Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 26, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-22, to implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, met this day at 3:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator John B. Stewart (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the Senate has given second reading to Bill C-22 and has referred that bill for consideration to this committee. This afternoon we have with us from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Honourable Minister Lloyd Axworthy. With him are Ms Beverly Chomyn and Mr. Eric Walsh.
I invite the minister to proceed with his comments.
The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs: Mr. Chairman, I would begin by thanking honourable senators for the quick manner in which this bill is passing through this house. It is important that we have the opportunity to address this before the conference which takes place next week.
Beginning on December 3, the convention to ban anti-personnel mines will be signed by some 100-plus nations in Ottawa. The treaty itself has established a new norm even before it has been formally signed and implemented. This is the first time in the history of disarmament that we have banned a weapon in common from widespread use.
The importance of this legislation is that it provides us as Canadians with the opportunity not only to sign the treaty but to ratify it at the same time. The crucial next step in the progress of the anti-personnel mine initiative is to have a minimum of 40 nations ratify it so that it can be deposited at the United Nations as binding international law. In order for Canadians to continue in this role of developing broad-scale international cooperation and involvement, we should have this historic and significant ratification at the same time as the signing of the convention.
I will share with members of the committee a bit of background. The movement to ban anti-personnel mines really has its roots in a number of initiatives taken primarily by victims of land-mines. War veterans and former armed forces members have taken on the issue along with a number of international NGOs and the International Red Cross, all of whom came together about seven or eight years ago to begin promulgating the fact that the mines themselves no longer carried much military utility and that 80 to 90 per cent of the victims were now civilians.
If I may, I should like to recount a personal experience. I visited a health centre in the southern part of Lebanon last week where young children are being treated for injuries sustained in mine accidents. It was quite a sight to see these young children who had picked up mines which were designed as toys, as trucks or cars or airplanes. One 12-year-old girl had picked up a toy to give it as a gift to her younger brother. The heat from her hand through the plastic generated an explosion which maimed her for life. That story illustrates, in a vivid and dramatic way, the fact that most of the people who are injured by land-mines are civilian victims.
With that in mind, a number of countries, Canada included, began to move towards various forms of restraint or a moratorium on mines, but it did not seem to be an outlet in which the international community would come together. The conference on disarmament in Geneva did not appear ready to act on this. As you know, that conference is a consensus body and therefore action is very slow.
We convened a meeting here in Ottawa last October at which there was participation by a number of countries who had already taken some steps on the land-mine issue and by some the international NGOs. It was clear to us then that we needed to provide a new diplomatic channel. We then invited countries to come to Ottawa one year later to sign a treaty.
I think I can say the results have been way beyond anyone's expectations. As I indicated, about 130 countries will actually attend the conference. Over 100 have already committed to sign. A number are coming as observers, but even those countries who said they cannot sign are coming because part of the role of the conference will be not just to sign the treaty but to engage in active discussion on what to do after the treaty. There is the question of how we get mines out of the ground. There are 110 million land-mines -- deadly killers -- in about 40 countries around the world. How do we get rid of them? How do we help the victims? How do we help the countries to redevelop?
We will use the Ottawa conference as a way of launching an Ottawa II Process, which is to mobilize resources, to get commitments of money and time, and to coordinate those facets so we can tackle the huge problems of de-mining and victim assistance around the world.
When I was in the Middle East, I found that certain countries were not prepared to sign. However, Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Syria have all indicated they will come to the conference simply to be part of the discussion as to where we go next. That is a positive sign.
I think we have been able to provide very helpful leadership, the kind of thing that a global middle power such as Canada can do. We can provide a certain niche of activities to help mobilize the rest of the international community. Next week will be an important step towards that goal.
In the world of international diplomacy, symbols and messages are often the currency in which we deal. The opportunity for us not only to sign the treaty but to have the Prime Minister turn over a ratified treaty to the Secretary General at that time will be a very powerful signal indeed. I think it will provide the catalyst for many other countries to speed up this process.
As an aside, I know many members of this committee are acting on various parliamentary associations. In those meetings over the next year or two, I hope that Canadian parliamentarians will take an active role in encouraging their counterparts to ratify the treaty, because the next step is parliamentary. We move from the diplomatic, which is the signing, to the parliamentary, which is to have the treaty ratified. That is the process we started today.
