Debates of Feb. 6th, 1998

Points Of Order

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of question period yesterday, I was ruled out of order on a question directed to the Minister of Finance pertaining to the relationship of the Liberal Party with the banks and so on.

Part of my point of order was that I was ruled out of order with my question but the Minister of Finance was allowed to proceed with an answer to my supplementary question which was in order. I believe his answer cast aspersions on me in relation to whether or not I attended a particular committee meeting. The Speaker would not allow me to finish my point of order yesterday so today my point of order is the following.

The Minister of Finance suggested to the House that I attended or did not attend a particular meeting of a committee that I was not a member of. I think he referred to both the industry and the finance committees. I am asking the Speaker to make a judgment as to whether I have a point of order, whether the minister was in order to make reference to my attendance or non-attendance. According to Beauchesne's rules and forms this is a matter which all members are asked to cautiously guard against making reference to. I would ask the Speaker to make some judgment on this.

[The Speaker]

I reviewed Hansard as to the exact words. All of the words themselves are somewhat ambiguous. As a general rule I would appeal to all members of the House to cease and desist from referring to whether a member is or is not in the House or at a committee. These are the rules and traditions we have always acknowledged among ourselves. I would encourage all members, ministers of course included, not to make references to attendance one way or the other. I thank you for that.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Customs Act

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, for the Minister of National Revenue]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, for the Minister of National Revenue]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity before the House of Commons to express my support for Bill C-18, legislation which I believe will enhance the safety and security of all Canadians, especially those who live in border communities across this land.

This bill will strengthen the enforcement role of customs officers by extending the scope of their powers so they can arrest and detain individuals suspected of Criminal Code offences. I am familiar with the work of customs officers. I have met many of these people across this country over my lifetime. In the process I have been enormously impressed with the scope of their duties and the professionalism with which they carry out their job.

I am also aware of the fact that on many occasions their efforts to protect the safety of Canadians have been hampered by the legal limitations of our Customs Act.

This legislation closes a longstanding gap in our ability to address at the border criminal activities such as impaired driving, child abduction and possession of stolen goods. It will also allow us to deal with individuals who are the subjects of outstanding arrest warrants. There is a clear need for our customs officers to be able to stop suspected criminals at the border before they have a chance to enter our country.

My region of southern Ontario has four major land border crossings which process 40% to 45% of traveller and commercial traffic coming into Canada. A lot of the criminal activity that has been observed by customs officers has occurred at these major ports and at others across the land.

Customs officers have witnessed behaviour such as impaired driving that has resulted in tragedy. They and their union have pointed out that such tragedies are preventable if the scope of the customs officers' powers is broadened to enable them to arrest and detain suspects until the local law enforcement can properly and fully respond.

Mr. Speaker, if you ask Canadians what distinguishes Canada from most countries, they will tell you that Canada is much safer and less violent. This is the type of Canada that Canadians want and the type of Canada this government will strive to maintain. We believe that all Canadians have a right to live in a peaceful and safe community and they expect us to do what we can to keep these communities safe.

Bill C-18 is one way that we can meet those expectations, by giving our customs officers the power to stop criminal activity before it reaches our communities. Clearly this bill will allow customs officers to do more value added work that makes a real difference. At the same time it will not diminish Revenue Canada's ability to continue with major initiatives that are allowing Canadians to seize opportunities created by liberalized trade and travel. It will also enhance and protect from any threat to our social or our economic well-being.

These initiatives are allowing the department to free up resources to concentrate on high risk traffic with more effective enforcement to control weapons and drug smuggling, as well as the illegal movement of people across our borders.

Customs officers already have the power to detain and arrest individuals suspected of customs offences under the Customs Act. For instance our customs officers deal with serious offences such as the smuggling of drugs and weapons.

