Keith Martin

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-61, the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement.

We in the Reform Party approve of bilateral trade agreements on the basis that they will strengthen the existing World Trade Organization.

I know my colleague for Peace River has some very good ideas on this and he would certainly be happy to advise the government on various new initiatives it should undertake.

A larger issue with respect to the Middle East is the security issue that threatens trade agreements and threatens the security not only between Israel and Palestine but the regional security which exists there which will have a huge impact on world economy.

Currently the peace process is in disarray. There is a possibility it will fall apart. The Israelis and the Palestinians are polarized. We have a very important window of opportunity to help build bridges between the two groups.

After Mr. Netanyahu was elected it seemed that the Likud Party was pulled away from the work which was done by Mr. Netanyahu's predecessor, Mr. Shimon Peres.

On the other side, it did not take much for Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian authority to pull away from the peace agreement.

Both groups have to realize that their fates are intimately entwined. History, geography and the future will not separate them.

The conditions in the Palestinian autonomous areas are absolutely appalling. It is no wonder that terrorism has stemmed from these areas. It reflects the sheer frustration, anxiety and fear of these people. For example, in the Gaza Strip unemployment is over 70 per cent. That breeds desperate people and desperate people often resort to violence.

I would humbly suggest that economics is partly responsible for this situation. We have an opportunity through the free trade agreement with Israel to place conditions on how the Israelis will engage with the Palestinians in Palestinian autonomous areas. It should not be done in a heavy handed way, but in a coercive way for the betterment of both groups. The outcome of that will be improved chances for peace for all people.

If we can do that we will cut the legs out from the radical elements of Hamas that are responsible for the bombings that took place in Tel Aviv. It will cut the legs out from grassroots support for Hezbollah. It will cut the grassroots support for the Islamic Jihad. The only way to do that is to offer the Palestinian people in the autonomous regions some element of economic emancipation. Hamas has received support by providing schools, medical care and economic opportunities for these desperate people who are crying for improvement in their appalling situation.

I would encourage the government to find ways to work with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities to improve their bilateral economic agreements.

I would also suggest that the closure of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip must end. It must end in conjunction with agreements from Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian authority that they will make swift, decisive and effective moves against terrorism in their areas. They cannot have it both ways. If the Palestinian authority is going to preach peace, it must act in a peaceful way. It will be painful, but it will have to act with its own people. Only by doing that will the Palestinians be able to achieve the respect and trust of the Likud Party and Mr. Netanyahu.

On the other hand, Mr. Netanyahu has to stop closing down the West Bank and the Gaza Strip so freely and, at times, unfairly. That polarizes the Palestinian people and grassroot support wanes.

We must also pursue avenues to improve the education system in the Palestinian autonomous areas, the economics and also the infrastructure development which will be required. In order to do this there has to be a radical shift. We cannot continue to have this polarization between both groups.

A few of the key players are going to have to be brought to the table. A key in the Middle East peace process is Hafez al-Assad of Syria. One of the great failings is that Mr. Assad has not been brought to the table with Mr. Netanyahu or his predecessor and with the King of Jordan and hopefully Mr. Mubarak of Egypt.

If these people can be brought to the table face to face then we are going to see some action. Mr. Assad controls Syria. He also has a huge sway in what happens on the northern border of Israel with Hezbollah. Israel is only going to feel secure on her northern boundary if the activities of Hezbollah are removed and the key to that is Mr. Assad.

Mr. Assad's intermediaries are not going to call the shots. We are not going to get any significant advancement in the peace process without Mr. Assad himself sitting down face to face with Mr. Netanyahu, King Hussein of Jordan, Mr. Mubarak and of course Mr. Arafat.

Another aspect is Jerusalem, an extremely sore spot. It eludes me as to why this area, the seat of so many religions of the world, this exquisitely beautiful area which all of us in this House and billions of people around the world have such a connection to, is the seed of such rancour and animosity and the root provocation of so much killing. It is completely opposed-I do not care whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, that is not what Jerusalem has ever been about or should be about. It is not what Jerusalem stands for.

A possible solution, because the groups are actually polarizing quite dramatically with Jerusalem, is to put it under UN protection. If the groups are not willing to share in Jerusalem, as right now they are not prepared to do, then the United Nations has to try to get tacit support from them to make Jerusalem a protected zone for the world, for all religions and for all people who follow those religions and have a spiritual connection with that beautiful city.