The first thing Bill C-22 does is write into our law the requirements of the treaty, which are to ban the acquisition, production, exportation, or stockpiling of anti-personnel mines. All these actions then become contrary to Canadian law.
The bill would require the destruction of all anti-personnel mines. By the way, three or four weeks ago, Canada destroyed the last of its mines. We are allowed about 1,200 land-mines for the purposes of training and handling. Our armed forces, which have become expert in de-mining activities, will still have a small cache of mines simply for training purposes so they can help to show other countries -- Cambodia being a good example -- how to proceed.
The bill also outlines the verification measures required to make sure there is compliance with the treaty.
Bill C-22 also criminalizes in Canadian law certain activities prohibited under the convention.
To aid senators, we have appended a text of the convention to the bill so you can see how the relationship between the two is integral.
The bill has provisions for a number of very specific events or cases. We had to make provision in the legislation for a fact-finding mission to come to Canada to allow investigations of charges of non-compliance. We wanted to be very careful that any inspection activity be consonant with the Charter. That is why we introduced into the bill a requirement that any act to ensure compliance would be done through a court, not simply by ministerial action. We would request a court to make those decisions so that it would be done properly and appropriately and would respect the Charter.
We have also provided a tighter definition of anti-personnel mines in the legislation. That is meant to provide Canadian courts with greater ease of interpretation. We have made the convention definition even tighter than it is in our old legislation so the courts will not have any ambiguities.
There are exemptions for properly deactivated mines for museums, displays or veterans' souvenirs. To give you an example, this morning, my 12-year-old son was taking to his grade 7 class his science project, which is on land-mines, and I was able to obtain for him a couple of totally deactivated mines. It is a good example of how this issue has become quite fascinating for many of our young people.
As you know, last week in Toronto I attended the meeting of a wonderful group of school children from Ancaster who presented me with a children's treaty on land-mines. We had a quite a dialogue. I showed them a couple of land-mines that I always carry around with me for handy purposes.
There is also an important exemption for Canadian Forces personnel or peace officers who temporarily possess anti-personnel mines in the context of their duties -- for example, when they are delivering them for destruction purposes. If they apprehend the mines, they must have the right to handle them.
We have been able to give the legal basis for ensuring that Canada can remain mine-free for all time. I think that is an important statement to make. Internationally, it reinforces our commitment to the ban and maintains our strong leadership role.
That is the purpose of the legislation. It is one that I commend. I again appreciate the way in which the Senate has taken this on in a very rapid fashion. My colleague Ms Chomyn, who is from the Department of Justice, can answer all the legal questions. Mr. Walsh is from the Department of Foreign Affairs and can answer all the technical questions.
The Chairman: Perhaps I could ask a couple of minor procedural questions.
As I understand, the bill will go forward for royal assent and thus become law. Then you will ratify the convention. Ratification is an act of the executive government. It is not a parliamentary act. You would not ratify until you were sure Parliament had given you the legislative competence to fulfil the terms of ratification.
Mr. Axworthy: That is correct. Under the ratification process, we have to deposit with the United Nations the fact that we have now lived up to all the requirements of the act. If Parliament is able to provide that authority to us by the end of this week, we would hope that the Prime Minister, when he meets the Secretary General -- who, by the way, is coming to the conference -- could then give the actual instruments of ratification to the Secretary General at that time.
I notice that Mr. Lysyshyn has now arrived. He is the Director General of International Security at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He is in charge of these matters.
The Chairman: I notice that you said -- and, of course, it is in the document -- that there is a schedule to the bill that embodies the convention. Is it your intention that the schedule shall be carried and thus become part of the law of Canada?
Mr. Axworthy: Yes, that would be the intention. That is the way the House handled it. It would be an integral part of the law itself.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Minister, I want to congratulate you on this quite extraordinary effort at statecraft. To do what you have done in the period of time in which you have done it and thus, in effect, to put pressure on those nations that have not come on board is an absolutely remarkable act of statecraft.
