FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, November 3, 1997

• 1032

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order this meeting of the foreign affairs and international trade committee.

We have with us this morning Ms. Jody Williams of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. With her is Mr....?

Mr. Stephen Goose (International Campaign to Ban Landmines): Stephen Goose.

The Chairman: We'd like to congratulate you both for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It is much merited, in the view of the members of this committee, after six years of work from very modest beginnings to achieve what is the potential to benefit humanity enormously, as documented in your excellent book After Guns Fall Silent: The Enduring Legacy of Land Mines.

I think I can speak for all members of the committee to say that we're also proud, and justly so, of the role our own minister, Minister Axworthy, and Canada and the Prime Minister have played in this issue under their leadership.

[Translation]

I would like to welcome students from the Université de Montréal Faculty of Law. They're students of Mr. Turp, our colleague. He is doing two things at once this morning: his class is here, and he is taking part in the committee's deliberations. Welcome to the students.

[English]

Ms. Williams, I would like to suggest that perhaps you could open, and the minister can say a few brief remarks.

We will only have one hour with you. Our members like to have an opportunity to ask questions of people, because they all have their own preoccupations.

Members, since we only have an hour, I'll be very careful in keeping everybody to five minutes. That way we'll make sure everybody has a fair opportunity to be heard.

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It is an honour to appear with Ms. Williams and with Stephen. I think it's an appropriate way for this committee and Parliament to honour their achievement of winning the Nobel Prize for their quite amazing work in mobilizing global opinion—and governments, for that matter—to engage in the ban on anti-personnel mines.

I think the work of the NGO community internationally, and the campaign particularly, is at its roots a very democratic initiative. Building on a partnership of civil society and governments working together to achieve common goals really represents one of the most significant developments in the changing nature of international politics that we will see in our lifetime. It really introduces a whole new way of doing business and breaks the traditional notion of state sovereignty to talk now about partnership and coalition and working together, as opposed to the more traditional forms of international diplomacy.

• 1035

[Translation]

The international campaign against anti-personnel mines comprises organizations from over 50 countries, who have translated words into concrete action in an effort to achieve a complete ban on anti-personnel mines.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, it's important to recognize that this is a little bit of a landmark day. Later, Ms. Williams and the Prime Minister will be detonating the last of the mines in the Canadian stockpile.

Perhaps equally as important is that it's just one month to this day that we hope to have well over 100 countries here in Ottawa to sign the treaty. So I think this really represents a major milestone on the process we're engaged in.

But I think since the awarding of the Nobel Prize there has been quite substantial momentum being developed. As you know, in the Commonwealth meetings that were held last weekend in Edinburgh, some six additional countries committed to coming to Ottawa to sign the treaty. The Prime Minister will be going to the francophone summit next week, and I will be going to the Middle East. We hope in both those initiatives we can again develop further support. Following that, there will be the APEC treaty meetings in Vancouver.

So we will be continuing our work individually, and having talked with Stephen and Jody earlier, I know the campaign itself, with the momentum given to it, increased its efforts.

But one thing I want to bring to the attention of the committee—and I'm pleased with this opportunity, Mr. Chairman—is that the treaty is just a piece of paper until it's ratified, until it actually becomes the law. We need 40 countries to start that ratification, and this is where members of parliament and members of assemblies and legislatures begin to play an absolutely crucial role.

I want to use this occasion to enlist the co-operation of colleagues on both sides of the House to make sure that Canada not only is one of the first to sign but is also one of the first to ratify. In the next week or so we will be coming back to members of the committee and to Parliament with proposals on how we can engage in a legislative procedure up to the point of the Ottawa conference so that we can continue to show a degree of leadership, not only now in terms of getting the treaty negotiated but in providing a signal to parliaments and assemblies around the world that ratification is now the priority. So I hope this meeting today and following up will help launch a legislative process that is essential to the implementation of this area.

One of the ways in which we can help is to begin providing further information to your constituents. I would like to take this occasion to say that next week we'll be launching an innovative web site in preparation for the conference. That web site will allow people around the world to follow the conference in all of the UN languages and also provide additional information to all the public that can be engaged.

The second point I would like to make before I turn it over to Jody Williams and to Stephen is to say that once we get the treaty signed and once we start the ratification process, we then have to continue developing the political will and support, and the resources, to implement the treaty. That means eliminating the landmines; it means helping rehabilitate the victims; it means having to work in those countries that have been infected by the virus of landmines to re-establish and redevelop the injury and victimization that has taken place.