My other point is on the whole aspect of the Palestinian autonomous areas and settlements. It is an absolute provocation for the Israeli government to continue to support settlements in the Palestinian autonomous areas. It is a slap in the face to the Palestinian authority and a slap in the face to the Palestinian people. It polarizes them dramatically and is only an act of provocation.

The first thing the Israelis ought to do, and Canada can take a coercive role in this, is to: one, stop immediately all new building of Israeli settlements in Palestinian autonomous regions; two, remove some of those settlements out of the Palestinian autonomous regions and there will be some kind of trust again from the Palestinian people. The Palestinian authority must also provide assurances to the Government of Israel that terrorist activities are going to cease and desist. They will not but they must at least take an active role with the Israeli defence forces to come down on these extreme groups that are causing havoc in the whole peace process.

Another factor which not many people are talking about and which in the long run overshadows much of what can take place in the Middle East is water. There is very little potable water left in the Middle East. Those water levels are going down dramatically. It may not sound like very much but if human beings cannot drink water, they will not live there. If there is no water, they cannot grow crops. If crops cannot be grown in these areas, there are not going to be settlements. This is a problem that affects not only Israel and

the Palestinian people but it also affects Jordan and to a lesser extent Syria.

Here is an opportunity for Canada to get groups of hydrologists together with other hydrology specialists in the world to help the Middle East try to maximize the water available and to improve the conservation and the development of the water tables that exist there. No matter what we do, if there is no water in the future, there simply is not going to be any people who wish to live there.

I will close by saying that historically we have had two sides in the polarization. They have come together in a narrow window of opportunity and with great hope for the world in the peace process that took place in conjunction with the Americans.

Sadly, what has happened since the last election is that the two groups are polarizing. They must realize that their fates again are intimately entwined. Perhaps they cannot live together in the same country. I think that is probably what is going to happen, but at least let them live side by side in peace and then develop economic co-operation between both groups. If those economic bridges develop, then peace will develop and the decades of mistrust and hatred are going to peel away, albeit slowly.

There is a saying in the Middle East that peace is when a son buries his father and war is when a father buries his son. I hope for all the people of the Middle East that there will be far fewer fathers burying their sons. I also hope that Canada can take her role with the other members of the international community to develop in co-operation to bring peace to this much troubled area.

[The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, I would clearly agree with the hon. member that it took far too long for this to come to the House. I would also agree with him and my colleague, the Reform critic for international trade, that this issue should have gone to a NAFTA panel immediately. It is unfortunate that the government chose not to do that.

I hope that in the future the minister will know that he can receive co-operation from this side of the House in bringing these initiatives much more quickly through a NAFTA panel or the WTO. If this does come up in the future, I hope he will take this initiative.

Very soon after these initiatives take place, I am sure our Reform critic for international trade will be very happy to give his expert opinion on constructive ways we can resolve these very complicated issues in international trade.

As an aside, I hope that in dealing with the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement the minister is also going to take note of the impact on the Palestinian people. If he chooses to ignore this he is going to do damage to a key linchpin on helping to resolve some of the major issues in the current Middle East crisis.

Therefore I would strongly advise him to take heed and pay attention to acting co-operatively with the Palestinian people to ensure that the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement is going to deal with co-operative initiatives to improve the tragic and terrible economic situation that we see on the West Bank and Gaza strip.

[The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for his question.

[The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-54, an act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.

It is wise to look at from where the Helms-Burton bill comes and why the bill actually came about in the United States. It is driven by the Cuban ex-patriot community there.

I do not think many people understand the power the Cuban ex-patriot community has in the United States. This is not a benign group. They are trying to forge and foist their ideas on American foreign policy and have successfully done so in the Helms-Burton bill. They seek redress of moneys and properties they feel were taken from them when they left Cuba. They will go to any lengths to do this. On speaking to congressmen and senators in the United States, they will go to the extent of threatening congressmen and senators to do this.

Their sphere of influence, not surprisingly, does not only exist within Florida and southeastern United States, but much to my surprise goes all the way up the east coast and toward California. Their power is extensive and they exert political and economic power on American foreign policy. The reason why the Helms-Burton bill was passed is because it is an election year. The congressmen and the senators who are running this year have had pressure put on them by the small but powerful group of ex-patriot Cubans.

