon. member that
he might withdraw the amendment. We would undertake to give full
speed to the study by this impressive task force which has a very
well qualified chairman. I believe the other members are equally
well qualified.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Chairman, the
amendment is very complex and has far-reaching impacts on this
type of negotiation.
The standing committee of foreign affairs is the appropriate
forum for discussion of the amendment. We would not support the
amendment today. However we do see the potential for this type
of discussion in committee and the potential for this type of
change for future treaty ratification.
1635
It is important to recognize that a lot of countries will be
looking at Canada's legislation relative to the land mine treaty
and will be adapting some of the Canadian approaches in their own
countries.
We do not want to create some type of legislation that is easily
bogged down in the mechanism of parliament that prevents speedy
ratification for other countries. It is similar to what happened
in the U.S., for example, with the fast track negotiating powers
which had not been granted to the president and are thus
inhibiting and impeding progress or U.S. ability to participate
in international trade negotiation to the full extent that it
would have been able to with fast track.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party cannot support the amendment by the
member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, but we certainly see the
utility of having it introduced into the House of Commons for
further debate and for further examination.
If the amendment were to be proceeded with right now, it would
change the bill in a manner that would detract from the current
activity and the current thrust of the bill. We look forward to
going ahead in the future and examining it in further detail.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I
want to reassure the parliamentary secretary that it was not my
intention to be inelegant in proposing such an amendment and with
respect to the Constitution, because these matters are far too
serious for one not to be elegant.
As you noted, the intent was to raise a matter with the
minister, which, it appears, arouses the interest of both the
official opposition and the Conservative Party. This question
should be debated in full. Other parliaments have debated it, but
this parliament has failed to do so sufficiently in recent years.
Before considering the proposal by the parliamentary
secretary, I would nevertheless ask the minister if he could give
us his initial reaction to the question which this amendment raises
and which other amendments could raise about the role parliament,
including the House of Commons, in negotiating treaties.
I would ask for a very preliminary comment in the light of his
recent experience with the treaty this legislation is attempting to
implement and which this House may debate at some time other than
when the legislation is implemented. I would appreciate a comment
from the minister on this question.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, I certainly find the hon. member's proposals interesting.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary's recommendation that
there be an interesting exchange of viewpoints in the foreign
affairs committee.
As he said, it is a general problem of replacing the
representatives of the executive in the negotiation and signing of
the treaty. Generally speaking, I am interested in looking at all
the ways parliament is involved in foreign affairs issues
especially, for example, a government decision to establish
military intervention under the aegis of the United Nations and so
on.
At this point, I am a keen observer of the work of the foreign
affairs committee. I will look forward to the work of the
committee with considerable interest.
1640
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer. I can see
that the minister does not want to say too much at this point in time,
but it would nevertheless be worthwhile to put this question to a vote
to know where the various parties stand.
Accordingly, I do not intend to withdraw the proposed amendment,
but I will, of course, submit the question to the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as requested by the minister.
The Chairman: Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding that the purpose of the motion moved by the hon. member
for Beauharnois—Salaberry is to promote a substantive debate, and it is
already clear from the somewhat short remarks we have heard how
committed all the parties are, and the government in particular. The
minister himself would like to know what would come out of an in-depth
review by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade.
I am wary and reluctant because, if the question is put and the
amendment is negatived, then I do not think the government will repeat
the offer contained in this amendment so that the issue can be looked at
by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
whose agenda is already pretty full. But if the matter is of such
importance that we would like it to be debated by the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
I would ask for the consent of the House to withdraw this amendment and
allow the committee to consider the matter in keeping with the
commitment made by the minister himself.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment
for committee consideration?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent for the proposal.
Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Chairman: Members have heard the terms of the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: No.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 20 agreed to)
(On clause 21)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question for the minister.
Clause 21 indicates that the hybrid offence provides an
opportunity for enforcement officers to determine, depending on
the gravity of the offence, whether or not to proceed with a more
serious instance of indictable process.
What criteria will be used to differentiate between a summary
conviction and an indictable offence within the context of the
bill?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, as in most cases it would be up to the prosecutor
to determine what would be the criteria. Again I would not want
to prejudge any able prosecutor in what they would define that to
be. I think we would leave it to the normal Criminal Code
process.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Chairman, are there any precedents
or examples to which the minister can speak that would show how
the prosecution can decide whether or not in circumstances such
as these there is a separation between summary convictions and
indictable offences?
I am concerned that the bill can be driven into very punitive
measures where a great deal of effort is put into convicting
people of indictable offences. On the contrary, a great deal of
effort could be put into making sure that people are charged
under summary convictions.
I would like to know from the minister and his officials what
separation exists. Are there examples that we can examine, or
examples he can give the House today to show how the process
would actually work?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, it is a little
difficult to give examples because this is the first time it has
been done.
In other international treaties, chemical weapons conventions
and others, we have not been in a position where we have had to
actually use the question of principle. The normal test would
apply, which is the seriousness or the gravity of the action.
If under the act someone inadvertently provides information or
sends one of the munitions abroad, not with deliberate intent to
get around the legislation but inadvertently, then clearly the
prosecutor has a judgment call for the lighter sentence.
However, if it is done deliberately to contravene the act for
malicious purposes, if someone wants to export land mines for use
in another country as part of a military arsenal, then clearly
the heavier weight of that would be applied.
1645
That would be a judgment call by whatever prosecutor was used.
They would have to weigh the gravity of the offence and use the
temperate nature of our Canadian justice system to determine how
it would work out.
The Chairman: Perhaps the Chair might ask if the minister
has an amendment to this section. Earlier in the discussion
there was some reference to the fact that there might be an
amendment to section 21. I notice one is not forthcoming.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, it goes back to the
amendment that was proposed and passed under clause 11(2) which
obviates the need for this amendment.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked
about the matter of the French-English translation under the
clause 11(2) amendment. In looking at the proper interpretation,
our officials were able to determine that the reference to the
federal court trial division is exactly the same as the “section
de première instance de la Cour fédérale”.
The Chairman: That is on clause 11. Perhaps we could
complete clause 21 first. Are there further questions or debate
on clause 21?
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I
believe it was on Thursday, late in the day, that I had the opportunity
to meet with lawyers from the justice department. At the time, I was
told that the bill had been reviewed by the authorities to make sure it
complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am now
rather surprised to see an amendment to ensure such consistency.
I am also a little curious as to whether the whole bill was
reviewed to make sure it is consistent with the charter, and I wonder if
the government could tell us when this review was conducted by the
authorities?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon.
member for his comments. Perhaps it shows the value of the ever
vigilant activity of members of Parliament. In our opening
remarks we did beg the indulgence of the House. This legislation
was drafted in a two and a half week period which, if you know
the system around here, is pretty fast.
We wanted to take into account all particular references to the
charter. The hon. member's examination last week was tough in
that regard. Then we asked for a full review again this weekend
by justice officials who went over with a fine tooth comb all
particular ways in which the term apply, and that is when we came
out with the proposed amendment under section 11(2). It was to
make sure the courts would be the interpreter, not the minister.
I give the House my assurance that in our best judgment, based
on the tertiary review that took place this weekend, that was the
only question. Even at that, it was just that we did not want to
leave any question. We wanted to make sure it was airtight in
terms of its relevance to the charter.
[Translation]
(Clause 21 agreed to)
(On clause 22)
1650
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, on subclause 22(2), I have a question for the minister
and his official.
They talk about things that have been seized in respect to the
commission of an offence. I would like a point of clarification
here. When they talk about things being seized, does that
clarify subclause 22(2) and refer to things being specifically
modified for use in committing the offence which excludes
property only marginally related to the offence?
In other words, do things in subclause 21(1) refer to things
that are directly associated with the commission of the offence,
for example a car that can be used to transport mines, not the
person's home?
Also, when you are referring to the fact that the minister has
the discretion as to how the things that are seized are to be
disposed of, should not the courts decide how these things, as
they are defined in subclause 22(2), be the power that decides
where and how these things are supposed to be disposed?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member, and clarifying with
officials, this follows practice already in the Criminal Code
where rather than seizing the entire property of an individual
who may be indictable under the act, the difference would be that
we do not want to seize the house even though one of the products
that is prohibited may be within it.
To wit, if somebody is in possession of an anti-personnel land
mine and that piece of property is to be seized as a matter of
evidence, we do not want to seize the entire house and all the
things in it as a matter of conviction. The family may still be
there and they are not liable. That is the same kind of
principle that is now applied in the Criminal Code, say, on drug
offences.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, I thank the minister for his answer. I wonder, though,
if he could address the second part of my question. In subclause
22(1) it states that the minister has the discretion as to how
the things being seized are to be disposed of. Should it not be
the courts that decide how things are to be disposed of and not
the minister?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, I should clarify just in case people did not quite
understand it.
When we used the designation “minister” in the definition, it
did not necessarily refer to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Different ministers could apply. In this case, clearly it would
be the Attorney General of Canada who is the legal officer for
the Government of Canada, again comparable to the other offences
in the Criminal Code where they would act on behalf of it. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs I can tell you would have absolutely
no interest in being the operative agent in this case.
(Clause 22 agreed to)
(Clauses 23 to 25, inclusive, agreed to)
[Translation]
(On clause 11)
The Chairman: We have an amendment proposed by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs to clause 11.
Shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 11, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 11, as amended, agreed to)
[English]
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
[Translation]
(On the schedule)
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
It is not really necessary to include the convention in a schedule,
as some lawyers from the justice department told me, but I think it is
worthwhile to include the convention in a piece of legislation so it
becomes better known.
1655
Earlier, the minister read in a very eloquent manner a treaty
drafted by children, who hope to see included in the declaration their
rights under the convention. Does the minister intend to publicize the
text of the convention, on which all parties in this House agree and in
which they put their hopes that the use of anti-personnel mines will be
eliminated?
I want to know what measures the government intends to take to
publicize the treaty.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr Chairman, first, I believe it was
last week that a kit was distributed to all members of Parliament
which contained information about the treaty. I believe a copy
of the treaty was included.
The treaty has also been on the website and is available for
everybody to access. We can give hon. members the website
number. I should mention we have also established a separate
website to cover the conference itself. We will be, during the
course of the proceedings next week when the treaty conference is
being held at the Conference Centre, organizing within the
parliamentary area a special room in which members of Parliament
can watch the proceedings.
We intend to bring a number of participants, ministers, NGOs and
some of the children who are involved to meet the members of
Parliament. We will have our officials available to share
information.
I think that portion is scheduled for next Thursday, probably
after question period. We would like to involve the the members
of Parliament as much as possible. The conference room is small
in terms of the number of people who can get in. That is why we
thought we would open an ante-room here at Parliament so that
members could participate and have access to the number of
individuals, officials and participants who come for a special
session on Thursday.
It happens from time to time that staff take our documents to
read and cherish them. If this has happened in the case of
members, we will be more than happy to replace them, perhaps
through the spokesperson for each party. If any of the members
would like further documentation we would be more than happy to
supply it.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I beg your indulgence not to use
props. We just had hand delivered this morning the logo pin for
the conference. If any member of Parliament would like to have
one, I would be more than glad to distribute them when our
proceedings are completed.
The Chairman: I hear no points of order on the issue.
(Schedule agreed to)
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported as amended and concurred in)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
1700
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Dairy industry.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has a commitment which will take him away from the
House. I wonder if we could seek the unanimous consent of the
House to allow the minister two to three minutes maximum to say a
few words without being counted as a spokesperson at third
reading.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow the
minister to say a few words.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the government whip for his intervention.
I want to use this opportunity to express my thanks to members
of the Chamber for the way in which the proceedings have taken
place today.
If there has been anything which has characterized this movement
on land mines, it has been a sense of partnership. No one has
ownership of this. It has been a collective effort of NGOs and
private citizens, members of the cabinet, the Prime Minister and
my colleagues who have taken decisions. I think of my
predecessor, Mr. Ouellet, who started the first movement with a
moratorium, and decisions made by the former Minister of National
Defence to eliminate land mines. I think of members of the
opposition who earlier on valiantly presented private members'
resolutions to move this House along on this matter.
There is a wide range of people who have been able to rise above
many of the more immediate questions to something which has a
larger horizon.
I have been in Parliament a long time as many people know and as
someone said today, every once in a while we have a fine hour.
This is one of our finest hours. I would like to thank all
members for making this a day which Canadians will long remember.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
in the same spirit of co-operation, I wonder if the House would
give its consent for the following.
While in the normal course at third reading the government lead
spokesperson would have 40 minutes, I propose that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, the hon. member for Toronto
Centre—Rosedale, would each speak for 10 minutes and then we
would continue the rotation as is the normal procedure of the
House.
I give my undertaking that both the parliamentary secretary and
the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, the chair of the
committee, will only speak for 10 minutes each.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my
time as the House has already been advised with the hon. member
for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.
This treaty is a significant achievement in its own right. It
continues the step by step process of building a peaceful world
which began during the cold war, in its more enlightened moments,
with the progressive treaties toward nuclear and general
disarmament and the cessation of nuclear tests.
It should be noted however that in this treaty there has been a
significant innovation and that is the involvement of people who
are not normally involved in the treaty making process. Jeremy
Bentham once said that the law is not made by judge alone, but by
judge and company. The company in this case includes the
non-governmental organizations, and as has been rightly commented
by members of the opposition, the late Princess Diana and others.
It has been a citizens' movement in which the force of public
opinion has carried the momentum to produce a treaty written off
as something taking many years, but it has been completed really
in 12 months with the ceremony that will take place in Ottawa in
December.
We have made history in a certain sense and it will continue.
The democratization of foreign affairs and treaty making I am
sure will continue because of this significant first step.
A second point I will make, which has already been commented on
in this debate, is that this is a short treaty.
This is a succinct treaty and a treaty that has teeth. It is
something that goes to the gamesmanship of making treaties. There
is a way of getting treaties through a diplomatic conference by
making them mellow, open ended or vacuous, whatever phrase one
would like to use. One can rally an enormous consensus but there
is nothing in the treaty.
1705
This is a treaty that has teeth in it. A deliberate decision
was made by our government and I think by the NGOs and others
participating that it was better to have a treaty that stated
something even if it meant that some significant states would be
absent from the treaty's signature and ratification. We have
pushed ahead on that basis. Some will notice that what started
with a relatively small number of countries now has reached over
100 and that is a rather significant achievement in itself.
