Daniel Turp

[Middle East, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

While American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is trying her level best to save the Middle East peace process, by receiving the Israeli Prime Minister at the last minute, a demonstration to commemorate the Nakba deteriorated into a confrontation between the Palestinians and the Israeli army.

Given the real difficulties in ensuring that the Oslo agreements are complied with, what steps does the Government of Canada intend to take to ensure that Israel meets its obligations under the Oslo agreements?

[Nuclear Testing, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we shall see whether the government is interested in very concrete actions.

Is Canada giving thought to officially opposing India's candidacy for a seat on the UN Security Council, since that country is demanding a permanent seat as part of the institutional reform currently underway at the UN?

[Nuclear Testing, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Canada's attitude toward the use of nuclear testing as an instrument of intimidation in a regional conflict is pretty weak, considering the important issues raised by the irresponsible attitude of the Indian government.

Above and beyond the intentions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister to raise the question at the G-8 summit, does Canada intend to show leadership in this conflict by immediately calling for a meeting of the UN Security Council?

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for Kamloops, regarding recognition of veterans of the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion.

I, too, like the member for Châteauguay, would like to see the Canadian government finally recognize members of this battalion as full-fledged veterans.

Despite the battle they waged against fascism, a battle that now seems avant-garde, these soldiers of freedom are still not yet recognized as real veterans.

Canada also took part in the fight against fascism in Europe, a few years after the Mac-Paps fought in Spain, and I therefore think that it is necessary, imperative really, that the Mac-Paps be recognized as real freedom fighters.

The devotion of these men and women was complete and it was primarily governments that waged an all-out battle against fascism in Europe. Some 1,300 Canadians joined about 10,000 French, 3,000 Americans, and Czechs, Yugoslavs and British citizens for the sole purpose of stopping fascism in its tracks in Madrid.

Today we know that these freedom fighters were too thin on the ground and did not have the back-up they needed, because not long after their return to Canada, all of Europe was battling fascism, and did so until the bitter end.

The fascists, having triumphed in Spain and already wielding power in Germany and Italy, set their sights on all of Europe, bolstered by their victory over the international brigades and the Spanish republicans.

The international brigades, including the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion, fought bravely on the front lines and we must recognize the nobility of their contribution.

I must remind this House that the Spanish civil war was not like any other war past or future. All wars are unique, iniquitous actually. However, this one marked in a most particular way the involvement of civilians in an armed political conflict, in spite of the inaction of their government, in fact in spite of its orders to the contrary. They were labourers, teachers, journalists, and intellectuals, who left their occupations behind in order to engage in a battle for the defence of freedom.

The Spanish civil war is far more than a mere civil conflict, a simple internal matter within Spain, as the governments of the day claimed it was. This conflict will remain the symbol of the commitment of men and women from all over the world to safeguarding freedom.

The legacy of that civil war is precisely that international commitment to preserve freedom. There were few professional soldiers in the ranks of the Spanish republican forces; most were people who believed in freedom and were prepared to sacrifice themselves to preserve it.

The Spanish civil war is also and perhaps particularly so the commitment by intellectuals to the very essence of a political conflict. It was first the Spanish intellectuals who refused to give in to the military coup. The Frederico Garcia Lorcas, the Pablo Picassos and the Joan Miros fought for liberty. Ernest Hemingway, André Malraux and George Orwell traded pen for gun.

Was the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion not also led by someone who lived by the pen rather than the gun? What else but the simple belief that our most precious possession needed defending at all cost would cause Edward-Cecil Smith to leave his paper in favour of the trenches?

It was the ardent defenders of freedom who went to fight alongside the Spanish whose government, the government they had just freely chosen, had been toppled by the military. It was these people whose courage, convictions and determination tested the mettle of the Condor legion sent especially by Hitler in support of the new strong men of Europe and the weapons and military tactics that would soon rout all the armies of Europe.

It was these defenders of liberty who understood long before governments the stakes involved in this little war, the stakes involved for the future of Europe and for the protection of freedom. This is the commitment to freedom we are being asked to recognize by giving the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion the status of veterans.

Canada must act now, before it is too late to do so. Is Canada, with the United States, not on the short list of countries refusing to recognize the involvement of their citizens in this war? The list may be short, but in my opinion there are still too many names on it—Canada's in particular.

