Daniel Turp

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

moved:

That Bill C-52, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 26 on page 6 with the following:

“rapport sur l'exécution du Traité par le”

Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Quebecois proposed this amendment, which would make a very minor change in the French version of the bill by replacing the word “observation” with the word “exécution”, which is more appropriate in French.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, while the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs is undertaking its review of a report on nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament, this House is being asked to implement one of the instruments resulting from the international community's efforts to take “effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”. I am quoting part of article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty was adopted on September 24, 1996 and has already been ratified by 21 states, as the Reform Party member must know—Canada is not among the first ones, since there are already 21 contracting parties. That treaty is one of the instruments created following the negotiations. The states that adhered to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons continue to negotiate in good faith and will hopefully achieve an ambitious objective that some feel is impossible to reach, namely the interdiction and even elimination of nuclear weapons.

The ratification of this treaty by Canada, and by other members of the international community, will be another step in that direction. Hopefully, the number of ratifications will multiply, so that we will reach the magic figure of 44 before having to convene a special session, under paragraph 14(2) of the treaty, to review the measures that could be taken under international law to speed up the ratification process and facilitate the coming into effect of the treaty at an early date.

The ratification of a treaty which seeks to continue the process begun with the Limited Test Ban Treaty—adopted on August 5, 1963, and to which Canada became a signatory on January 28, 1964—will be a major step in the quest for a planet that is at least exempt from nuclear testing if still not free of nuclear weapons .

A treaty such as the one that is the subject of the bill we are going to debate seems all the more necessary today—as the minister and the Reform Party member have reminded us—with countries such as India and Pakistan conducting nuclear tests that other nuclear power states have agreed from now on to abandon. These states include France and the United Kingdom, who made their commitment very clear by signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, as well as China, the United States and Russia, who also suggested they would no longer be conducting nuclear tests.

It is therefore appropriate, in the context of the present debate, to again appeal to India and Pakistan, as well as to Israel and South Korea, two other nuclear power states whose plans are still cause for concern, to heed the countless appeals already made to them and signal their intention to no longer conduct nuclear tests by adding their names to the list of nations that have already signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

Like the other signatories, these states would better serve the cause of international peace and security they have espoused by becoming members of the United Nations, and in respect of which they are bound to act under article 2 of the UN charter, by signing this treaty, which recognizes that the cessation of all kinds of nuclear explosions will help halt the development of improvements in nuclear weapons and end the development of new types of nuclear weapons.

By participating in the treaty's international monitoring system, which will provide a means of detecting, pinpointing and categorizing nuclear explosions, and which will also authorize on-site inspections for the purpose of determining whether suspicious events are in fact nuclear explosions, countries will help move humanity one step forward along the road towards nuclear disarmament. They will be helping to resolve a problem that originated with the use of energy in a manner contrary to humanity's interests, the misuse of a resource whose use for peaceful ends could and still can contribute to humanity's well-being and do us proud.

I am pleased to announce that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-52, subject to consideration of certain amendments to improve the implementing legislation. This bill to implement the treaty in accordance with section 3, appears to be essentially consistent with the treaty and its schedule as well as the related protocol. It is designed to give effect to the treaty within the Canadian legal system and it seems to us that it contains the necessary provisions to ensure obligations will be fulfilled in good faith, as required under the pacta sunt servanda rule set out in section 26 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties dealing with the comprehensive nuclear test ban.

Amendments might, however, improve this implementation legislation, and I will have the opportunity a little later at committee and report stage to justify the Bloc Quebecois' proposed changes to Bill C-52.

The Bloc Quebecois will propose amendments to improve the wording of the bill in French, to make the amendment process more democratic in the future and to ensure that the person designated to act as national authority is accountable to the minister and, through him, to this House, for his or her participation in the implementation of the treaty. This bill is similar to the law to which his or her Australian counterpart will be subject under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Act, 1998, which we have examined and which requires the Australian director to report to the minister and the minister to report to parliament.

As with other matters relating to foreign affairs, the Bloc Quebecois shares the values and convictions of the government party and the other parties here in this House. The values of peace and international security are at stake here, as well as the objective of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, which is to take the necessary steps to attain nuclear disarmament, That treaty, we will recall, was indefinitely extended in 1995.

The people of Quebec, whom our party represents here in the House of Commons, agree with this objective, and it is our duty to waste no time whatsoever in stating our agreement with any legislation relating to it.

I can also state before this House that the sovereign Quebec so fervently desired by my party will have absolutely no hesitation in continuing this international treaty and in ensuring its implementation, as Canada intends to do today, both internally and internationally.

While the government is today inviting us to be involved in an important milestone in the history of nuclear disarmament, we in the Bloc Quebecois are anxious to know if it will dare proceed further, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs led us to believe in the House this morning. Will it seek to take any innovative steps? Will it resist the temptation to stick with the nuclear status quo, or will it instead opt for taking a risk in connection with the nuclear challenge facing it, the international community and all of humankind?

