Keith Martin

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

Yes, Madam Speaker. The member for Mount Royal, perhaps unwittingly, misled this House by saying that the Reform Party did not understand what was going on outside of its borders. I did not want to bring this up during this debate but I will have her know that it was the Reform Party that in this House in 1994 started the process on land mines by presenting a private member's bill in this House calling for a ban on land mines. It was the government that refused—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I just want to mention that the member for Mount Royal is deliberately misleading this House when she mentions—

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak on behalf of the Reform Party in supporting Bill C-22. This bill is an example of what the House can do when members co-operate on an issue which is important to Canadians. It is something which we stand for as a nation. It goes to the very root of being Canadian. Canada is a country for peace, it is a country for fairness and it is a country which looks to building a better world for all people.

Bill C-22 is an example of what this House can do in the future. Reform has supported this process from the word “go”. I hope this bill will be an example of what the government and the House can do in the future with respect to foreign policy as land mines are but a small part of the larger picture of conflict and conflict prevention in the late 20th century.

I know that the minister and members of the Department of Foreign Affairs are interested in moving beyond this bill in developing foreign policy which deals not with the management of conflict but with the prevention of conflict. We are approaching an era in foreign policy when Canada can use its moral suasive power to lead other like-minded nations in developing a more peaceful world.

These are not just words. Rooted in them are pragmatic solutions which we can apply in the area of foreign policy.

I would like to reflect on when I joined this process. I was working in southern Africa on the Mozambique border in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. At that time Mozambique was one of the worst countries in the world. It was a nation racked by civil war and it was heavily mined.

The hospital was 20 kilometres from the border. Fifty thousand refugees had crossed the border looking for a better life. They were looking for a safe haven. Tragically, some of them had their legs blown off.

My last experience was in 1992 when I went to visit my old boss in the hospital. I was there on a social visit. After being there for 15 minutes the call went out that someone had stepped on a land mine. We rushed to the emergency department and then went directly to the operating room. I remember this very vividly.

As we went through the operating room there, wide awake, sitting up, was a young 18 year old Mozambiquan lad. He was looking toward the lower half of his body. His leg was torn to pieces. His foot was turned the other way around. Most of the muscle, tissue and sinew had been torn off his lower leg. He had shrapnel injuries in his groin and lower abdomen. He was very conscious of what was going on.

He was leaving Mozambique for South Africa for a better future for a safe future. He wanted to get a job and live in peace. Instead, that day he stepped and heard a click that would change his life forever.

That young man is but an example of over 30,000 individuals from around the world who silently step on these devices and are blown to pieces. Some die but many actually survive and they go on to live a life of poverty, a life of insecurity and a life that is only a shadow of what it could have been.

To give an indication of what this young man's life will be like, the leg was blown off. We took three hours to amputate his leg above the knee. He will probably require other surgeries in the future because he will be faced with infection, further revisions of his amputation. He was lucky that the injury did not go further up or that the anti-personnel mine was not larger. Many people have their legs blown off at the hip.

As the minister mentioned, some of these devices, if you can imagine, are actually designed like toys. Some are designed like butterflies. The children would pick them up naturally as they would and have their arms blown off; not to kill but to maim.

The perverse logic behind these devices is not that they are meant to kill, because that would be too simple. They are meant to maim. They are meant to maim because the person who is maimed is a constant reminder in that society of what mines can do and what the opposition, their enemy, can do to them.

They are a constant economic drain to society. They are a constant reminder, a constant example of fear that exists within the community to the people there. These people are not belligerents. They are not warriors. They are not soldiers. They are generally the public. Land mines are not designed to affect soldiers primarily, contrary to popular belief. Land mines are primarily designed to address and terrorize innocent civilians. They are a weapon of terror. They are not, generally speaking, a weapon used by military.

When I was in Mozambique, to give an indication of what they were used for, mines were used to put around people's fields. They were used to place around people's watering holes. They were used to put around people's fields so that those individuals would have to pay money or allegiance to the opposing belligerents. Otherwise they would be blown up and they could not feed themselves.

Mines also were used by guerrillas. When areas such as dams were mined, guerrillas would go in, pick up the mines and use those mines to blow up the dam or the watering area. They do not have an appropriate military use in the 1990s, contrary to popular belief.

