Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I respond to my colleague from Davenport.
At the United Nations on November 18, 1994 countries voted on a resolution which was presented before the UN disarmament committee. The resolution called for the International Court of Justice to rule on the question of the legality of the threat of use of nuclear weapons.
Canada abstained on the resolution and gave an explanation for its vote which made clear that while Canada endorses in principle the objective of the resolution, that is the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, it did not agree that this was the most effective means of achieving that goal.
The government has and continues to attach particular importance to international arms control and disarmament. We are working actively in international fora on such issues as START I and START II, the ongoing reduction talks, the extension of the non-proliferation treaty and and the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty.
Canada also vigorously supports international negotiations to prevent the transfer of nuclear weapons technology and materials, to reduce and eventually eliminate existing stocks and to ban the production of fissile materials.
Canada is concerned that some states may use the reference to the International Court of Justice as a means to prevent or delay decisions on these international initiatives on the basis that the larger issue of the legality of nuclear weapons was being dealt with in another forum.
We believe that the negotiation of and adherence to binding multilateral treaties is a more effective approach to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons than an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.
In addition, Canada was concerned that this resolution could place the International Court of Justice in a difficult situation. It is possible that the credibility of the court could be harmed if it were to rule that nuclear weapons were illegal and the permanent members of the UN Security Council who currently possess such weapons were forced to ignore it.
Finally the International Court of Justice already has before it the similar proposition following a reference to the court by the World Health Assembly. A second reference does not appear to be necessary.
The decision of the government to abstain on this matter in the company of only Norway among NATO countries, is an indication that we are prepared to accept different approaches to meeting the challenges at hand.
The resolution will be before the United Nations plenary on December 15, 1994 and Canada will abstain for the same reasons.