Some oppose this motion for reasons of cost or potential administrative problems. Others because they fear it might encourage our fellow citizens to become involved in any sort of conflict. We must not forget our history and we must remember that, as parliamentarians, we make decisions that soon will come under the scrutiny of historians.

Let us therefore assume our responsibilities and recognize the great valour in the commitment of the members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.

[Israeli People, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to extend its best wishes to the people of Israel on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel.

After centuries of statelessness and victimization at the hands of tyrants, the most ghastly instance of which was the Holocaust, the Israelis have seen the fulfillment of their dream, a dream shared by many peoples, to live in their own country,

The legitimate dream of living in one's own country has too often been overshadowed by wars and conflict which endure to this day. The signature of the Oslo accords created real hope among the international community and opened the door to negotiations which might encourage lasting peace in the region.

Today, the peace is still fragile and we hope the numerous efforts invested in democracy and lasting peace in the Middle East will soon bear fruit.

The May 1999 deadline on the question of the definitive status of the occupied territories and the Gaza Strip is coming up fast. We are hoping for an agreement on this matter, so that all—

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have no comment.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, for getting me involved in the debate on Bill C-27, which is aimed at implementing the United Nations Fisheries Agreement and thus ensuring that Canada can ratify this convention by bringing its internal legislation in line with the convention.

I would, moreover, like to start by mentioning the worthwhile contribution of one of my friends in negotiating that convention. Paul Fauteux, who has been at the Department of External Affairs for some years, was one of the key negotiators for Canada when the convention was being negotiated under the auspices of the UN.

My comments will focus on two matters that need to be raised during the debate at second reading of this bill and could also be the subject of more thorough debate when it is examined in committee. I will also address the international aspects of the bill and the convention it implements.

The first question I wish to raise today in the House is the connection between this bill and the prior bill, C-29, passed in 1995, which also amended the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, authorized Canada to extend its jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile fishing zone, and allowed it to board ships in order to ensure compliance where straddling stocks were concerned.

It must be kept in mind that, at that time, the debate addressed whether or not these new legislative powers were legal according to international law. The Government of Canada, and the Bloc Quebecois was in agreement, considered such measures licit. Consequently, the bill gave the government jurisdiction, power that had not previously been accorded in international treaties, which the United Nations fishing agreement has just rectified.

However, debate continues, because a case is pending before the International Court of Justice, that of the Estai , which raises the question of the compliance of the 1995 legislation with international law in both extraterritorial and penal terms, since this legislation provided for the boarding of vessels, something that will be permitted in future under the treaty adopted by the United Nations.

The question remains, however. What is Canada's attitude to countries that are or are not signatories to the UN fisheries agreement? Will Canada keep its legislation? Will it want to apply legislation to countries that have not sighed the UN fisheries agreement or will it simply ensure that the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as amended by Bill C-26, remains the only law to apply in the matter?

This question is all the more important because it could influence the International Court of Justice's understanding of the matter before it and in the light of the arguments adduced, if it considers it has jurisdiction in the matter.

Another question needs to be asked and answered. Will Canada, which, in 1995, made the bill conditional on its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, want to go another route and remove this condition so that the International Court of Justice could have jurisdiction on these matters, which had been outside its jurisdiction?

In my opinion, these questions warrant reflection and have not, up to now, been thoroughly debated, but should be, and, I hope, will be in committee. This also raises the general issue of the value, under international law, of unilateral legal documents drafted by states. In the past, Canada has at times insisted on drafting such documents, including for the Arctic, on the grounds that while certain unilateral documents may not necessarily comply with international law, they should be drafted to promote changes to it.

There is unquestionably a degree of success here, and we will not criticize a party for drafting unilateral documents that do not necessarily comply with international law, when this is done to ensure that the law will adjust to facts that are real and material.

The second issue of an international nature which I want to raise in this debate has to do with the powers that the governor in council would have to adopt delegated legislation and adapt regulations to implement the provisions of other international fisheries agreements or treaties to which Canada is a party.

I am referring in particular to clause 3(2) of the bill, which amends sections 6( e ) and 6( f ) of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. It seems that this clause will give the governor in council what is probably an excessive power under common law, to the extent that he can exercise this power without any involvement of the House of Commons, Parliament or parliamentary committees regarding the implementation of international treaties.