It is no wonder, and much to the credit of Canada, that we have stood up to this heinous bill that says to other countries that your friends must be our friends, your foes must be our foes and our foreign policy must be your foreign policy and if you choose not to do that, our laws will become your laws.

It is much to the credit of Canada that we have stood steadfast against this gross and inexcusable action by a country that seeks to throw its weight around in the international sphere. Sometimes they do it in a beneficial way, but in this case they are doing it in the most deplorable way to a country that we have always thought to be their friend and ally.

It is not only affecting Canada. It affects all the countries in the world. That is why I applaud the minister for taking up the initiative through NAFTA. I hope he will take it up through the World Trade Organization. I know he has taken up with the European Union. I hope he takes it up also with the Organization of American States.

Collectively, these are initiatives that can send a very clear message to America that says: "You cannot engage in this kind of behaviour in the international sphere. While you are one of two superpowers in the world, you too have to abide by the laws that govern the world, you too have to abide by the rules-based laws that we have in international trade and you are not big enough to be brought down by the countries in the world".

Collectively, these laws were set up for our collective benefit. For those out there who oppose free trade, this is a perfect example of how a country, one-tenth the size of America, can take a leadership role to make this large bear below us heel to the rules that govern all of us in international trade and international security.

I would also like to applaud Canada for the role it has taken in Cuba. We have ignored threats from the United States in the past and we have engaged with Cuba in co-operative bilateral trade.

This is very important. The Americans I think fail to see the importance of this. If they choose to ignore co-operative bilateral agreements, trade, initiative, social interactions and discourse with Cuba, then they seek to have another Haiti in our midst. We all know the penalty that we collectively pay for having the tragic situation, which is what we found in Haiti, in our midst. The western world, North America, the Caribbean and Central America do not need another Haiti.

Cuba is at a very sensitive time in its history. I am very pleased that Canada has taken it on itself to take a leadership role in building bridges of understanding and co-operative trade to benefit the people of Cuba.

The people of Cuba will not forget the effort that Canadians have made for their well-being. Anyone who has travelled to Cuba understands very clearly the terrible state of affairs that Cubans are in right now.

There is a great opportunity for the expertise that we have within Canada to provide for bilateral trade, bilateral aid and bilateral initiatives that will help the Cuban people stand on their own two feet and develop a solid economic base on which peace is predicated.

American foreign policy seeks to damage the Cuban economy and the Cuban people. A power vacuum will be left when Mr. Castro dies. What can happen under those circumstances, as we have seen in many other parts of the world, are tragic situations of conflict. This is another example of how Canada has taken the initiative in a very proactive way in trying to defuse a potential down the road situation where conflict can arise as we have seen in Haiti.

This shows a role that Canada can take in the international sphere in the future, an area in which there is a void. In the 21st century power is going to come from three sources. The first two are traditional, economic power and military power. The third is an area that no country in the world is looking at but one which I think that Canada and a handful countries can capitalize on, the area of

being the organizer. Canada could be that middle power which organizes the multinational initiatives. Reorganization of multinational initiatives is going to be required to address the very important geopolitical security and environmental threats that face all of the nations of the world.

Not a lot of countries can do that, certainly not the United States of America. I do not believe it could be any country that is a member of the Security Council right now. I suggest to the minister that Canada ought to work with his counterpart the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the six to eight middle powers that have managed to retain a sense of neutrality, respect and skill in international diplomatic endeavours.

Let us not forget that as a nation we have repeatedly done this in a superb way throughout the world. In numerous conflicts, Canadians through the diplomatic corps, through diplomatic initiatives, through intelligent foreign policy, have managed to save millions of lives and billions of dollars of economic destitution that would have occurred had these conflict not been either prevented or ameliorated.

That is something of which Canadians from coast to coast ought to be proud. It is not only the diplomatic corps, but it is also our military in the peacekeeping forces that have put their lives on the line for the sake of peace and prosperity for the international community.

This is a role that Canada can take. It can take a leadership role with other countries to exert pressure on the other powerful nations, such as the Security Council members, to truly prevent conflict rather than the current foreign policy that exists in the world which deals with managing conflict.

I may digress for a moment on this important area. Historically we call conflict management conflict prevention. That is a big failing because the precursors to conflict are there years before a real conflict takes place. If those precursors had been identified and addressed, many of the tragedies of the late 20th century could have been avoided.