In Canada treaty making and treaty ratification are the two
steps necessary to give international law validity to our
signature to a treaty and they are executive acts, as has been
noted already. The parliamentary process is limited to adopting
the very important implementing legislation but it does not
affect the validity of the treaty as international law. However
that is not true of all countries and that is why in approaching
our own steps in international law making, the signature which
will come formally in the next two weeks and the ratification
which could be the same day, we have felt it necessary and
desirable to press ahead with the treaty implementing
legislation.
We want to send a message to other countries where the
legislature is involved, the United States as part of its
Constitution with the Senate involved, to get their act together.
If they are going to take part in the law making, then they must
get their legal adhesion to the treaty completed. If it means
the signing, ratification and the legislation, get it done as
quickly as possible.
I direct attention to what is called the attrition factor in
treaty making and the law making of treaties. I cite the famous
law of the sea convention to which Canadian diplomats contributed
so much. It was to become law when ratified by 60 countries. It
was signed in 1982 by 102 countries but it took 14 years to get
60 of those 102 to ratify it and make it law. I could cite the
first of the big terrorist control conventions, the Tokyo
convention of 1963 on aerial piracy. That was to become law when
ratified by 12 countries. It took eight years to get 12
countries.
In our case with this treaty 40 states are necessary to ratify
it to give it legal effect. Then it takes effect six months
after the 40th instrument of ratification. We would like to
complete the whole process beginning to end in a year. That is
why the momentum this Parliament is establishing with the consent
of all parties is so vital.
There is another matter on which I should comment because I
think we are helping consolidate law in the making. That is to
say, what is the effect? Some people have said that we have left
out some of the principal manufacturers and exporters of land
mines. Some who might transfer to other countries are not bound.
Is that not a treaty with gaps in it?
Let me simply say that as a matter of international law going
back to the dissenting opinion of the greatest of the judges of
the International Court of the post-war period, Judge Manfred
Lachs, a treaty even when not ratified by a country may become
binding on that country simply because of the sheer preponderance
of other countries who have ratified. That is to say, it ranks
either as customary international law or it ranks in some cases
as a superior form of international law, jus cogens. It may be
binding on non-ratifiers or non-signatories and in the World
Court case concerned it was West Germany. I simply cite that
that was an avant-garde opinion in 1969 when it was uttered in
the World Court. It is no longer avant-garde and is acquiring
an increasing acceptance. We will find that jurists in Canada
will be making that argument.
If we can get 100, 120 or 140 countries to sign and ratify, it
will be somebody with great temerity who would say we could
ignore the treaty provisions.
1710
Let us put it this way. There is an educational value in
signing and proclaiming acts of this sort and making them law
even for those who do not sign them. Countries are very
concerned about their international law image. We are already
finding this with countries we have approached to ask if they
will join the treaty. They are saying no, but maybe they can
regard themselves and say that they will be bound by certain
parts of it even though they do not sign and ratify the treaty as
a whole.
Here I simply say that the International Court of Justice in its
decision in nuclear tests established a principle of law that
unilateral declarations of intention to be bound by principle,
law, treaty or anything else of that sort can become legally
binding entities.
In fact the French government was held bound by a declaration
made by its president, Giscard d'Estaing, and its foreign
minister even though perhaps at the time they did not realize the
significance that was given to it.
We think there is an educational value in going ahead. That is
one of the reasons we took this risk. It is better to have a
treaty with teeth in it even if it leaves out the United States,
China and Russia. It is better to have that than a vague, open
ended treaty.
We are relying on the fact that many countries or some countries
who have said they cannot for national political reasons sign and
ratify the treaty yet say they believe they can adopt certain
parts of it. We are going to encourage that.
This is law in the making. Therefore in a second sense the
innovation made by bringing in non-governmental people and
participatory democracy, we are making new international law. I
commend the adoption of this legislation to this House.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the unanimous consent of the House to allow
me to share my time with the parliamentary secretary. Although
my gratitude is somewhat tempered by the enthusiasm with which
the member for Red Deer insisted that it be restricted to 10
minutes, I shall certainly do my best to restrain myself in
accordance with his wishes and those of the other members of the
House.
This treaty and this legislation we are considering today are
the culmination of years of efforts of NGOs spearheaded by Jody
Williams and her colleagues in the United States who appeared
before our committee recently and were so ably seconded by our
government, by the foreign affairs minister and by the Prime
Minister. It illustrates as other members of the House have said
how we can get things done in today's world in spite of the
complexity of today's world. With determination, work and above
all co-operation we can bring in results.
Members of this House and humanity as a whole owe a great debt
of gratitude to the countless thousands of citizens and NGOs in
many countries, governments and international organizations that
have worked together on this great enterprise that will culminate
here in Ottawa next week.
We have heard a great deal about land mines from the minister
and others. We have heard there are 110 million of them in the
ground in countries like Bosnia, Laos, Cambodia, Angola,
Afghanistan and Kurdistan where their military usefulness may be
questioned but where their presence years after they have been
put in is taking a toll from the population, women, children,
farmers, anyone. They not only create horrible human tragedies
of lives lost in ruin but they also inhibit the development of
the economies of those countries. Millions of farmers are unable
to continue their productive work and live in poverty because
they no longer have access to their fields.
Since 1975 there have been over one million casualties around
the globe due to anti-personnel mines. As the minister said,
last week four members of the foreign affairs committee and four
members of the defence committee visited Bosnia. They had the
opportunity of visiting with our troops and seeing firsthand the
conditions created by the presence of those small objects which
are so easy to put in and so costly and dangerous to remove. They
are so ingenious in their destructiveness. They are small, some
no larger than a hockey puck and are placed in the ground. Some
are attached to trees and can be set off by a trip wire to go off
at maximum effect at the level of a head or a chest of an
innocent person passing by.
1715
We learned of the difficulty and the danger of removing these
horribly effective weapons. We met our troops and talked with
them, our troops who risk their lives and limbs on a daily basis
performing the delicate and dangerous task of removing them. We
think at this time of Corporal Mark Isfeld who gave his life in
1994 in this task.
We visited the United Nations Mine Action Centre and learned
that it takes 1,000 men one year to clear 10 square kilometres of
mines and that at least 100 square kilometres of mines need to be
cleared in Bosnia alone at minimum. As there are only 750
present practitioners of that art, it is estimated that some 30
years or more will be required to clear that unfortunate place of
the ravages of war. We need only think of the same situation
being replicated in Angola, Afghanistan, Laos and other
unfortunate places on this globe.
The conditions we saw illustrated the need for other aspects of
the treaty, not just a ban on these items but the need for an
effective compliance regime and effective mine clearance
operations financed on a global scale. To that must be added the
need for aid to the victims if humanity's needs are to be served.
We can take pride in the fact that Canada is contributing to all
these important goals in places like Bosnia. Referring to the
work of our troops, they are removing mines themselves and
training others to do the job as well. They are supporting the
United Nations de-mining centre. We are contributing through the
World Bank and other financial means to the work of that and
other centres throughout the world as we are contributing both on
a bilateral and multilateral basis.
We are contributing to the rehabilitation of victims. When we
were in Bosnia we had the opportunity of visiting the hospital in
Sarajevo. We talked with doctors from Queen's University who
were training other medical personnel in how to rehabilitate
unfortunate victims. We talked to CIDA experts who are doing the
same. We talked to our own troops who were in the process of
helping to repaint and clean up hospitals which were damaged by
war and which will serve the victims of this terrible tragedy.
We know this work is being done elsewhere throughout the world
by CIDA and by other Canadian NGOs that operate courageously in
far corners of the world under difficult circumstances.
The legislation will implement the treaty and ensure its terms
will be enforced in Canada. This is the second agreement of this
kind that the House has had to consider recently, the first
treaty being the chemical weapons convention. We saw the need to
have a universally credible means of ensuring that an agreement
of this kind is put in place, is effective and is enforceable
throughout many countries.
It is my belief that this is not the last time the House will be
called upon to enact similar legislation. It is my belief that
in the world in which we live today we will be called upon more
and more to do work of this nature to ensure the world in which
we live is a safer and a saner place.
The treaty represents something in general to me as it should to
members of the House. What lessons can we reflect upon in
relation to the issue as Canadians? What does it tell us about
our international role in an increasingly interdependent world?
Why is Canada, a country with no land mine problem itself,
spearheading what will always be known as the Ottawa process?
Canadians believe in the need for our country to be an active
participant in the global community, to make sure our values, in
particular those of tolerance and compassion which have grown out
of our bicultural and pluralistic society, are carried out into
the world. To this end we need to work productively with others,
with other countries, international institutions, NGOs and
individuals to bring people together in a common cause to better
humanity. In that sense the treaty and the legislation represent
the Canadian goal.
1720
What better example can we follow in the footsteps of Lester
Pearson, John Humphrey, Dr. Norman Bethune and many other
Canadians who recognize that to live in this world today we must
participate fully in it? When we choose to do that we can
achieve incredible results.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I would just like to offer a small comment on
the nature of our work today and on what has been accomplished by
this treaty.
It seems to me that this treaty and the role Canada has been
able to play in its preparation, the diplomatic success it
represents, is proof yet again of what Canada can achieve as a
strong and united country.
I am sure that most members present will agree with me that
our strength internationally and our ability to effect change in
the world for the well-being of humanity as shown by this treaty
gain from the fact that we are a country united from sea to sea and
that we bring our collective national experience to the
international scene.
This is therefore another lesson we want to draw from this
experience, a lesson that will come up increasingly in the future
in this heavily interdependent world, a lesson that can be of
benefit to all, to the citizens of Quebec, Ontario, British
Columbia and other provinces of this magnificent country.
[English]
We are taking an important step today. Let us build on it
together for the benefit not only of all Canadians but of
humanity as well.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to stand before the House and speak to Bill C-22. I
will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible so that as many
speakers as possible can speak to this important piece of
legislation.
Just in starting off, as the member for Rosedale said, Canadians
are pleased to see that parliamentarians can take issues like
this one and through co-operation come up with a solution and
move it quickly through the House. Particularly in the area of
foreign affairs they want to see that sort of diplomacy being
demonstrated even in these premises, something we do not have a
lot of, but certainly this is the opportunity for us to do that.
It is my pleasure to congratulate the minister on his
co-operation and on his achievement in pushing the matter through
and on to the international scene. All this started off in the
last House with one of our members putting forward legislation.
I congratulate the NGOs, Jody Williams and all the others who
appeared before committee and had so much to do with the
legislation.
It serves us well as Canadians that our legislation, the
legislation that we are now passing in the House, will be used as
an example for some of the other 40-odd countries that have
agreed to sign next week. It will hopefully provide motivation
for other countries to come on side.
I have to admit that initially I was not very familiar with what
mines were all about. I certainly did not realize the
significance of them. We saw the map of Bosnia. We saw pink all
over the map. We saw how the entire country was covered in
mines. We saw people in some of the border towns, perhaps half
of the population, who literally did not have an arm, a hand or a
leg. That brought it home for all of us as to just how serious
the problem was.
We found out that under the bark of trees there could be land
mines, and that land mines were not something that were sticking
out so that everybody could see but were hidden.
They were in bricks with a little hair coming out that could
trigger an explosion. They were underneath what appeared to be
full coke tins sitting on a table with a plastic explosive
underneath it. A young child could come along and grab that tin
of coke and be maimed or killed. Then one realizes just how
serious the problem was and how it was something that could not
be accepted by anyone in the human race.
1725
It was pretty easy for us to say we would co-operate on the
issue and that we were proud Canadians to lead an initiative that
would have an impact around the world.
There are areas of the legislation where the government has been
given power within our country to encroach on some of our rights.
However, in looking at it, most of us would agree that is an
encroachment we can accept.
We have to be somewhat cautious in being too much of a boy scout
when it comes to how we appear internationally. We have to be
sure that we are not just talking, that we really mean what we
saying and that we really are committed to helping countries
de-mine their fields, their riverbeds, their roadways and so on.
It is often easy for us to pass legislation. I think back to
when we talked about youth prostitution in foreign countries. I
cannot imagine how we would ever enforce that kind of
legislation. We feel good passing it and we agree with it but
how would we enforce it?
We have talked about the Hague convention, something a
subcommittee is working on, and kidnapped kids. All of us
realize how emotional and difficult that is. It is easy to say
we are against it but it is difficult to do something about it.
I should have mentioned at the start that I will be sharing my
time with the member for Calgary East.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There is a slight
problem. The House will have to give its consent to that since
the hon. member has a 40-minute slot. Perhaps we could clarify
that now. Is there consent for the hon. member to share his
time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for not mentioning
that at the outset.
We have to be sure we will put ourselves into the enforcement of
the legislation and continue to promote it even though it will be
difficult at times.
We also have to talk about the huge problem of de-mining that
exists around the world. We have figures like 200 million or 300
million mines being out there. The numbers are huge. We need to
help people to help themselves in that area. Our Canadian troops
are doing the job by helping children to know where the mines
are, to alert the authorities and to actually do something about
it. Those are the kinds of commitments that do not cost a lot
but are important if we are to rid the world of this serious
problem.
We must understand some of the reasons some countries will not
sign initially. We heard Mr. Clinton in Vancouver yesterday say
that the reason they could not give up land mines was for the
protection of their own soldiers. We may or may not agree with
that reason, but we need to encourage them to come up with
alternatives to the use of regular land mines. There are
alternatives. As science progresses I am sure these alternatives
will be used by countries like the U.S.
1730
We also have to look at renegade states and their potential use
of land mines. I am a firm believer, as I have said in this
House many times, that in the 21st century terrorism is probably
going to be one of our biggest threats as citizens of this world.
Of course we have to be concerned about the presence of land
mines, the use of land mines and the use of different types of
explosive devices. We could talk about plutonium being sent to
Canada from Russia. We could talk about that whole area.
It is important for us to put a diplomatic and organizational
pressure on the world which we are in an excellent position to
do. I think of our membership in organizations such as the
Francophonie, the Commonwealth and APEC. Through those
organizations we can bring a lot of pressure to bear on countries
to consider signing this treaty and getting rid of land mines.
The point that we need to make in the House is that we are not
just going to talk about it. We are not simply going to pass
this bill, pat ourselves on the back and move on to something
else. We have to be sure that this is an ongoing process and one
which will last a long time.
I know that a number of members of the House have experienced
firsthand what it means to see people living under the fear of
land mines. We in Canada are lucky. When we come back from
places like Bosnia, Cambodia or Laos we realize how lucky we are
to live in this country. Our children do not have to worry about
running out and playing in the field because there are no land
mines. Let us never let there be land mines in this country and
let us try to remove them from the world.