Next week when members of this committee go to Bosnia, you will have the opportunity to see for yourselves directly a country that has been severely injured by the wide-scale application of landmines, and by the way, an area in which a number of our own military have suffered very serious injuries, and in some cases death, as a result of landmines.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, for those who claim that there is still a military use to landmines—and there are still a few who make that claim—that I read something recently that there has been a higher level of casualties in Kuwait as part of the de-mining process than there was for all the allied forces who actually fought in the war. I think it's an important contrast to make for those who still make the case that there's a utility for the use of landmines.

We have an active program in Bosnia. The Canadian Armed Forces have a training centre there. We have contributed $500,000 to the mine centre and $1 million to pay the full cost of the World Bank's mine awareness program.

• 1040

So I hope, Chairman and colleagues, that when you come back from Bosnia you'll be in a position to help Canadians understand more effectively the kinds of difficulty we face and also the important costs and resources that will be required to make this thing work.

[Translation]

We will need your support in establishing the program. And we will also need your support in helping communities devastated by anti-personnel mines get back on their feet.

[English]

I will close by reminding you that no one works alone in this case. This has been a remarkable commitment of dozens of countries, thousands of NGOs. I think it's symbolic and substantive that today the committee were able to present both Jody Williams and Steve Goose, who have been taking a leadership role in this widespread and effective development towards the elimination of land mines. I think if we continue to work together as governments and as members of civil society, we can go on to achieve even further goals.

With that, I would like to turn the proceedings over to Jody Williams and Steve Goose.

The Chairman: Ms. Williams.

Ms. Jody Williams (Coordinator, International Campaign to Ban Landmines): Thank you, Minister Axworthy.

Thank you for taking the time to let us come and speak to you briefly about our view of the process and the future.

I'll take a few minutes to talk about the importance of the process from Minister Axworthy's challenge last year till the signing in the beginning of December. My colleague Steve Goose will talk briefly about our plans for co-operation with the governments on ratification, because it's obviously critical.

I don't think it's news to you sitting here that this has been a co-operative effort. The minister mentioned that. It's one of the underpinnings and cornerstones making it possible to achieve this ban treaty. In the awarding of the Peace Prize to the campaign this year the Nobel committee recognized that it's a coalition effort of governments, non-governmental organizations, UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which have worked together in a uniquely co-operative effort to address a humanitarian crisis in a timely fashion. The committee hoped this would be a model for future action. I hope so as well.

But it does take governmental leadership, it does take courage of governments, to be willing to work with non-governmental organizations in a different way. I recall very vividly being here in Ottawa last year and hearing the minister give his closing remarks and hearing him challenge the world to come back to Canada in a year with an unambiguous treaty banning land mines. I saw the look of shock on the faces of many of the government representatives there, because they were not expecting the challenge, first—it put them in a hard position—but secondly, because it was a step outside the normal diplomatic process. It called on the world to address a humanitarian crisis in a different way.

The minister of the Canadian government was willing to sit down and sign the treaty no matter how many he sat with, whether it was one other country, ten countries.... Instead we're going to see 120, I think. We keep upping the ante. It's probably around 120.

But along with the courage of the challenge was the courage to work in open co-operation with non-governmental organizations. That's unique, especially in arms control types of issues.

We were granted that privilege, I guess, by the Canadian government and others because we do have a track record of expertise on the issue. Our coalition is made up of NGOs working in the field who see the effect on a daily basis of the poorest of the poor trying to live with landmines. So we do bring expertise to the issue. We've also been able to work in partnership with governments in a professional and co-operative fashion, which is sometimes new.

I recall that when I worked in Central America we couldn't exactly be called co-operative when we were dealing with governments on policy regarding Central America. At least I couldn't be with my own.

It has been tremendous leadership, for which you should all be proud of your government, of your foreign minister. Again, it's the leadership of the challenge, but it's also the leadership of working in a different model, working with NGOs openly and continuously proclaiming that in the post-signing period co-operation is critical to bringing this treaty into force.

• 1045

So I really want to commend Canada for its role and you should really be proud of being Canadians, in my view. I wish we could take Vermont and put it in Canada, but I don't think the rest of the United States would like that.

I'll now give it to Mr. Goose to talk about the next steps for us.

Mr. Stephen Goose: I'm Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch and I'm a member of the steering committee of the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines. I appreciate the opportunity to make a few short remarks as well.

I would first like to join in commending the Canadian government for its leadership role on this issue. Unless Canada had been willing to issue the challenge, and perhaps even more importantly, unless they had been willing to follow through with the expenditure of a tremendous amount of diplomatic capital to make this happen, it would not have happened. But I mostly want to talk about the future.

