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.
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.
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.