Madam Speaker, before the Question Period, I was about to talk about the power given immigration officers to seize international mail.
I must add that Bill C-44 contains no provision that would allow someone to dispute the legality of any irregularly conducted seizure of goods. This section has been denounced by almost all organisations and persons who appeared before the committee.
On the other hand, clause 18 of Bill C-44 would permit the assumption that someone is guilty of intending to violate the law or regulations. It proposes a reverse burden of proof. In other words, evidence that someone has imported or exported documents that could serve some fraudulent purpose would be sufficient to prove the intent to violate the law and regulations, except if shown otherwise. Therefore, this clause goes clearly against the principle of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The legality of this clause must be questioned. Ultimately the Supreme Court will have to rule on the constitutionality of this disputed provision. This drastic clause paves the way to abuse. Opening the mail without the consent of the addressee is a violation of the most fundamental rights.
We must not forget that some refugees come to Canada with false papers. After all, these refugees are fleeing an unfair, dictatorial or cruel political system. If this clause came into effect, these refugees would be found guilty even before being admitted into the country. Moreover, we wonder if the minister has thought about the effectiveness of this provision, considering that, for instance, 259 mail inspection centres have been closed and the number of inspectors has been drastically reduced.
If the minister realized that he has only six inspection centres left for the whole of Canada, he would know that his proposal is ineffective. It seems to us that the minister would probably have been more hesitant to introduce this bill, and particularly this clause, if he had consulted with the organizations involved, namely Customs and Excise. Considering the lack of prelimi-
nary consultations, which was the case with Bill C-44, the minister could have got some information about the real and unfortunate situation mentioned by some witnesses from Customs and Excise, who came before the committee and complained about the lack of resources in that organization.
What we see instead is a clause reflecting an attitude which prevails throughout this bill, a bill that was written without any consultation and is only a response to political pressure. For all these reasons, I support Motion No. 20.