Having said that, we are senators. By dint of coming here today, we have broken a traditional rule, which is not to review a matter before it has been reviewed by the other House. You will forgive me if I raise some issues of fundamental concern. I do not wish to denigrate in any way your efforts, because I sincerely believe that this is a remarkable tribute to you, to the Prime Minister, to the cabinet and obviously to Canada.
Having said that, I wish to start with the treaty. In effect, the treaty states "never". Article 1 states:
Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances:
(a) to use anti-personnel mines;
I am cognizant of the fact that a higher proportion of injured victims are citizens. However, do you envisage any circumstance in the future where, in order to protect or defend our liberties or our territory, we would engage in what St Augustine called a "just war" and it would be in Canada's interest to use these weapons?
Mr. Axworthy: No.
I should like to elaborate on the answer. Canada has not used land-mines since the Korean War. Basically, we see their utility as part of an arsenal not to be applied.
There was a fairly major study done by a series of military experts, including former active military officers, who made the very clear declaration that anti-personnel land-mines no longer have any military utility. Further, they say that their effectiveness is to be questioned.
If you look at General Schwartzkopf's comments or assessments, you will see that more people were killed in de-mining operations in the Gulf than were killed on the allied side in the Gulf War itself.
Senator Grafstein: Let me take this one step in a different direction but from the same point.
Recently, I examined studies about modern armies in the 21st century. One of the current theses put forward is that what the Americans would like to see happen is increased fire power put in the hands of individual soldiers. There are still those who believe that there is intelligence on the ground and, with mobile fire power, hand-held missiles and intelligence devices, there is a role in the wars that we anticipate, but which we would not like to have in the 21st century, in which individual soldiers will be enhanced in terms of fire power, surveillance, surveillance evasion and so on. In envisaging that scenario, has the Department of National Defence raised any issues with respect to the possibility of utilizing anti-personnel mines? I am not suggesting that I support this view.
Mr. Axworthy: The anti-personnel mine does not enhance the fire power of the individual soldier on the ground. In fact, the case can be made that it diminishes it, simply because the land-mine itself is not operated by that individual. Part of the argument we have been using against the American claim regarding the use of mines in the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea is that there are better ways to provide deterrence.
The one thing that is very different is that once a conflict is over, soldiers, tanks and all the other armaments leave. However, land-mines stay.
I would commend to senators a book entitled Aftermath. It contains a series of analyses as to what happens after wars are over. One thing that struck me is that France, some 75 years after the First World War, is still actively engaged in demining. They have 2,000 people a year engaged in de-mining some 16 million hectares of the most valuable fertile land in France which is still unusable because of the munitions coming out of the first and second world wars. That shows what a destructive piece of work it is.
Senator Grafstein: I would like to turn, minister, to the definition of "anti-personnel mine" found in Article 2. I commend your draftsman because this is quite well-drafted. This definition makes a distinction between anti-personnel mines and other mines. This is not really a prohibition of mines; it is a prohibition of anti-personnel mines. The treaty defines anti-personnel mines, in part, as follows:
Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person...
The distinction is made that mines will be available for machines containing people but not against people. That is the distinction.
The reason I raise that is that again the current thinking is to mobilize individual soldiers and platoon levels to increase their fire power, which they can do in a mobile way, and to use them, in effect, as a super handful of fire power concentrated on one hand. They will all have vehicles. I hear the distinction, but could you just give me some elaboration as to the distinction?
I first thought when I began to study this that this was a prohibition against mines. I cannot see the distinction in my own mind between an anti-personnel mine and a mine that will hit a jeep containing personnel.
Mr. Axworthy: The treaty does not cover what are generally called "anti-tank mines". I understand the distinction you are trying to make. There was no consensus on anti-tank mines. You would probably get a stronger case among the military that they still have utility.
The anti-personnel mine is detonated primarily by the weight of an individual. Mine detonation takes place usually on the ground. Fragment mines, or some of the other ones I just talked about, such as the butterfly mines, have to be activated by the capacity of an individual.
An anti-tank mine is detonated by the weight of a heavy vehicle. That is still considered to be of military utility and there was no consensus on it. That is why the distinction is there.