It is important that we broaden this to look at UN reform. The
minister made reference to this. Certainly the streamlining of
the UN is something that will help us all to achieve what we want
in the 21st century. Changes within the UN are desperately
needed. We must work with the NGOs and other countries to make
sure they are not so busy fighting turf wars and fighting over
what they are going to do that we have this this terrible
duplication of services and the terrible bureaucracy which ties
up so much of what they do.
I should mention the foreign affairs committee. Many people do
not know what we do in that committee. There are several members
in the Chamber who are a part of that committee, as well as
others. It is important for us to deal with issues such as this
and that we deal with current issues that are of concern to the
Canadian public. So often we get hung up on writing big reports.
The big reports basically end up consuming a lot of time and
expertise. They cost a lot of money. Ultimately they end up
being put on the shelf.
This is an example of a case where there is an issue that is
real. We can put a face on it. It is something which people
care about. It is something that the committee can get involved
in.
A lot of members have urged the government to make committees
relevant. We have urged the government to let the committees
deal directly with the minister. We want the committees to talk
about the issues, be they slavery in the Sudan, the terrible
problems in Nigeria and Iraq, the kidnapping of Canadian children
or terrorism. Let us talk about those issues which are real to
Canadians and real to members of this House for which we can,
hopefully, have the same sort of conclusion as we have seen
today.
That is something to work toward. Some of it will be a dream.
We have seen this sort of presentation before. We all know about
the failures which have happened. However, it is time for us to
look at what we are doing and try to make things better.
1735
That is why it is a privilege to stand and to co-operate on the
implementation of this piece of legislation.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to speak in support of this bill today.
Bill C-22 is an important bill and I am happy to have this
opportunity to share my comments with my colleagues in this
House.
I would like to take a moment to express my appreciation for the
tireless hours that several individuals have dedicated to this
very worthwhile cause.
Internationally the names of this year's Nobel Peace prize
recipient, Jody Williams and her organization, and the efforts of
the late Princess Diana brought international attention to this
cause. I applaud the Nobel Prize committee for recognizing the
efforts of Jody Williams and her organization who rightfully
deserve the Nobel Peace prize.
Here in Canada there are many individuals and groups such as
Mines Action Canada who have taken the initial momentum to work
toward an international ban on land mines.
On a more personal note, I applaud my colleague for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca who has worked tirelessly over these past
several years in making this an issue on the Canadian stage.
In late 1995 he introduced a private member's bill that called
for an international ban on the anti-personnel mines, a bill
which was supported by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs. When
the current minister came into this portfolio, he too supported
this initiative.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
Minister of Foreign Affairs for his efforts which began the
Ottawa process. This is a proud achievement for Canada. My
congratulations go out to all Canadians who participated and made
it possible to bring together over 120 countries which will be
present in Ottawa next week for the signing of the treaty.
This treaty includes the banning of the use, production,
stockpiling and the trade of anti-personnel land mines. It also
includes assistance for de-mining and for victims of land mines.
This was intended to be a collective disarmament treaty and has
several significant humanitarian elements that will not only ban
the creation of the land mines but also ban countries from using
and trading them.
Canada's exemption will allow it to import, export and possess
mines for military training, mine clearing and destruction.
Police officers and the RCMP will also have the authority to
possess and transfer the mines in the course of their duties to
defuse them.
In the event that a country falls under suspicion of violating
the treaty, fact finders will be sent by the international
community. They will have the powers to search and seize them
with or without warrant. Dwelling houses can be inspected with a
warrant. Warrants are not required to search military bases
and/or warehouse facilities.
This bill comes into effect once given royal assent and also
takes effect in all provinces. As I only have 10 minutes on this
bill, I will leave most of the technical details of this
legislation to those who have spoken before me as well as those
who will speak after me, as I agree with most aspects of this
bill.
Land mines are a very serious issue in the international arena.
The use of anti-personnel mines already violates numerous tenants
under international law. Each and every year it is estimated
that over 250,000 individuals are at the least maimed and all too
often killed by land mines. That works out to one person every
20 minutes. This is a tragic loss. To make it even more tragic
is that these losses are often unnecessary.
Without the removal of land mines in post-war areas, many of the
land mine victims have died or have been injured unnecessarily.
These land mines are currently deployed in over 70 countries,
most of them developing countries. Countries such as
Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia, Croatia, Eritrea, Iraq,
Mozambique, Somalia, Sudan and Vietnam are all affected.
There are approximately 100 million mines that are waiting for
their next victim. With the variety of land mines in existence,
there are over 350 different types of land mines. The severity
of injury can be quite varied.
1740
These losses could have been and, more importantly, should have
been prevented. Land mines do not discriminate. They will
target any individual who comes into their path. Our brave
peacekeepers have paid a heavy price in places like Bosnia. These
brave soldiers carry on their duties which bring honour and pride
to our nation and are to be saluted for their courageous work in
spite of danger to their lives.
It is interesting to note that those who manufacture or order
the deployment of land mines themselves are in no danger of
losing life or limb to these land mines. It is instead the
soldiers that are at risk as well as innocent civilians who
ultimately are the victims of this senseless carnage. I often
wonder how many politicians or high ranking officials face danger
from these land mines.
I take a personal interest in this bill. Coming from Tanzania,
which is the northern neighbour of Mozambique, a country which
has been devastated by the use of land mines, which has been the
result of an internal conflict within that country, from my
experiences in my native land, I can see how land mines placed
indiscriminately can cause havoc in the civilian population.
In these countries the infrastructure development is
concentrated in the urban centres. In the countryside people
walk on trails and bush paths going from village to village.
Women use these trails to fetch water from rivers and from wells.
Children play using these areas, running up and down these trails
to meet their friends from neighbouring villages.
When unchecked, the use of these land mines interferes with a
society whose primary mode of transportation in the countryside
is the time honoured use of two feet. We can, therefore,
visualize what terrible deeds these land mines can do. Women,
children, elderly people, soldiers all pay a heavy price for the
absurdity of men who pursue political agendas.
Those who manufacture such items of horror should be held as
responsible as those who place those land mines. It is only
fitting. Therefore, we can move forward and stop manufacturing
land mines.
There are real economic costs to the production and removal of
land mines is estimated at 2 million land mines being deployed
every year. When one considers the cost of production for each
land mine which runs anywhere from $3 to $70 each, just think
what this money could be better spent on. It is estimated that
approximately 100,000 mines are removed each year at a cost of
approximately $300 to $1,000 each. With these figures there is
an estimated cost of approximately $50 billion. Although this
figure is enormous, I would argue that this would not compare to
the loss of life. It is believed that for every mine removed
another 20 are planted.
At the current rate of de-mining, if more land mines were to be
placed it would take over 1,000 years to rid the world of these
dangerous killers. Getting rid of these mines is not going to be
easy.
Besides the sheer time involved in finding these mines, as most
mine fields are not mapped out, de-mining is a very dangerous
job. It is believed that for every 5,000 mines removed, one
person will be killed and another two will suffer injuries.
I could go on and on and read a whole list of statistics and
figures, but that does not bring the real issue to the forefront.
This is not a financial issue, but an issue of our core moral
values.
The contribution that those who were maimed or killed would have
made to our society would have far outweighed the so-called
economic loss of getting rid of these land mines.
1745
To put it more simply and bluntly, one cannot put a price tag on
life. We all have to move forward to ensure that this senseless
killing of innocent civilians and soldiers stops.
I would like to note that several key nation states have not yet
signed this treaty and I hope they overcome their differences and
sign on as well.
For the most part these countries are citing security reasons
for using the mines. Yet often the use of these mines is as
destructive for the armies that have set up the mines as for the
enemies.
We now live in a global village. We are members of one gigantic
family. Our efforts should be devoted to promoting harmony and
peaceful coexistence. All religions of the world espouse
neighbourly love. Wars are destructive, causing loss of precious
human life, breaking up families, causing pain.
However, we have a long way to go before we can peacefully
coexist. This treaty is the first step toward achieving that
goal and it receives my full unconditional support.
In conclusion, I would like to say that while I stand proudly in
supporting this bill, I also feel and share the pain of those who
were the victims of land mines. To them I say while we may have
been late and have let them down, our prayers are that our
present and future generations will not suffer the same pain that
they have suffered.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my
colleague, the member for Laval East.
The Deputy Speaker: As I indicated during the speech by the
hon. member for Red Deer, since the hon. member had 40 minutes at
his disposal, the consent of the House is required for him to
divide his time with another member.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, the first time I heard about the
convention and anti-personnel mines was when I was having discussions
with colleagues at the Université libre in Brussels. Professors and
students in international law were calling for the elimination of these
“instruments of death”, as they were already calling them at the
beginning of this decade.
This is an issue that I became involved in, as did everyone who was
calling for disarmament, everyone who was following, in Vienna and
elsewhere, the conferences organized to bring the international
community to abandon the instruments of death such as nuclear arms,
smaller arms, mines of all types and especially anti-personnel mines.
However, I still had not seen personally what these instruments of
death were until I went with my colleagues in this House to
Bosnia-Hercegovina several weeks ago, where we were briefed on several
occasions on these mines, on how they operate, on the way they kill and
the way they endanger human life. It was a rather moving experience and
one that showed how important it was to support the international
community's objective of banning the production and use of these mines.
These facts helped me convince the members of our party, the Bloc
Quebecois, to support the initiative of the Minister of External Affairs
and to ensure that our party would give its support to the convention as
it is outlined today in the Canadian legislation.
1750
Increased awareness of this in Canada and abroad issue must not,
however, lead us to forget that this convention is an unfinished
creation and will undoubtedly remain so. The debate we witnessed today
in this House reveals how much we live in a system where democracy has
its failings when it comes to signing such a convention and implementing
it in domestic law. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss each
of these issues.
This convention will most likely be signed by over 100 countries on
December 3 and 4. Apparently, some 120 countries will be in Ottawa to
sign this convention.
But there are 191 countries in the international community and at least
70 states will not be there, 70 states that have not yet committed to
eliminating these mines.
And also the states who will be signing the convention will have to
become parties to this convention and to ensure that their legislature
or their government will ratify or endorse it. Among the states that are
still hesitating to support this convention, there are three members of
the Security Council, that is the United States, Russia and China, which
are some of the most powerful nations in the world and which refuse to
come to Ottawa or buy into the Ottawa process.
Therefore, this work is unfinished and it might remain unfinished.
In that sense, the work accomplished by the Minister of Foreign Affairs
is only beginning and the work of all those who supported him, including
the work that is being done in this House, must continue.
The Bloc Quebecois will support the initiatives taken to ensure that
this convention will have an increasing impact on the international
community.
However, the debate today helped illustrate how parliament and
parliamentarians lack a proper voice, I would say an adequate voice, in
the process by which treaties are adopted, the process by which treaties
are developed and create obligations that are very important and that
often entail legislation, as with this treaty, by which treaty
obligations can be implemented.
We presented this afternoon an amendment which sought to determine
to what extent the government was willing to commit itself to a
democratization of the process by which treaties are concluded.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of External Affairs was
speaking earlier of the democratization of external relations that had
been witnessed by the international community with the adoption of this
treaty, which involves not only governments but also non-government
organizations, which of course work in partnership with international
bodies. It is time to also democratize the process by which states
participate in international negotiations and in the conclusion of
international treaties.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore attempted to determine in what frame
of mind the Minister of External Affairs was operating in this area, and
it found out that this issue did not create as much interest as it
should, although it will be raised when the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade meets. The Bloc Quebecois hopes
that, at that time, there will be a real debate leading to important
changes to the this process.
1755
In this case, therefore, by the end of the day we will have a
bill, one we have sought to enrich by constructive proposals aimed
at improving the implementing legislation. This will be a bill for
implementation of a convention with which the Bloc Quebecois is
basically in agreement, a convention which will bind Canada, when
it has signed and ratified the convention, and which will one day,
I am sure, bind the sovereign Quebec so wished for by the Bloc
Quebecois, in accordance with the requirements of international law
which will be applicable when the State of Quebec state attains
sovereignty.
In conclusion, this treaty and this act will be a source of
pride for the international community next week. It is true that
the Minister of Foreign Affairs has shared with his colleagues, and
with those in this House, the glory involved in getting this
convention signed, but it is the international community that will
benefit from it. It is the men, women and children of the world
who will be the main beneficiaries, for their basic rights, the
most fundamental one being the right to life, will be better
protected by this convention.
Humanity will be the beneficiary of this convention, a
humanity composed of the men and women whom states and nations have
a duty to protect at all times, including when treaties are signed.
I would like to use the words of a great internationalist, one that
Professor Jacques-Yvan Morin, an academic colleague of mine and a
professor of international law known in political circles, having
been a minister and deputy premier in Quebec, has a predilection
for quoting. In fact, he quoted him in his 1994 course at the
academy of international law. The quotationis from Bartholomé de
Las Casas, the great internationalist, who said “Todas las naciones
son hombres”.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr Speaker, I would like to
say right off that I rise to speak with great interest on Bill
C-22, which concerns the implementation of the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of
Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.
I do so as well with considerable compassion for those, often
innocent individuals, whom death has claimed or whose quality of
life has been significantly reduced through the explosion of a
mine. There is another important element to this too, that of
de-mining and the effort expended by the international community
in this regard.
One fact remains, and it represents an important step. In a
few days, in Ottawa, we will witness the signing of the convention
prohibiting anti-personnel mines. Unfortunately, this treaty will
not resolve the problem once and for all, because certain major
countries will not be signatories.
It will, however, help to limit the terrible effects. The Bloc
Quebecois recognizes the leadership of the Government of Canada and
its Minister of Foreign Affairs in this matter along with the
efforts of the public and the NGOs.
1800
I will now give some background on anti-personnel mines.
These mines are cheap weapons. Each costs somewhere between US$3
and US$50 and has as its sole purpose the mutilation of the enemy.
Despite its low purchase cost, this is a pernicious weapon that
continues its destruction long beyond the end of wars and
conflicts, as we will see.
Inexpensive, easily produced and effective, these weapons were
used in a good many conflicts.
It will be recalled that the war between India and Pakistan, the war
between Iraq and Iran, the Gulf War and the domestic conflicts in
Cambodia and Angola demonstrated the destructive power of anti-personnel
mines. First used as defensive weapons in international conflicts, they
formed a protective barrier essentially designed to slow enemy progress.
That is what mine fields were used for originally.