With the signing of this treaty we think that in many ways our work has only begun, and unless Canada continues to exert leadership and continues to expend large amounts of its diplomatic capital, we probably will not have long-run success. The leadership here is vital.

In the Oslo negotiations, the NGOs in the international campaign spent a week coming together to formulate a plan for the future. NGOs don't tend to sit on their laurels. We developed an action plan for the next year or two. We presented it to the delegates in Oslo on the final day of the negotiations. I'd like to submit it to you, Mr. Chairman, as well.

We will develop this action plan in more detail during the treaty signing days. There will be a series of round tables in conjunction with the treaty signing that will further develop this action plan, which will be a joint effort of governments and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

Our action plan first calls for the maximum number of signatures on December 3 and 4. We're working hard at that. Foreign Minister Axworthy has indicated that we're having great success in bringing new countries on board beyond those that negotiated the treaty in Oslo. Most recently Japan and Australia indicated their support. Major new countries continue to come on board.

We then are going to focus on early ratification of this treaty, early entry into force of this treaty. We need 40 ratifications to make that happen. We'd like to see it happen within a year, and certainly no more than two years. This is another area where Canada's leadership will be key. We would like to see Canada be one of the countries that indeed can sign and ratify this treaty virtually simultaneously. This will require the co-operation of this committee, and we hope you will see fit to signify Canada's continuing commitment on this issue by making that happen.

We then will work through our national campaigns in co-operation with UNICEF and the International Committee of the Red Cross, Canada and other governments to get the other 39, besides Canada, to ratify this thing as soon as possible so that it becomes binding international law and not just nice words on a piece of paper.

We're going to work extraordinarily hard, then, to universalize this treaty. If we get 120—Jody has set an ambitious goal there, but we think it can be done—there will still be many countries that need to come on board. We will again use the methodology that we have used to achieve our current success to make that happen, and we believe we will rapidly move towards getting the rest of the recalcitrant countries on board this treaty in a short period of time.

We'll work hard to push governments to pass domestic legislation implementing the treaty, including stiff penal sanctions against nationals who violate.

• 1050

Very importantly, we will work with governments co-operatively to try to monitor this treaty. This is another area I'd like to highlight in terms of government-NGO co-operation. Your ministry of foreign affairs is doing some very creative thinking about how NGOs and governments can work together to monitor this treaty to make sure it is implemented; to be able to ferret out those who continue to use this weapon, those who must be ostracized in the international community; to make sure that stockpiles are being destroyed within the four-year timeframe and that mines are being removed from the ground and destroyed as soon as possible, but no later than ten years, as required by the treaty.

There is the notion of a citizen's compliance mechanism that is being developed by your government, which we find very exciting in terms of empowering NGOs to work with governments in making sure the treaty is adequately monitored and truly implemented.

These are our tasks for the future. They're as great as our tasks have been to get us to this point, and with your co-operation and support I think we can accomplish it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Goose. I'm sure all the members will be anxiously waiting for the necessary domestic legislation implementing the treaty to come down so that we can have a participating role in this. I know that, speaking for myself and other colleagues, we do have an opportunity of speaking to our colleagues in other countries, and we will follow up your suggestion that we add our voices to the already active role Mr. Axworthy's department has been playing in persuading governments. We'll go after some of the legislators for you.

I have on my list already Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our guests.

Having visited Bosnia in September, I got a real feeling for what the whole issue is all about. I talked to one of the de-mining groups who said they had just de-mined an area and replanted 12 mines, and then another group came in and de-mined it the next week or whatever, found 36 new mines, including only six of the ones that the group the day before had planted. That really brings it home to you just how difficult the de-mining process is.

Also, what's brought home is the fact that these people have a cheap $3 weapon in their hands and these mines move and are reused and so on.

My question, then, is this. Certainly the ratification from a country like Canada is obvious and straightforward, but when you get countries like Bosnia, like Cambodia, some of our African countries, where you can't get to them, you can't talk to them, how are you going to convince those people that in fact they shouldn't be using this cheap weapon?

Also, it's rather hollow if we don't have the U.S. and China, countries like that, get involved, and some of our own generals.... I have a letter on my desk from a general who says we must have mines. That's a Canadian general. He listed a number of reasons why we must have them. So there's that argument as well, and of course I'm not a military person; I don't know how valid his arguments are.

How would you respond to those kinds of things? There are about three questions there.

Ms. Jody Williams: For every general you have who says they need landmines, I can find one who says they don't. This campaign has never challenged the utility of the weapon. Obviously it's a useful weapon. The problem with the weapon is that it's indiscriminate, and under international law that makes it illegal.