The international committee of the Red Cross demonstrated this very conclusively and we are indebted to the hard work it did to give us the information, to diffuse the comments that land mines were actually a useful tool in war in the late 20th century. They are not. That was the primary argument that was used against this process, that mines are useful. They are supposed to be used for military purposes. They are not. They are a weapon of terror, a weapon against the public, and that is why this bill is being put forward, to ban.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the very important contribution that was made by members of the public from Canada, members of the international community and especially Mines Action Canada who have done an outstanding job of pursuing and pushing this agenda for the last four years.

Reform has been on it right from the beginning, because we put forward private members' bills starting at the beginning of 1995 and when Mr. Ouellet came on board to support it, we were very happy, and when the Minister of Foreign Affairs came on board to support it and start the Ottawa process, we were also happy to support that initiative.

Members from the Department of Foreign Affairs such Jill Sinclair, Bob Lawson, Ralph Lysyshyn have done an outstanding job in pushing this issue within the department and also internationally. I might also say that their work in Oslo was something Canadians can be proud of.

The Americans tried to water this treaty down. They tried to water it down so there were huge loopholes through it that would have made it not worth the paper it was written on. Instead, a charge was led by Canadian members of the Department of Foreign Affairs who were there who managed to mobilize support from other countries to ensure that the bill that was constructed in Oslo was going to be a bill we were proud of, a bill with teeth, a bill that would actually be effective for once in trying to ban these land mines. That is something that we as Canadians can be very proud of.

I would like for a few minutes to illustrate the scope of the problem of land mines. There are over 30,000 seeded all over the world. They inflict damages in various countries that are absolutely horrendous. In Angola 1 in 270 people is a mine victim and a similar number in Cambodia.

It goes beyond that. Land mines sit in the ground for over 50 years. As the minister mentioned, France has land mines that are blowing up people today. The most land mined country in the world is Egypt. Those land mines were seeded in the second world war and continue to blow up people every day. Land mines also continue to sit in the soil and cause huge economic devastation to countries that do not need this.

Let us not forget that most of these land mines are seeded in countries among the poorest of the world. The land mines sitting there for over 50 years prevent countries from economically getting on their feet. It has become such a serious problem in countries such as Angola and Mozambique that innocent civilians are prepared to go into mined areas to plough their fields to feed themselves. It now becomes a choice, chancing getting blown up or starving to death. Those are the cold hard realities, the cold hard choices that some of the poorest people in the world have to make every day. We should be ashamed that these devices were ever constructed and allowed to be tossed out in the manner which they have done for the last 80 plus years.

Those costs are enormous. In Croatia over thousands and thousands of hectares are mined, costing over a quarter of a billion dollars each year in lost productivity. Countries from Angola to Cambodia to Chechnya are so mined that they cannot get on their feet economically for decades.

The overall cost of demining is estimated at over $50 billion per year. These devices cost as little as $7 to $30 to make, yet each mine costs between $300 and $1,000 to remove. This cost will not be borne by the countries that are mined. It will be borne by the international community. We as nations do not have the money to do this. That is why this bill is so important. That this bill went through in such a rapid motion is something that Canadians can be proud of.

The process started four years ago and by international standards took place at light speed. There a few interesting things we can learn from this. First, we were not prepared as a nation to settle for a treaty that was going to be merely one which was developed by consensus. Usually when you push forth a treaty by consensus we get a piece of paper that is pabulum. We get a treaty that is not worth the paper it is written on because there as so many loopholes it becomes unworkable and unmanageable.

Instead we did not settle for second best. We settled for a situation that we knew the majority of the countries of the world would support. We went by a process of majority. Therefore we have a treaty which has teeth for a change. We also set a deadline. The minister set a deadline a year ago that this December would be the month we would settle on a treaty. It is something that we as Reformers can heartily support.

We are sick and tired of treaties taking decades to push forward when we know the majority of the international community will support them. While we dither on many of these issues lives are lost, countries are laid to waste, economies are destroyed and in fact we domestically pay a penalty.

When wars take place half a world away they do come to roost with us. Wars create refugees. Because we signed the convention on refugees we are obligated to bring refugees on to our soil. These tragic souls who would prefer to live in their own nations come to us looking for reprieve. It costs Canadians $75,000 per refugee to integrate them, a cost which is put on our already burdened social programs. Our defence budgets also incur great costs.