Bill C-18 capitalizes on customs' unique position at our border points to act as a first response against crime. This means customs officers will be able to legally hold suspects until law enforcement agencies can intervene. Criminals will be dealt with at the right time, before they enter our country. By expanding the scope of customs officers' powers, Bill C-18 will greatly enhance the safety of citizens of border communities and in turn will contribute to the protection of all Canadians wherever they live in this country.

This legislation is not intended to replace police. What it does is it closes the longstanding gap by enabling our customs officers to act as a bridge to the law enforcement community. Customs officers will arrest and detain suspects, who will be turned over immediately to the police authorities for follow-up as they see fit. The provinces will continue to be responsible for the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Now customs officers will be able to assist them by providing the first response service.

This legislation is not about duplication. Customs officers will not investigate Criminal Code offences nor will customs officers be responsible for processing individuals for Criminal Code offences. Furthermore, customs officers will only be allowed to use these new powers while they are on duty at the points of entry.

The benefits of Bill C-18 to law enforcement in this country are very clear. That is why police officers, police chiefs and attorneys general all know that this bill enhances the ability to fight crime. As a result this bill has the support of police forces, police chiefs, provincial attorneys general, victims rights groups, the customs union and customs officers themselves. It has broad support because it makes sense. It is the right thing to do.

Bill C-18 is not broadening the scope of powers to customs officers who are untried and untested. Rather, the legislation entrusts these powers to a group of women and men who prove their value to this country every day as skilled, dedicated professionals.

The power to arrest is not new for customs officers. They have been arresting people for serious offences such as drug smuggling for decades. They have been doing so with professionalism and with respect for the rights of those involved. That will not change. Customs officers will continue to carry out arrests in a manner that respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fact is this bill supports the efforts of the police and those involved in both law enforcement and the judicial system.

Once Bill C-18 is passed it will take six to nine months to implement.

The time will be used to renovate facilities, to designate officers and train them on the identification of Criminal Code offences and also on important aspects of the law, especially as it relates to the charter of rights and freedoms.

Customs officers will have the training they need to ensure that they act fairly and responsibly and within the confines of the law in carrying out these new responsibilities under Bill C-18.

The broader role of this bill envisions for our customs officers that these provisions will be carried out by probably about 2,500 officers who will be specially designated and trained. They will be drawn from those officers who are in regular contact with the travelling public.

Student customs officers will not have these powers. They will continue, however, to work with the permanent customs staff and designated officers who will be on hand to respond to the Criminal Code situations.

Canadians can also be assured that these designated customers officers will receive additional training to ensure that they act fairly, responsibly and within the confines of the law in carrying out these new functions and duties. No custom officer will be put in a position of having to carry out their new responsibility without the appropriate training. That would be unacceptable to this government. Our border communities and indeed all Canadians deserve nothing less.

We already train our customs officers in arrest procedures, the charter and other issues that relate to the powers of arrest. We will expand this excellent training program to cover areas such as the identification of Criminal Code offences and related court jurisprudence. In addition, this training will be coupled with a clear accountability structure which will outline situations calling for first response action.

I know that for some there is still the issue of whether to arm customs officers. It is not an issue for this government. We are firm in our belief that our officers should not carry weapons. The safety of customs officers is something we care deeply about. Customs officers already encounter dangerous people such as drug and weapon smugglers. They have never needed guns to effectively handle these types of situations. This is because, like police officers, our officers are expected to assess the safety implications of any situation. We want to avoid violence, and the best way to do so is to use common sense, not more weapons.

We are committed to supporting the work of our officers by giving them the additional training on the use of force for personal protection and to compel compliance within the law. Furthermore, by the time this bill is implemented, the department will provide protective gear to officers who request it. On those occasions when customs officers have to confront a dangerous person, their training and common sense will dictate that they avoid placing themselves or the public in danger. If they assess a risk to their safety, they will be expected to contact the police and withdraw from the situation. In other words, common sense and training will work hand in hand to determine the smart and the smartest response in each case.