Anti-tank mines are usually much easier to detect. They are usually larger. They have a higher metal content. They do not have the same kind of hidden destructive capacity as do the anti-personnel mines.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Mr. Axworthy, I wish to congratulate you, your officials and all those who have worked on this project for many years. I know there is an endless list of them. You must be happy that next week will be a major turning point. However, there is still a long way to go.
Canada is setting the example by asking Parliament to pass the enabling legislation so we will be able to tell the world that we are serious in our intentions, as was shown a couple of weeks ago when you and the Prime Minister attended more than a symbolic ceremony, blowing up whatever mines were left.
I am also happy that you mentioned that the Charter was taken into consideration in this piece of legislation.
Too often in the past we have seen government legislation which bypassed, if not ignored, the Charter. We should note the fact that under this legislation warrants must be issued to enter other than a dwelling house and that a dwelling house cannot be visited other than by consent. I hope that when legislation affecting individuals comes along, this standard will be met and that further legislation will continue to respect the Charter.
That being said, when you get to the convention itself, Article 3 lists the exceptions. Could you just spend a few minutes reassuring us that the exceptions are not such that they could lead to abuse?
In your clause-by-clause briefing notes, it is stated that the act allows persons:
...to possess anti-personnel mines for training in mine detection, mine clearing and destruction. The export and import of anti-personnel mines is allowed for these training purposes. Certain persons, such as, peace officers and RCMP officers, are allowed to acquire, possess and transfer anti-personnel mines in the course of their duties for purposes allowed under the act, such as, rendering the mine harmless.
Are anti-personnel mines being used as weapons -- I am talking about Canada now; I will not ask how other countries will interpret this -- such that peace officers and police officers require training in how they should be dismantled or detected?
Mr. Axworthy: I will ask Ralph Lysyshyn, who negotiated parts of the treaty, to respond.
Mr. Ralph Lysyshyn, Director General, International Security, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: There is always within Canada the possibility that people may have mines as souvenirs. There is also the possibility within Canada that people, including police officers who go on peacekeeping missions, could encounter mines in their missions. They need to be trained to deal with them.
In terms of an exception for training, you have an entire range of people who might need training to handle land-mines. There are exceptions made within the legislation which are somewhat different from the exceptions within the treaty. The treaty allows a country to own land-mines for certain uses; that is, to train the military. We can use them to train Canadians who may go abroad in a peacekeeping role.
The legislation is intended to capture within Canada that small number of people who might, in the course of their duties, deal with land-mines in training. Again, it relates to the intent of the treaty and the Charter considerations. You do not want to create a situation where a policeman who finds someone in possession of land-mines and seizes them is then technically guilty of a violation just by transporting those mines. We must deal with that but we do not envisage that this will be a major problem.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is reassuring. Thank you. You said we would allow 1,500 land-mines as the maximum cache. How was that number determined?
Mr. Lysyshyn: This was a judgment made by the Canadian military. They felt that this would meet their needs. There was a lot of debate in the course of negotiation as to whether we would try to decide on an absolute number. In the end, it was felt this did not make a lot of sense. A country like Russia would need more than a small country like Andorra. The size of the military affects how many people should be trained and how many mines might be needed for training purposes. However, that clear understanding was, in a way, read into the record in Oslo, although there was no formal record; it was the subject of discussion there that the numbers would be very low.
We do have mechanisms within the treaty to challenge nations who decide that what they need for training is a ridiculously large number. Our number was determined by the military and we do feel confident that the norm established by this treaty will enable us to deal effectively with any nation that might try to go around the treaty by saying that, under this exception, they can hold 200,000 mines. It is clearly understood that such a cache will not be acceptable and nations will be challenged on that.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Are nations required to report on their stock on an ongoing basis?
Mr. Lysyshyn: Yes, there is a reporting mechanism.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Is there also an inspection feature for confirmation?
Mr. Lysyshyn: Yes.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: We must limit ourselves to Canada because there are so many countries involved. If the police force in some small town in my part of the world, in Quebec, decides that it wants to get experience in land-mine detection, can it unilaterally purchase or import land-mines for testing purposes?
Ms Beverley Chomyn, Counsel, Justice Legal Services Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: They have to meet the requirements under the Export and Import Permits Act. Then it is the minister's discretion to grant or deny that permit, consistent with the obligations in the convention.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: So there is a controlling mechanism which is centralized in the minister's office and the existing act?