As a result we also put our soldiers in harm's way. Land mines have racked an enormous toll not only on people far away but on our own military. Peacekeepers fear land mines more than they fear the sniper's bullet. If we look at the casualties that we have incurred of our peacekeepers the majority are as a result of land mines.

In fact, we have the tragic case of a peacekeeper whose parents live on the northern part of Vancouver Island. Their son was tragically blown up in the former Yugoslavia by a land mine. They have worked very hard to bring this issue to the forefront. This is a cost that we all bear.

Further, when countries are trying to get back on their feet our aid and development budgets come into play in trying to demine and reconstruct societies and economies that have been laid to waste by war, and land mines contribute to this continual destruction within their economies.

The Ottawa process is important because it heralds a new co-operation between NGOs, non-governmental organizations, and government. We must not let this process die. For within this process lies hope to use and apply these lessons learned into other foreign policy initiatives in the future.

From 1945 to 1985 the international community has lurched from one conflict to another. We have watched the precursors to conflict exist right in front of our eyes. From Rwanda to the former Soviet Union, Cambodia, Burma, Central America wars have littered this globe and internecine conflicts have destroyed many economies and cost millions of lives.

We live in a world where rules are based on what was created after 1945. That world has changed. Between 1945 and 1985 the United Nations put forth six peacekeeping operations which cost roughly $3 billion. Between 1985 and now we have had over 26 peacekeeping operations.

The post-cold war era has set forth a new era, a new set of rules and a new set of challenges. We have not met those challenges. In fact, we have failed abysmally.

Rather than trying to prevent conflict, we have tried to manage it with all the costs that are incurred in that. We have watched in front of our eyes as nations have imploded, millions of people killed, economies destroyed and the seeds of ethnic hatred and discontent laid to bear and sewn for generations to come.

This is a penalty we will all pay. It is high time that we started to recognize that conflict management is not acceptable in foreign policy any more. We have to look ahead at preventing conflict and move our foreign policies from conflict management to conflict prevention.

This is where the Ottawa process can come into play. The NGO community is usually the first group in the trenches witnessing the precursors to conflict and the rapid inappropriate militarization, the human rights abuses, the collapse of governmental and judicial structures. All these things are witnessed by NGOs. They often communicate their wishes to governmental structures but it hits the usual inertia that exists within government and within international governments in particular.

As a result of this inertia, as a result of this inaction, we have paid the price. Those who live far away have paid a far greater price. We have to change this thinking.

It is important that we use the NGO community, use the conglomeration of NGOs part of this Ottawa process, as an early warning system that can identify countries that are ready to implode, identify the precursors to conflict and funnel this information directly to a central organization, an early warning system. Perhaps the most logical choice would be the UN crisis centre in New York. For all that can be said about the United Nations with all of its inefficiencies, it is perhaps the only choice we have today. Even if the United Nations were to be removed or were to fall apart, we would have to create something to take its place. Therein lies another challenge which I might get to later on in my speech, the restructuring and revamping of the United Nations.

The UN crisis centre could take all the information that is presented to it as an early warning organization and feed it directly into the United Nations. We must then have an existing group of responses by the international community to respond to these precursors. Such responses could be diplomatic initiatives, peace building initiatives and the introduction of positive information to dispel propaganda that is often used at the start of a conflict.

If we look at conflicts from Rwanda to the former Yugoslavia, one of the favoured tools that is used by a small number of individuals is to put forth negative propaganda to demonize another group. As Michael Ignatieff said in one of his articles, often these groups are very similar but they exist on the narcissism of their differences. They exist on demonizing the small differences that exist between different ethnic groups. In doing this, they polarize the ethnic groups which enables them to create an engendered fear, hatred, loathing and ultimately war.

That cycle must be broken. It can be broken. Once the precursors are identified, positive propaganda can be put in there. In fact the United Nations already has the power to do that through shortwave radio and existing communications tools that it has. It is exceedingly important that the UN get involved through diplomatic initiatives and positive propaganda.

Furthermore a tool that is not being used often is the tool of economics. Many of these countries rely on international financial institutions in order to survive. They also spend moneys given to them by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other IFIs on inappropriate militarization and to cause conflict. Wars need money. You cannot run a war without money. Therefore, if this is occurring, choke off the money supply.

The IFIs can be used not only as a stick but also as a carrot. As a stick we can withhold further loans, withhold their ability to renegotiate loans, moneys and grants and call back loans if necessary. We can also use them to freeze the assets of rulers who are patently engaging in activities that are going to compromise their people.