I will deal now with the cost of this initiative. We have estimated that planning and start-up costs will be approximately $5.5 million. This includes the cost for training officers and for renovating facilities so that we may properly detain suspects until law enforcement agencies arrive and can intervene. After implementation, the ongoing costs will be minimal.

Bill C-18 will do a number of things. First, it will close that longstanding gap and strengthen customs officers' ability to assist in law enforcement in this country. Second, it will make use of the unique position of customs at the border to stop criminals before they enter Canada. Finally, it will make efficient use of our law enforcement resources to enhance the safety and security of all Canadians.

This bill also has to date the support of all parties in this House, a rare situation and one that speaks to its importance. We are gratified, and I want to stress that, by this support. We also appreciate the input from members of this House as well as the groups and individuals who have offered their help and support. Your ideas and suggestions will be very valuable in the implementation of this legislation.

Customs officers and their union deserve special praise. They identified an opportunity to improve the safety of Canadians and have worked very hard to make this bill a reality. On behalf of the minister I thank all members for allowing us to do what is right for Canadians.

Rest assured that during implementation we will continue to consult with our partners, both within government and outside, to ensure that this bill once implemented meets expectations.

In conclusion, by supporting Bill C-18 we demonstrate to all Canadians that when it comes to their safety and security we will not compromise. This bill serves notice to those individuals who pose a threat to the safety of our communities that criminal activity will not be tolerated.

In approving Bill C-18 we are recognizing the important role of Canada's customs officers at our border and demonstrating to all Canadians that we are prepared to do what is right to enhance the safety and security of communities across the country.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek consent to split my time with the hon. member for North Vancouver.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition to address Bill C-18 which the Reform caucus will be supporting.

We think this bill seeks to achieve some worthwhile and admirable objectives in empowering our customs officers with certain police style powers to detain people suspected of serious crimes when they are clearly breaking our laws as they cross our borders. We support the intent of the bill.

In the debate on second reading of this bill we raised numerous questions which had not at that time been adequately addressed by the government but which we think have since been adequately addressed by the government and were comprehensively addressed by the parliamentary secretary in her remarks.

Those concerns included the cost of improving and upgrading the facilities of our customs ports to permit the detention of suspected criminals. The government advises us now that the costs entailed will be no greater than $5.5 million which we think is a reasonable cost for empowering these customs officers to protect our borders more thoroughly. We will of course, as in all matters, watch scrupulously the actual expenditures on this new program to ensure that costs are maintained within the amount estimated.

We also expressed concern about the training necessary to make our customs officers capable of exercising these new peace officer powers. We were particularly concerned about the growing number of student customs officers and to what extent they might be empowered by this bill. But we have been well advised by the government that adequate training will be in place for properly trained customs officers to exercise these powers and that student officers will not be permitted to exercise the powers granted by Bill C-18. So we are satisfied with that.

We were also concerned at the outset about adequate equipment. In particular, how is it that customs officers are not armed in order to enforce the law and protect themselves and to defend our borders against potentially aggressive criminals whom they may have to detain? We still have an outstanding concern in that regard. But the government has made a compelling case that immediate back-up support will be available with properly empowered peace officers, principally the RCMP, who can provide the kind of equipment needed to back up our customs officers in difficult and potentially violent situations.

Finally, we expressed a concern about the potential infringement of civil liberties of people who could be detained at the borders without due process. The government has satisfied us, as have organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, that the bill is narrow enough in its scope that it is unlikely to lead to abuse of these new found police powers on the part of customs officers.

Our principal concerns have been adequately addressed. We are pleased to support this bill. It is unfortunate, in one respect, that it has been so long in coming. It is a bill which is really a gesture of common sense, a gesture to take the necessary steps to protect the integrity of our borders.