The most prominent of these is the former Yugoslavia. Perhaps Burundi and Rwanda could not have been prevented but certainly the tragedies that we saw there could have been ameliorated if initiatives had been put forward earlier. It includes identifying the precursors that are taking place and ameliorating them.

Canada has taken a role in that but our foreign policy is still focused on conflict management. Hence, the rapid reaction force, hence peacekeeping. Once we have to employ rapid reaction forces or peacekeeping it is too late. The seeds of ethnic discontent have already been planted for this and future conflicts and it is too late.

It is very sad because most of the time in these tragedies it is not the soldiers that are killed. Ninety per cent of the casualties occurring in conflicts in the 20th century are civilians. They did not ask for it, they do not want it. All they want to do is live in peace. Often because of the megalomaniac desires of a small cadre of individuals who choose to exert power, not for the benefit of peace but for the benefit of a small group of people who have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about killing their own civilians, many thousands if not millions of people will suffer.

That is where Canada can play a role. We should not be sending our peacekeepers hither and thither. Certainly the collective community can take forceful initiatives to prevent conflict from taking place.

Canada could take measures through the international financial institutions. Non-military, economic levers could be applied to individuals who choose to abrogate their responsibilities to a nation and to a people and who engage in behaviour which flies in the face of international security.

Collectively we have sat on our hands and done nothing about it. That has cost the lives of our peacekeepers. Money has been spent by our defence department. Billions of dollars of reconstruction funds have been spent in our aid budgets. This money need not have been spent.

One could argue that we should get involved early on the basis of humanitarian grounds. However, there is also a very pragmatic reason for getting involved early and that is cold, hard economics.

Canadians want to know why we are getting involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. There are economic reasons. As well, many people who live in areas of conflict migrate to our shores. It is not that these true refugees are not welcome in Canada, but the fact remains that they would rather live in their own country in peace and security.

I encourage our ministers to work together with ministers from other middle powers, such as New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The foreign ministers of these nations should get together to develop co-operative initiatives to deal with conflict prevention, rather than conflict management.

Furthermore, I would strongly suggest to the minister that initiatives be taken through international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the United Nations.

I have no delusions that these are very great tasks. I have no delusions that we will accomplish all we set out to do. However, we must try. The geopolitical threats and the environmental threats of the future cannot be confronted by one nation alone. They must be confronted by all nations of the world. Those are the cold, hard

facts. One nation cannot deal with these problems. There must be a collective effort in addressing them.

We must look at this not only on the basis of humanitarian grounds, but also on the very pragmatic basis of economics, on the basis of saving our aid and on the basis of saving our military personnel. By doing this we will achieve savings in those areas.

I strongly support the bill. It shows excellent initiative on the part of Canada. I hope it will be one of many initiatives which Canada will take in a leadership role in the international community. Interestingly enough, the outcome of the bill could be that Canada will have a much stronger reputation in the international community. That would increase our moral suasive power and our diplomatic powers. Again, that need not cost money. Perhaps we can use our diplomatic corps, very keen, intelligent and eloquent individuals with an enormous amount of experience. We might be able to use them more effectively in the initiatives I mentioned before.

I know members from the Reform Party and I am sure the Bloc Quebecois would be very happy to work with the government in trying to engage in initiatives that will benefit our collective society.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member agrees with me that the former minister did not have the intestinal fortitude to make the changes that are required to save our country's fisheries.

Let us examine the kinds of cuts this government is prepared to make. In my riding, in Sooke which is about 35 or 40 kilometres from Victoria, the government closed the local DFO office. Why did it take two active enforcement fisheries officers away from Sooke, one of the most active fishing areas on the west coast? Why did it close that office? Because it wanted a half day secretarial position in Victoria. These are the types of cuts this government is prepared to make, what it calls effective cuts. It gets rid of two enforcement officers and puts forth one half time equivalent in a secretarial position.

I would like to go on but I know I do not have the time. If those are the kinds of cuts this government is prepared to make and is making, we do not support that at all. We support effective cuts that will get rid of the bloated bureaucracy here in Ottawa in an effective way. Bring the power to the local people. Support local initiatives and give the DFO officers the backing they require.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that we cannot manage a 20-mile zone, let alone a 200-mile zone. That is the reality we face on the west coast.

For example, right now fishing boats are vacuuming our oceans, going offshore taking fish and putting them on commercial packing and freezing vessels from other countries on the Pacific rim. This is all done under the table. Enforcement officers and the coast guard know this and absolutely nothing is done.