We could freeze the assets of rulers such as the late Mobutu Sese Seko who was one of the richest men in the world. There are the assets of Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya, when he engages in efforts to try to kill different ethnic groups within his country, when he tries to pit Kalenjin against Masai or Masai against Kikuyu. These kinds of activities can be stopped by directly addressing the people responsible who are often a small cadre of individuals within a nation.

The IFIs could also be used as a carrot. By lending money to provide peacemaking initiatives between different groups, by supporting peace building initiatives, by supporting activities that bring both of the groups together, by micro credit for minority groups so that they can get on their feet economically, by rewarding efforts to build structures of good governance and peace within a country, we can help to diffuse the precursors to war.

This is a big task. Again it is going to require organizations such as NGOs and governments to do this. When it comes to nation states taking a role in this, I believe that no other nation would be better at it than Canada, not alone but as an organizer.

In the late 20th century going into the 21st century there exists a void in foreign policy. The bipolar world created a world where two superpowers glared at each other at the end of a nuclear arsenal and under the absurd notion of mutual destruction. The world has changed. As that bipolar world collapsed, the shackles that held ethnic groups apart and kept ethnic hatreds simmering were removed and conflicts existed.

Countries such as the United States and many members of the security council cannot be the nation states that will bring other countries together. They are either perceived, rightly or wrongly, as having imperialistic tendencies or they have their own colonial baggage.

The world is looking for a new group of individuals to bring nation states together. I believe that responsibility will fall on the middle powers such as Austria, Australia, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Norway and Canada. Many of these nations are working in isolation on peace building initiatives. It is more efficient for these nations to work together in a multilateral fashion but no one is assuming the leadership role that would bring these countries together.

Canada can be that country. We have proven through the land mines issue that we have the moral suasive power to do this. We have proven through our Nobel peace prize for our peacekeeping efforts that we can develop international consensus for peace building. We have the diplomatic skills. We have the personnel in the Department of Foreign Affairs and we have an international reputation that is virtually unrivalled. We also have the security aspect and are involved with people from the Pacific Rim to Europe and to points south. We are in an enviable position to do that.

As we end the 20th century and enter the 21st century, I can only ask the minister to work with his colleagues in countries such as those I have mentioned. He could ask them to come to Canada to attend a small summit, a summit of the middle powers. He could bring these countries together, put the cards on the table and determine what everyone is working on in peace building.

I was in Norway at the Oslo treaty signing on land mines. I spoke to members of other countries, such as the Norwegians. I was interested to learn about their work. I found it remarkable that their work is very similar to our work. It is unfortunate that we are working in isolation. Our power to move international foreign policy forward can come about more expeditiously if we work together. There will be a lot of co-operation and like-mindedness if we pursue that.

I ask the foreign minister, the government and other members in this House to come together to pursue this course. Only if we do this can we get the required changes to stop the international bureaucratic inertia in international foreign policy. We could then address the security issues that affect us all. By security challenges and issues I refer not only to military security challenges but also to environmental security issues. Environmental issues range from our problems at the north pole to nuclear issues and to issues of the environment. All will require international co-operation.

By working with six to ten countries we can develop that nucleus. With that nucleus we can all sing from the same songbook and bring other countries together much as we did in the Ottawa process. The Ottawa process did not start with 100 countries all wanting to ban land mines. It started with a handful of countries, with the leadership of the NGO community and with the leadership of Canada and a few other nations. We can apply that same principle to pursue larger security issues and larger security challenges in the future.

I hope that we as a nation and as a Parliament can look forward to a future of addressing these larger security challenges. If we continue to lurch from conflict to conflict and do not try to prevent conflict, then we will be set with an unsustainable situation in the near future. We can no longer afford to see the implosion of nation states across this globe. We can no longer afford to see the proliferation of this destruction. If we want to speak pragmatically and domestically, these issues that occur half a world away will sooner or later come to roost in our own backyard. It is imperative that we deal with it now.

It has often been said in the medical profession that prevention is worth much more than dealing with the person's medical problem after the fact. I hope we can apply that principle to foreign policy.

When I spoke to Jody Williams, the Nobel peace prize winner about this, she said that those were nice words. I did not remind her that when we were pursuing the course of banning land mines four years ago, people said that it was a utopian dream and that those were nice words. Well these are more than nice words. There are pragmatic solutions.

