Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Algeria December 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Following on its condemnation of the rampant terrorism in Algeria, a delegation of European parliamentarians has announced its intention to travel there in order to assess the human rights situation and make recommendations.
How does the minister see Canada supporting this undertaking by the European parliamentarians?
Anti-Personnel Mines December 2nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, Canada is hosting a gathering of representatives from over 100 countries who will be signing the Ottawa treaty banning anti-personnel mines, and the Bloc Quebecois wishes to reiterate its support for this disarmament effort.
Bloc members also wish to acknowledge the commitment of non-government organizations and of individuals, especially Jody Williams, recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, who succeeded in convincing the majority of nations that action on this issue was urgently needed.
The Bloc has no doubt that the government's initiative represents a major step in the promotion of peace, even if some countries that manufacture and use land mines are still refusing to sign the treaty.
We urge the government to continue its efforts to bring the greatest number of countries to sign the treaty. In fact, we wish to assure the government that a sovereign Quebec will also sign the Ottawa treaty.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I must comment on what the hon. member said about distinct society because the concept of distinct society was diluted to such an extent in both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords that it was clear, very clear in fact—and that is what ministers and anyone who supported the Meech Lake accord at the time said—that this would not give Quebec any more power. This is one of the many reasons that led Quebeckers to vote against the Charlottetown accord.
If today we use a different terminology to describe a notion like the unique character of Quebec, the result will be the same, that is to say that Quebeckers will not accept any such proposals because they do not mean anything, they are just empty words that do not give Quebec any real power, when that is what Quebeckers want.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary defend two of the principles in the Calgary declaration. I cannot help thinking that many Quebeckers have already noticed that the notion of distinct society has lost its value after being ruled out through the rejection of the Meech Lake accord by Canadian public opinion, contrary to the claim of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who wanted to assign blame for the rejection of the accord to a number of individuals and institutions.
The notion was also rejected by Quebeckers and Canadians in their refusal to permit the government to amend the Constitution according to the provisions of the Charlottetown accord.
The notion of distinct society is therefore of little interest now, and it is to be replaced with a notion even less interesting in terms of its content and scope, because it will not be included in the Constitution and given interpretive effect.
I really doubt therefore that Quebeckers will accept this notion of unique character, especially since it is not accompanied by a reform in the distribution of powers as Quebeckers wanted. Recognizing Quebec only symbolically as a distinct society or a society with a unique character will never satisfy the longstanding claim.
I would therefore ask the parliamentary secretary whether, in his opinion, it is not necessary now to propose a major reform of the distribution of powers for constitutional reform to satisfy Quebeckers.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, first, on behalf of my colleagues who are present, I would like to congratulate the member for Calgary Southeast on the quality of his French. We are always grateful in hearing our Reform colleagues speaking French for their open-mindedness in doing so, and we will say this as often as need be.
However, this does not preclude our disagreeing fundamentally with the Reform Party's view of the future of Canada and the future of Quebec within it.
I have two questions for the member for Calgary Southeast. The first is fairly simple. Does the Reform Party agree with the content of the Calgary declaration? Second, does the party the member represents in the House wish the declaration changed to include reference to the Senate and Senate reform?
Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the first time I heard about the convention and anti-personnel mines was when I was having discussions with colleagues at the Université libre in Brussels. Professors and students in international law were calling for the elimination of these “instruments of death”, as they were already calling them at the beginning of this decade.
This is an issue that I became involved in, as did everyone who was calling for disarmament, everyone who was following, in Vienna and elsewhere, the conferences organized to bring the international community to abandon the instruments of death such as nuclear arms, smaller arms, mines of all types and especially anti-personnel mines.
However, I still had not seen personally what these instruments of death were until I went with my colleagues in this House to Bosnia-Hercegovina several weeks ago, where we were briefed on several occasions on these mines, on how they operate, on the way they kill and the way they endanger human life. It was a rather moving experience and one that showed how important it was to support the international community's objective of banning the production and use of these mines.
These facts helped me convince the members of our party, the Bloc Quebecois, to support the initiative of the Minister of External Affairs and to ensure that our party would give its support to the convention as it is outlined today in the Canadian legislation.
Increased awareness of this in Canada and abroad issue must not, however, lead us to forget that this convention is an unfinished creation and will undoubtedly remain so. The debate we witnessed today in this House reveals how much we live in a system where democracy has its failings when it comes to signing such a convention and implementing it in domestic law. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss each of these issues.