Let me take this opportunity to say that I have an ongoing concern that we are not doing enough to defend the integrity of our borders against smuggling and the importation of contraband across our ports of entry. I have raised in this House the matter of a certain senior, 25-year veteran customs officer named Dennis Coffey. Mr. Coffey has made very troubling allegations, under oath, about corruption, fraud, nepotism and abuse at the customs branch of Revenue Canada. He has indicated that there are tens of thousands of shipments coming through our major points of entry, particularly in Ontario, trucking points of entry as well as airports, where potential contraband shipments are not being adequately inspected.

This is a concern which was confirmed by a document which the official opposition obtained from the security division of the Department of National Revenue, which we released in December. It is a document which indicates that Revenue Canada believes there is a reasonably large quantity of contraband narcotics and illegal drugs being imported into Canada, across our points of entry, without adequate inspection by customs.

What this report suggests is that some drug lords are actually couriering their shipments of hashish, marijuana, cocaine and heroin into Canada with 24-hour, 10 a.m. delivery. I find it quite astonishing that a drug lord can get his shipment of cocaine to where he wants it in Canada more quickly than Canada Post can deliver a letter, and he can do so without fear of very serious inspection on the part of customs agents.

There are still some very large and troubling questions with respect to the administration of the various customs statutes. We must ensure that these contraband materials are not being imported into Canada. The official opposition intends to introduce legislation at some point in the future in this place to address those concerns. We understand that less than 1% of courier shipments from countries identified as major narcotics exporters are being inspected. A foreign drug lord can make the reasonable calculation that if only 1% of his contraband is going to be inspected and detained by customs Canada, 99% will get to his customers.

While we commend the good work done by our customs agents in this country, while we are pleased that they will now have these new powers to exercise, we are concerned that the government has not taken seriously enough the issue of protecting the integrity of our borders and we intend to fully pursue that issue and demand that we take greater measures to ensure that shipments coming into this country are properly inspected.

We are also very concerned that the veteran customs officer to whom I referred, Mr. Coffey, a dedicated 25 year servant of the revenue department, was dismissed this week by the Department of National Revenue for making public his allegations about fraud, waste, nepotism and abuse in his department. This is not how we should treat our customs agents. We ought to honour the service they give to the country. We ought not take this kind of draconian action against people who blow the whistle when they see corruption in their departments.

It is scandalous that the Department of National Revenue has dismissed Mr. Coffey. This underlines once more the need for tough whistle-blower protection legislation so that public servants can speak the truth and identify waste, fraud and corruption where they exist in the public sector without fear of intimidation or losing their jobs because of the government.

We will support Bill C-18 but we are not entirely pleased with the way the government has dealt with the protection of our borders and with the commendable service of our customs agents.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18. The purpose of the bill, as has already been mentioned, is to give customs officers the authority of a peace officer, which means that they will be able to arrest without warrant certain individuals trying to cross the border who are perhaps suspected of child abduction, impaired driving and so on.

Certainly I am pleased to see these sorts of actions being introduced. It reminds me of a case not so long ago, I think in the Vancouver area, where an impaired driver came to a border crossing and because there was no power for the customs officer to detain the driver he had to be allowed through. It is not an uncommon situation, I would say.

The customs officers notified police but before the police were able to apprehend this person he had already driven off the road and down an embankment. It was by pure luck that he did not hurt anyone. It was a very good illustration of why this type of law is necessary.

Costs to implement these new requirements are a concern, as my colleague mentioned. One of the letters of response to our questions which came from the minister indicated that they estimated the planning and start-up costs to be approximately $5.5 million and that it would take approximately nine months to complete.

The history of the government is that it is woefully lacking in its ability to estimate costs. I rather suspect that this $5.5 million is more likely to be $11 million or $12 million. I will use the example of the Nunavut legislation that went through the House during the last parliament. Reform warned that the estimates for costs in that situation were nowhere near what it would actually cost. Already, in the last month or so, the government is asking for more money for that Nunavut program. We believe it will probably get to $1 billion before the dust settles from an original $100 million estimated by the government.