If we do not seek to dream and look to the future, to building a new stronger, better world by using our expertise, by using pragmatic tools and solutions, by using the leadership that we as a nation can put forward, then we have nothing. We can and must use our moral suasive power, use the tools that are at our fingertips to build a better, more peaceful world for all people.

I will close by saying once again that this is an issue of which all Canadians can be proud. Reform is very proud to be part of the process because we have been pursuing peacekeeping initiatives for many, many years and we will continue to do so. We look forward to working with the government in pursuing pragmatic, effective peacekeeping and peacemaking solutions in the future. We hope that we will be able to do this in a way that will make Canadians proud. We can build on our history of Pearson diplomacy now with the land mines process, and live up to our heritage as Canadians and as peacemakers and pursue a course that will build a stronger, safer future for nation states around the world.

[Points Of Order, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I do not know how we can actually stand up in this House—

[Apec, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the member honestly knows, human rights and trade are two halves of the same whole. They cannot be separated.

Canadians are fed up with human rights being chatted with a whisper behind closed doors, as the prime minister has done before. Canadians want this government to stand up to its convictions and talk about human rights publicly.

Again, will the prime minister publicly debate and call for a public discussion on humans rights at the APEC summit?

[Apec, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is very happy to host the APEC summit, but Canadians are not happy when trade is done at the expense of human rights.

Some of the worst abusers of human rights are coming to British Columbia. This issue has been swept under the red carpet.

We want to know whether the prime minister is going to publicly bring up the issue of human rights at the APEC Summit.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

I would like to thank the hon. member again for her statement. I want to again impress upon her the fact that we need to ensure that Canada has an exemption for this. As she is well aware, from an economic perspective it would be economic suicide for the Americans to invoke these requirements on Canadians.

I am sure that there is a model from which we can work more co-operatively with them, although we do work very well with our American friends now on the issue. Perhaps there is more we can do to ensure that we have a greater co-operation between our respective law enforcement officers and that we do not see the tragedy that was mentioned before by a member from her side on the situation of Mr. Yeo who murdered Ms. de Villiers. We never ever want to see a tragedy like that repeated in this country.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will find co-operation on our side, from members on our team who are willing to help the government ensure that we have the toughest and most constructive bill possible for the benefit of Canadians.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary. I know how hard she has worked on this and so many other issues and I appreciate her comments.

We want to ensure, as I am sure all members do, that our students are protected and that they are carrying out their duties in a manner which is safe, primarily to them as the youth of this country.

However, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member two things which I hope she takes back to the minister. The first is the potential visa requirement which Canadians will have when they cross the border.

As the hon. member mentioned, trade is very important to our country. Living in Victoria, it is exceedingly important to my neck of the woods, which has over 600,000 Americans coming in every year to spend their money in Victoria and the surrounding areas. It is a serious issue for the people of Victoria. It is a serious issue, as she knows, for Canadians across this country.

I cannot impress upon her enough that she speak to the minister and ask that he use all of his power to convince the Americans that we require an exemption from this visa requirement. It is ludicrous for us. It will hurt the Americans even more so if the visa requirement is imposed.

Second, in my speech I gave a number of I hope constructive suggestions that she may take back to the minister, not the least of which was the issue of detailing the different contraband materials that come into this country, the failure of the justice department to deal with this issue once people are brought to trial, the need for effective penalties as a dissuasive measure for criminals and lastly on the endangered species aspect to ensure that our fish and wildlife officers have the manpower to carry out their jobs.

I suggested that perhaps students could be used in part in less dangerous aspects of their job in doing searches, not only for endangered species but also for other aspects such as drugs and weapons that students could be utilized for. That might be a cost effective way to try to damn up our border which is very porous and needs to be plugged.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-18. As previous speakers have mentioned before, you will find a great deal of consent in the House for this bill. It is a bill that is long overdue to give our customs officers the powers they should have had a long time ago, powers in effect of a peace officer.

As we mentioned before, they are repeatedly confronted by situations that at times are dangerous but historically they have not had the power to enforce the law at our borders.

As a result, at times we have seen some tragic results of individuals who have been murdered. The hon. member across the way mentioned Ms. de Villiers who was murdered by Mr. Yeo who came into this country when he was turned away by an American immigration officer, after which the American immigration officer told our forces on the other side what was occurring. There was a failure to respond.