This convention will most likely be signed by over 100 countries on December 3 and 4. Apparently, some 120 countries will be in Ottawa to sign this convention. But there are 191 countries in the international community and at least 70 states will not be there, 70 states that have not yet committed to eliminating these mines.
And also the states who will be signing the convention will have to become parties to this convention and to ensure that their legislature or their government will ratify or endorse it. Among the states that are still hesitating to support this convention, there are three members of the Security Council, that is the United States, Russia and China, which are some of the most powerful nations in the world and which refuse to come to Ottawa or buy into the Ottawa process.
Therefore, this work is unfinished and it might remain unfinished. In that sense, the work accomplished by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is only beginning and the work of all those who supported him, including the work that is being done in this House, must continue. The Bloc Quebecois will support the initiatives taken to ensure that this convention will have an increasing impact on the international community.
However, the debate today helped illustrate how parliament and parliamentarians lack a proper voice, I would say an adequate voice, in the process by which treaties are adopted, the process by which treaties are developed and create obligations that are very important and that often entail legislation, as with this treaty, by which treaty obligations can be implemented.
We presented this afternoon an amendment which sought to determine to what extent the government was willing to commit itself to a democratization of the process by which treaties are concluded. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of External Affairs was speaking earlier of the democratization of external relations that had been witnessed by the international community with the adoption of this treaty, which involves not only governments but also non-government organizations, which of course work in partnership with international bodies. It is time to also democratize the process by which states participate in international negotiations and in the conclusion of international treaties.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore attempted to determine in what frame of mind the Minister of External Affairs was operating in this area, and it found out that this issue did not create as much interest as it should, although it will be raised when the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade meets. The Bloc Quebecois hopes that, at that time, there will be a real debate leading to important changes to the this process.
In this case, therefore, by the end of the day we will have a bill, one we have sought to enrich by constructive proposals aimed at improving the implementing legislation. This will be a bill for implementation of a convention with which the Bloc Quebecois is basically in agreement, a convention which will bind Canada, when it has signed and ratified the convention, and which will one day, I am sure, bind the sovereign Quebec so wished for by the Bloc Quebecois, in accordance with the requirements of international law which will be applicable when the State of Quebec state attains sovereignty.
In conclusion, this treaty and this act will be a source of pride for the international community next week. It is true that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has shared with his colleagues, and with those in this House, the glory involved in getting this convention signed, but it is the international community that will benefit from it. It is the men, women and children of the world who will be the main beneficiaries, for their basic rights, the most fundamental one being the right to life, will be better protected by this convention.
Humanity will be the beneficiary of this convention, a humanity composed of the men and women whom states and nations have a duty to protect at all times, including when treaties are signed. I would like to use the words of a great internationalist, one that Professor Jacques-Yvan Morin, an academic colleague of mine and a professor of international law known in political circles, having been a minister and deputy premier in Quebec, has a predilection for quoting. In fact, he quoted him in his 1994 course at the academy of international law. The quotationis from Bartholomé de Las Casas, the great internationalist, who said “ Todas las naciones son hombres ”.
Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Laval East.
Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act November 24th, 1997
Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
It is not really necessary to include the convention in a schedule, as some lawyers from the justice department told me, but I think it is worthwhile to include the convention in a piece of legislation so it becomes better known.
Earlier, the minister read in a very eloquent manner a treaty drafted by children, who hope to see included in the declaration their rights under the convention. Does the minister intend to publicize the text of the convention, on which all parties in this House agree and in which they put their hopes that the use of anti-personnel mines will be eliminated?
I want to know what measures the government intends to take to publicize the treaty.
Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act November 24th, 1997
Mr. Chairman, I believe it was on Thursday, late in the day, that I had the opportunity to meet with lawyers from the justice department. At the time, I was told that the bill had been reviewed by the authorities to make sure it complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am now rather surprised to see an amendment to ensure such consistency.
I am also a little curious as to whether the whole bill was reviewed to make sure it is consistent with the charter, and I wonder if the government could tell us when this review was conducted by the authorities?
Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer. I can see that the minister does not want to say too much at this point in time, but it would nevertheless be worthwhile to put this question to a vote to know where the various parties stand.
Accordingly, I do not intend to withdraw the proposed amendment, but I will, of course, submit the question to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as requested by the minister.