The debate on non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament, which the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will begin on Thursday, will give us some insight into the real policies of Canada, a middle power, a sometimes ambitious player. The Minister of Foreign Affairs demonstrated this in the crusade for the elimination of land mines, which he is pursuing with remarkable vigour, at a time when the Vancouver incidents are casting their shadow over a foreign policy which seems to have allowed truly questionable goals to take precedence over the basic freedoms of Canadians, of the students in Vancouver.

In addition to shedding some light on the government's attitude, the standing committee's proceedings will provide an opportunity for my party, the Bloc Quebecois, to demonstrate its desire to build an international community that, sooner or later, will be free of nuclear weapons, free of the balance of terror and of the terror that balance brings, “a world slightly less dangerous”, as Jennie Rosenberg, a doctor in Godmanchester, a lovely little spot in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, put it in a letter she wrote me on September 16.

Ms. Rosenberg, like so many other people in Quebec, in Canada and elsewhere in the world, wants to live in a world where, as provided in article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the fiftieth anniversary of which we will be celebrating in just a few weeks, everyone is entitled to an international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the declaration can be fully realized, an order in which the quest for peace, a fragile commodity at any moment, will win out over the threat of nuclear war, an order in which intelligence, not arrogance, will carry the day.

[Kosovo, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, during the summer, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said he was exasperated by the international community's slow response to the inhuman situation in the Kosovo region. In a motion adopted last week, the House of Commons reiterated its consternation with regard to the atrocities inflicted upon the people of that region.

Can the minister tell the House now if Canada is ready to disregard Russia's objection and to take part in NATO's military strikes in the Kosovo region?

[Kosovo, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has expressed his sorrow at and concern over the situation in Kosovo, but is still banking on an American diplomatic mission and on discussions between his personal representative and President Milosevic, the very person who has caused negotiations to fail three times over the past six months.

Is it not time Canada called clearly for the use of armed force to put an end to the massacres, the exodus and the extermination of the Kosovar people?

[President Of South Africa, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in recognizing the official visit of the President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela.

On the eve of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are honoured by the presence of a true defender of human rights.

Nelson Mandela's actions, his very life, have marked not only Africa, but indeed the entire world. Through personal sacrifice, Mr. Mandela stands out as a true statesman and as a beloved and respected political leader. He will remain forever an example of a freedom fighter.

As others continue the fight for democracy, Mr. Mandela's exemplary tenacity should give cause for reflection to those who think that repression can silence people who, like President Mandela himself, embody the courageous battle for fundamental rights.

President Mandela, on behalf of the members of the Bloc Quebecois and of all the people of Quebec, I thank you.

[Great Britain, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to acknowledge the open mind of the British minister responsible for relations between Canada and Great Britain regarding Quebec's sovereignty.

Yesterday, in the Vancouver Sun , Ms. Liz Symons was reported as saying that, if Quebec says yes to sovereignty, it will be very important that a good relationship be maintained with Quebec.

Such an open-minded attitude on the part of a foreign government on a political issue as sensitive as the future of Quebec is in sharp contrast with the Canadian government ministers' pattern of behaviour with their Plan B. Clearly, this kind of open-mindedness was not brought back home at the same time as the Canadian Constitution.

Liberal ministers must now understand that more and more states will no doubt be as realistic and open-minded when Quebec achieves full sovereignty.

[Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to say that the Bloc Quebecois will support the motion by the member for Red Deer in which the member wants Parliament to play a greater role in the deployment of Canadian soldiers abroad.

The hon. member for Red Deer and I have, on a number of occasions, during the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed concern over the process used to send contingents of soldiers abroad to serve in peacekeeping operations under the aegis of the UN or NATO. We feel this process should be more democratic and involve elected representatives to a greater extent than in the past in the important decisions governments make and are asked to make increasingly.

The number of these missions is increasing significantly and requires today's armies, including the Canadian army, to play a major role in maintaining international peace and security.

I think the revolution mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is far from over. While it is true that, since 1993, there have been debates in this House and in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on the issue of sending troops abroad, they have been held either in this House or in committee.

Those debates have had little impact on public opinion. They include the recent debate on renewing the mandate of the Canadian forces within SFOR, in which the Minister of Foreign Affairs followed by his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, spoke to a nearly empty House.

It is time to complete this reform. I think the motion by the member for Red Deer today is very constructive in this regard.

The member added a few words of explanation concerning the new three-stage process he is proposing in his motion, which provides that members of this House be adequately informed of the issues and intentions of the government and of the defence and foreign affairs ministers; that a real debate take place between members of all parties in this House; and that this House may express an opinion, this question remaining a matter of prerogative.

I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who gave us a crash course of sorts on constitutional law, that this Parliament could change this prerogative. It could even abrogate it, if it wanted to.

One may argue that the motion put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer could have been broader. Indeed, if it so desired, this Parliament could pass legislation, as other countries have, to ensure that parliamentary approval is required before forces can be sent abroad and expenditures made in this respect.