However, the use of such mines was expanded. Today they are used in
domestic conflicts and in civil wars, they are used by police forces as
well as by insurgent, guerrilla and paramilitary groups.
The saddest thing about all this is that some governments use these
mines against their own population. In Kurdistan, the Iraqi government
is said to have mined the fields of several villages, to terrorize the
villagers into submission.
Anti-personnel mines thus become tools to control population movements
and to create fear within the population, the main goal being, sadly, to
kill and maim civilians.
As we can see, the use of anti-personnel mines has many very
serious consequences. And as if the situation were not terrifying enough
as it is, civilians are now faced with this problem, as anti-personnel
create war-like conditions in peacetime.
Anti-personnel mines make no discrimination between men, women and
children, innocent victims of cruel wars taking place in their country.
Those mines that are left behind cause human tragedies of untold
sadness. Most of the time, mine victims who are not killed lose a limb.
However, let us remember that countries having to deal with
anti-personnel mines are almost all developing countries, poor
countries that cannot provide adequate care to the injured
because of a lack of human and financial resources. These heavily
handicapped victims are unable to participate in the local
economy, to work to provide for their families.
And what about the economic tragedies caused by anti-personnel
mines? In some countries, farmers are unable to cultivate their lands or
to put their cattle out to pasture because their fields are mine-ridden.
We have seen previously self-sufficient farming areas that now depend on
external food aid. For example, it is estimated that in some areas of
Angola anti-personnel mines have reduced food production by more than
25%.
Furthermore, it is quite often impossible to deliver food, because
truck drivers will not venture out on roads that are strewn with mines.
At the same time, besides causing terror, mines prevent post-war
reconstruction by interfering with the work of humanitarian
organizations and peacekeeping forces.
However, if there is something horrifying and unacceptable when it
comes to anti-personnel mines, it is the physical and psychological harm
done to the children who are the victims of these barbaric weapons. The
images of innocent children horribly burned by napalm caused universal
consternation. The effects of anti-personnel mines are every bit as
devastating.
1805
For this reason, and it is not the only one, as we have seen,
governments that have signed this convention must pursue their
persuasive efforts with non-signatory governments. As I said
earlier, however, the problems caused by anti-personnel mines will
not disappear overnight with the signing of this convention. Their
impact will be greatly diminished, it is true. The issue of mine
clearing will, however, remain intact.
Worse yet, for every mine removed from the ground, 20 new
mines are being laid at the present time. At this rate, it is
estimated that it would take 1,100 years and over $30 billion to
completely eliminate the anti-personnel mines now scattered
throughout the world.
It is therefore imperative that mine clearing be approached
effectively and with tools as modern as those used to lay them. We
know, however, that mine clearing is an expensive operation. In
1994, the UN spent $70 million US to clear fewer than 100,000
mines. As a matter of fact, it costs between $300 and $1,000 to
remove a single mine.
The international community can claim that it does not have
the resources necessary to remove all mines. The fact is, however,
that, in the 1980s, exports of heavy and of light arms to third
world countries represented 70% of the world trade of rich
countries. There is an obvious international responsibility here
with respect to countries that have become poor to the advantage of
rich countries and arms lobbies.
But, despite a large drop in heavy arms exports to developing
countries, we have been seeing a worrisome proliferation of light
arms in the 1990s.
An analysis reveals, and I quote “From 1980 to 1995, ten African
nations with a total population of 155 million were torn apart by
civil wars. Between 3.8 and 6.9 million people, or 2.5 to 4.5% of
the population of these ten countries, died, almost all of them
killed by light weapons. It seems that the leaders of western
nations are increasingly preoccupied by arms stockpiling in third
world trouble spots, in the very areas to which they are being
called to send ceasefire monitoring groups. An awareness seems to
be emerging from this fundamental contradiction: on the one hand,
rich nations are trying to end conflicts while, on the other, they
are continuing to supply arms to belligerent nations”. History is
repeating itself.
Here again, action must be taken and solutions do exist.
This is why the successful implementation of the Anti-Personnel Mines
Convention is very encouraging and gives us hope that a multilateral
agreement on light weapons can be reached.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois reaffirms its support to Bill
C-22. The Ottawa process has become essential. However, as I said
previously, we still have a long way to go. At first, our purpose was to
deal with tanks and other armoured vehicles, but now we want to protect
the civilians whose lives are threatened by these anti-personnel mines,
the people who have suffered the most from war.
The signing of the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention, next
December 3, will hopefully reduce the number of these human tragedies.
However, de-mining remains a sensitive issue that the world community
has yet to address seriously.
That is the price we have to pay to give some meaning to the words
justice and fairness.
It is also the price we have to pay for peace and security.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among
representatives of all the parties for the following motion, and
I would ask that you seek unanimous consent of the House for the
following.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could hear the proposal of
the chief government whip.
1810
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention in
any way, shape or form to deny anyone the opportunity to speak on
this very important matter. As can be witnessed by the number of
members in the House today, this subject matter is one that many
members want to speak to. In that same spirit I move:
That at the end of this day's debate on third reading of Bill
C-22, the question shall be deemed put and adopted unanimously.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief government whip has the
unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Motion carried.
Earlier this day I informed the House of proceedings on the
adjournment motion to be held this evening. It is with profound
regret that I advise the House that those proceedings have been
cancelled. Accordingly, we will continue with the debate before
the House.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
is a great honour for me to stand on behalf of the New Democratic
Party to speak in support of our country's initiative to ban land
mines.
This treaty is a testament to the power that people can have
when they act together and to the positive power that governments
can have when they put their minds to it.
Just one year ago most nations of the world decided that even
though the economic costs were large and the military
implications larger, this issue is a moral one. Anti-personnel
land mines are an evil which has no place in the arsenal of
modern democracy.
In Canada we are blessed with thousands of kilometres of open
space. It is difficult for me to imagine living in a country
where you risk crossing a unseen border with every step, the
border between your life today and a life without a leg or a life
without your child; where the field you and your family have
tilled for generations is now a dangerous and foreign land full
of hazards that could in an instant destroy lives and ruin
futures; where your children cannot play in the streets or in the
woods; where there is no freedom from fear.
Perhaps I feel strongly about this treaty because I am the
mother of a young daughter. I read about the scores of children
like her who are killed or maimed every day by mines. I read
about mines made with brightly coloured plastic or cloth designed
to attract children, designed to kill children. Designs like
these have no place in the world I want for my daughter.
In Canada and other first world countries we spend a lot of time
talking about rights and duties and codes of acceptable
behaviour. At the same time we have allowed our governments to
manufacture and export land mines, weapons whose only purpose is
to cripple and to maim. That is the worst sort of hypocrisy.
Since 1868 and the St. Petersburg declaration which outlawed
weapons which uselessly aggravate suffering, through to the
Geneva convention which banned the use of terror against
non-combatants, governments have worked long and hard to make
sure that human lives are spared the painful excesses of modern
military technology. But they have worked simultaneously to
advance that technology, to make it possible to develop devices
like the gravel mine I talked about a minute ago, a mine that
includes the following line in its owners manual: “They are
especially effective against inquisitive children. They make
life difficult for rural communities without endangering troops
and armoured vehicles”.
How about the wide area anti-personnel mine. These are dropped
from aircraft and throw out eight fine threads which then act as
trip wires. Anyone who steps on any of the trip wires sets off
the mines and lethal pellets scatter over an area of 60 metres.
Mines have been filled with flechettes, small and irregularly
shaped scraps that embed themselves deep in the victim's flesh.
Some are made of plastic, not because it is cheaper but because
the plastic will not show up on X-rays. A surgeon has to gouge
blindly inside the patient's body. A recent innovation has been
to tip the pellets with depleted uranium so victims will also
suffer from radiation poisoning.
This is what the governments of the world have been working on
in their labs while the leaders preach peace and compassion.
This treaty is a huge step forward, a step on to safer ground.
We are not free from danger yet.
Until the superpowers have the courage to sign this treaty and
the United States has the courage to accept the ban
wholeheartedly, we know that every day for decades to come more
lives will be shattered by mines.
1815
Every year in Europe a few mines left over from the second world
war explode, killing yet more people. That war ended over 50
years ago. Since then more mines have been laid than ever.
Countries like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola and Bosnia
are carpeted with bombs that will take decades to clear. During
those decades more families were broken. This is a fact and one
we cannot escape, but we can reflect on it and do our best to
make sure the cycle of violence and death is broken.
The United Nations has done excellent work co-ordinating mine
clearing projects around the world but that work is useless
unless we, members of the governments of the world, promise to
ourselves and our children that we will stop adding to the
stockpile. Making that promise means more than speeches in the
House of Commons. It means applying the full moral weight of our
nation to those countries that still insist land mines are a
vital part of their defences.
It is ironic that today the leaders of the APEC nations are
gathered in Vancouver hosted by our Prime Minister. The leaders
of China and the United States both have refused to sign this
treaty. Yesterday U.S. President Bill Clinton at least had the
courage to congratulate Canada and urged us to move forward with
the treaty. Meanwhile the Chinese government, which is
responsible for a large percentage of the global manufacture and
export of mines, has refused to sign the treaty and even to
discuss signing the treaty.
It is truly a positive step for this Liberal government to have
initiated this treaty. I want to extend sincere thanks from the
NDP caucus to our Minister of Foreign Affairs for his diligent
work to make this treaty a reality. It shows what governments
can do when they decide to make a positive difference. My only
regret is that it often seems the minister is a lone voice in
this administration pushing for a more moral and humane approach
to foreign affairs. While he pressures the Chinese and tries to
take them to task for their refusal to meet the standards of
international decency, other government leaders are wining and
dining the Chinese president in Vancouver.
I am just one person whose voice has joined the global chorus
calling for the abolition of land mines. There are tens of
thousands of others, including the winners of this year's Nobel
peace prize and many other individuals, groups and governments. I
would also like to mention the efforts made by the British Labour
government and Prime Minister Tony Blair who have shown what a
moral government with the courage to use its authority can do.
For them banning land mines is part of the moral philosophy of
social democracy just as it is for us in the NDP caucus. It is
part and parcel of our belief in human dignity and international
co-operation.
This issue has to be put in a larger context. Land mines are an
obvious and unquestionably evil expression of man's inhumanity to
man, but there are others just as evil that receive little or no
attention from the world's leaders. To be brutal, why ban land
mines if there are no hospitals to treat children with measles?
Why replace death from shrapnel wounds with death from malaria,
with death from cold or hunger?
This treaty must be a first step, but the fact that I can rise
in this House to discuss the issue that our government has been
the author of a civilized page in the global book of laws remains
a credit to this government. We are creating a new law for the
civilized countries of the world and that is a worthy thing. On
behalf of the people of my riding, of my party and for myself and
my daughter Kayla, I thank all the people who made this treaty a
reality.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the hon. member that there were others involved
in the land mines process. Mines Action Canada, a conglomeration
of non-governmental organizations, has done an outstanding job of
bringing this issue forward. Other members of Parliament in this
House have brought the issue forward. Members of the public have
been bringing the issue forward for the past four years. It was
not just the government that worked on this. I just wanted to
correct the member.
I also wanted to correct the member on another point. Not only
England was involved in this process and only after Princess
Diana pushed the government to pursue this course, but other
countries around the world including Norway and Canada were also
involved.
Belgium was one of the first countries in the world to take the
initiative of unilaterally destroying its mines. It banned mines
before the issue ever came to the forefront.
1820
I would like to set the record straight on that point. If the
member wants to correct her speech to that effect, I am sure she
is free to do so.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for his comments. As we all know, our time
for speaking is very limited. I could have continued on a lot
longer to mention the things which he just talked about.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
comments will be brief today but extraordinarily meaningful. I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead.
These are challenging times for a middle power. In a post cold
war environment there has been a sharp decline in the role of the
nation state in terms of its ability to meaningfully impact
foreign policy and international policy. There has been a
commensurate increase in the power and strength of NGOs,
multinational corporations and in fact in individuals.
This treaty is an example of how government can recognize the
changing times and harness the new power of NGOs to create
meaningful foreign policy amidst the challenges of a new
environment.
Another trend in a post cold war environment is the entrance of
a new phrase, a new term, and that is human security. Human
security is being used increasingly in place of national security
in a growing foreign policy circle. Human security recognizes
that since the end of the cold war most conflicts have been
interstate conflicts. The majority of those interstate conflicts
have been between governments and their own people.
It is in that environment we must recognize we need to protect
the security and the safety of individuals. Hence human security
is increasingly becoming as important as national security. This
land mine treaty recognizes this trend as well and serves to
strengthen human security for all citizens of the world.
Canada must continue to play a vigilant role in utilizing all
levers at our disposal, including the World Bank and the IMF, to
pressure non-signatories to come on board and support this
treaty. We must also ensure that the financial resources are made
available to assist countries in complying with the conditions of
this treaty.
Canada's leadership role in the Ottawa process stands as an
example of what we can achieve. It also stands as an example of
what we must continue to do, which is that we must continue to
play a strong role as a middle power in a post cold war
environment. We can and must continue in the tradition of Lester
Pearson and in the tradition of Joe Clark to play a pivotal role
in foreign policy, in foreign affairs, and to protect the rights,
security and safety of all peoples.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will also be very brief. I have a couple of comments to make
with respect to the speeches which have been made by hon. members
today.
Jody Williams was mentioned several times. I attended a
breakfast for her a couple of weeks ago, as did many hon.
members. When she was questioned on what she would be doing for
her next project, she was quite clear that she had nowhere near
finished her project on land mines. She said that she would be
continuing with that project.
Right now we have the opportunity to take this issue one step
further, which is the type of thing she would like to do. The
Asia-Pacific economic co-operation meeting is taking place in
Vancouver. I understand that the APEC meeting will not address
human rights concerns, that it will only address economies. That
is not the right thing to do. I know that many Canadians and the
minister feel that this is not the right thing to do.
The human rights records of our trading partners should be
mentioned and not just in passing. Similarly, APEC provides an
excellent opportunity to discuss security matters. The Pacific
Rim is becoming more volatile as communist China grows stronger
and North Korea becomes more and more unpredictable. In the
future APEC will address international security concerns in the
region. It will soon not be able to ignore the issue. It would
be a wonderful start to set an important precedent if Canada led
this initiative.
1825
It is my suggestion that Canada bring up the issue of the land
mines treaty fully and publicly and not just in bilateral
meetings. If the government is really serious about ridding the
world of land mines, the APEC summit would be a timely
opportunity to challenge countries to join.