Notwithstanding the estimates of the government of $5.5 million, I would be surprised if it happens in that cost range. Despite that, we believe these sorts of measures are necessary.

It is quite obvious from the background material that groups like CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, have been a long time lobbying for this type of legislation to be passed. I wonder about the fact that the government is finally responding to public pressure for this sort of legislation.

Is this is a sign that maybe the Liberals are finally getting the message that they have to get tough on crime? I hope this is a sign they are finally recognizing that the public calls for changes to the Young Offenders Act, that the public wants rid of ridiculous conditional sentencing provisions, and that they will actually be acted on. We are going to see some justice restored to what really has become just a legal system.

In that regard I hope the minister will avoid any temptation to interfere and to thwart the activities of customs officers once they have this new power to be able to arrest and detain people suspected of criminal activities. The minister does not have a very good history of allowing people in customs and immigration to carry out their duties.

I can give an example. During the last parliament five or six people arrived from India at the border port of entry at Vancouver International Airport, claiming to be a film crew that was going to make a documentary film all about British Columbia. The immigration officials, upon asking questions of this film crew, discovered that they had no film making equipment and could not answer basic questions about the making of films, so the immigration officials detained them. It was a Friday afternoon. They were put into the lock-up at the Vancouver International Airport.

The Vancouver Sun and several other bleeding hearts jumped on the bandwagon and said that this was racist and that the only reason these people had been detained was that they were from India.

The present Minister of National Revenue also jumped on the bandwagon. He was quoted widely in the news media, claiming that the immigration officials were racist, that they had detained these people for no other reason than racism.

Because of all this lobbying, on the Monday morning the Immigration Refugee Board allowed these people to go free in British Columbia. Surprise, surprise. Within three or four days they had disappeared. Nobody could find them.

About a week or 10 days later these people were arrested in Washington state. They had used Canada as an entry point to the United States. The immigration officials who were the front line people and had asked the right questions had certainly detected those criminals at the border.

The present minister thwarted those efforts. I would hope, now that he is minister of the department, he is treating his officials with a little more respect. Once this act is in law I hope he will not keep doing things like the dismissal of Mr. Coffey, will start to appreciate the skills in the department and will allow the customs people to exercise their rights under the legislation.

Getting a little tough on crime would not hurt. I saw a quote the other day that I think would apply very well to the situation, if customs officers are successful in detaining people who are subsequently convicted of offences. It reflects very well the feelings of Canadians:

We ought to require prisoners to work 48 hours a week and to study 12 hours a week. If we kept them busy for 60 hours a week doing something positive, they would be different people when they came out of prison and prison would have a different impact on them than watching movies and working out on weight machines. If you are not willing to work 48 hours a week and study 12 hours a week you shouldn't get any privileges.

That is a spectacular reflection of how people feel about the whole justice system in Canada. I desperately hope the passage of Bill C-18 is the beginning of some sort of Liberal change of heart that will begin putting some teeth into the justice system.

Security concerns were expressed by the customs union with respect to Bill C-18. It was a bit concerned that adequate training and facilities would have to be provided to ensure the safety of its staff. In consultations with the union and others the minister has assured that new facilities will be built and that there will be adequate training.

As I mentioned earlier, they are expecting that to cost about $5.5 million. Tied into that concern is an amazing figure. The customs department employs 300 students on an ongoing basis to help with customs inspection and 900 students in the summertime. I was amazed when I read those figures. An obvious concern is that the students be adequately trained to deal with the new types of responsibilities that may inadvertently come their way.

The minister indicated that these students will go through a three week training course. I see no mention, though, of any exam at the end of that course. I hope the minister will ensure there is some sort of examination protocol associated with the course, to ensure the people who go through the course are adequately equipped to handle the responsibilities they are given.

Finally I would like to mention that there has been some criticism of the gradual introduction of automatic ports of entry at some border crossings. The unions say the automatic barrier system, which looks at licence plates and allows people in or out, is subject to some problems from time to time. I am astounded that we should worry about it because our borders are so porous anyway. We have this huge and lengthy unpatrolled border. Quite frankly I do not understand why crooks even cross at border crossings.