I know the member is very sympathetic and is involved and has done a lot of good work for the people in his area. He knows this is happening.

We can extend the zone out to 500 miles if we want to, but it will not make any difference because there is no political will to do anything about it. That is the problem: political will. The rest is merely a sham.

I implore the hon. member who has worked so hard for his people to put pressure on the minister, as we are trying to do, to provide effective solutions within the 20-mile zone, the 200-mile zone, or whatever zone he wants to extend it to, because it is not happening now.

To answer the member's other question, the DFO bureaucracy is extremely top heavy. It is working against the very good people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the ground who feel extraordinarily frustrated. The best DFO officers are moved away from their areas of most effectiveness to areas where they are least effective. This is happening to them right now purely because of political reasons. They are doing this because the DFO bureaucracy at the top do not want to see these people carrying out their jobs because part of their job is politically incorrect.

The DFO bureaucracy are afraid of actually living up to the rules and regulations upon which they are supposed to operate but do not. The DFO officers on the ground who are committed, hard working individuals want very much to save our fishery for everybody. It breaks their hearts and demoralizes them to see their own bureaucracy hampering them. Those are the facts.

To answer the hon. member's last question, I agree with him that the movement away from chemicals that are teratogenic and carcinogenic and damaging to the environment is excellent. He raised the example of BT, a Canadian discovery. I would also remind the hon. member that we are probably not going to have any more BT discoveries in Canada because research has been gutted by his own bureaucracy and ministry.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-26, the oceans act.

I am going to deal with very specific areas that the government and previous governments have failed to deal with in an extremely important aspect of Canadian society. The oceans surround our country on three sides. Within those oceans exist enormous opportunity and responsibility: commercially, socially, with respect to protecting the environment and the species that live within them. These waters can benefit not only Canadians but also people around the world.

First I want to speak about the minister's plan dealing with the commercial fishing strategy, which to me, living in British Columbia, is a huge disappointment. The various sectors in the commercial fishing groups have met with the minister and have expressed concrete, specific and reasonable proposals that are fair to everybody and would save our fisheries for today and into the future.

Instead, the minister proposed the Mifflin plan which unfortunately is going to decimate the commercial fishing strategy on the west coast. It will produce an east coast disaster on the west coast. This is an entirely preventable situation. What is the minister going to do?

The minister is going to centre the commercial fishery into a very small number of hands. He is decreasing the number of fishing boats, which is a good thing, but instead of doing it in a fair way, he is making sure that commercial fishing in British Columbia is in the hands of a very small number of large players. The outcome will be great unemployment among the commercial fishing sector. The little communities up and down the coast of British Columbia that have survived for decades on fishing for their livelihood will be decimated. The social implications cannot be underestimated.

It is clear to everybody in the House what it means to a small community to have its single industry ripped from it. This does not need to happen. Because of the fees being implemented, the commercial fisheries in British Columbia will be in the hands of the large boats and producers. The little people will be out of a job, out of work and up the creek.

An intelligent strategy needs to be put forward. Along with scientists, the minister should define what the allowable catch should be. That information should be given to the different groups that will decide for themselves how they are going to divide it up. In that way the government does not get involved in how this will be done and it does not get the flack for it. The sole responsibility lies within the different commercial fishing strategies themselves. It would also include the sports fishing strategy which must not be underestimated as it has been in the past.

In British Columbia there are 300,000 sports fishermen. These individuals inject billions of dollars into the British Columbia economy every year.

This minister and previous governments have utterly ignored this important sector. They tell them how much fish they can catch every year far too late. For example, beginning in January are the first trade shows for the sports fishing groups in British Columbia. They need to know before these shows how much they are allowed to catch, where they are allowed to fish, to be able to get visitors and tourists from around the world to come to our waters to fish.

Last year those data came down in the spring. As a result visitors who would normally come to the waters of British Columbia to fish said they are not coming because they believe there will not be any fish to fish and they do not know how much they can fish. A lot of people from around the world felt there was simply no salmon to catch in British Columbia. That is an avoidable tragedy.

If this continues the sports fishing groups within British Columbia will be decimated at a huge loss to British Columbia and the Canadian economy.

These data are available in November. I am proposing that the minister, with scientists, determine how many fish the sports fishing groups can take and where they can take it from. The minister will let them know what that catch is going to be by December 1. That is a challenge I put to the minister of fisheries and the people who work in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

If he can do that one thing then our sports fishing groups will have the opportunity and the ability to get fishermen from around the world to come to Canada, to spend their money and inject money into the Canadian economy. This can happen and I implore him to do this now rather than waiting until the spring when it is too late.

