Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address Bill C-22.
Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois fully supports Bill C-22. On my own behalf and on behalf of my fellow Bloc members, I want to congratulate all the NGOs involved in this issue and the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the successful conclusion of the Ottawa treaty.
Everyone is aware of the ravages caused by anti-personnel mines. The Bloc Quebecois, which is always at the forefront when it comes to world issues, warned the Liberal government a number of times in recent years regarding the atrocities caused by anti-personnel mines.
As early as December 1995, the hon. member for Laval East rose in this House to urge Canada to eliminate these weapons of suffering, as she called them. In May 1996, the hon. member for Repentigny strongly condemned the agreement reached at the international conference on anti-personnel mines, then held in Geneva, where the Canadian government signed that treaty. It will be recalled that the agreement did not fully prohibit the use of mines. On the contrary, it stated that future mines had to be detectible or self-destructible. The hon. member for Repentigny called the agreement “absurd” and he was absolutely right.
But it is never too late to do the right thing. Everybody must be delighted with this convention banning anti-personnel mines. And the figures speak for themselves.
At $3 a piece, land mines are a cheap way of terrorizing one's enemies. That is why, among other reasons, there are about 110 million land mines scattered over more than 70 countries in the world. Five million more are sold each year. Land mines create fear in countries such as Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Somalia, Vietnam and many more.
In these developing countries where mines are often forgotten, they prevent people from functioning normally. Because of mines, large tracts of land become unusable and unworkable. Food supply and development assistance are often a perilous enterprise for NGOs working in these generally poor countries, which has the direct effect of making entire communities even poorer. And this poverty becomes even more appalling considering the inability of these countries to pay for wheelchairs or even prostheses for the victims.
And what about children? The most precious gift that life has given me is my two very healthy children. It is unthinkable but nonetheless true that one quarter of the people treated for land mine injuries in Red Cross centres in Afghanistan and Cambodia are children. What is more normal for a child than to go to school? In Mozambique, every day, at least one child is injured or killed by a land mine on his way to school. This slaughter has to stop and fortunately we are on the right track.
Since I became critic for international cooperation, I have been better able to see and appreciate the remarkable work done by non-governmental organizations. It is crucial to give credit to the work done in this area by Jody Williams, the ICBL coordinator. Originally made up of a handful of well-intentioned activists and led by a very determined woman, it has become a coalition of a thousand members. The work done by Mrs. Williams and her associates was even recognized by the Nobel Prize Committee, who presented her with the Nobel Peace Prize.
The campaign against land mines was launched at the end of 1991. It brought together 11 organizations representing more than a 1,000 NGOs from over 60 countries. These organizations shared a common purpose: to ban anti-personnel mines.
Considered a utopian goal at first, the idea of a ban on anti-personnel mines gained ground. With the support of hundreds of NGOs, the ICBL was able to change the world agenda and to bring many governments on side.
Following all these successful endeavours, the United Nations General Assembly passed in 1996 a resolution asking its members to actively pursue a ban on anti-personnel mines as soon as possible.
In October 1996, Canada took it upon itself to call all the countries in favour of the ban to a strategic conference, under the theme “Towards a Global Ban on Anti-Personnel Mines”, in which 350 delegates from 75 countries took part. As of January 1997, 50 countries had banned the use of anti-personnel land mines; 15 countries had destroyed or started to destroy their stockpiles; 30 countries had banned mines or at least suspended their use; and 20 countries had announced they had stopped producing them.
At the conclusion of what came to be known as the Ottawa process, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs concluded the conference with an invitation to governments to come to Ottawa in December 1997 to sign a treaty to ban anti-personnel mines. That is where we are now.
Needless to say, Canada has played a significant role in bringing about the treaty banning the use of land mines. As we have seen, the aim of the Ottawa process is to have an international treaty banning the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines negotiated and signed by December 1997 at the latest.
Without the initiative of the ICLM and Canada, this convention might have been delayed by a few more years, thereby taking a further and unacceptable toll in terms of human suffering and lives.
Canada has been an international leader in this area. But it must be watchful.
So, while the Ottawa process phase 1 is concluding, we must now think of the Ottawa process phase 2. The convention's signing in December does not mark the end of the process, quite the contrary. “Ottawa Round 2” will need to look at the on-site implementation of the convention. Canada will need to ensure that the convention becomes implemented universally as soon as possible, and that new massive mine removal and victim assistance programs are adopted. With “Ottawa Round 1” we were involved in theory, but “Round 2” will be putting the theory into practice.
The most important work for Canada and the international community will start on December 5, as soon as the convention has been signed on December 2 through 4. Then the serious nature of the convention will become evident.
There is a shadow over the event, however. Certain countries, such as China, Russia and the USA, do not intend to sign the Convention. It is not my intention here to pass judgment on these non-signatories. However, reports like the one by Human Rights Watch entitled “In its own Words”, based on archival documents from the Pentagon, and the one by Demilitarization for Democracy entitled “Exploding the Landmines Myth in Korea” argue convincingly against the marginal and often unproductive usefulness of land mines.
These reports even indicate that American land mines were one of the main causes of American losses in the Vietnam war. Such arguments, however, failed to convince the President of the United States to change his mind.
It seems fairly clear to me that, under pressure from the military lobby, the president decided not to sign the treaty. Furthermore, he said he would not sign out of a concern for protecting American troops stationed in the Korean peninsula. Like everyone else, I watched the televised reports of the armed conflict with Iraq in 1991. In view of the high tech arsenal the United States have at their disposal, how can the U.S. president claim that they need weapons as primitive as land mines to defend American troops?
I believe the countries that have not signed the convention simply lack the political will to do so. This is very regrettable. But I think that international popular pressure will eventually bring these countries around.
To conclude, I would like to remind the House that we may have won a battle, but the war is far from over. We must remain vigilant et join forces to make this world a better place, free from the scourge of anti-personnel mines.