We should certainly take a close look at this provision, to ensure that the implementation of international treaties is not even further removed from the control of democratic and parliamentary institutions which, in our opinion, already do not have the powers they should have.

I therefore urge that this provision, and the issue of the role of the House of Commons and of Parliament generally in implementing, and even signing, treaties be examined as part of the debate on this bill.

Other issues can certainly be addressed in committee. I would like to assist my colleague, the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, and will be at the committee's disposal to look at ways of improving this implementing legislation so that the UN fisheries agreement is incorporated into domestic law in accordance with the international obligations that will arise from Canada's ratification.

Canada played an important role in negotiating this convention. It is regrettable that only now, in April 1998, is this issue finally being debated in the House of Commons, since the idea of introducing and passing implementing legislation for the purpose of ratifying the UN fisheries agreement had already been mentioned in the February 1996 throne speech.

I would hope, as would my party, that the government will be more diligent in these matters and move much more quickly than in this instance to introduce a bill in the House of Commons for the purpose of implementing international treaties.

[Petitions, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of over 5,000 residents of the town of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, I have the honour to present a petition asking Parliament to regulate the passage of trains on tracks around Salaberry-de-Valleyfield to ensure greater safety for cars, pedestrians and children, who are at considerable risk when trains run through town.

[Bosnia, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak this evening on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to the motion regarding the renewal of the NATO stabilization force in Bosnia.

I also have the pleasure of informing the House at the start of my presentation that the Bloc Quebecois will support this motion and therefore the intention of the Government of Canada to renew the force's participation in the SFOR past June 20, 1998.

The renewal proposal follows an initial renewal of the mandate of the Canadian forces in Bosnia in November and December last year. The initial renewal had the support of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Standing Committee on National Defence. Several members of these committees, including myself, had the opportunity to travel to Bosnia-Hercegovina to view the situation there.

We saw during our visit the fragility, indeed the precariousness, of the peace process, which involves not only military personnel of NATO member countries and the OSCE Partnership for Peace countries, but also civilian and police personnel from many countries in the international community, we must not forget.

The events that occurred barely a few days ago, on April 24, 1998, prove this fragility. In northern Bosnia, in the municipalities of Derventa and Drvar, tensions between Serbs and Croats resulted in outbursts of violence, exchanges and altercations between people of various nationalities in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Canadian soldiers were called in to put a stop to the confrontation in Drvar after Bosnian Croats set fire to buildings and attacked United Nations' vehicles in response to threats made to the life of a Croat bishop elsewhere in the country.

The continued presence of the international community is needed to provide this safe environment referred to in the motion before this House. It is especially important to maintain this safe environment since it is necessary for the reconstruction and reconciliation efforts at the heart of the Dayton accords to finally pay off.

By its presence, the SFOR will help ensure the safety of ongoing civilian activities and particularly the social and economic reconstruction operations identified in the three-year plan, as established by the World Bank and the European Community, operations in which mine clearance instructors from the Department of National Defence of Canada are taking part.

It is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois that the civilian activities aimed at consolidating democracy, which are placed under the auspices of the OSCE, promoting human rights and providing assistance to the great many refugees and displaced people in Bosnia-Hercegovina, could not take place without the continued presence of the SFOR. This is a force which also tends to create a climate in which other international players in Bosnia-Hercegovina can carry out their activities safely. All these players—the international police force set up by the UN Security Council, the ICRC, UNICEF, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the many NGOs such as CARE Canada which does important work in support of Bosnians—perfectly complete the work done by intergovernmental organizations in Bosnia.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the renewal of the SFOR mandate in Bosnia-Hercegovina should be accompanied by increased support for the International Crime Tribunal, a more significant support for this international court, which is playing a fundamental role with regards to the aftermath of the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We believe that SFOR soldiers, including Canadian soldiers whose dedication I salute, should be given the mandate to play a more proactive role in this respect and not hesitate to arrest individuals charged with crimes and against whom the chief prosecutor, Madam Justice Louise Arbour, has issued arrest warrants.

The timid attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada in this matter, which is the result of some comments he made, without mentioning those from his government, which by the way has not yet introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code with a view to ensuring Canada's full co-operation with the International Crime Tribunal, is unacceptable.