Again, I want to congratulate the government and particularly
the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his efforts.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Burlington.
I am very pleased to be able to speak on this legislation before
the House today. It will enable Canada to fulfil its obligations
under the international convention banning land mines.
As members of this House know, over 100 countries will come to
Ottawa on December 3 to participate at the Treaty Signing
Conference and Mine Action Forum. This event will bring to a
close the Ottawa process which was initiated last year by the
Minister of Foreign Affairs after the United Nations sponsored
conference on disarmament talks in Geneva bogged down.
This legislation, which is entitled the anti-personnel mines
convention implementation act, is of course necessary in order to
give the full force of law to Canada's political and diplomatic
obligations as a signatory to the convention. I certainly hope
that other signatories to the treaty act with the same speed and
resolve that we in this Parliament have demonstrated in ratifying
this treaty.
On behalf of the residents of my riding of Nepean—Carleton, I
would also like to once again offer my personal congratulations
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the tremendous personal
effort he put into this initiative. He has made all of Canada
proud. His efforts are very much in keeping with the finest
traditions of Canadian diplomacy.
When Canadians think of our diplomatic achievements, they think
about Lester Pearson, the Suez crisis and peacekeeping. We can
add to that list the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the land
mines treaty. Great credit is of course also due to the hundreds
of NGOs, international organizations led by American activist
Jody Williams and supported by others like the late Diana,
Princess of Wales. Together a very important humanitarian goal
has been achieved.
We have all heard about the statistics on land mines. There are
an estimated 100 million mines in the ground in 70 countries
around the globe. Every 20 minutes a person is maimed or killed
by an anti-personnel mine. For every mine taken out of the
ground, 20 new mines are planted. Fully 80% of the casualties
are innocent civilians, a large portion are children and women.
They live in countries like Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique,
Somalia and Vietnam. Long after the wars for which the land
mines have been sown have ended, the legacy of the land mine
lives on with random and indiscriminate violence causing death
and serious injury.
On the North American continent we are very fortunate indeed not
to have to live with the constant threat of land mines as we go
about our daily lives. Others are not so lucky.
Seven years ago I travelled to Zimbabwe in southern Africa as
part of a CIDA sponsored delegation. One aspect of our visit
involved a trip to a refugee camp on the Mozambique border called
Tongagora. What I saw there in three and a half hours left me
with an unforgettable image of what life is like for many people
less fortunate than we are.
For over 40,000 refugees from the war in Mozambique, many
attempting to overcome the effects of malnutrition, malaria and
diarrhoea and other diseases, this camp was their home. Over
half the population of the camp were children. Many showed the
physical scars of war, including amputated limbs as well as other
disfiguring wounds.
The sight of one child in particular seared an image on my brain
which I will never forget. Like all the children in the camp,
this young fellow was clothed in rags. He was probably about 11
or 12 years old and walked with a makeshift crutch to support
himself because one of his legs was amputated at the knee.
One-half of his jaw on the right side looked as if it had been
blown away. When I looked at that child from a comfortable seat
on a bus as we were leaving the camp, the only thing I could
think of was the fact that he would never enjoy the life that so
many of us in this country are blessed with.
Starting life as a refugee is bad enough but having to cope with
amputated limbs and serious disfigurement takes an extremely bad
situation and makes it dramatically worse. Whether he suffered
his injuries from a land mine is something I will never know, but
it is clear that the land mines were responsible for many of the
amputated limbs at that camp.
Every time I see that young boy's face in my mind's eye, I think
of the land mines and the incalculable damage done to innocents.
As unfortunate as that boy was, many land mine victims in
Mozambique never made it to a refugee camp. Some simply could
not make the long journey to safety and others bled to death at
or close to the land mine that they had detonated.
1830
The effect of land mines goes beyond the physical damage that is
done. Also of concern is the profound psychological damage that
accompanies living with land mines. A series of letters which
appeared in last Saturday's Globe and Mail from young
Bosnians about the menace of land mines speaks eloquently of
their effect on young minds.
One young man, Admir Mujkic, a grade 12 student in east Tuzla
wrote “Spring will come soon. Warm nights full of temptation to
go out for a walk. We have had enough of smoke filled cafes, but
where to go. Mines are all around us. Our fields, meadows,
forests are probably covered with mines. That could probably
ruin my life or somebody else's life, youth, beliefs, love. I
want to run through flowery fields with my girlfriend. I want to
pick the first violet for her, to climb the trees and forests. I
want to lie in the grass and watch the sky for hours. I want to
dream”.
Another student, Melisa Dzanovica, in grade 7 and also from
Tuzla, wrote “My friend, do not look at the sky, do not count
the stars, do not look at the yellow moon because in a split
second it can become bloody. It takes only one wrong step. So
lower your head, my friend. Your enemy is in the earth. It has
surrounded you with a thick wire. Remember there is something
worse than a war. Survive, my friend, the peace”.
There are a number of challenges we face in connection with this
treaty. One is to ensure that ratification by the signatories
proceeds quickly so that this treaty can become part of
international law that stems the manufacture, possession, use and
export of land mines. As parliamentarians we must work with our
counterparts in other countries to ensure that this happens
quickly.
Another challenge is to bring those who will not be signing the
treaty, in particular our friends to the south, on as
signatories. This would be a major step forward.
It is indeed unfortunate that the United States has decided not
to become a signatory to the treaty at this time. As we know, it
has cited its defensive situation in South Korea as its rationale
for not signing, even though at least one of its own generals,
General Norman Schwarzkopf, has said that the United States does
not need land mines to defend itself or its allies.
To give credit where credit is due, however, the U.S. has
destroyed 1.5 million land mines and has promised to destroy
another 1.5 million in the short term. It has also vowed to
increase its already sizeable budget for de-mining operations by
25% next year.
This brings me to perhaps the most important challenge that we
now face as a global community; that is to move beyond the treaty
signing and ratification to the next phase which should be a
concerted international effort to get these mines out of the
ground. This next phase will make the Ottawa process seem easy
by comparison. It will require political will, significant
resources as well as up to date technology to ensure that more
lives are not lost and more injuries sustained in the de-mining
effort.
As Canada has led the Ottawa process and the anti-personnel land
mines treaty, so should we lead the process of ridding the world
of these horrible weapons. We have some of the best trained
personnel in land mine removal among the members of our armed
forces and we have some of the most up to date technology.
In the first statement I made in this House I drew attention to
two companies in my riding that I am proud to say are working on
state of the art land mine removal technologies, Computing
Devices of Canada as well as Thomson-CSF.
In the case of Computing Devices of Canada, they are working on
a system which combines a variety of land mine detection
technologies in one package. Their particular technology will
have a system to detect even small amounts of metal. With ground
penetrating radar their system will detect the presence of
foreign objects in the soil. With an infrared camera it will
detect heat flow disturbances in the soil associated with buried
land mines. Yet another sensor is capable of detecting nitrogen,
a key component of explosives.
The Thomson-CSF technology involves a very sophisticated robotic
system with the capability of digging up, removing and disposing
of land mines.
I mention this to indicate that the task of ridding the world of
over 100 million land mines is a tremendously difficult but not
an impossible task.
1835
Great strides are being made with technology which will
significantly reduce injuries and deaths related to de-mining
activities.
To conclude, I want to say that all Canadians should be proud of
this tremendous diplomatic achievement by the minister and the
many others who are responsible for having this treaty moved
forward.
We have come a long way in the space of one year toward solving
a problem that afflicts a large portion of humanity. We must
remember that the really tough job lies ahead.
I am confident that with the political determination, the
financial resources and the latest technologies Canada can once
again take the lead in one of the most important humanitarian
issues of our time.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too
am pleased and honoured to be able to rise today in support of
Bill C-22. I am particularly pleased but not at all surprised
that this bill has received support from all parties in this
House.
We do not agree often, but on this issue we do because we stand
first as Canadians and stand for peace in the world. I was
honoured along with my colleagues from Brossard—LaPrairie and
from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to participate with the minister at
the Oslo conference in Norway this September as the treaty was
being negotiated and at the forum for the non-governmental
organizations with the people who have been driving this issue
for years and years.
The Canadian delegation performed admirably. Their action,
their commitment, their perseverance in Oslo was second to none
and as a result, countries from around the world look to Canada
for leadership on this issue.
In fact, with the passing of this bill, we will be in a position
to be the first country to ratify the treaty to ban land mines.
This, coupled with our recent destruction of our last operational
land mine, signifies the level of our commitment to ensuring that
land mines are destroyed and lives will be saved.
During this debate we heard the member for Nepean—Carleton talk
a great deal about the impact of active land mines and what he
has witnessed and the important role Canada has played in
bringing this issue to its present place.
We all have a vested interest in this House and across the
nation in ensuring that the world is de-mined. I thought I would
focus my comments, therefore, on why Canadians are working so
hard and at such a speed to impose this world-wide ban. What are
the next steps?
This is a bill about peace and international security. It is a
bill about taking steps to protect people's land, allowing people
to provide safely for their families. For too long people in a
number of countries have starved while their rice paddies and
fields lay empty for fear of the consequences of entering those
areas.
Most important, this bill is about people. It is about saving
lives. It is about preventing senseless deaths and it is about
restoring hope to communities.
It is frightening to think that even with the tremendous
co-operation in this House, in the amount of time that we have
taken to debate this bill, hundreds of people, civilians, women,
children and farmers will be maimed or killed by anti-personnel
land mines, one person every 20 seconds.
During this presentation and that of my last colleague, 30
people were hurt by land mines. Some will die immediately.
Others will take weeks to die. Physically, we have already heard
it is a tremendous injury on the individuals and medical care is
not always accessible.
I heard stories in Oslo of having to take six days to reach
emergency help and even then sometimes it not being adequate, of
getting help for their immediate injuries and then suffering
gangrene later, of being fitted with 30-odd prostheses through
their lives if it is a child who is injured, the cost of that
alone, the inability for people after being injured to provide
for their families because in a lot of countries jobs are very
scarce.
They can no longer manoeuvre in the rice paddies, go out and
work on the farms. The effect for young women on their
marriageability is rather drastic. If they should be so
fortunate to get married, often there are later complications in
childbirth.
There are many obstacles along that road. Of course, as the
member for Nepean—Carleton has mentioned already, emotionally it
has a devastating impact on children and adults who are injured.
The social reintegration of the individuals is absolutely
important. These are innocent victims. They are women working
in their fields supporting their families, children playing
freely or gathering firewood.
On December 4 when delegates return to their respective
countries and heads of state leave with their official copy of
the treaty, our work will just be beginning.
1840
Colleagues, we must really focus on our work at that point and
we must work in earnest. The signing of this treaty is only the
first step. We must sustain political and public attention on
the issue. We must continue to encourage non-signatory countries
to sign, otherwise there will still be countries that can buy
land mines, transfer land mines, stockpile land mines and they
will wreak havoc on our world.
We have the momentum. There is a lot we can do with this energy.
We must encourage all countries to move forward. We must
universalize the treaty.
This treaty is a fantastic example of diplomacy, of what can be
achieved when governments listen to the people and then act, and
of what can be attained when individuals and groups work together
relentlessly and of what our country, Canada, as a middle power,
as a peaceful nation, is capable of advancing in this century and
in the next.
I would like to add my congratulations to those of all members
of the House of Commons to the individuals who have been involved
in this historic treaty, especially to the member for Brant for
her initiative and for helping to focus me several years ago on
this issue, and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his
insight, perseverance, commitment and energy. He took a risk
last year and has followed through and worked doggedly on this. I
congratulate the Prime Minister for using his political pressure
to bring people into the fold. It was critical.
On December 2, 3 and 4, the world will be watching as we take
this important humanitarian step and lead the world into a new
phase of disarmament. There are more issues that we can tackle in
this progressive new way to deal with things.
On December 4, evil will be defeated, good will triumph and
people around the world can be joyous that we will finally be on
the progressive side of dealing with this deadly, indiscriminate
weapon. They will know that finally one day we will see that
end, we will see when mines are removed from our land. My
colleague has identified opportunities for Canadians to
participate in that process. We can know that without mines
being used in such a terrible fashion that our peacekeepers, who
are trying to help in various nations around the world, will have
a better chance and will be a little safer.
This has been a terrific debate and I am proud to have been a
part of it.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
shall be sharing my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose
Mountain.
The good people of Surrey Central are very happy to have me
speak on their behalf in support of this legislation to implement
the convention on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer
of anti-personnel mines and their destruction.
My constituents and I would like to salute and pay special
tribute to my Reform Party colleague, the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who not only attended the convention at
Oslo, but who has many years experience working as a medical
doctor in the mine infested area of Mozambique. In fact, in 1995
and 1996 he was the Reform member of Parliament who introduced a
private members' bill calling for an international ban on
anti-personnel mines, but the government refused to make the bill
votable.
If that bill had been declared votable, the treaty could have
been signed much earlier, perhaps over two years earlier, and we
could have saved many lives around the world.
On this rare occasion the Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs
said he would support the private members' motion. A Liberal
minister actually stating his support of an opposition member's
private members' bill was important because it boosted the spirit
of the activists and non-government organizations who were
already concerned and fighting to have these destructive weapons
eliminated.
1845
The new Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs also supported the
anti-personnel land mines initiative. Canada began pursuing the
matter with other countries in the world, hoping to get a
consensus on an international ban.
In October 1996 at the International Strategy Conference, Canada
challenged the international community to sign a treaty to ban
the production, use, stockpile and export of land mines, and so
began the Ottawa process.
The international non-government organization community has
always argued that a ban on land mines is necessary because the
mines actually violate international human rights and
international law by killing or maiming over 20,000 civilians per
year.
A draft treaty was produced in Oslo, Norway, in September 1997.
Included in this treaty was the banning of the use, production,
stockpiling and trade of anti-personnel mines, but it also
included assistance for de-mining and for the victims. So far
over 120 countries have indicated that they will sign the Oslo
treaty. Other nations are seriously considering signing the Oslo
treaty. Next month there will be a formal signing ceremony in
Ottawa.
The treaty is supported by the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact
there is ample military evidence to support the ban of
anti-personnel mines.
The Oslo treaty is intended to be a collective international
disarmament treaty. The bill we are debating today is the
product of the Oslo draft treaty. Bill C-22 has many significant
humanitarian elements that will not only ban countries from
producing land mines but will ban countries from using and
trading them.