One of the things the minister is not doing is addressing the commercial fishing strategy in an intelligent fashion. He is not setting appropriate limits, he is setting them too late and he is not enabling them to divide up the catch among themselves in a way that is appropriate.

Many intelligent ideas have come from commercial fishing groups such as catching at the mouths of rivers or outside of certain areas and not setting up a wall of net so that the fish do not get vacuumed out of the ocean. The minister must let the fish go up the river in adequate numbers to lay their eggs and smaller fish to come down later one. If he does not do this the stream will die.

The minister has been negligent in addressing the whole aspect of enforcement. It is critically important when you are speaking about enforcement that it take place fairly and equitably regardless of nationality, the colour of skin or ethic origin. It is imperative that the minister tell his Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers who are currently hamstrung by the upper echelons in the bureaucracy that they must enforce the law to the benefit of all.

I do not care who you are, everybody will benefit by the fair and equitable enforcement of the law. Currently that is not happening. A blind eye is given to certain segments of our society that fish and poach. The officers of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the RCMP are told not to deal with them because the government is afraid of having a confrontation with these people or being labelled racist or anti-aboriginal, and that is not acceptable.

It does a huge disservice to the aboriginal people who, for example, are fishing within their limits in a fair and equitable way, as the vast majority are, and who are interested in having a long term sustainable fishery. It does a huge disservice to the non-aboriginal community members who feel left out of the loop and who feel they are being treated as second class citizens. One law for everybody and it has to be enforced. That way you get respect for the laws of the land. Without that no respect exists.

The minister must also bring together the people who actually damaged the environment in which the fish are living. Habitat rejuvenation is one of the key elements in rejuvenating our west coast fishery. There are a large number of streams that have been decimated by logging and mining.

It is important that these streams get back to where they were but it is equally important that the taxpayer not pay for that. Those who actually polluted are those who should pay. That is where the minister's job comes in. That is where the minister has to take a leadership role and say "you damaged the stream, you are going to fix it up but we are going to work in a co-ordinated way to provide you with the ability to do this". Perhaps some tax benefits for doing this would be advisable.

In doing that we can rejuvenate our streams, increase the flows of wild stocks of salmon and thereby increase the economic viability of our west coast fishery. All of these things are interwoven and all of them must be addressed: adequate dealings with the commercial and sports fishing sectors, setting adequate limits for all of those groups, habitat rejuvenation, law enforcement.

If the minister could stop studying these issues and start acting on them, perhaps we will be able to save our west coast fishery instead of looking into the eyes of the east coast disaster.

Another aspect that is critically important on the west coast which this bill could deal with but does not is the whole aspect or lighthouses. It has been shown quite unequivocally that the destaffing of lighthouses on the west coast is going to have a negative effect on the safety of the people who ply our waters in that area. It has been shown not only from a safety aspect but, more important, from an economic aspect. If we are going to deal with cold, hard facts, let us deal with them.

If we destaff a lighthouse it is going to cost the taxpayer more money to service that lighthouse than if there were somebody there right now. The amount of money that person actually puts into maintaining that lighthouse far exceeds that person's wages, far exceeds the cost to the taxpayer. It is senseless and utterly idiotic to destaff lighthouses on the west coast.

I implore the minister before it is too late to look at this again, look at it intelligently, look at the facts. I am sure he will come to the conclusion that it is better not to deman our lighthouses on the west coast.

There are also other local initiatives that can be supported. The western marine community in British Columbia has put a proposal for the funding of our coast guard. It is a sensible proposal. It is a proposal that would not cost the taxpayer more money. It is a proposal that would provide for effective coast guard search and

rescue responses in British Columbia. I ask the minister again to look at this very good proposal by the western marine community.

As well, there are a lot of local initiatives where the people have come together to put forth search and rescue capabilities in the smaller communities which are not easily serviced by the coast guard. These are inexpensive ways of providing safety on the west coast. The minister can take a leadership role not by putting more money into the system but by encouraging these initiatives with the local groups and again have a user pay situation.

I am sure the boaters who ply the waters on the west coast will not mind paying for this service that they will desperately need at some time in their lives.

