Debates of Dec. 12th, 1994

Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not feel it is fair to say that I am an expert by any means. It is kind of the hon. member to say that I seem to have a lot of knowledge about this agreement but I think that is perhaps overstated.

However, it is fair to say that if I were living next to Boat Harbour which is filled with chlorines, dioxins and furans that I would certainly be considering moving or relocating, particularly if the problem were not solved quickly. One of the key things is what the province and other parties are doing which is working on solving the problem that is occurring.

With respect to the $9.725 million fund for relocation, as I understand it if there comes a point where there is a feeling that it is not going to be used, then the federal government and the band can come agree to change its use, but only in the case where both parties agree. Therefore, there is not a date per se but there is a provision that agreement is required from both parties in order to make that change.

I hope that answers the hon. member's questions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Prior to calling the question it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond-Blood supply system; the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans-MIL Davie Shipyard; the hon. member for Davenport-Nuclear weapons; the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt-Bosnia.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you sought it you would find unanimous consent to suspend the sitting until such time as you can organize for the adjournment debate or until 6.30, whichever comes first.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That is an excellent suggestion, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Therefore we will suspend the sitting until the call of the Chair or 6.30 p.m., whichever comes first.

(The sitting of the House suspended at 4.46 p.m.)

The House resumed at 5.12 p.m.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, as I did the minister last week, whether he can assure us that Canada will vote for a socially and environmentally responsible resolution that is going to come before the United Nations General Assembly.

The background to this resolution is as follows. It is a resolution that is asking the international court of justice for an opinion on whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons is ever justified.

When the vote came up in the first committee, as I understand it, Canada abstained. Tonight I want to tell the parliamentary secretary that I am ashamed of the fact that Canada decided to abstain from the vote, considering its fine, long and historical record particularly highlighted and developed over time by Prime Minister Pearson and followed in his footsteps by Prime Minister Trudeau. We have a tremendous reputation in the international community and we cannot abstain on such an important vote.

Let me also inform the House that in Canada there are about 100 national and regional groups supporting the resolution, including professional organizations such as Physicians for Global Survival, Lawyers for Social Responsibility, Project Ploughshares and the like.

In addition, city councils such as those in St. John's, Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria have passed motions in support of the resolution. This resolution was put forward at the United Nations by Indonesia on behalf of a large group of non-aligned nations. For the life of me I cannot understand why Canada cannot identify itself with non-aligned nations on a method that is related to nuclear arms and support this resolution to go to the International Court of Justice.

Surely our record is such that it should remove any doubt, any uncertainty and move us away from abstaining and vote in favour of this motion.

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to the reply of the parliamentary secretary.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

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.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 37(3) I rise to get a more in-depth answer to questions I posed to the Prime Minister on December 8.

At that time I asked the Prime Minister, now that Canadians had been released, if the government would align with France's position and use this opportunity to withdraw our troops.

I further asked the Prime Minister if the government wished to reassure Canadians now that the hostages were free by withdrawing our troops.

As we all know, this is a very serious situation. The answers we have been getting from the government have praised the work the Canadian troops have been doing in the former Yugoslavia. I concur with those statements. I agree that they are the best trained troops in the world. They were put in a very difficult situation and they have done a superb job under the conditions.

Looking at the events over the past few days it would do us all well to review exactly what has been happening in the former Yugoslavia.

UN forces have had to put up with being shot at, humiliated and harassed to support the UNPROFOR mission. We are rapidly approaching the point where because of the danger, humiliation and harassment, the UN forces can no longer accomplish their mandate.

A UN spokesman, Michael Williams, said that the events last week point to an "extremely disturbing pattern" of Serbs directly targeting UN forces. He cited a series of incidents. First, two Spanish soldiers were injured near Mostar when they came under Bosnian Serb shelling. Second, three days in a row unarmed Ukrainian and British UN military observers patrolling on foot were shot at in the eastern Muslim enclave of Gorazde which is encircled by the Serbs. Third, a Norwegian observation post near near Tuzla in northeast Bosnia was fired on with mortar rounds last Wednesday and earlier in the day a nearby Norwegian observation post was destroyed by Serb shelling.

