Debates of Dec. 12th, 1994

Maud Debien Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois involves deleting clause 18 from Bill C-44. Without this clause, section 24 of the Customs Act would not be amended.

Section 24 authorizes mail, documents or anything that may serve to establish the identity of a person to be intercepted. It is proposed to give immigration officers the power to seize and search parcels and documents suspected of being used fraudulently. We think that such provisions probably contravene the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. The Bloc Quebecois amendment is to prevent the government from being taken to court over this.

We also question another aspect of this clause in Bill C-44, and that is the introduction of reverse onus. In our judicial system, the accused is initially presumed innocent, at least that is how it has been so far. But the mail seizure provisions reverse the burden of proof. Also, there is no indication of the basis on which seizure will be decided and the nature of the mail determined.

How will customs officers determine the contents of packages before they are opened? What will tell them that a given mailing is highly likely to contain illegal documents? We think that such procedures will be impossible to justify legally.

Therefore, clause 18 may pave the way for abuse. Opening mail without the consent of the recipients goes against the most elementary of fundamental rights. In a society that recognizes the rule of law, you do not tamper with mail, to the best of my knowledge. Moreover, Bill C-44 is not overly transparent, by not mentioning the circumstances under which the mail, parcels or documents will be opened.

Regardless of our concerns, Mr. Speaker, clause 18 will be difficult to enforce.

Customs officers who testified on Bill C-44 before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration told us that, over the past decade, 259 federal mail inspection centres had been eliminated. There are only six remaining to do this kind of work. Efforts to increase the powers and workload of employees who are already unable to meet the demand are probably wasted. The government should make sure that existing provisions are enforced and allocate adequate resources to this end.

For the sake of compliance with the charter of rights, respect for fundamental rights and practical reasons as well, I encourage hon. members to vote for Motion No. 5 put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

Art Hanger Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to give customs officers more legal power to seize fraudulent documents. We applaud that intent. However, customs has informed us that this measure is totally unenforceable and therefore without greater enforcement ability the intent of the bill is moot.

That is why we oppose the bill. It would give Canadians a false sense of security. However, this amendment by the Bloc would gut even the good intent of the bill. The Bloc and Reform view immigration law from an entirely different philosophical perspective. Its amendment reflects its philosophy. Our opposition to the amendment reflects ours.

Sergio Marchi Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, clause 18 of Bill C-44 would make it a punishable offence for individuals in this country either to import or export fraudulent documentation.

If members recall, some months back there was an article in the Globe and Mail that pointed to a decision by the Department of Justice. The decision suggested that the immigration and customs officials who were opening mail to confiscate fraudulent documents and also to try to stop the rings that smuggled documents did not have authority under the law to do so.

This clause in the bill gives legitimacy under the full weight of the law to our customs and immigration officers to confiscate mail that is carrying fraudulent documentation such as drivers licences, visa applications and passports. Many have been intercepted, particularly in Toronto and Montreal.

We are suggesting in this clause that it be a punishable offence. Currently the offence would carry a penalty of two years and/or a fine of $5,000. We feel this should be a deterrent to making those fraudulent documents available.

Fraudulent documentation is a problem not only in Canada but worldwide. It is almost scary to see the kind of high technological reproduction of our documents, so we should be sending the right message.

Reform Party members keep having this debate. They support the intent of the bill but do not believe it is enforceable. It is like saying that you do not accept amendments to the Criminal Code because you do not think the police can enforce them.

The police, of which my hon. friend was a member, have too few police officers in all the major cities. Does it mean that if we bring in a Criminal Code amendment that is good in intent and shows sound judgment, that this party and this ex-police officer will turn it down because while the intent is good it is somehow unenforceable, whether by police officers, customs, or immigration? Does this allow the Reform Party to say "we are opposed?" What kind of a silly argument is that for an ex-police officer to make?

If the intent is good, then we have to make sure of the enforceability of the legislation. Anyone in this country that tries to circumvent the Immigration Act through the fraudulent production or importation of documents should be punished.

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Axworthy reform, widely denounced by women's groups and by the Bloc Quebecois, is now raising deep concerns within the Liberal caucus itself.

The hon. member for Brant and chair of the national Liberal caucus fears that the cuts planned by her Minister of Human Resources Development will undermine the gains made by women's groups after long and hard social struggles.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois also believe that the reform of social programs, like the public service cuts being contemplated, must take into account the need to reverse years of discrimination against women.

The minister will have to be quite prudent in the days to come, not only because his reform is more and more widely discredited but also because his initiatives are now stirring up opposition among the Liberal troops themselves.

Jan Brown Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, violence against women is a sordid reality and not a fantasy confined to the pages of a tabloid newspaper or a pornographic magazine.

The history of violence against women is like Pandora's box that when opened reveals the ugliest side of the human condition. We would expect by now that complacency would be shattered amidst the tales of horror and abuse that so many women have lived to tell. What of those who have died?

It was inexcusable for the justice minister who professes to champion women to artfully dodge my question of last Friday. We do not need the minister's platitudes nor his citing of statistics to tell us we have a problem of domestic violence in this country.

What specific plan does this government have to get at the root causes of violence against women? Until gender roles are eliminated, until the family no longer serves as that convenient arena for male violence, until wife beating is no longer a logical extension of male domination and until our justice system demonstrates its capacity for justice, we do not have a blueprint for change.

Intellectual and political anguish have become meaningless. Violence against women exists. We have endured enough.

Ron MacDonald Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, the necessity of continuing to educate Canadians, especially our youth, on environmental issues is crucial, not only for Canada's future but for the future of the entire planet. Together we must continue to think globally but act locally to address the many challenges we face in preserving the delicate balance of our environment.

At Cole Harbour High School in my riding of Dartmouth I recently had the privilege of unveiling along with the Minister of the Environment a new environmental information system established on the Internet by this government. It is called the Green Lane on the Information Highway and makes Canada's wealth of information on the environment available not only to Canadians but indeed to the entire world.

I ask this House to join with me in commending the Minister of the Environment and her department for taking the important step of establishing this green lane on the information highway. I look forward to the new ideas and creativity in dealing with environmental issues that will no doubt result from this global sharing of important environmental information.

Bill Graham Rosedale, ON

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, December 10, we celebrated World Human Rights Day and the 46th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The declaration establishes basic international standards for fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteeing the dignity and worth of every human being.

[Translation]

Several Canadians, including Professor John Humphrey of McGill, helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has had a tremendous influence on international law and the behaviour of states. In Canada in particular, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms many of the basic principles set forth in the declaration.

The United Nations Year for Tolerance as well as the International Decade for Indigenous Peoples will also begin in 1995.

Human rights affect the daily lives of everyone. We can all take pride that our government is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms of all people in Canada and around the world.