The Bloc Quebecois urges the government to make amends and support more that it has so far the efforts of the tribunal to bring to justice the individuals suspected of the worst crimes, international crimes, whether they are war crimes, crimes against humanity or worst of all, the crime of genocide.

It is timely to remember, with respect to genocide, that this year, in 1998, we will be celebrating not only the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also the 50th anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that was breached by individuals in Bosnia-Hercegovina, as the International Crime tribunal will show, if it can bring to justice the individuals charged with such crimes.

The renewal of the SFOR mandate is also important, especially as it will send a message to those in the Balkans who might be tempted to again threaten international peace and security in the area.

I am referring to tensions in the Kosovo area, tensions that are aggravated by the refusal by the Republic of Yugoslavia to enter into a meaningful dialogue with Albanians from the Kosovo area and to respond to the mediation proposal made by the international community. These tensions do not favour the withdrawal of SFOR's troops from Bosnia. On the contrary, they favour their continued presence.

The international community should consider the possibility of creating a similar force in the Kosovo area if the situation continues to deteriorate in this part of the Balkans. Last week, fighting in the region resulted in at least 23 deaths, and border tensions are increasing.

Today, SFOR's presence is more needed than ever, just as sending a protection force into Bosnia-Hercegovina was necessary a few years ago, when the UN created UNPROFOR, which was replaced by IFOR, the predecessor of SFOR, the mandate of which we want to renew today.

At that time, some people criticized Canada for having waited too long before taking action. Canada cannot repeat today the mistake it made by not taking action and by not leading the international community to take action decisively and quickly. It cannot choose the same ambivalent approach.

In closing, I also want to say how disappointed I am to see this debate taking place in the House when so very few people are present. I think an issue such as this deserves more attention. Not only should the issues of creating and setting up stabilization or peacekeeping forces be looked at seriously by the standing committee on foreign affairs, as was done in other cases involving the creation or renewal of peacekeeping forces, but it remains essential, despite the absence of members this evening, that this issue also be debated in the House.

We should probably give serious thought to legislating the creation and renewal of peacekeeping forces and requiring that Parliament be consulted and give an opinion binding on the government.

The practice in recent years seems to be lacking in uniformity. Since I joined the House on June 2, I have noticed that the issue of renewing forces is sometimes studied in committee, and sometimes by the House in plenary. There does not seem to be any real criterion behind the decision by Parliament or one of its committees to approve the renewal or creation of such forces.

No doubt we should follow the example of certain countries that accord Parliament a much greater role in the renewal and the creation of such forces.

I think this issue warrants greater study since the members of the opposition lacked important information in preparing their position. The government did not deign to provide information on the real mandate it wanted to give the Canadian forces or on other terms of Canada's participation in the SFOR, which it wanted to renew.

Without real information, the opposition parties are not able to formulate positions that are as valuable as they might be to the government in making its decision.

I would like to stress that the importance of renewing this force is related primarily to the issue of maintaining and consolidating the existing but fragile peace.

I would like to quote a friend, someone I met on my trip to Sarajevo in Bosnia, a young Quebec woman who is serving as the deputy ombudsman for Bosnia-Hercegovina and who introduced me to a magnificent work I recommend you read. It is the story of a young child who contemplates and analyzes through the eyes of a child the effect of the war on the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina. In looking at the war and trying to understand it, the child thinks primarily of the stars on the sidewalks of Sarajevo. There are many such stars in the Sarajevo market, among other places, where the many shells fell killing so many people in one night of catastrophe for Sarajevo.

Céline Auclair, my friend, wrote me at the start of this year, January 19, 1998, and referred me to this work by a young Frenchman, Mr. Lecomte. It is a very moving work and both she and I found it overpowering. I quote her “Every time I see a star on the sidewalks of Sarajevo I smile and catch myself dreaming. Much better than before, when I stepped over the scars left by the shelling, aware that I was in the shadow of death”.

The shadow of death no longer hovers so closely over Bosnia-Hercegovina. The SFOR's mandate must be renewed to keep it away from this country.

[Burma, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in order to increase pressure on Burma's illegal and illegitimate government, is the minister prepared to organize a mission of Canadian parliamentarians, as recommended to him by the group Les Amis de la Birmanie?