Keith Martin

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that there were others involved in the land mines process. Mines Action Canada, a conglomeration of non-governmental organizations, has done an outstanding job of bringing this issue forward. Other members of Parliament in this House have brought the issue forward. Members of the public have been bringing the issue forward for the past four years. It was not just the government that worked on this. I just wanted to correct the member.

I also wanted to correct the member on another point. Not only England was involved in this process and only after Princess Diana pushed the government to pursue this course, but other countries around the world including Norway and Canada were also involved. Belgium was one of the first countries in the world to take the initiative of unilaterally destroying its mines. It banned mines before the issue ever came to the forefront.

I would like to set the record straight on that point. If the member wants to correct her speech to that effect, I am sure she is free to do so.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his answer. I wonder, though, if he could address the second part of my question. In subclause 22(1) it states that the minister has the discretion as to how the things being seized are to be disposed of. Should it not be the courts that decide how things are to be disposed of and not the minister?

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, on subclause 22(2), I have a question for the minister and his official.

They talk about things that have been seized in respect to the commission of an offence. I would like a point of clarification here. When they talk about things being seized, does that clarify subclause 22(2) and refer to things being specifically modified for use in committing the offence which excludes property only marginally related to the offence?

In other words, do things in subclause 21(1) refer to things that are directly associated with the commission of the offence, for example a car that can be used to transport mines, not the person's home?

Also, when you are referring to the fact that the minister has the discretion as to how the things that are seized are to be disposed of, should not the courts decide how these things, as they are defined in subclause 22(2), be the power that decides where and how these things are supposed to be disposed?

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, are there any precedents or examples to which the minister can speak that would show how the prosecution can decide whether or not in circumstances such as these there is a separation between summary convictions and indictable offences?

I am concerned that the bill can be driven into very punitive measures where a great deal of effort is put into convicting people of indictable offences. On the contrary, a great deal of effort could be put into making sure that people are charged under summary convictions.

I would like to know from the minister and his officials what separation exists. Are there examples that we can examine, or examples he can give the House today to show how the process would actually work?

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister.

Clause 21 indicates that the hybrid offence provides an opportunity for enforcement officers to determine, depending on the gravity of the offence, whether or not to proceed with a more serious instance of indictable process.

What criteria will be used to differentiate between a summary conviction and an indictable offence within the context of the bill?

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party cannot support the amendment by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, but we certainly see the utility of having it introduced into the House of Commons for further debate and for further examination.

If the amendment were to be proceeded with right now, it would change the bill in a manner that would detract from the current activity and the current thrust of the bill. We look forward to going ahead in the future and examining it in further detail.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, I wonder from the minister and his advisors what he believes reasonable grounds are and what provisions exist within this part of the bill to protect the privacy of members of the public.

It seems to be somewhat heavy handed in that it gives the minister and extraordinary amount of power to enter or require information from people. I would like to have him define what reasonable grounds are.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, although this amendment has some good points, it is really irrelevant to this bill. It is not necessary, adds nothing to the bill and we oppose this amendment.

[Land Mines, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today marks a historic day for Canada when we will pass in this House a law which will ban the use, production and sale of anti-personnel mines.

By doing this, Canada will be one of the first nations in the world to actually have a law banning these heinous devices that claim over 30,000 lives a year and lays to waste economies of some of the poorest nations of the world.

Canada, along with NGOs, has led the charge to ban these devices. Mines Action Canada, foreign affairs personnel and members of Parliament have stood together to pursue this. This is an example of what Canada can do on the international stage.

Now we must move beyond land mines and use this Ottawa process to address the larger security issues that affect us all. We must move from a reactive foreign policy to a proactive one. The 21st century needs a leader to pursue these objectives and Canada can be this leader.

The 21st century belongs to Canada. We must seize the day and move forward.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my friend from Kings—Hants for a wonderful and eloquent speech on this important day and on this important issue. Once again he has demonstrated his commitment to foreign policy which he has done since he came to this Parliament, and he continues to do so in a very eloquent manner.

I wanted to bring to his attention, although he probably already knows, that in the maritimes there exist a number of groups very active in the processes of demining and have been working all across the world as Canadians and as maritimers to pursue demining and have done Canadians proud.

By their actions they have saved many lives and are continuing to further the important issue of how we get these hundreds of millions of land mines out of the ground.

I hope the hon. member will work with these groups and give them the help they require for the betterment of Canadians and for the betterment of people abroad.

Just to refer to the comments by the member for Mount Royal, a point of clarification, we as the Reform Party are happy to engage in international initiatives but we want to make sure that when we go on international trips these trips are work trips, that these trips are meant so that we actually gain some experience and expertise and that they are a productive use of taxpayer money.

We have not and are not interested in pursuing any course that will take us abroad where we will deal with international trips that are going to be a waste of taxpayer money, a waste of our time.

In these times of difficult financial strain placed on so many Canadians and on our budgets, we in the Reform Party are very sensitive to this and that is why we continue to assess each trip abroad with the potential benefits and merits of that trip. We will only go on these trips where there is a demonstrable need and where we are going to gain and have some effective input into these trips.

I would like to again congratulate the member for Kings—Hants and ask if he can tell us if he has any ideas on any opportunities that he can present to this House or any ideas that he has on how Canada can continue to engage in the important process of demining.