Canada's exemptions to this treaty will allow us to import,
export and possess land mines only for military training, mine
clearing and destruction. Peace officers and RCMP officers will
also have the authority to possess and transport land mines in
the course of their duties to diffuse them.
In the event a country falls under the suspicion of violating
the treaty, fact finders will be sent by the international
community and will have powers to search and seize with or
without a warrant. Private homes can be inspected with a
warrant. Warrants are not required to search military bases
and/or warehousing facilities.
The bill has 14 sections. I would briefly like to describe a
few of the sections which are important.
There are prohibitions as we know. Under the bill it is illegal
to place a mine under, on or near the ground or any surface area.
It is also illegal to develop, to produce or to stockpile mines
directly or indirectly except for training purposes, to
dismantle, or for display in museums. It is also illegal to
import or export anti-personnel mines.
There is a destruction of mines section. Individuals who are in
possession of anti-personnel mines must deliver them to specific
locations for immediate destruction with the exception of the
military, RCMP or those authorized by the minister to render the
mines useless.
There are inspection rules. In the event that a country is
accused of violating this treaty, the foreign minister of that
country must provide to members of the United Nations fact
finding team a certificate that will allow members of the mission
to inspect areas where there is suspicion of mines, that is
military bases or industrial warehouses. This power is only
extended to commercial dwellings. They cannot enter into private
dwellings unless the owner allows them.
Finally there is an enforcement section. This allows the
opportunity for enforcement officers to determine fines and
convictions. Summary convictions range from a fine of $5,000,
jail time of up to 18 months, or both. Convictions on indictment
range from a fine of $500,000 or imprisonment for a term no
longer than five years, or both.
The United States and China have refused to be signatories to
this treaty.
However they have both implemented many significant aspects of
the treaty such as the destruction of their stockpiles of mines.
Also they have not exported mines for some years. We hope that
in times to come China and the United States will sign the
treaty.
1850
The U.S.A. has done more than any other country in terms of
committing more money to de-mining. It has made sure that the
anti-tank weapons are not anti-personnel any more. It has
destroyed a record number of mines already. The U.S. was the
first nation to ask the United Nations to call for a ban on
anti-personnel mines. The U.S. expects to lead in the role of
peacekeeper in many parts of the world and expects to be
accommodated, but in Oslo the nations did not agree. We know
that last week the U.S. lost a plane and its crew off the coast
of Africa while en route to de-mining activities in Africa.
Countries in war zones such as Bosnia, Turkey, middle eastern
countries, India and Pakistan have not signed on either. Even
though these nations have not become signatories, the fact that a
treaty with teeth has been produced is more successful than a
treaty that is agreed to by everyone but has enough loopholes to
make it worthless.
With respect to the bill in its current form one of the issues
that causes concern is the lack of specifics concerning who will
be assigned by the minister to be the watch dog over the
destruction of any mines and the enforcement of the law within
Canada.
Another issue is the request for assistance. A commitment for
assistance with no fixed moneys is stated in the treaty. This is
assistance that can be given where appropriate and affordable.
The government should ensure that whatever aid is given through
assistance is done in the most cost effective fashion. This is a
serious issue. It is important for the bill to be passed by
parliament as soon as possible.
Let us imagine the civilian human aspect for a moment. History
shows that mines do not stop armies but stop people's lives
completely. In certain villages mines are all around in the
fields, meadows and forests. The schools are covered with
posters asking kids to think mines. The vocabulary of those
school children includes war, mines, danger, fear, kill, blood
and similar words. They ask children not to touch the mines
because they are toys of war.
They are being told not to look at the beautiful sky or the
yellow moon or count stars because in a split second it can
become bloody. It takes only one wrong step, so they should
lower their heads because their enemy is in the earth.
There is something worse than a war. They have to survive the
peace. Families are familiar with crisis and lack of money. Even
the children have to work to support the families in those
countries. The forgotten mines take away their young dreams in a
split second. The war is still in their hearts, souls and
memory. There are people out there with one leg of their
trousers hanging empty. There is no more hissing sound of
shells or sirens but a sudden sound of detonation. Nobody knows
how to handle them. To conclude—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the hon. member he
has gone well beyond his time. I know he is splitting time with
the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I think he would
want to ensure the other hon. member has his 10 minutes.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his brilliant and erudite
intervention.
What do his constituents think about the issue?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I
are proud to support the passage of the bill by the House. It
was an honour to have the opportunity to speak in support of it.
1855
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on an evening like this one it is difficult for someone
to stand and try to say something that has not already been said.
I am pleased to support the bill. I am also pleased to know that
the support in my constituency, which is a large one, would be
unanimous.
When we close the House tonight and go home we do not expect to
hear the blast of a gun. We do not expect to hear an explosion
of a land mine. We live in relative peace and quiet. However,
as we pass the bill, and it will be unanimous, there are people
in Canada tonight who are not as easy as we are about weapons
that are being concealed within our country. People know about
them but apparently there is no legal way or legal effort to stop
it.
A mine is one of the easiest things to conceal and bring into
the country. Nothing could be easier to hide and bring into the
country than a small plastic mine. We know from fact that many
illegal guns are being smuggled into Canada every day.
I was on the plane with a chap from the city of Cornwall who
mentioned the illegal smuggling that takes place there. He
talked about it being the smuggling capital of Canada. I asked
if there were any chance that mines were being smuggled into
Canada? He answered: “Why not? They are bringing guns in. Why
wouldn't they be bring mines in?”
When the bill passes I would like the House of Commons to take a
moment to think about the build-up of weapons, the arsenal being
built up in Canada. Having spoken to police officers in
Saskatchewan and the man I met on the plane from Cornwall, maybe
we have a land mine that is ready to explode.
I am pleased by the great work that has been done in the House
by the minister and my colleagues. I am pleased to support the
motion. I hope all Canadians will look around them to ensure
these weapons of destruction and those who possess them will be
dealt with expediently and that we in Canada do not relive
anything that has been experienced by many parts of the world.
On behalf of my constituents I am pleased to say that I most
assuredly will support the bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased
to address Bill C-22.
Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois fully supports Bill C-22. On my own
behalf and on behalf of my fellow Bloc members, I want to congratulate
all the NGOs involved in this issue and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
for the successful conclusion of the Ottawa treaty.
Everyone is aware of the ravages caused by anti-personnel mines.
The Bloc Quebecois, which is always at the forefront when it comes to
world issues, warned the Liberal government a number of times in recent
years regarding the atrocities caused by anti-personnel mines.
As early as December 1995, the hon. member for Laval East rose
in this House to urge Canada to eliminate these weapons of
suffering, as she called them. In May 1996, the hon. member
for Repentigny strongly condemned the agreement reached at the
international conference on anti-personnel mines, then held in
Geneva, where the Canadian government signed that treaty. It will
be recalled that the agreement did not fully prohibit the use of
mines. On the contrary, it stated that future mines had to be
detectible or self-destructible. The hon. member for Repentigny
called the agreement “absurd” and he was absolutely right.
1900
But it is never too late to do the right thing. Everybody must be
delighted with this convention banning anti-personnel mines. And the
figures speak for themselves.
At $3 a piece, land mines are a cheap way of terrorizing one's
enemies. That is why, among other reasons, there are about 110 million
land mines scattered over more than 70 countries in the world. Five
million more are sold each year. Land mines create fear in countries
such as Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Somalia, Vietnam and many more.
In these developing countries where mines are often forgotten, they
prevent people from functioning normally. Because of mines, large tracts
of land become unusable and unworkable. Food supply and development
assistance are often a perilous enterprise for NGOs working in these
generally poor countries, which has the direct effect of making entire
communities even poorer. And this poverty becomes even more appalling
considering the inability of these countries to pay for wheelchairs or
even prostheses for the victims.
And what about children? The most precious gift that life has given
me is my two very healthy children. It is unthinkable but nonetheless
true that one quarter of the people treated for land mine injuries in
Red Cross centres in Afghanistan and Cambodia are children.
What is more normal for a child than to go to school? In Mozambique,
every day, at least one child is injured or killed by a land mine on his
way to school. This slaughter has to stop and fortunately we are on the
right track.
Since I became critic for international cooperation, I have been
better able to see and appreciate the remarkable work done by
non-governmental organizations. It is crucial to give credit to
the work done in this area by Jody Williams, the ICBL
coordinator. Originally made up of a handful of well-intentioned
activists and led by a very determined woman, it has become a
coalition of a thousand members. The work done by Mrs. Williams
and her associates was even recognized by the Nobel Prize
Committee, who presented her with the Nobel Peace Prize.
The campaign against land mines was launched at the end of 1991.
It brought together 11 organizations representing more than a 1,000 NGOs
from over 60 countries. These organizations shared a common purpose: to
ban anti-personnel mines.
Considered a utopian goal at first, the idea of a ban on
anti-personnel mines gained ground. With the support of hundreds
of NGOs, the ICBL was able to change the world agenda and to
bring many governments on side.
Following all these successful endeavours, the United Nations
General Assembly passed in 1996 a resolution asking its members to
actively pursue a ban on anti-personnel mines as soon as possible.
In October 1996, Canada took it upon itself to call all the
countries in favour of the ban to a strategic conference, under the
theme “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines”, in which 350
delegates from 75 countries took part.
As of January 1997, 50 countries had banned the use of
anti-personnel land mines; 15 countries had destroyed or started
to destroy their stockpiles; 30 countries had banned mines or at
least suspended their use; and 20 countries had announced they
had stopped producing them.
At the conclusion of what came to be known as the Ottawa
process, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs concluded the
conference with an invitation to governments to come to Ottawa in
December 1997 to sign a treaty to ban anti-personnel mines. That
is where we are now.
Needless to say, Canada has played a significant role in
bringing about the treaty banning the use of land mines.
As we have seen, the aim of the Ottawa process is to have an
international treaty banning the use, production, transfer and
stockpiling of anti-personnel mines negotiated and signed by
December 1997 at the latest.
1905
Without the initiative of the ICLM and Canada, this convention
might have been delayed by a few more years, thereby taking a
further and unacceptable toll in terms of human suffering and
lives.
Canada has been an international leader in this area. But it
must be watchful.
So, while the Ottawa process phase 1 is concluding, we must
now think of the Ottawa process phase 2. The convention's signing
in December does not mark the end of the process, quite the
contrary.
“Ottawa Round 2” will need to look at the on-site implementation of
the convention. Canada will need to ensure that the convention
becomes implemented universally as soon as possible, and that new
massive mine removal and victim assistance programs are adopted.
With “Ottawa Round 1” we were involved in theory, but “Round
2”
will be putting the theory into practice.
The most important work for Canada and the international
community will start on December 5, as soon as the convention has
been signed on December 2 through 4. Then the serious nature of
the convention will become evident.
There is a shadow over the event, however. Certain countries,
such as China, Russia and the USA, do not intend to sign the
Convention. It is not my intention here to pass judgment on these
non-signatories.
However, reports like the one by Human Rights Watch entitled “In
its own Words”, based on archival documents from the Pentagon, and
the one by Demilitarization for Democracy entitled “Exploding the
Landmines Myth in Korea” argue convincingly against the marginal
and often unproductive usefulness of land mines.
These reports even indicate that American land mines were one
of the main causes of American losses in the Vietnam war. Such
arguments, however, failed to convince the President of the United
States to change his mind.
It seems fairly clear to me that, under pressure from the
military lobby, the president decided not to sign the treaty.
Furthermore, he said he would not sign out of a concern for
protecting American troops stationed in the Korean peninsula. Like
everyone else, I watched the televised reports of the armed
conflict with Iraq in 1991.
In view of the high tech arsenal the United States have at their
disposal, how can the U.S. president claim that they need weapons as
primitive as land mines to defend American troops?
I believe the countries that have not signed the convention simply
lack the political will to do so. This is very regrettable. But I think
that international popular pressure will eventually bring these
countries around.
To conclude, I would like to remind the House that we may have
won a battle, but the war is far from over. We must remain
vigilant et join forces to make this world a better place, free
from the scourge of anti-personnel mines.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
your permission, I will share my time with the hon. parliamentary
secretary to the Prime Minister.
Every 22 minutes a person is killed or injured by a mine that goes
off. In very concrete terms, this means that since this morning—I
took my seat in this House at 11 a.m. and it is now approximately 7.10
p.m.—while I was taking part in this debate in this House some 25
people, mostly civilians and children, were killed or injured by mines.
Some mines are even specifically designed to attract children. Take
butterfly mines for instance.
1910
Many of my colleagues mentioned the social and environmental costs
of these mines. It is important to note that, in the final analysis,
there is no proof that the use of mines has ever made a difference in
any conflict. No conflict has ever been won through the use of mines.
I would like to read from a paper written by former US Foreign
Secretary Cyrus Vance. He wrote this:
[English]
“With international attention focused on negotiations to
destroy nuclear weapons and prevent a new nuclear arms race on
the Korean peninsula and in south Asia, some may think that land
mines, those tiny weapons that can fit in the palm of the hand,
are hardly a threat to world peace. In fact, while reducing the
threat of nuclear war must remain the first priority of
international arms control efforts, it is small weapons that are
killing and wounding far more people every day. The U.S.
Department of State has noted that land mines may be the most
toxic and widespread pollution facing mankind.
“We are convinced that nothing less than a total ban on the
production, possession, transfer and use of anti-personnel land
mines will move us closer to the goal of completely eliminating
this scourge. We believe the United States should take the lead
to achieve this goal”.
[Translation]
The United States did not take the lead, but Canada did and we must
be very proud of that. I would like to take a few moments to mention in
particular the efforts made by the Prime Minister, by the former
Minister of Foreign Affairs, André Ouellet, by the current Minister of
the Environment, and by the current Minister of Foreign Affairs who, as
we all know, strove to pursue the great Canadian tradition of
maintaining and promoting peace.
I would like to tell you briefly about my experience in Oslo. I was
there when the treaty was negotiated. I was accompanied by the hon.
member for Burlington and the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The Canadian negotiators enjoyed a high level of credibility over there.
These senior public servants from Foreign Affairs and National Defence
were a credit to Canada. All too often public servants are criticized.
But everyone should know how well they represented our country in Oslo.
As the treaty was being negotiated, NGOs held a conference. I
visited the exhibition set up by these NGOs, across from where the
negotiations were taking place. I was accompanied by a public servant.
He introduced me to someone from the Red Cross as a Canadian
parliamentarian. I do not know where she came from, but a young
Cambodian woman appeared in a wheelchair. She had lost her legs when she
stepped on a mine. She looked at me and said: “Well done,
Canada”.
