Debates of Dec. 12th, 1994

Immigration Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 16?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8) a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8) a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Motion No. 20 will be debated and voted on separately.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, 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, Reform, 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, Liberal, 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.