Another large area that this bill does not deal with and one that is very close to my heart and I am sure the hearts of many Canadians, in particular the youth of Canada, is the environment. As we speak, there are huge problems with respect to pollution within our oceans. That is manifested, for example, in the elevation of toxic carcinogenic, teratogenic materials such as PCBs and many other substances that are going through our food chain and are magnifying themselves as they go up the food chain. The outcome of that is these animals are dying but in the larger area we can see that if we are at the top of the food chain, these toxins and carcinogens are also accumulating within us.

We may think this is not a problem, but I would draw the attention of the House to the Arctic. The people who live in the Arctic are suffering from greater teratogenic effects, genetic abnormalities and cancer rates than would normally occur. The reason this is occurring is that toxins and carcinogens are accumulating in the food chain. When people eat, the toxins and carcinogens accumulate in them and the outcome is a medical disaster.

I plead with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment to bring forth intelligent and effective solutions to this problem. It cannot be done in isolation. The pollutants in our Arctic also come from other Arctic countries.

I was in Yellowknife earlier this year where the countries of the Arctic got together to discuss this issue. I had hoped to see some action. Unfortunately they chose to study the problem and create an Arctic council to look at the problem. The time for studying and examining has run out. The time has long past for another royal commission or for a House of Commons committee to study the problem. We need action now. The people of the Arctic need action now. If anyone doubts me, let them go to the Arctic and let them look at the horrible diseases which are affecting those people. It is going to get worse.

We are a leader in a number of areas. One of the areas in which we are a leader is research. On the west coast, in Victoria, there is a superb research facility which provides research that is commercially applicable and scientifically applicable. Scientists from all over the world look to us and derive information from our research for their own uses.

Cuts must be made, but we should not cut important research. The research done in these areas will have a dramatic effect on our society which will benefit all of us. It would be penny wise and pound foolish for us to cut research in these areas.

A few years ago we had an excellent opportunity to be a world leader in fish farming. The Chileans took it away from us because we let them. Icelanders came to us a few years ago and said: "Canada, we are very good at fish farming. We are very good at managing our fisheries. Let us work with you in developing co-operative strategies to improve commercial and sports fishing within Canada". They went home disgusted. They went home despondent. They could not believe that Canada did absolutely nothing to save its fisheries. They saw the potential which existed within our great country. Why could we not?

Our fisheries and our oceans provide an enormous opportunity. With that opportunity comes a great responsibility. We have done a huge disservice to the oceans. Instead of taking a proactive, intelligent and effective role in managing our fisheries and oceans we have abrogated that responsibility to the detriment of this sector. We will pay for it in the future. It is not too late to do something about it. I know the minister would like to work with my colleagues in the Reform Party and with members of the Bloc Quebecois. Together we can work with members of the public and interested sectors to provide good, effective strategies to save our commercial and sports fishing and our oceans and their environment.

I put that challenge to the minister. I welcome his response forthwith.

[Land Mines, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, over 110 million of these silent killers claim over 25,000 people's lives every year, primarily innocent civilians. Some are designed to look like toys so that when children pick them up they will have their arms blown off. They are anti-personnel land mines.

Calls are coming in from all over the world for an international ban on these devices. Canada has called for an international ban too, but has failed to do so domestically.

There is no reason whatsoever to use these inhumane weapons. This is backed up by over 80 top military officials from around the world, including General Norman Schwarzkopf and our own General Lewis MacKenzie.

Let us get out of the Jurassic age. I call upon the government to show leadership, do the right thing and call for a domestic ban on land mines and anti-personnel devices. Then we can persuasively do the same internationally.

[Petitions, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great honour today to bring forth to this House a petition with the signatures of over 20,000 Canadians.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to legislate the prohibition in Canada of the use, production, stockpiling, sale, trade and transfer of all anti-personnel land mines; to work for an international convention banning these activities; to substantially increase Canadian contributions to the UN fund for assistance in mine clearance for indigenous and other humanitarian mine clearing initiatives; and to increase Canadian funding and other types of assistance to rehabilitate mine victims.

It gives me great honour to introduce this petition today.

[Tobacco, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago the Supreme Court decided to revoke its ban on advertising, and while 40,000 Canadians die every year from tobacco the Prime Minister plays golf with the president of Imperial Tobacco.

If the minister is not prepared to put tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act, I would like him to tell this House what he is prepared to do to prevent 40,000 Canadians from dying every year from this most preventable disease.