That is an experience I am not about to forget. It is an
experience that makes one extraordinarily proud of this country.
On September 9, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke before
the conference of NGOs. I can tell you that the emotion in that
room when he finished speaking was absolutely remarkable.
What I would like to say to all Canadians is this: Be truly
proud of your political leaders. Be proud of this House, which is
going to unanimously support one of the greatest humanitarian
causes in recent decades.
As has been strongly emphasized, the Ottawa process is a large
alliance of civilian groups, NGOs, Jody Williams, whom I
congratulate, of course, and the organization she represents, as
well as the Red Cross.
1915
I would like to wrap up, if I may—it will take just a few
seconds—by launching an important appeal to Canadian youth.
When I took up politics, I was criticized for being idealistic. I
would like the young people of Canada to know that, scarcely one
year ago, everyone was sceptical about the Canadian initiative. In
a few days, over 100 countries will be here in Ottawa, either to
sign or to indicate their moral support for this treaty to prohibit
anti-personnel mines.
What I want to tell young people is that there is room for
idealism in politics. Today is proof of that.
And yes, as members of parliament, we can make a difference, but
only if we understand that a society is made up of elected
officials, of NGOs, of an entire population deciding to join
forces. That is the embodiment of what we are doing this evening.
I know that much remains to be done to bring peace to the
world, but I am immensely proud today to be taking a large step in
the right direction, in the company of all my colleagues and, in
fact, of the entire country.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I thank my colleague from
Brossard—LaPrairie for sharing the time with me.
I rise in the House in support of Bill C-22, an act to implement
the convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling,
production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their
destruction.
The member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is assured this House
will rise to the challenge. Indeed this bill also known as the
anti-personnel mines convention implementation act is a defining
moment for the Canadian Parliament and therefore for the Canadian
people.
The bill when enacted will implement Canada's obligations under
the convention. It will put in place not only domestic laws
necessary to fulfil our convention obligations but also charter
of rights safeguards. It will provide Canadian courts with
greater ease of interpretation to facilitate prosecution of any
alleged violation.
May I at this juncture salute the government for this historic
initiative and in particular, the hon. Minister of Foreign
Affairs for his perseverance and persuasive prowess.
The minister of course has the full support of the government
caucus. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has pursued the
issue with great will and determination as well. May I remind the
House that the Prime Minister brought the subject matter to the
attention of leaders of eastern and western Europe in his recent
trip there a couple of weeks ago. Just a few days ago on the
occasion of the APEC forum in Vancouver, he again brought the
issue to the ears of President Clinton of the United States.
This government's commitment is resolute. Its determination to
succeed is unwavering and the government sees full success on the
horizon.
Already we see China which has agreed to extend a moratorium on
exports and will attend in December as an observer, marking
China's first ever attendance at a land mines conference. We see
the United States which has extended its moratorium, actively
seeking ways to replace the mines it now uses and has announced
new action on demining and victim assistance. We see Russia which
has committed to signing at the earliest possible date. These
are very laudable developments.
In two short weeks, Canada by hosting the Treaty Signing
Conference and Mine Action Forum, dubbed the Ottawa Process 1,
will show to the world Canada's diligent stance on seeing the
insanity of anti-personnel land mines is ended.
As Canadians we have reason to be proud that our country has
taken a leadership role in an issue that has climaxed to
international heights because it is an issue that touches the
soul of humanity.
1920
I am proud to inform the House that in my province of Manitoba,
NGOs such as the Council for Canadians with Disabilities, the
Centre for Disability Studies and Disabled People's International
have assisted other disabled people's organizations in countries
around the world in acquiring the advocacy skills needed to press
governments and communities for support of the issue. The efforts
of a global movement have been made possible as NGOs, experts and
officials come together to address the vast dimensions of the
problem.
Truly we cannot forget the real tragedy of land mine victims,
the incomprehensible loss of innocent children and youth, the
victims for whom we are to speak. It is the young people of today
who will continue the anti-land mine legacy of our present
generation if they are to see a future without deadly armaments
of war that inflict harm and kill more civilians than military
targets, that killed more than lives claimed by nuclear and
chemical weapons combined.
Addressing the Canadian Conference on Humanitarian Demining and
Landmine Victim Assistance held in Winnipeg on January 31 this
year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said: “We are making a
difference. We must continue to work together, taking full
advantage of the momentum we have generated in Canada to help the
world rid itself of these intolerable weapons”.
We in Parliament and through us, our constituents can be part of
that difference. As the Prime Minister said recently: “We have
worked with others of like-minded beliefs and showed doubters
that Canada can make a real difference as a force for good in the
world—. The job has been well started, but it will not end until
we persuade even more countries to sign on. And we will keep
working until the last moment and then beyond”.
Beyond the Ottawa Process 1 so we can gather the necessary
minimum number of ratifications, 40, that will allow the full
force of the convention binding in international law. Beyond, so
that we can help ensure a future if not totally free of war, at
least free of the unnecessary loss of civilian lives, free of
amputated limbs, blind eyes, scarred bodies, emotional shock, and
preventable human sufferings due to anti-personnel land mines.
In conclusion, this bill is a historic one and calls on all of
us to play a historic role. I am pleased that we in Parliament
on behalf of all Canadians can rise to the call with resolute
confidence.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a privilege to speak on this very special day on a special bill
which will produce an act to implement the convention on the
prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of
anti-personnel mines and on their destruction.
The bill relates to the implementation of Canada's obligations
under the international treaty on the prohibition of the use,
stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and
on their destruction. This binds Canada to co-operate in a number
of ways so as to facilitate the implementation of the treaty and
to ensure that persons refrain from engaging in activities
prohibited under the treaty.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to split my time with the hon. member
for Kitchener—Waterloo.
Each nation under the treaty undertakes to destroy or ensure the
destruction of all stockpiled anti-personnel mines it owns or
possesses or that are under its jurisdiction or control as soon
as possible but no later than four years after entry into force
of the treaty.
This is the act which is a necessary step to allow us to lead
the world in signing a treaty which will ban land mines
worldwide.
Once again in the tradition of Mike Pearson in this House,
Canada is leading the world in true peacekeeping. It has been a
long road to get to this point and there is still a way to go.
But today I must confess I am much more optimistic than I was
only a couple of years ago. I am not a pessimistic person by
nature.
I know there is a more or less effective world ban on chemical
and biological weapons but my hopes for a land mines ban were not
high only a couple of years ago.
1925
As recently as April 1996 as a part of Canada's delegation to
the Inter-Parliamentary Union which was led by Senator Peter
Bosa, we were unable to have this issue accepted as the principal
agenda item, although we were able to speak to it and move it up
for future agendas of IPU meetings.
In that same year I recall a meeting on Parliament Hill
sponsored by Mines Action Canada, the Canadian Red Cross and
Bruce Coburn, under the auspices of the member for Brant, now
Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. Despite Bruce Coburn's
presence, attendance was sparse. In my pessimism I
underestimated the influence of the grassroots here in Canada and
around the world.
Ever since I was elected, I have received a steady flow of calls
and letters about land mines. Whenever I visit schools, high
schools or elementary, I get questions about land mines. Various
groups in Peterborough have taken a continuing interest in this
matter. Only yesterday in church, people were discussing the
massive task of demining which is still ahead of us. For
example, one person suggested planting trees as areas are cleared
of mines. The grassroots interest has been there and is still
there.
This groundswell of interest was Peterborough's share of what
our Minister of Foreign Affairs described in his speech in the
conference in Oslo. He described the worldwide interest among
ordinary people as “a coalition of civil society and committed
governments coalescing around the movement to ban anti-personnel
land mines, a coalition that has had the power to change the
dynamics and direction of the international agenda”.
In that same speech our Minister of Foreign Affairs paid special
attention to the role of non-governmental organizations, NGOs, in
the process. I have mentioned Mines Action Canada and our own
Red Cross. He mentioned as examples the International Campaign
to Ban Land Mines and the international committee of the Red
Cross. He went on to say, and again I quote from the speech in
Oslo: “Clearly, now no one can relegate NGOs back to a simple
advisory or advocacy role in this process. They are now part of
the way decisions have to be made. They have been the voice
saying that governments belong to the people and must respond to
the people's hopes, demands and ideals”.
This is a change in itself, a recognition of the proper
relationship between people and their governments. The role of
the people and their NGOs is an ongoing one in this land mines
ban. It does not stop here. Again, I quote the Minister of
Foreign Affairs in Oslo: “There is a question of the watch dog
role for civil society”—that is to say the grassroots—“in
evaluating the compliance of states to the obligations they have
signed. Canada, the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines, and
the international committee of the Red Cross and several of our
core partners have consistently argued that a humanitarian treaty
without traditional forms of arms control verification can be an
effective response to the anti-personnel mines crisis. This
implies that civil society”—the grassroots—“can and will play
an effective role in deterring and detecting wilful
non-compliance”.
This change in people to government relationships goes even
beyond this important anti-mines treaty. In my view, it gives us
hope for moving the nations of the world toward lasting peace.
1930
My last quotation from the speech of our Minister of Foreign
Affairs in Oslo is that we need to ask ourselves whether we can
maintain and build upon the close and constructive working
relationship that has developed between governments and civil
society through the Ottawa process, this process of producing
this treaty which we are proud to call the Ottawa process.
He goes on and asks whether we can maintain and build upon the
incredible sense of political momentum that this unique
relationship helped to create, offering hope to millions that an
integrated and effective international response to the global
land mines crisis is years and not decades away.
Can we demonstrate that the Ottawa process offers an effective
lasting model as a response to the changing nature of
international conflict?
I would say that the only answer to all of those questions is
yes, we can and must build on this wonderful example of
grassroots action.
In conclusion, like my colleagues and all members of the House,
I congratulate and sincerely thank all those who have brought us
to this day. I pledge my support for this bill, for the treaty
and for all the follow-up activity that is required.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every once in a while an event transpires in this House
that galvanizes all the parties and all the members to move in
one direction. It is one of those days today.
On this issue, we have been united. The issue is land mines,
banning land mines, dismantling land mines and trying to make our
world a bit more sane. I am very proud to be a member of
Parliament, to be part of this Chamber at this time. I think all
Canadians should be proud for the role that we are playing.
Forty years ago on February 28, my family and myself left
Hungary and went to the Austrian frontier. As we went across the
border at night, we were conscious of the fact that we were going
through land mines.
I say this because the reality of having to deal with the evil
of land mines affects many people on this planet. There are many
people who are Canadians who have experience with this. I can
say that walking through a field which should not be an
extraordinary exercise can be a very terrifying one.
At the time I was 10 years old, my brother was 12 and my sister
was three. My parents were in their mid-thirties. Land mines
were used to keep people out but so often land mines were used in
Iron Curtain countries to keep people in.
The terror of that night is something that has never left me. It
was a year ago this past September that I had the experience of
being an observer for the elections in Bosnia-Hercegovina. In an
area that had a population of four million people, they had six
million land mines.
1935
When I was in Mostar, I was on a bridge over the Neretva River
which divides East Mostar from West Mostar. On one side we have
Muslims and on the other side we have Croatians. This is a very
beautiful river. After seeing it, one wants to walk down to it.
If you had your fishing rod you would want to try fishing. It is
a very beautiful and scenic site. The reality was that you could
not walk down to that river because any place you walked in
Bosnia-Hercegovina you had to be always mindful that there were
six million unmarked land mines.
We have to ask what kind of experience we have in terms of an
individual who has to live in those kinds of conditions where the
simplest pleasure of walking in the woods can be a tragic and
terrifying event.
I reflect back to all the graveyards that had those fresh
flowers from people who were victims of that terrible war and to
know there were six million land mines waiting to go off long
after the conflict was over, perhaps blowing somebody up as they
were trying to rebuild their war-torn home or killing a farmer
who is working in the fields or maybe killing a child playing in
the fields.
I am incredibly proud to be in this Chamber. It was back in
1956-57 when Canadians under Lester B. Pearson invented
peacekeeping in order to deal with the problem of Suez. We
certainly are continuing in that tradition with the initiative
before us today.
In lending support to what the previous speaker from
Peterborough said to a grassroots movement, we are recognizing
that the insanity of land mines and the insanity of war that
maims hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of people, is
something that we must stop and work against.
When we reflect upon the demographics in Canada and why we are
the way we are as a nation, peacekeepers striving to make this
planet a better place and, in many cases, representing a beacon
of hope in a troubled world where we can bring people together
from all corners of the world, we have one-sixth of the people in
Canada who were not born in Canada, but it helps us to understand
why we as Canadians so very much want to play a role to make this
world a better place. It does not matter where there is a
conflict on this planet, we have Canadians who came from that
part of the world with relatives and friends in their homeland
who are hurting and suffering.
Yes, I am incredibly proud as I think we all should be at what
is taking place here today and the role that we have played in
making the banning of land mines a reality in the not too distant
future.
I can only commend all my colleagues for the kind of unity they
have shown on this issue.
1940
I would certainly single out the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the Prime Minister for pushing with such great vigour in the
political arena on the international front the whole cause of
banning and ridding this planet of land mines.
It is only proper that the Nobel Prize recipient, Jody Williams,
was someone who spearheaded the non governmental organizations in
the battle against land mines. I also reflect back to my home
community where so many people have worked on this issue,
particularly the Mennonite Central Committee.
As we push this ahead, we know that we have Canadians with us. I
think we can indeed be proud of the mission which we have
undertaken and the difference we are going to make.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I start to speak on Bill C-22 I want to thank the
Chair, the Table Officers, the staff and the pages for staying so
late today on this important debate. All of us as members
greatly appreciate your efforts.
This is the perhaps the last speech tonight. I want to say what
an honour it has been to spend the day in the House listening to
all the interventions by members from all party lines and showing
a degree of co-operation we rarely ever see in this House.
We have by-passed the usual entrenched inefficiency of the House
of Commons for once and managed to co-operate on an issue that
one would find very difficult to disagree with. Once again I
would like to add my name to the work that has been done by so
many members of the Canadian public, the international community,
the non governmental organizations and members of Parliament who
sat in this House in the years gone by, and who sit in this House
today. I would particularly like to thank members of the Reform
Party for supporting this initiative as eloquently as they have
and as all members from the House have.
It is a shame that it took such an issue to bring us all
together. I hope that in the future we will able to perceive
collectively other foreign policy initiatives which will be for
the betterment of all people in this country and around the
world.