I therefore believe that the proposal of the hon. member for Red Deer is one that meets democratic and transparency requirements, which are not currently met, although we must recognize that there has been more debate on the deployment of Canadian contingents abroad.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have repeatedly been asked to comment on the way decisions have been made or announced, and debates prepared, since Parliament reopened in September, to discuss the deployment of Canadian contingents.

I said in this House before that, in my opinion, such a practice is inconsistent, that it lacks consistency and uniformity. Perhaps this lack of consistency and uniformity is what the parliamentary secretary seeks to preserve in trying to maintain the flexibility that all too often appears to suit the government.

We are therefore in favour of this motion, which I feel makes a very useful contribution to the debate on the democratization of government foreign affairs decisions and important decisions such as those to send contingents abroad.

I would also like to add, since the parliamentary secretary referred to this earlier, that the debate must be broadened to include additional foreign policy issues. The parliamentary secretary implied that the House, through its Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, had been fairly closely associated with the debate over whether to approve the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

This involvement or association is still too minimal. The only reason the issue of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment came to the attention of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and its subcommittee was because there was a leak. The text of the MAI, or the draft agreement, was made public by a non-government organization that pointed out the problems that could ensue if Canada or other countries signed this agreement.

Here, too, and the Bloc Quebecois and your humble servant intend to follow up on this, it will probably be necessary at some point to introduce a motion or a private member's bill requiring the government to obtain the approval of the House before ratifying agreements, a trend that is surfacing in other countries and jurisdictions, such as Australia.

This trend toward involving Parliament in this will grow as the number and importance of international treaties, regulations and peace missions continue to increase.

What the hon. member for Red Deer is doing by tabling this motion is calling upon us to respond to a true democratic shortcoming, one which has the effect of giving the government in the parliamentary system with which we are familiar the power of common law, a power which has without a doubt become excessive, and which it must now give thought to sharing with the House of Commons, with elected representatives. These have the responsibility to be answerable to their fellow citizens for the government's leeway in setting Canada's foreign affairs policy.

When it comes to such vital questions as sending military contingents, the House must not only be consulted, it must also be increasingly integrated into the decision-making process. One day, without a doubt, it will want to take part in the process of deciding whether or not to send contingents.

In conclusion, then, in a world where there will be an increasing use of the armies, the military forces of nations, for maintaining international peace and security, it seems to me increasingly imperative for Parliament to be associated in such decisions as sending contingents abroad. The motion by the hon. member for Red Deer is, therefore, a most praiseworthy initiative, and one that deserves further refinement. It has the support of the Bloc Quebecois.

The hon. member for Red Deer can count on the support of the Bloc Quebecois MPs, and our parliamentary assistants, in further refining this proposal, and getting the government to share our conviction that it is in its best interest to share its responsibility with this Parliament.

[Kosovo, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the conflict in Kosovo is worsening daily.

After violently repressing demonstrations last March, the Serbian army is now engaged in heavy shelling, forcing tens of thousands into exile.

Since the economic sanctions and repeated warnings of the international community are not deterring Serbia, is the minister now in favour of stiffer measures, including sending combat forces to the region?

[Committees Of The House, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make, which is that the Bloc Quebecois would be totally in favour of this motion, particularly since, during the previous Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois introduced two motions in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in response to this request by the Hong Kong combatants and veterans for fair compensation.

The government opposed those two motions, or at least the first. Those motions afforded the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs the opportunity to hear some very moving testimony from the POWs themselves, or their survivors, who revealed all the details of the dreadful treatment accorded these prisoners, who were used as forced labour, and worked on airports and other things from which the Japanese and the Japanese government benefited.

What our party finds most distressing is the government's total lack of compassion and sympathy for these prisoners and their survivors. The government is hiding behind an international treaty, a peace agreement and legal opinions on this matter, which have never been presented to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, despite demands from opposition parties including our own.

It is hard to understand why the Government of Canada is unwilling to demonstrate the requisite generosity toward these prisoners, as it did toward other prisoners and veterans.

We feel that the government should follow up on the recommendation in the report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to pay each Hong Kong veteran fair compensation, particularly as this fair compensation has been estimated at about $23,000 per veteran and as there are only 200 to 400 of them left to receive it.

In conclusion, my question for my colleague in the Reform Party is this: Does he not think that this claim is justified and should be recognized, particularly as many other prisoners and veterans have had their right to fair compensation recognized?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I simply want to comment on my colleague's efforts and stress how much Bloc Quebecois members appreciate his work regarding this issue and last week's very conclusive results.

It is important that we pursue the fight to achieve greater fairness and a better distribution of wealth in Canada and in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is particularly concerned about the plight of young people, since one in four can no longer get the support needed to ensure his or her future and return to the workforce.

In light of this, my question to the hon. member has to do with young people. I would like to know to what degree young people are penalized by this reform and how—since this is the object of our efforts—we could improve their fate by overhauling this employment insurance reform?