I might say at this moment that our officers who work at the borders do an incredible job under extraordinarily difficult circumstances and we can all be very proud of the work that they attempt to do under those difficult circumstances.

However, let us just talk a little more about this bill. As we said before, it does give the power of peace officers to our customs officers, but we have some concerns over this.

Number one is the concern of the repeated use of students in roles that at times could be dangerous. It has been noted in this House that at times up to 90% of customs officers working in areas that are high traffic, high density and potentially dangerous are covered by students who have only two and a half weeks of training.

This is not to denigrate the students but we must believe that these students must have the adequate training and the protection for themselves to carry out the job.

As time passes, as criminals become more desperate, as our borders become more porous, the need for these officers to be trained appropriately and have adequate protection is going to become even more urgent.

I can only impress on the government that these students who were working in this position for their sake must have the appropriate training and protection that they require.

It is a failure of this bill that it does not address that. This bill also does not address the cost factor. We recognize the need for it but the government must also be prepared to let us know where the costs are coming from.

Perhaps the way to recoup these costs without dipping into the public purse would be to use the moneys from drug traffickers and people who are trying to bring contraband across our borders.

For too long the penalties that have been placed on individuals trafficking and bringing illegal contraband into this country have been ineffective.

Criminals know that if they come into this country and they are caught, the chances are the penalties they receive will be minuscule compared with the profits from criminal behaviour.

I will give one example right now and I will get to more later. If one were to smuggle five handguns into this country in a box one could charge over $50,000 for those handguns. The margin of profit is enormous.

We know from our correctional services that many times the penalties for trafficking, the penalties for using weapons, are often plea bargained away to get an expeditious conviction. That sends a message of absolutely zero penalty to the criminal.

Let us go through some of the flaws of the system that we have had for too long. I will go through them piece by piece.

Canada has a large porous border and the problem we have with respect to weapons is not Bill C-68. It is not criminals going and getting a firearms acquisition certificate and going in and getting a course, applying for a permit and then committing a crime. Those criminals who are using illegal weapons in the commission of a crime are doing so generally with weapons that are smuggled across our border. They are smuggled across our border because there has been a failure to block off this serious problem.

Canadians are paying the price for this and we have done an appalling job of trying to prevent this among us. The government's response to this is to invoke Bill C-68 which, at least the part that has to do with registration, will do almost nothing to make our streets safer and I would argue would make our streets less safe because of the costs incurred in trying to bring the system forward. The hon. Minister of Justice knows this right now.

Rather than investing its efforts into Bill C-68, I would ask that the government invest in supporting our peace officers on the line and in the line of duty to do their job and to also support and enforce the existing penalties in our justice system.

Second, we will talk about drugs, another very important substance that is coming across our borders in contraband. We have again failed to do this.

It was interesting to hear, in speaking to law enforcement officers recently, that if someone is charged with a crime, unless it is murder or an extremely serious offence, they are released on bail. Because of overcrowding due to a failure in investing in judges and crown counsel, we have such a backlog in our system that individuals who are guilty of serious crimes, crimes that affect innocent civilians across this country, are being let go or are being given paltry penalties. Criminals are walking away laughing because they know that our system is so backlogged. It is such a bureaucratic morass right now that the criminals are getting away, which does nothing to bring confidence into the justice system for the people of this country.

If one looks at the amount of crimes reported in this country, over 70% of violent crimes are never reported. Over 80% of rapes are never reported. Over 70% of break and enters and assaults are never reported. It is not because of the police officers who are doing their hardest to do their jobs. It is because the public has little confidence that these individuals are going to be prosecuted.

Bill C-18 can go a lot further in trying to enable our customs officers to enforce the law.

The trafficking of illegal immigrants and criminals into this country is a serious problem, mentioned before by members of the government and from our side. This cannot be overlooked. Although we have a large border, it is not impossible to deal with this issue. It is in fact essential for us to do that.

If an illegal immigrant comes to this country with a criminal record and is posing a threat to innocent civilians in Canada, be they immigrants or citizens, is it not our responsibility to do what we can to protect them? It is a lot more expensive to try to get somebody out of the country once they are here than to prevent them from coming across our borders. I think we need to keep that in mind.