Ms Chomyn: Yes.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Who monitors this? Who is responsible to make sure that the convention is being respected, or at least that minimum efforts are being made to respect it, such as making sure that mines are only used by eligible authorities and so on? Is the UN already equipped to do that?
Mr. Lysyshyn: The responsibility lies with the international community and the other members of the treaty. We have a number of mechanisms in place. Part of the treaty requires signatory nations to pass the appropriate legislation. Just as we do when we partake in other treaties, we will monitor other signatories of the treaty to see if they are adhering to the treaty.
The process by which this treaty was reached is unique because of the involvement of the NGOs and of civil society. We fully expect that where there are violations, they will first be brought to public attention and to the attention of the international community by civil society, by the NGOs. Then we have a series of mechanisms in the treaty which allow us to ask governments to account for their actions.
Mr. Axworthy: It was a fascinating experience to see how this partnership emerged between civil groups and governments. At the conference next week, we will hold a series of round-table discussions to explore how we can continue that partnership with those groups as part of the verification mechanism. They became expert at the use of modern communications to contact and build a network around the world by which they could be in touch instantaneously. There is virtually no a country where there is no active contact. If we can supply them with the right resources, then they can become perhaps the broadest blanket of verification one has ever seen. We will work on that to see if we can continue the partnership beyond the treaty and into the aftermath.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: The United States will not sign this treaty, at this stage anyway, but they have said that they will no longer introduce land-mines, and that any they use, particularly on the Korean peninsula, will be the ones that they call "smart mines". That sounds like "just war" -- another oxymoron.
What about other major countries who have refused to sign? Have they made similar pledges to use "smart mines" if they use any at all?
Mr. Axworthy: They have not pledged to that extent, but it is important to note that, since this process was launched a year ago, a number of declarations have been made by major countries, including China and Russia, about putting a moratorium on the export of mines. That is important because often they are the source of land-mines which go into Angola and Mozambique and others countries where the problem exists. We have virtually a full moratorium on exports.
We invited some Middle Eastern countries which have been, let us say, engaged in a fairly active trade, but we will get them here and we will continue to work on them.
As you well know, through international law, conventions and norms emerge even though they may not be officially sanctioned in the country itself. This sets a standard. I think what we have succeeded in doing is shifting the onus onto those countries outside the treaty to show they are living up to its requirements.
The United States is coming to the conference. They have indicated an active participation in the de-mining activities and victim-assistance activities. In the discussions I have had with their Secretary of State, we have even talked about doing some joint projects together.
Senator Andreychuk: I would also add my congratulations to the minister and the government for this initiative.
There were two ways we could have proceeded: within the UN umbrella, or outside of the umbrella, as you did. The dilemma is always that those who have the most land-mines and have done the most damage with land-mines are the ones who do not sign, and even those who sign do not institute enabling legislation. I am pleased that we are going ahead with enabling legislation. At least we will be able to say that our word is good because we put this initiative into action.
For future reference, does the government want to move initiatives out of the multilateral forum of the UN? Do you think that is wise in the long term? Do you not think the multilateral forum might have put a different pressure on the United States and the other countries?
Mr. Axworthy: You are quite right. That was a judgment call we made last year.
One only has to go through the history of the Conference on Disarmament, the UN mechanism, to realize that the average negotiation on things such as non-proliferation or chemical weapons has been in the range of 15 to 30 years. It is a consensus-based body. It was clear from the discussions we had at the UN and other places that a couple of countries wanted to stall. The initiative was heading into a cul de sac. That was the frustration we recognized last year in the October meetings. Those who had worked so actively to make something happen saw that with the only outlet being the Geneva conference, there would be a dead end.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who will be here next week, was enthusiastic about our moving on this issue. We did not move unilaterally; we moved in partnership with other core countries, such as Norway, South Africa and others. Under his administration, the UN is part of the process. The UN will be the depository of the treaty and administer the compliance of many features of the treaty. Sometimes you have to be a bit creative in this business.