It doesn't matter if it's useful for a short period of time during battle, the long-term impact on civilian society outweighs the utility. Obviously the majority of the military of the world seem to be agreeing with that or we would not have 120 countries coming here to sign the treaty.

Regarding the question of the importance of the United States, at this stage of the game I find it difficult to understand how anyone could call this a hollow treaty without the United States. Of those 120 nations we anticipate signing, it's all of NATO except the U.S. and Turkey. It's all of the European Union except Finland. It's Japan, Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa, all of the western hemisphere except the United States and Cuba. We're not talking about just a few marginal governments signing this treaty. Significant governments, significant U.S. allies around the world, are signing this treaty.

• 1055

It is our view that the United States stands outside the tide of history. It is our view that the U.S. is attempting to show leadership by taking up the de-mining side to deflect the fact that it is not part of the process. But at this stage of the game, when we also have Russia's government stating it is going to sign this convention—maybe not in December, but it is going to come on board this convention—what will the United States bring? Not much.

In regard to the question of monitoring, that is what we were starting to touch upon. We have no illusions that this is going to be easy. We have campaigns in many of the countries in Africa that will be working with their governments for transparency and will be pressing them to ratify and destroy their stocks in the same way as they pressed their governments to take up this issue and come to Canada to sign the treaty.

We firmly believe the reason this treaty happened at all is the mobilization of civil society, and it will be the ongoing mobilization of civil society pressing governments for compliance that will make it reality.

Another element is that multinational lending institutions are increasingly unwilling to give money if a government has not committed to the treaty, if a government has not committed to destroying its stocks and cleaning up the mess. I think there will be increased pressure in that regard once this treaty is signed and enters into force. I know if I were a funder and I were making a choice between funding a government that had signed the treaty and destroyed its stocks and one that hadn't, it would be a pretty clear choice for me.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Williams.

I want to remind the members that we have about 30 minutes left and I have seven requests on my list, so please make your questions as short as possible. I think every other member would like to speak.

Monsieur Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): First, I would like to assure the minister and members of the committee that the Bloc Québécois will be among those supporting the initiative, and that it is prepared to make every effort to ensure that Canada is one of the countries that passes the legislation required to expedite ratification in Canada.

I would like to know—as I think all committee members would—when the minister plans to introduce the enabling legislation. If the minister wants Canada to sign and ratify the treaty at the same time, the legislation should perhaps be introduced in the House of Commons in the near future.

I have a couple of questions for Jody Williams. You said that the treaty signed in Oslo was unambiguous.

[English]

It was an unambiguous treaty.

[Translation]

I would like to know whether you believe the treaty could be further improved. What formula could be used to improve it, if mechanisms for application by citizens had to be in a separate treaty, in the form of a protocol? Here in Canada, Globe and Mail editorial writers suggested establishing additional mechanisms to foster support or ratification by countries not yet prepared to sign.

Is the treaty adequate, or should it be improved?

• 1100

My second question may be a little more delicate. Isn't the real problem production of new mines by countries who are excluding themselves from the process, such as the United States, China and other countries? What action do NGOs like yours want to take, and what can countries do, to ensure no new mines are made? As Mr. Mills says, the new mines would be put in the ground faster than the old ones could be taken out.

In conclusion, I wonder whether the minister's actions in tabling the initiative to expedite matters was prompted by the horrors he saw in Bosnia, or because he enjoyed Michael Ondaatje's book, The English Patient, which reminded us that mines and their removal is not just a modern-day issue, but one that has been around for decades.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: First, I would like to thank Mr. Turp for the commitment he made on his party's behalf to support ratification of the treaty. This is a very important process. I hope to introduce the legislation after you visit Bosnia. I believe you will be back on November 18.

The Chairman: November 17.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: During that week, I may consult with members of all parties to examine the bill and the ratification process, and introduce the legislation in the House of Commons.

My first opportunity to study the problems associated with anti-personnel mines came during the war in Nicaragua. I went to Nicaragua as a member of a committee of Canadian Churches, and studied the issues and their very serious impact on individuals, particularly children. That was the first time I became involved in the issue. After that came pressure from citizens' groups, and of course our trip to Bosnia.

I also deplore the fact that some countries are continuing to produce mines, and putting forward a strategy of hybrid mines. That is dangerous.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Williams, did you want to add anything? Mr. Goose?

Mr. Stephen Goose: Jody has asked me to respond to your other questions about the adequacies of the treaty.

This treaty is not perfect. It is an excellent treaty but it is not perfect. There are a number of provisions that have the potential for abuse and that we believe need to be closely monitored.