There are many examples in the Vancouver area where number zero road runs right along the border for about 30 miles or 50 kilometres. All that separates Canada from the United States is a ditch. There have been many examples of smuggling across that border.

A famous case just a couple of years ago involved a store in San Francisco smuggling parrots into Vancouver. They would drive up to the border and put full cages of parrots in the ditch along the highway. After dark someone on the Canadian side would come along and lift the cages out of the ditch.

It is very easy to cross the border around the Vancouver area. There are several trails, like the west coast trail, which go across the border. There is a sign asking one to report to the next customs station whenever it is reached.

It astounds me that so many crooks come across the border and get caught. I hope they retain the same amount of intelligence they already have and continue to do so. Maybe Bill C-18 will help us to intercept them as they come through.

On balance, we support the bill with all its defects. I look forward to voting in favour of Bill C-18.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.

The purpose of Bill C-18 is to broaden the scope of the present powers of customs officers as far as arrest and detainment are concerned. It is in response to the necessity for enhanced control and effective intervention at Canadian customs posts. The proposed changes would affect about two-thirds of the 3,200 customs officers.

Like the other provinces sharing a border with the United States, Quebec is a target for dangerous individuals attempting to seek refuge there. There is an indisputably urgent need to reinforce border crossing points in order to intercept guilty parties.

Recent statistics from the Department of Revenue indicate that, over the past three years, 8,500 cases of suspected impaired driving, close to 200 presumed cases of child abduction, close to 2,000 persons with outstanding warrants, and more than 500 cases of persons in possession of stolen property, vehicles in particular, were apprehended. The department makes no mention of the number of people going through customs at the Canada-U.S. border with drugs and so on.

Eighty percent of these occurrences involve highway border crossing points, not ports of air or sea entry. These statistics speak volumes and justify the reinforcement of border posts, as Bill C-18 will do.

Customs officers would facilitate the role of the police through immediate intervention at the border. This would broaden the scope of custom officers' present power to arrest and detain, in order to fill a void between the time they detect an offence under the Criminal Code and the time peace officers arrive and intervene.

The proposed amendments would also enable customs officers to arrest persons for whom an arrest warrant has been issued under the Criminal Code.

In the case of individuals suspected of impaired driving, the designated officers would take a breath sample. Individuals testing high would then be handed over to the police for a breathalyser test. I wonder whether, at this point, whether they would be handed over to the RCMP or the to provincial police, in the case of Quebec. The provincial authorities would then have to continue the investigation and initiate proceedings against those presumed guilty of breaking the Criminal Code at the border.

The Bloc Quebecois and I support additional powers for customs officials. However, we first want Quebec's jurisdictions respected and then we want details from the minister on the provinces, cities and municipalities that would be affected by the changes proposed in the bill. Then, although the president of the customs officials' union has indicated his support for the bill, we want details on the terms of selection and employment of the new category of customs officers thus created, including their new responsibilities, whether the officers would be chosen from the pool of existing employees and what changes would be made to labour contracts.

In the case of Quebec, the one that interests us, we want details on the powers of these officials compared with those of the Quebec provincial police force, the RCMP and the courts involved, in particular on whether fines at customs posts in Quebec will be collected by the federal government or by the government of Quebec?

A few days ago, the Minister of Revenue sent us the second progress report on the creation of the Canada customs and revenue agency. I will take the liberty of making a few comments here, although it is related to C-18, because it is a serious matter for us Quebeckers.

I was surprised to learn the following from the fact sheet. “—the Agency's mandate is being broadened to allow it to administer a wide range of provincial tax laws and measures—”, “agency status means—more flexibility to manage its resources and operations—”, “the agency would administer provincial programs should that prove cost effective—”. This is blatant and direct interference in provincial jurisdiction.