Can we go back to the Conference on Disarmament? Sure. With this treaty in hand, we go back with a much-strengthened position and can give it a shot. Basically, I think this has become the norm. We do not want to close off any of the fronts or arenas in which we might work. I think we have now established a very different dynamic and a very different set of norms. This is the standard that now must be met.
I see the UN evolving so that it will be more pluralistic in its outlook. It is not directly involved in many peace-building activities. Instead, it authorizes the activity and other countries go off and undertake actions in that area.
Part of this land-mine process can still end up being discussed in Geneva, as far as we are concerned.
Senator Andreychuk: Monitoring is most important in relation to the conventions we put in place that are supposed to help citizens in countries in situations such as this or situations relating to torture. The signing of the treaty is one thing. It educates the world and highlights an issue, but when all of that is over, success will be as a result of monitoring. Generally these types of treaties fail the test of monitoring because there is not sufficient money put in place to allow the mechanisms to click in and be effective. How will you finance monitoring? Will this come out of additional funding? What is the total amount set aside for monitoring?
Mr. Axworthy: We have already had indications of pledges. The Norwegians have already put up $100 million, as have several other countries. Our own government is now looking at what our contribution can be, and we hope to have that resolved by the time of the conference. My officials always tell me not to be too expansive, but I think we can come out of this conference next week with $500 million in commitments to undertake the verification, monitoring, de-mining and other activities. We can challenge the private sector as well. The Princess Diana fund that was established after her death is very interested in helping victims. I am fairly confident that we can use our dollars to get matching or triple-matching arrangements.
It is not just monitoring that can be a problem; it is also compliance. Many of the countries who will sign the treaty are just too poor to get rid of their stockpiles of mines themselves. We have to help them do it.
Senator Andreychuk: What will Canada's contribution be?
Mr. Axworthy: I am not at liberty to say. That will have to wait until next week. However, if you wish to make a strong endorsement, senator, and if the Senate would like to pass a resolution regarding a contribution, I would be very happy.
Senator Andreychuk: You might get that. I have recently been following the issue of torture of civilians. Much of the ammunition used against civilians comes from developed countries. There is the physical atrocity of land-mines, but there is also torture. As I understand it, we are $20,000 into the voluntary fund, perhaps going up to $80,000. That is a minuscule amount when you consider how long that convention has been in place. It was the subject of the same speeches with the same intended impact and did not go anywhere. This treaty will be of no benefit unless there is a sincere commitment, so I hope that $500 million fund comes to fruition.
You quite rightly pointed out that the NGOs asserted a lot of pressure. You are now looking to the NGOs to be part of the monitoring process. NGOs suffer greatly when they go into these countries and point out these incidents. They become targets of attack themselves. If you are again stressing, rather than governmental responsibility, NGO responsibility, and if we are going to countries where there is no respect for NGOs or for life, are you pressing the United Nations for conventions to protect those who fight for human rights?
Mr. Axworthy: Very much so. I think your point is very timely.
First, I see remarkable bravery on the part of aid workers and development workers in places such as Afghanistan who have taken on this cause, even with threats to their own lives. I think we can move on those kinds of conventions and see what we can do.
When I say we want to build a partnership with the NGOs, I also mean that we must bring with it the imprimatur of the Government of Canada. If we are asking them to take on certain tasks, we must ensure that we offer whatever services we can to provide protection. However, we can only go so far in that regard. We cannot interfere with sovereignty. We are finding that an increasing amount of our work in foreign affairs is in the area of protection and security of private citizens abroad, including NGOs.
If members of the committee ever want me to return to tell them about how our dwindling resource base does not quite match our global responsibilities, I would be more happy to give a full briefing.
Senator Andreychuk: Perhaps we can also touch on trade and human rights. There are many questions to address, such as how are land-mines sold and transferred, and how do small arms continue to flow into countries where citizens are least able to defend themselves. I hope this is your first initiative of many.
Mr. Axworthy: You will be interested to know that a week ago Friday we signed the inter-American convention regarding the illicit traffic in small arms, so there are some steps already under way.
Senator Andreychuk: I think we have yet to touch the actual perpetrators. We have signed treaties concerning nuclear weapons. However, the non-signatories to such treaties continue to plague the world. We have yet to find a mechanism that is better than what we have had in the past. I hope this initiative takes off and that there is continued pressure from you and the government, and that five years from now it will not be lost in other issues.