For example, a provision in the treaty says anti-tank mines with anti-handling devices—devices that make them very sensitive—should not be considered anti-personnel mines. The campaign has been very concerned that anti-tank mines with anti-handling devices in many instances can function as anti-personnel mines.

This issue was raised during the negotiations. Canada and other countries made it clear for the diplomatic record that those types of mines that do function as anti-personnel mines should be considered banned under this treaty.

• 1105

It's possible that other governments will not be so clear on that interpretation. We consider it a formal part of the diplomatic record. We will hold governments to that standard, but we need to monitor it closely.

There is a provision in the treaty that allows governments to maintain a minimal number of anti-personnel mines for training purposes. Canada has indicated that it will keep about 1,500 mines for training purposes and that that should be enough to last them about 50 years. We're concerned that other governments may keep a much larger number that could constitute an operational stockpile.

The treaty does require reporting on these mines kept for training purposes, and again there was a clarification for the diplomatic record that only a few thousand should be kept for this purpose. But we must watch for it, because indeed you are going to be allowed to have anti-personnel landmines by virtue of this provision.

We would have preferred that the language in the treaty on victim assistance programs was a bit more direct and binding. The treaty encourages governments to do more for the victims of landmines, but it's not required in the same way as it's required for mine clearance.

Lastly, we wish the treaty was a little bit more explicit in terms of its application to non-state actors, to rebel groups. We think that this treaty establishes an international norm, that it will become part of customary international humanitarian law. As such it will apply to non-state actors, to rebel groups, but it's not explicit in the treaty itself. This is something we think could be improved.

There is a mechanism for doing so. There will be annual meetings about the implementation of the treaty once it has entered into force. There will be a review conference for amending the treaty five years after it enters into force, and these are some of the items I'm sure will be on the agenda.

With regard to production, certainly some of those who don't sign this treaty will continue to produce, China and the United States being notable, and others as well. But the issue is perhaps not so much whether they continue to produce but whether or not they then export their mines. If China produces and decides to keep large numbers of mines in its warehouses for potential future war against Russia or Vietnam, that's not going to create a humanitarian disaster in the same way as Chinese export of mines to Angola and Mozambique and elsewhere did in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

However, we have a de facto ban on exports that has been in place globally for the past three years. U.S. intelligence sources and others tell us that there has been no major shipment of anti-personnel landmines from one country to another for more than three years. It's sort of a hidden success of our joint effort of this campaign that we already have a ban on exports in place. Russia has already said that it has extended its moratorium permanently. China has not yet done so, but it seems to be working toward that direction. So we will continue to monitor production, but if there are a few countries out there that continue to produce.... There have been 55 countries in the past who've produced. If we get it down to where only 5 produce and none of them export, we will have accomplished a tremendous amount.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Goose.

Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): First of all, I want to congratulate you, Lloyd, and Ms. Williams, for your leadership on this issue.

With regard to the whole question of ratification, you mentioned that you need 40 countries in order to ratify. I would assume that there are countries around the world, smaller countries, that would never use landmines. Would it be very hard to get some of these smaller countries to ratify? I look at your plan of action here, and you talk about centring on countries like Saint Lucia, Bahamas. I can't understand why countries like this wouldn't ratify and wouldn't come in. Can you explain a bit of the politics of it?

Also, if the 40 countries sign and this agreement comes into effect, does it matter who those 40 countries are to make it a workable agreement? If by chance the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese never ratify, would it still be a workable agreement?

• 1110

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: The importance of ratification is that, as Stephen has already said, it then becomes international law. It's a binding law at that point. That's why the 40 ratifications, who does it, doesn't matter as much as getting it entrenched as part of international law.

Clearly, though, on individual cases, it's very crucial that all those who sign get to ratify as quickly as possible so they can apply domestic legislation to implement the treaty: to provide a prohibition on production, on use, on stockpiling.

Earlier Mr. Mills mentioned Cambodia. Cambodia will be a signatory to the treaty. What will be crucial is that they also ratify the treaty and then be able to implement the provisions of the treaty, which is why the action plan that will be developed as part of the Ottawa Process II is absolutely crucial. It means we start providing the resources to many of the smaller countries, many of them poorer countries, actually to implement the treaty, to bring it about, because it takes money to destroy stockpiles. It takes a lot of money to do de-mining. It's a very expensive process, unless we can come up with some new technology. It's expensive to help rehabilitate victims in a full, proper way. It's also expensive to help countries that have been affected by large-scale mining to rehabilitate their ecology and their agriculture and their basic wherewithal. As we pointed out, this is really just the beginning of a very major task, but the ratification is the next key, beyond the signing, to make it happen.