The establishment of this agency clearly shows that the federal government is try to encroach even further on provincial jurisdictions. It is not dealing with duplication and overlap as it should, but is grabbing more and more powers from the provinces.

Quebec objected to the agency administering its programs and will stand by the position it has taken in the interest of Quebeckers.

As far as Bill C-18 is concerned, the Bloc Quebecois and I are in favour but we have serious reservations regarding the collection of fines. We will keep an eye on this government to ensure that this bill is not used as an excuse to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my comments within five minutes so as to allow my Progressive Conservative colleagues the opportunity to speak.

I want to send a special hello to the hon. member for Labrador who is watching us now from St. John's, Newfoundland. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members, for people who work in the House of Commons and for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when I say Godspeed and he is in our thoughts and prayers.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I rise to speak in support of Bill C-18. I thank the Government of Canada for initiating this action. I would also like to mention a few concerns we have about the safety and concerns of our citizens and also the perspective the customs officers union presented to us. The customs officers were quite supportive that this bill would pass in order for them to do their job properly and in a more stringent matter so that they can protect especially the citizens in border towns.

The reservation I have is that the government in order to increase resources into the customs area will decrease resources from other police sources, that is the RCMP or that of local police officers. We encourage the government not to do that. We are quite pleased that it will include more resources for customs officers in order to do their job better.

I ask the government that when this bill is passed, which we hope will be very soon, to make sure the resources are there for the proper training of our customs officers to handle situations that at this time they have not been able to do.

On behalf of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other organizations which are fighting very hard in this country to get drunk drivers off our roads, I wish to thank the government as well as the official opposition and other opposition parties in the House for their support in passing this bill as quickly as possible.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party we do support this bill. We thank the government for its encouragement.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons to speak on Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.

As stated by previous speakers, this piece of legislation concerns the authority we are prepared to accord customs officers. Bill C-18 would grant designated customs officers the power to arrest without warrant and to release from custody any cases where an arrest without warrant by a peace officer is permitted. These designated officers can detain such individuals until they are able to hand them over to peace officers as defined under section 2 of the Criminal Code.

This bill received unanimous support from members of the justice committee, which included my colleague from West Nova on behalf of the PC caucus. On his behalf and on behalf of our caucus I would like to commend the representatives from the customs and excise workers union for their very informative presentations given in support of this bill.

Part of my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche runs along the Canada-U.S. border and is home to many customs and excise workers. I therefore have firsthand knowledge of the many duties and responsibilities these federal employees discharge on a daily basis. Bill C-18 gives these border employees needed resources to keep our country safe.

Ironically this government bill comes forward for debate from the justice committee without amendment less than a week after this House debated Bill C-211, a private member's bill sponsored by my Reform colleague from Langley—Abbotsford.

That bill dealt with granting peace officers additional authority with respect to arrest warrants for offenders who have breached their conditions of parole. The Liberals unfortunately continued to reject this worthwhile bill. Apparently what is good for the government goose is not good for the opposition gander.

In any case I will attempt to restrict my comments to the substance of this legislation, Bill C-18. One of the most positive elements of Bill C-18 is the proposal to add a section to the Customs Act which would allow customs officers to handle impaired driving situations in the same way peace officers do.

This section of Bill C-18 is so important because it gives our customs officers more power to respond to individuals who enter Canada and who are suspected of being impaired drivers. As we discussed several months ago in the House, Canada has more than enough problems with its domestic drunk drivers. This section of Bill C-18 would help clamp down on the import of drunk drivers.

Bill C-18 will also confer on customs officers any responsibilities which fall to a peace officer under sections 495 to 497 of the Criminal Code, as well as under subsections 493(3) and 497(3) upon the designation by the Minister of National Revenue.

Another section of Bill C-18 however clearly states that these designated officers may not use their new found responsibilities for the sole purpose of searching for evidence. This appears to be a reasonable limitation on individual rights.