Senator Corbin: The minister mentioned in his opening statement inviting countries to the signing of the convention next week. I am sure he chose the word carefully. By invitation, I understand that not everyone necessarily is coming to the ceremony. Who is in and who is out? Is that a fair question?
Mr. Lysyshyn: As of this morning, 129 countries have sent in their registration form. The Russians have told us that they will send in registration forms.
We know that slightly more than 100 of these countries will sign the treaty. Some have told us very clearly that they are coming as observers. A number have told us that the issue is right now in front of their cabinets, that they are preparing to come, and that they will find out some time before December 3 whether they are coming to sign or whether they are coming as observers.
There are a number of countries from whom we have not heard. Obviously, countries like Iran and Iraq have not responded in any way.
Senator Corbin: I think you have avoided my question. Is every country invited?
Mr. Axworthy: Yes.
Senator Corbin: Every regime, state and country?
Mr. Axworthy: Everyone.
The Chairman: Does that mean every government which is recognized by Canada as a government is invited?
Mr. Axworthy: I have just been told that six were not invited.
Mr. Eric Walsh, Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: We did not invite a number of countries. For instance, Taiwan was not invited for obvious reasons. North Korea was not invited because we do not have diplomatic relations with that country. In Iraq, there is a ban on the ruling party travelling, so they would not be allowed to come. The new government of Sierra Leone was installed after a coup, and they are not recognized yet. Somalia does not have a recognized government. There is one other that slips my mind.
We have tried to be as inclusive as possible.
Senator Corbin: The other point I wish to raise has to do with President Clinton's statement of September. He said that within certain deadlines set by himself, the Americans would find alternatives to anti-personnel mines. Have we any idea as to what these alternatives are? Are they another type of mine?
Mr. Axworthy: There are many good guesses as to that, senator.
When we were in discussions with the United States during the Oslo meetings, we were under the impression that the 10-year transition period in the treaty would give them more than enough time to find those alternatives. They say they are committed to do so, and in that regard we will rely upon Yankee ingenuity, supported, we hope, by somewhat more active research. At last count, the United States defence department put about $5 million into research on this particular matter compared to the hundreds of billions or dollars that it spends on Star Wars or other high technology research.
One of the people who will be here at the conference is Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont, who has made this his life's work. As you know, he has a resolution in front of the United States Senate concerning land-mines. He says that he has about 55 senators backing him in a move to ban the use of land-mines.
Mr. Lysyshyn: Using alternatives does not necessarily only mean using alternate technology. Sometimes it also means using alternate military doctrine, or a different approach. Sometimes people use land-mines as a warning system. Electronics or even keeping soldiers awake can be used to do these things. There are different alternatives. There have been technological approaches using infrared forewarning which sets off alarms rather than setting off mines. They have experimented with something they call sticky foam which is put on the ground.
The approach of our military is that you simply change your military doctrine. You change the way you do things, therefore eliminating the need for mines.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Has the detection of mines improved?
Mr. Axworthy: There is a lot of work going on in this regard. Up to now, the full weight of resources has not been put to actual implementation.
When I was at the APEC meetings this week, I met with people fromMacDonald Dettwiler, a firm which I am sure is well known to you, which has developed a world-wide competence in earth sensoring. They are doing some work on adapting their technology to detection of land-mine fields. This would have the advantage of being able to break through a lot of the jungle areas. The Japanese and the Germans are doing a lot of work in this area. There are many techniques out there. The fact that there will be a treaty which obliges countries to detect land-mine fields and get rid of them will cause a surge in research on applicable technologies.
A number of Canadian manufacturers will be putting on exhibits of some of the new technologies next week at the Westin Hotel. During the course of the conference, we plan to have a room on Parliament Hill where we will have instantaneous broadcasts from the conference. On Thursday, we will be putting on a program in which some victims of land-mines, some foreign ministers and some experts will be on Parliament Hill to brief people. I hope that senators who are interested will attend. This is an attempt to ensure that our own parliamentarians understand the issues.
There is an important role that you can play subsequent to the conference. When you travel to your parliamentary meetings or meet with your contemporaries, you can carry the message that ratification is the next big step.