Ms. Jody Williams: You noted Saint Lucia and some of the countries listed there. Those are not necessarily targets for immediate ratification. Those are governments such that they had signed the Brussels Declaration and then we didn't see them in Oslo. We're targeting them to see if they were going to be here to sign. We will target everybody who signs for ratification.

The Chairman: Mr. Speller is offering to go to Saint Lucia and persuade them.

Ms. Jody Williams: I've already volunteered for the Caribbean.

The Chairman: There's always a subtext to these lists.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to join in both welcoming our witnesses and congratulating them on their accomplishment and also in signalling and commending the personal leadership of the minister on this issue. As a Canadian, certainly I'm very proud of the leadership our government has shown on this issue. It's not often we're able to bring all parties together, as Lloyd will know well, but I have no hesitation whatsoever in acknowledging and commending that leadership and, I may say, the work that has been done by many other Canadians, including many Canadian NGOs, the minister's officials—I see Ms. Sinclair here, and others—on the kind of work they have done. I was going to mention as well particularly Keith Martin, my colleague from the Reform Party, whose personal leadership has really made a difference. I'm very proud that, as Ms. Williams indicated, we've been able to play that kind of role.

I was over recently at a North Atlantic Assembly meeting with colleagues from other parties—Ms. Beaumier, Mr. Pratt, and others—and we were lobbying there to try to get other countries to come on board. I think we made some progress on Romania, and perhaps on others.

Before I ask my question, I can't resist saying that what this demonstrates vividly for me is the power of the kind of energy Margaret Mead talked about when she said we should never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. We've seen that happen. You've changed the world in a very important way. I hope we can make the same kind of progress on small arms, as the minister has indicated, and also, I might say, on nuclear weapons, the most obscene weapons of all, in many respects.

My two specific questions are for the minister. First, it would be helpful for us as members from all parties to know exactly where we're at on the signing process, which countries are definitely committed, which perhaps we're not sure of—there are some others we know are not going to sign—just so that at any possible opportunity we have in interparliamentary fora or elsewhere we can encourage those countries to come on board. If we could get that it would be helpful.

• 1115

My second question is with respect to the importance of clearing existing landmines and for supporting victims of landmines and rehabilitation. We've seen great leadership, particularly by Norway, in this area, of course. Recently the United States made an announcement. I welcome those resources. It would have been nice to see them go further and sign, but these resources are obviously important.

I have a motion before the House urging Canada to play a leading role in this area as well. I see that's one of the critical areas that has been highlighted by the international campaign.

How much money do we have on the table in this fiscal year? I want to ask the minister: is he prepared to significantly increase the level of funding to demonstrate that same leadership in clearing mines and rehabilitating victims that we demonstrated in coming up with a treaty? Is the minister prepared to significantly increase the resources that are available in that area as well?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Of those two questions, Mr. Chairman, first, we will provide a list to the members of the committee of those countries that have already indicated their signature. I don't know if we want to take the time to go through the more than 100 countries, but we'll get a list to you within the next day. This is so you can, as Mr. Robinson said, use this for whatever purpose you want, particularly including parliamentary meetings.

By the way, I agree that it's absolutely crucial in terms of getting buy-ins from other countries to use the various parliamentary associations and assemblies that all of you attend for raising the matter. I think that's really a very strategic set of venues to apply.

There's the question of the participation in the Ottawa Process II, which is to find the means to implement the treaty. We are engaged pretty actively in the government right now in looking at, first, the level of resources, and second, where they should go.

Some countries want to concentrate on de-mining. The Swiss, for example, are talking about establishing an international de-mining centre. We would want to fit in where we think we can make our contribution most appropriate.

For example—this is a personal thing with me, as you know—we have a broader-scale program dealing with the question of children's rights. We would think that one of the areas in which Canada can make a contribution is the rehabilitation of children who have been traumatized by their experience with war mines and things of that kind.

But what we have to do, most importantly, is fit in. That's the reason for the second round in Ottawa a month from now. We'll look at the action plan that's been developed to see how different countries would fit in as part of that.

I think we have to maintain the notion that there is an ongoing, co-operative, integrative procedure that would take place so we can all make contributions. We're working actively to determine what Canadian role would be most effective in that broader action plan.

Mr. Svend Robinson: How much money do we have on the table in this fiscal year, and are we prepared to significantly increase it?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: About $8 million is already committed through CIDA, particularly in the rehabilitation and training area. We also have commitments through our armed forces in Bosnia and Cambodia to operate the two training centres, and we have made contributions to the UN and specific centres there, but we would hope to increase that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): I would also like to congratulate our witnesses on their very important achievement. I congratulate Minister Axworthy on his support of this and the leadership role that Canada has played. I think the early support of this initiative is very notable. It's extremely important and deserves to be commended. I also offer the support of our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, for this, legislatively, at that time.