The final portion of Bill C-18 is technical in nature, proposing two amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure its correspondence with the new section of the Customs Act.

There were some concerns regarding the potentially negative consequences of Bill C-18. At the justice committee my colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, raised the possibility of responsibilities being downloaded to customs officers without the appropriate resources being allocated by the federal government. Officials from both Revenue Canada and the customs employees union happily reported that this would not be the case.

In closing, I would like to emphasize the non-partisan nature in which Bill C-18 was handled. The government acted in response to an expressed concern from customs employees. The opposition parties raised legitimate concerns at the committee level with respect to potentially negative consequences of the bill yet there was not any political grandstanding or obstacle placed in the path of dealing with this needed piece of legislation. It was dealt with in a responsible and constructive manner. Perhaps this is a lesson which we can draw on in the future.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of moving ahead with the debate, I wonder if we could call it 11 o'clock.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is a good idea, except that we do not have the list for Statements by Members yet. Therefore we will continue for a minute or so.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, you can count on me to fill a minute or two.

Given the words that I have been listening to in the lobby and in the House so far in this debate, it is important to emphasize the way this bill was handled. It was handled in a non-partisan and constructive manner. The input from all parties has been recognized and is appreciated.

This serves Canadians across the country well. It serves our employees well. It speaks to the good work which MPs can do in this country. When they see an initiative which makes sense, they move forward correcting irritating anomalies and bringing forth a consensus.

I do not want to make a presumption before the debate is over, but I believe this bill will pass third reading with the support of all parties. I look forward to continuing to work in this manner in the House. It is appreciated by all members of Parliament.

[The Speaker]

It being almost 11 a.m., we will now proceed to statements by members. I do not have the list of speakers. Members will therefore please stand to be recognized.

The Late Jack Pearson

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons today to pay tribute to Jack Pearson of New Hamburg who recently passed away.

Jack was a World War II veteran who loved his country, loved his community and loved his flag.

Sports and recreation, minor ball, the arena and minor hockey were his passions. The Waterloo—Wellington senior games were his pride and joy.

Wilmot transit for the elderly and disabled and home support for seniors were his causes and his legacy.

Representing New Hamburg on Wilmot municipal council was his calling and Legion Branch 532 was his life.

Jack Pearson touched so many people in so many ways over the years. He worked hard in a quiet, unassuming way. He never sought the limelight. He worked hard not because he sought recognition but because he knew it was the right thing to do.

I salute Jack Pearson for being a great Canadian. He will be missed.

Indian Affairs

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to express my deep concern and frustration over the lack of compassion expressed by this government toward the residents of four mobile home parks on Indian reserve land in my riding.

This past November 51 families were evicted in the dead of winter because their sewage system failed. Working people, veterans and senior citizens have been devastated. Some are facing bankruptcy. This same fate is imminent for the residents of three remaining mobile home parks. Two hundred and twenty-five families will face the same situation this spring unless the federal government takes action.

Like victims of the ice storm, these people have no control over their circumstances. This is a disaster. This is a crisis. This government is legally responsible for lands reserved for Indians and will be held accountable for its failures.

When will this Liberal government act?

Sevec

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it when I was informed by an Oxford county teacher that the Ontario government has pulled its support for the Society of Educational Visits and Exchanges in Canada, also known as SEVEC.

SEVEC has been administering the Ontario-Quebec six month student exchange program on behalf of the ministry of education and training since 1990. This funding has now been eliminated by the Harris government.

Now is not the time to cut programs that foster understanding between Canada's regions. I thought Mike Harris was in favour of helping the cause of Canadian unity. This cut to a crucial program certainly does not help in keeping Canada united.

Thankfully the Department of Canadian Heritage assisted students last year in the Canada student exchange. Hopefully we at the federal level can fill this void so irresponsibly left by the Ontario Tories.

If Mike Harris has any sense, which I doubt, he will restore funding to SEVEC.