Alcohol is another substance that is brought into our country across the borders and is a very serious matter. Cigarette trafficking has also been a serious problem. The government invoked a bill to decrease the price of cigarettes. That did nothing to decrease the conduit of smuggling. It decreased the trafficking of cigarettes north-south but did nothing to decrease the trafficking east-west. Furthermore, it increased trafficking east-west.

In my province of British Columbia we have a serious problem with cigarettes coming from the east and people making a profit as a result of that. A much more serious issue is the health consequences of that bill, which has committed over a quarter of a million young Canadians to pick up cigarettes.

There was an answer that would have decreased smoking among youth and would have also decreased the trafficking. It was to bring forth the export tax. The government did that but it also dropped the price. The export tax alone on cigarettes would have cut the legs out from the trafficking of cigarettes north-south.

When Mr. Mulroney did this, I think in 1992, within seven weeks the smuggling of cigarettes decreased by 70%. The Conservative government of the day backed down because the cigarette companies said they would get out of this country if the government did not pull the export tax. What did the Conservative government do at that time? It stuck its tail between its legs and removed the export tax. The smuggling continued. It does nothing to diminish one aspect of cigarette trafficking. We have to address all the components of trafficking which are the conduits. Bill C-18 does go some way to do that and I congratulate the government for pursuing that course.

Finally, I will talk about endangered species. The smuggling and trafficking of endangered species in Canada is a serious problem. Canadians may be interested to know that we are one of the top countries in the world for the smuggling of endangered species products, everything from powdered rhino horn, tiger bones, penguin bones, rare orchids, rare butterflies and birds. All of these are brought into Canada and shipped to other parts of the world and we are culpable.

The failure to act in this area has resulted in the decimation of some very important species, species that could have benefits for all of us, but more important are the heritage of everyone in the world.

The black rhino population has been decimated by 98% over the last 20 years and the elephant population by over 80%, but is now starting to replenish. The Bengal tigers of India were for a time increasing after some measures were invoked by India. Because of rampant trafficking and slaughter and the lax system for trying to apprehend people who are doing this, the tiger population is plummeting.

There are other species such as the Sumatran tiger and the spotted cat of China which are being decimated in large part because of the trafficking in these animals.

It is a shame that we as a country that prides itself in standing for justice, fairness, one which is sensitive to the environment, would not enforce the laws dealing with endangered species. Canadians would be interested to know that there are only a handful of hard working, overworked, and underfinanced fish, game and wildlife officers who are trying to prevent the decimation of these beautiful creatures. They cannot do it.

Another problem in their job has been the failure of the justice department to invoke penalties that fit the crime. Individuals who are trafficking in gall bladders laugh at the penalties. The penalties meted out to them are nothing compared to the profits of the trafficking in endangered species. But there are some solutions.

Perhaps the government would entertain the idea that instead of using students in front line customs positions as Bill C-18 alludes to, which could be potentially dangerous, perhaps they could be used with fish, game and wildlife officers to search for contraband. Then we could get a better handle on apprehending individuals who are trafficking in drugs and contraband materials.

The government could also invoke the Pelly amendment such as the legislation that exists in the United States which would give a lot of teeth to try to prevent the trafficking in endangered species.

In closing, I would again like to lend our support to Bill C-18 and commend the government in its pursuit of this important legislation which will finally give our customs officers the power they require to do their jobs safely and effectively. I would also ask the government to for heaven's sake make sure that the students who are working in those positions are trained properly and protected from harm. Let us also ensure that the courts will be empowered to enforce the law in our country.

It will be for the justice minister to take a very close and brutally honest look at the justice system as it is presently and to finally delve into the serious problems we have in trying to ensure that justice is met, that the Canadian public will be protected and that criminals will be arrested and will pay the penalty for breaking the laws in our country.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. minister on his speech, much of which we can agree on but some of which we have some difficulty with.

Is the Minister of National Revenue aware of the drug trafficking, the trafficking of people, arms, alcohol and cigarettes that is occurring in Quebec and Ontario across our borders with the United States? Is he aware that serious allegations have been made that our police officers have been told to turn a blind eye to this situation that has been going on for far too long?

I would like to also know what the hon. minister would like to do about that and whether or not he would like to entertain a discussion with the Minister of Justice on this particular and very serious issue. We can give our customs officers all the powers that they can have but if they are not going to be allowed to enforce those powers and if they are being told by people higher up that they should not enforce those powers, that is a serious breach of justice within our country.