Bill C-22 will save lives. As has been mentioned before, over
30,000 people are maimed by land mines, most of whom are innocent
men, women and children. In my experience in dealing with land
mine victims, you only have to look in the eyes of somebody who
is on the operating room table, a young person who tried to seek
out and find a better place to live. Look into their eyes and
watch the fear they have as they peer down to see the lower part
of their body blown away.
As we amputated the legs of individuals who have stepped on land
mines, I could not help but reflect on the tragic circumstances
those persons now face, a life which is so different from what
they had before. They went in a brief second, in the click and
the blink of an eye, from being a productive, healthy member of
society to one that will occupy the lowest socioeconomic rung in
countries racked by civil war.
These devices do not affect rich countries like ours. They
affect the poorest nations of the world from Angola to Cambodia,
from Somalia to Egypt, from Rwanda to the former Yugoslavia.
These land mines create a terrible toll, not only in human terms
but also in economies laid to waste. This bill will go a long
way to preventing that carnage from occurring.
Let us look beyond land mines. Let us look to life beyond land
mines and see what the future holds for us. There is life after
land mines. What we can do now is reflect on the Ottawa process
and use and redirect that unusual co-operation between members of
the non governmental organizations and governance working
together for a common goal.
This cannot be left to wither away. It must be acted upon,
nurtured, and redirected to address other security issues facing
us all.
1945
As we look to the 21st century and the challenges facing us as a
nation as well as other nations around the world, we cannot help
but reflect on the fact that we have failed in our foreign
policy.
The biggest challenge is conflict. Land mines are an important
part of conflict, but in the big picture they are a small part.
We must look at conflict in a broader context and search for more
constructive solutions.
We can reflect on the Bosnian conflict. The signs were
continually there. We were continually told that the former
Yugoslavia would tear apart and explode in a level of bloodshed
that Europe had not seen since World War II. We the nations of
the world sat on our hands and wept. We engaged at best in
diplomatic initiatives and at worst in hand-wringing inefficiency
when we did nothing at all.
The result was the deaths of thousands upon thousands of
innocent civilians, the rapes of thousands of innocent women and
the deaths of thousands of children. It was potentially an
avoidable tragedy. Certainly many of those lives could have been
saved.
We were repeatedly told for months on end that a massive
slaughter was imminent in the great lakes region of Africa.
Major-General Roméo Dallaire repeatedly warned right to the end
that thousands of people would be slaughtered. What did we do?
Virtually nothing. Today genocide will raise its ugly head once
again in the great lakes region and again we are doing nothing.
We have it within our power to use the Ottawa process to address
these significant problems. Canada is a nation state uniquely
poised to change foreign policy from an era of conflict
management to an era of conflict prevention.
Here are some constructive solutions. There are a number of
nation states of medium power which are neutral, relatively
affluent, have extraordinary diplomatic power and, above all
else, have international respect. Norway, New Zealand,
Australia, Austria, South Africa and Canada are some of these
nations. The world is looking for a leader to bring these nation
states together to form a nucleus upon which we can start to
bring other countries together to change international foreign
policy. We have to rethink the way we deal with each other as
nation states.
The big powers, the security council members such as the United
States, France, Germany, England, Russia and China, cannot do
this because they have their own political baggage and are not as
widely respected as the middle powers. We then can play an
unusual role in working with the NGO community to address the
problem.
First, we must set up an early warning monitoring system to
address conflict. That early warning system could be the NGO
community that would form part of the nucleus of the Ottawa
process. NGOs are often the first to witness the precursors to
conflict, to witness the breakdown of judicial and governmental
structures, and to witness the persecution of minorities and the
trampling of basic human rights.
Their input into a central region, for example the UN crisis
centre in New York, would be a logical place for this information
to be gathered. It could then be dealt with by the United
Nations as a whole.
We are now dealing with UN reform, which involves revamping the
security council and removing veto powers from its members. Again
that is something with which we as a nation and the international
community will have to deal.
1950
The solutions involve the setting up of a monitoring system and
the setting up of an area to receive information, the UN crisis
centre. A series of responses could be put forth, responses such
as diplomatic initiatives, peace building initiatives, the
introduction of positive propaganda into areas that are breaking
apart to bring belligerents together, the introduction of more
punitive measures such as sanctions, where appropriate, and the
use of international financial institutions as economic tools and
levers to try to take away the fuel of war, which is money. Money
drives wars. The international financial institutions give a
great deal of money to a number of countries of the world, some
of which are in conflict.
It is exceedingly important to pursue this issue. These are not
just words. If we fail to address it we will see an explosion of
ethnic conflict.
Between 1945 and 1985 there were roughly six UN peacekeeping
missions that cost about $2.3 billion or 23% of the UN budget.
Since 1985 to now the UN spends 77% of its budget on peacekeeping
initiatives. That is more than twice as much as it spends on
everything else added together. It has driven the United Nations
into bankruptcy. This then is not a situation that can be
sustained.
Why should Canadians be interested in this issue at all? It is
for the simple reason that what happens half a world away comes
home to roost sooner or later. When conflict occurs and
countries explode into an orgy of bloodshed and economies are
laid to waste, the responsibility for setting that up and dealing
with that goes to the international community.
We incur costs in our defence budgets, our peacekeeping budgets,
our aid budgets and economic reconstruction, and our social
programs domestically when refugees, tragic souls, fleeing their
homelands come to other countries looking for a haven. They come
to our country looking for safe haven and because we signed the
UN charter on refugees we are obliged to take them in, which we
do. It costs us roughly $75,000 per refugee to integrate them
into Canadian society. This is a lot of money. It contributes
to the already weakened system we have in our social programs.
I am not blaming refugees by any stretch of the imagination but
merely illustrating that in these days of economic hardship and
of governments not having any money we cannot afford having
increased costs placed upon us, not to mention the danger our
peacekeepers and our aid workers incur when they go abroad.
A number of peacekeepers have been killed or maimed by land
mines and working abroad in danger zones. Does it not make more
sense for us to prevent these situations from occurring rather
than pick up the pieces later on?
Furthermore once a war breaks out the seeds of ethnic discontent
and future conflicts are sewn forever. One need not look any
further than at the situation in Bosnia to see that country will
not remain as it is in the future. It is artificially maintained
right now through force. Unless we are prepared as an
international community to stay in Bosnia for the next 75 years,
nothing will change. Once we move, if we move before that, the
country will break apart in a violent shudder. It is important
for us to realize that and to initiate efforts to ensure these
situations do not occur again.
Not only can the Ottawa process be applied to international
military security issues. It can also be applied to the other
problems that affect us from environmental issues to economic
issues. We already apply many of the principles to our economic
multilateral initiatives through the NAFTA, FTA, WTO and now the
MAI. All these things are examples of the international
community trying to work together to resolve differences.
In closing, I would like to say how proud I am to be a Reformer
today, how proud I am to be a parliamentarian, and how proud I am
to be a Canadian. Canadians and Canada have set a new standard
of co-operation in the House and internationally to pursue
objectives to help those who are most helpless, to save lives and
to make our world a better place.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you and thank the House for its
time. I hope that this will not be the end of initiatives that
will involve co-operation between members of the House to pursue
a better Canadian society for all.
1955
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last September my wife and I joined with my brothers and
my sister for a family reunion and holiday in France. We
gathered at a farm in Normandy from which we visited the sites
and beaches that World War II has made part of world history
today.
Two of my brothers served in uniform during the war but the rest
of us were in school. Yet the place names, the events of World
War II which cast such a huge shadow on the world then, were a
vivid part of our consciousness and of our lives as young people.
Whether it is through the awesome silence of Utah Beach, Omaha
Beach or Juno Beach where our own Canadian troops landed or
whether it is the stunning sight of massive concrete bunkers and
gun emplacements left by the Germans, the whole historic
coastline tells a story of the savagery, the utter futility and
the great sadness of war and armaments.
It is difficult for anyone to visit Bayeux, Caen, Ste. Mère
L'Église or Arromanches and not be terribly moved by the huge
human cost of warfare and armaments. Each corner echoes the
screams of human beings fighting in a deadly war. Thousands upon
thousands of lives were literally torn apart by weapons of
destruction.
Whether it be bullets or mortar shells, whether it be ocean
mines or land mines, weapons of war and destruction know no mercy
for their only raison d'être is to maim and destroy. As we
visited war graves to pay our respects we were terribly struck by
the immensity of the sacrifice. Young adults of 20 years or 25
years of age or sometimes still in their teens had been mowed to
death because of one man's folly and pride. Millions of people,
in fact tens of millions if we count the huge human losses
suffered by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, were sacrificed at
the altar of war and weapons of destruction.
[Translation]
I can easily imagine a young Canadian—maybe he was from Quebec
of from Manitoba, maybe he was from Vancouver or Toronto or Cape Breton
—landing on Juno beach under an infernal shower of explosions. What
courage one must have to advance when each step may be the last, when
each cannonball, each bullet, each mine becomes an instrument of death
that is always more lethal and more destructive than the previous one.
Have we learned our lesson about the futility of war and weapons?
Have we learned the lesson taught to us by the thousands of people
around the world who have made the ultimate sacrifice, we who are so
lucky not to have suffered the same fate?
Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands or even millions of innocent
victims continue to pay the price of futile wars and weapons of
destruction. Whether yesterday in Mozambique or in Angola, whether
yesterday in Bosnia, whether today in Lebanon or in Algeria, just to
name these countries, how many innocent people, how many hundreds of
thousands of innocent people have endured and continue to endure these
atrocious wars when all they want is to live in peace and tranquillity
with their family and in their community.
2000
[English]
I am immensely grateful that our country should be a land of
peace and conciliation, shunning war and shunning armaments as
means of settling disputes.
I am deeply thankful for my own children and their children that
our country should be so deeply ingrained in the tradition of
democracy and peace.
I salute our foreign minister and all those who worked so hard
on his initiative to achieve a land mine treaty. I thank him for
having led our country toward the tangible expression and
achievement of peace in a world which too often and too readily
turns to hostilities and weapons of destruction to settle
disputes.
May this rapid and amazing success which greeted the Canadian
initiative open the way for future international disarmament
initiatives. May the land mine treaty be such a powerful symbol
of the emerging century that it should lead us to a new world
order where peaceful resolution of conflicts replaces the
futility, the savagery and the immense human cost of war and
weapons of destruction.
In closing, I would like to quote from a poem by one of our
colleagues, the member for Cochrane—Superior, in a book of poems
that he gave me recently called Semences. I think it tells
the reason why we are all together on this initiative.
[Translation]
Where the children shriek
Between bursts of machine gun fire
Mothers protect their bosoms
That give the sweet milk of life
Soldiers trample under foot
A usurped land
In the silence of occupation
Where the deaf can hear
Speak to me of love.
I, a child,
Have no revolver, no tank
I do not understand
I can no longer play war
Yet the grownups
Play it so nicely.
I am a child
Let me weep
And I will grow up tough
Let me laugh now while I can
For I will not have the time for it
When I am a grownup.
[English]
Indeed, the land mine treaty is a legacy for the children of the
world, that they may behave differently from their elders,
ourselves, and learn to live in peace, in real and lasting peace
and harmony.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the member's sharing his time with me. I
know the lateness of the hour but I am really honoured to stand
and to speak on behalf of my constituents of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
Many of them have been watching the debate most of the day and I
have had several calls of support and calls of congratulations to
the men and women on both sides of this House today who stood
unified, who stood together to ensure and to speak to the passage
of Bill C-22, the anti-personnel mines convention implementation
act, an act to ban the use, stockpiling and transfer of
anti-personnel mines.
I am also pleased to hear not only the eloquent speeches but
also the congratulatory notes and the recognition of the work
that has been done by all.
2005
On December 3 and 4 the world will be watching Canada, not only
Canada but the 89 or more countries that will be here to sign
this anti-personnel mines convention. I too commend the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, the United Nations Mine Action Centre and
other non-governmental organizations, Jody Williams and those who
have received the Nobel prize with her, those who have worked
tirelessly in making the signing of the land mines convention in
Ottawa on December 3, 1997 a reality.
Canada's efforts in ridding the world of these deadly weapons is
a testament to our humanitarianism as a country, as a nation, and
of the strong tradition in which Canadian foreign policy is
modelled. As a nation we are admired for our deep compassion for
others less fortunate than ourselves and this is amplified in
this treaty.
I was one of the group from the foreign affairs and defence
standing committees who went to the former Yugoslavia, a country
that laden with land mines. I saw firsthand the devastation to
lives that these weapons can do. It is estimated that there are
over 18,000 minefields in Bosnia. It has been predicted that it
could take over 70 years to clear the approximately three million
land mines, land mines left from the recent conflicts.
Needless to say, an estimated 25,000 civilians, many of them
children, are killed worldwide each year by land mines.
This convention is long overdue. I am proud that Canada has
taken the lead in the global community to rid this planet of
these horrible weapons. Bill C-22 is the beginning to global
awareness of land mines. Young and old suffer the emotional
fallout of being injured or have suffered the loss of a loved one
to land mines.
The signing of the convention is a starting point to bringing
greater awareness to this issue.
The Ottawa process provides an opportunity to build a greater
awareness. The Ottawa process is to pursue the international
community to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of
anti-personnel mines. We cannot forget that once this treaty is
signed by co-operating states, Canada's work is not over. Once
this convention is signed, Canada and the world must continue to
work together with nations that have not yet endorsed the
convention to do so.
We know that key countries such as the United States and China
have not endorsed the convention. I am disappointed, as I am
sure we all are. Their support could go a long way toward the
eradication of land mines from the globe. This is why Canada
must continue to vehemently work to put pressure on those nations
that are not signatories to the Ottawa treaty. It is our
obligation as a nation to make this world a safer place where
children will be free from the damages caused by these deadly
weapons.
I encourage young people in Canada today to look at this
tremendous feat with pride and as an example of the strong
political will that exists in this House. To all the victims of
land mines in the world, you have voiced your opinions about land
mines. You who know the hurt and the pain, you who know the
tragedy, we have heard you. Canada has heard.
I close by saying that I am very proud that we have demonstrated
leadership on this issue. Many thanks to our Minister of Foreign
Affairs, our Prime Minister and our NGOs for bringing the treaty
on anti-personnel land mines to fruition.
2010
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this
day, the question at the third reading stage of this bill is
deemed to have been put and agreed to unanimously.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read third time and passed)
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to pass on my congratulations
to all hon. members who intervened in the debate for their
excellent interventions.
[Translation]
It being 8.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.10 p.m.)