The UN spokesman Michael Williams went on to say: "This sort of outrageous behaviour clearly will affect the sort of

reappraisal and reassessment of UNPROFOR, which is obviously going on in many nation capitals. I think there is a limit to what peacekeeping troops can be subjected to and forced to endure".

Over the past weekend, on Saturday, a Danish convoy of fuel tankers was hijacked reportedly by Bosnian Serbs and a French fuel convoy was turned back outside Sarajevo after it was refused entry. Two Dutch communication vehicles were hijacked along with their satellite equipment. The Serbs refused permission for the plane carrying the UN commander in Bosnia, British Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose, to land at the Sarajevo airport. That was just yesterday.

The Serbs have even said quite straightforwardly that they would no longer allow UN armoured personnel carriers to escort aid convoys through the 70 per cent of the country they control. Aid workers said that they could not work without UN protection.

All of this leads us down the road to ask the serious question: What are the UNPROFOR troops doing in Bosnia? The UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali said last week in Montreal that a decision to withdraw peacekeepers would have to be made by countries that sent them. In other words, Canada, France, Britain and Ukraine would have to decide themselves whether they would give up their sovereign right to protect their citizens who are sent to these war torn areas and that decision should not be made by someone else. Indeed, it has to be made by the country.

There are a couple of red herrings that I want to get out of the way because we have heard them several times. The first is the lifting of the arms embargo. What would that mean to the UNPROFOR mission? We have witnessed on television that heavy arms are throughout Bosnia at this point in time. In fact, newspaper reports are saying that 40 per cent of Bosnia is now covered with surface to air missiles. We have also seen that the troops are unable to move.

Regarding this arms embargo, the Prime Minister said that if the arms embargo is lifted, our troops will come out. It is indeed a fact that there are arms getting into Bosnia now. How effective then is the arms embargo? I would say that it is not effective at all at this point, with the exception of what is happening on the Adriatic Sea. Certainly there are arms getting into the Sarajevo airport and being distributed to the belligerent forces.

I have come to the end of my time. I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary maybe a little more on the question that I asked the Prime Minister regarding aligning with France's position and also some comments that would reassure the Canadian public that we are indeed moving to-

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I want to tell you this is a very serious subject as Christmas approaches and our peacekeepers are in a foreign land doing peace operations. I certainly respect the viewpoint of the hon. member.

I have to tell you, Madam Speaker and I am sure the hon. member would not mind sharing this with me that he along with the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo spent some time in ex-Yugoslavia.

We have some feeling for what we are all talking about. It may differ on all sides of the House. I will not get political about this. The hon. member talked about the peacekeepers and the arms embargo. I have a son who is in the arms embargo business. He is a combat systems engineer at HMCS Toronto . As the hon. member knows, he and I worked at Halifax on the Preserver . He wants to come home for Christmas. He understands why he is there.

I will say to the hon. member we met other people. I will not mention my constituents because that could be misconstrued. I will mention classmates of my son: Andrew Napper, Rob Stoney, Colin Blais, and Stephen Brown who met us at the aircraft that took us from Zagreb to Sarajevo. It was an interesting flight. We were not sure if we were going to make it. They understand why they are there.

I want to set the record straight. The hon. member on September 21 talked about the committee that we both served on, and I may say to his constituents he served honourably and well. I want to remind the hon. member of what he said. I am sure my hon. colleague will remember this. He said: "What makes this defence committee report so important? The committee spent months hearing testimony by Canadians from all walks of life. Hundreds of testimonies have been heard in the presentation".

This is what the hon. member signed his name to. As a committee we have stated clearly our conviction that Canada's interest and responsibilities extend beyond our borders. These are true matters in defence and security as in the economics sphere.

I do not want to throw this at the member. I know that he comes from a serious motivation. He did quote what France did. I am now quoting what he said as a member of a Canadian organization which was the first time in 60 years that Canadians have had their politicians go and ask the question of Canadians: "What do you want to do in defence?"

He would have to agree with me that they said: "You should continue to do what you are doing". We may have to change at some time but at this particular point in time our Prime Minister has said: "We believe that we should stay".

I am sure the hon. member, as most of our colleagues, would respect that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5.27 p.m.)