I have two questions.

One, how do you feel Japan's support, or indication of support, will impact the U.S. position? Also, would this potentially have an impact at some point on China's stance?

Second, consider the holdouts from this landmine treaty. These are arguably some of the most important people to get on side: the Koreas, India, Pakistan, and the countries of the Middle East. We have had some success. I understand there's some success there. What action do you have for the immediate future to try to bring them onboard? How realistic is it that we will get their support for this important treaty in the future?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'll answer part of it, and Jody and Steve can take the other part.

• 1120

As I said in my opening remarks, we're using every opportunity available to us in the next month to continue to lobby. The Prime Minister met with President Yeltsin in Moscow to confirm their interest. There were several discussions at the Commonwealth meetings. I think about six countries signed on from the Commonwealth meetings alone.

The Prime Minister will be going to the francophone meetings next week in Hanoi. I'm going to the Middle East at the same time. Following that, we have the APEC meetings, which will bring in all the countries from the Asia-Pacific rim, including the President of the United States.

We'll be working right to the very end. Many other governments are doing exactly the same. The campaign itself is continuing its pressure, and I'll let Jody and Steve speak to that.

Ms. Jody Williams: It's hard to imagine that by Japan coming on board, it won't have some impact on the United States. It may not immediately cause the U.S. to change its mind, but just look at the position of Japan in Oslo during the negotiations. It was essentially parroting word for word the U.S. position.

Many interpreted Japan's participation there as going to support the U.S. attempts to get its exceptions in the treaty. So to see that country turn around after Oslo and agree to send its foreign minister here to sign the treaty I think is not insignificant. Certainly it will have to give the United States cause to think things over a little bit more maybe.

As more and more countries come on board it's going to be increasingly difficult for the U.S. to stay outside. At the same time, it's hard to imagine that if they do stay outside, they will want to flout a treaty that has such widespread support and use the mines. Even with the treaties they don't sign, they have a tendency to abide by them. So I would love to see them sign, but I don't think it will necessarily make that big a difference initially.

As for getting other countries on board, we're going to do exactly what we did to get countries into the process initially: we're going to go there. We'll go to the countries that are not part of the process and organize the same way we did in the six years leading up to this treaty.

We plan already to have a conference in South Korea in January-February. There'll be a conference in Japan, which will be a follow-up to the one we had last year. Because of the anticipated signing by Japan, this will take a regional focus now. It won't just target Japan.

We're going to Moscow in May for a conference there. We're going to Hungary in March for a regional meeting. We'll possibly be in India in the fall.

So the campaign is very committed to targeting those governments that aren't on board and getting them on board.

I'll make a final comment. I don't know too many treaties that spring forth with 120 signers. Look at the CCW. It opened for signatures in 1981. It entered into force in 1983. In that period, only 50 countries or so, 55 maybe, even signed it in a two-year period. We're going to have 120 signing the day this opens for signatures.

That is extremely significant. I think people are quite aware of the significance of the number of states that are coming here to sign. It's kind of unprecedented in treaty-signing history.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Williams.

Mr. Stephen Goose: I wonder if I could make a brief comment on that also.

The Chairman: Mr. Goose, I'll tell you, we have five minutes left, and I've got about six people on the list. Can you add something very quickly to that?

Mr. Stephen Goose: I can let it slide.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bélair.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall be very brief.

Both the minister and Ms. Williams have alluded to the victims. I think now that this great leap has been made, the second step would be to become of assistance to the victims.

You mentioned rehabilitation. Is there anything else in partnership with either CIDA...? First, you said that some $8 million had been set aside. In my view, it is far from being enough to be able to rehabilitate those victims, especially young children.

• 1125

In the Ottawa Process there will be a number of countries in the world that will be signing the treaty. Have there been any negotiations or talks already in terms of commitments to the second phase of the process, which is to rehabilitate either the country or people, mostly? Are there any dollar commitments from other countries in order to be able to help these people?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: There have been discussions in a series of working groups and the action plan that was developed at Oslo is already being negotiated. There have been commitments of a number of countries already. Norway has already committed $100 million to this area. The Swiss are doing a de-mining program. The United States has offered to go and ask for other people's money, which was very generous.

As I said, we are looking at our own commitments, but I do know, from talking to several other countries at the international meetings, that there is a commitment to move ahead.