Senator Bacon: What kind of help or technical support can we give to the countries that want to destroy their land-mines? Are we taking any leadership role in that regard?
Mr. Axworthy: We have some examples of that, Senator Bacon. For example, Canadian Armed Forces personnel are conducting training in Cambodia with regard to mines. Also, we are doing some work in Bosnia. We have a couple of excellent NGOs, such as the Mine Action Centre, which I believe is located in Cape Breton, and which trains people. Part of our initiative is not for us to go and clean out fields in every country but to train people in their own countries to do it. Our own Armed Forces and NGOs have a high level of expertise in that area. We hope to have a broader distribution of Canadian technical assistance in de-mining.
I am keen about recruiting Canadian disability societies and others to help work abroad in dealing not only with the physical repair of individuals but also with the post-traumatic distress that children in particular go through when they have been injured so badly.
It is those kinds of things on which we as Canadians should focus.
Senator Bacon: Is this something that will be monitored by the United Nations?
Mr. Axworthy: That is one of the key questions. That is why, at the conference next week, it is crucial to have some discussion on to how to coordinate all this. A number of countries will be pledging additional resources. We want to ensure that they do not overlap, or that one country is selected as the area of privilege and others are forgotten.
One of the keys now is to provide the same kind of leadership to bring together the international community for the post-treaty activities the way we did during the pre-treaty activities. That will be in some ways an even bigger job.
The Chairman: Am I correct in understanding that the clauses of this bill are more rigorous than the terms of the convention? In other words, by adopting the convention, we are not putting into Canadian law provisions which are more rigorous than are set forth in the clauses of the bill itself?
Ms Chomyn: We are not putting the convention into Canadian law. We are using it as a declaration. It is there for ease of reference. The convention as appended will not be a law of Canada as these clauses will be.
The Chairman: I asked the question at the beginning of the meeting about the status of the schedule. It is normal when we have a schedule to ask the committee if the schedule shall stand as part of the bill. The answer in this case was "yes." Now you say that it is not to stand part of the bill which will go forth for Royal Assent.
Ms Chomyn: We wanted to jump in but the questions came quickly. We are actually going back to that first question which you raised and clarifying our answer. It is for declaration purposes, for ease of reference.
The convention forms part of the bill, yes, but it will not be treated as the body of the bill, which becomes law. The law is actually set out in the legislation. This is simply a schedule.
Senator Grafstein: The chairman raises an interesting point. What are the connecting words between the schedule and the bill? I noticed only clause 20 which states:
The Minister shall, by order, amend the schedule to incorporate any amendment to the Convention as soon as is practicable...
That is just a notification. In effect, if there is any amendment to the Convention, you will apply it.
Give us the other references to the schedule so that we can see how we are supposed to treat the schedule.
Ms Chomyn: In the definition section, clause 2 states:
"Convention" means the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, set out in the schedule to this Act, as amended from time to time in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention.
Senator Corbin: The Supreme Court of Canada has no say in terms of interpreting, or ruling in any legal sense on, the actual contents of the convention itself. The convention is beyond the power of that court. In that sense, the convention is not part of the law.
Mr. Axworthy: We included the convention as one of the schedules because there is reference to it in the bill and in the definitions. The act, once the bill is passed, will be the law which any court would administer in Canada.
To go back to my international law days, in a horizontal legal system in which there is no central court, each country is expected and required to implement conventions and treaties and to apply its appropriate law.
Senator Grafstein: I do not think that was the chairman's point. He is asking whether the courts will treat the convention itself as the law of the land, as opposed to the enabling legislation.
Your advisor is saying that is not the case. It is the statute that we are passing. We are really only attaching the convention for ease of convenience.
Ms Chomyn: It is there for public access, yes.
Senator Grafstein: Having said that, let us go back through the words of clause 3:
The purpose of this Act is to implement Canada's obligations under the Convention.
There is a distinction with a difference.
The Chairman: Yes, thank you, Senator Grafstein.
Honourable senators, shall clauses 2 through 25 of the bill stand part of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the schedule stand part of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 1 stand part of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title stand part of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the aforesaid bill without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, senators. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for an interesting discussion.
The committee continued in camera.