One of the areas that I don't think gets the attention it deserves overall is that many of the countries themselves now find the actual costs that they encounter to deal with victims and their rehabilitation.... In some cases—I think it's Mozambique's health budget—25% of it goes simply for aid to victims. Some of that is very limited. It is just providing simple prosthetics without doing all the other kinds of counselling and support that they need to deal with the real trauma.

So there's a big issue here and it's going to cost substantial resources. It's a humanitarian issue. It's increasingly a development issue, because in many of the countries that have been affected their own progress has been severely limited by the fact that they deal not only with the landmines themselves but also with the cost of the removal and the cost of dealing with the rehabilitation.

That's why I think the second part of this process is very crucial.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Again, congratulations to everybody.

A particular note I would like to make to the bureaucrats, Ms. Sinclair, Mr. Lawson, and Mr. Lysyshyn, who did an absolutely outstanding job for three weeks, preventing a rearguard action to dilute the treaty. You're unsung heroes that made us all proud, so thank you very much.

I was working in Africa. As one of the things that was done, de-mining was taking place. The mines were being sold after they were de-mined. So I hope that in the process we can build a de-mine and destroy accountability into it so the mines will not continue to be in the loop.

Lastly, Minister Axworthy, with the success we've all had in this and you've had in getting like-minded nations on board, will you next year call together the nations that have been working on similar peace-building initiatives so we will be able to develop a concerted effort to address the threats we're going to have to international security? We're working in isolation on many of these issues. Together, though, we'll become a much more powerful force.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, and I endorse the compliments that Mr. Martin paid to the public servants. They don't usually get compliments at this committee. I think it's well deserved this time around.

The Chairman: We'd might as well enjoy this love-in from the opposition. We do the estimates next.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I know. I realize—

The Chairman: Don't get too used to this. Mr. Robinson won't be coming in.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'm trying to set the stage for that. I know I have to be back in a short time, so I'm trying to set the stage—or maybe what I'll do is just keep these memories alive.

The Chairman: Absolutely. We'll run this tape regularly for you.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: The one point Keith makes that is very important is that the landmines are one of the specific, the most injurious results of conflict itself, and certainly we're trying to shift our own foreign policy into a more preventive or peace-building mode.

Can we bring the same coalitions together? I think we can. I think we've started that, for example, on the rapid deployment proposal of the United Nations. We even got it on the agenda last spring at the G-8 meetings, to actually start talking about peace-building as a function of our own foreign policy.

But it has a long way to go, and because it's a little bit more amorphous, we have to do a little bit more work on our own definition of it. In fact, sometime in the spring it may be something we'll want to talk to the committee about in terms of helping to do public hearings.

We have a peace-building fund established, as you know, which we're now using on a number of projects: Guatemala, central Africa, Serbia, places of that kind. We are now trying to find partners in those areas. We have the Nordic countries which are interested. It doesn't have quite the same momentum as the landmine issue has, but I think it will have, because to me, it makes essential sense that if you can actually prevent the conflicts from happening or recurring, then you don't have to use the weapons that have become so destructive.

• 1130

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): I hope the coalition will give particular attention to the double attrition factor. Forty countries is not a big number to require ratification to give legal effect. The minister is to be congratulated for getting the normal threshold down from 60 to 40, but I'd remind you that 102 countries signed the Law of the Sea Convention. It took 14 years to get 60 countries to ratify it. That's the first attrition factor.

The next attrition factor is implementing legislation. The experience with anti-terrorist treaties—this is very bad. I hope you will work on this coalition, the network, getting countries that have signed but then delay in ratification to ratify, and secondly, getting countries that have ratified to implement, because of course many of us will be arguing that a general treaty, signed and ratified, is binding on non-signatories. There is jurisprudence in the World Court in support of that.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Amen.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. McWhinney.

I'm sorry, Mr. Pratt, I'm informed the minister has to leave.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: We're going out to the area to blow the bomb up.

The Chairman: We don't want you to miss the chance to blow up our last landmine—minus of course, these experimental ones you're keeping, Minister.

Ms. Williams, I'd like to thank both of you very much for coming. Minister, as you said, some members of the committee will be travelling to Bosnia. We'll be paying particular attention to the role that our troops are playing in de-mining, because we agree with you, that's an extraordinarily positive role that the troops are playing there.

Ms. Williams, perhaps if you want to return in the spring, I'm sure the committee would be willing to examine your project to have Vermont join Canada. That could be an early order of business for us to take up. We won't tell American customs you're going back home.

Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate your attendance, and we wish you well with your important work.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Members, I'm going to adjourn the meeting for five minutes, but I remind you we have to approve our work plan and our budget, so please stay, and we will go in camera. It will only take 15 minutes, but we have to get the budgets approved.

Thank you very much.