Debates of Feb. 6th, 1998

Employment Insurance

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Laval Centre for her interest in this report, which we are required to file under the act.

As you know, when employment insurance was reformed, we committed to tabling annual reports for the first five years.

In fact, we are very shortly coming up to the time when the first annual report ought to be tabled in the House. I will let you know a more definite date in the coming weeks. With this report, which will be an extremely interesting one, we will be able to take a look, a preliminary one of course, at the initial effects of the reform on communities, individuals and the economy of our country.

Points Of Order

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of fisheries read directly from the letter from Mr. Fortier in answering my question in the House. I would ask that the letter be tabled in the House today.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table the letters of the special negotiator, Mr. Fortier, both to the Pacific salmon commission and to my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, also in response to a member's request, I would like to table a letter. The member for Red Deer asked the solicitor general and my department to make sure we acquire the bunkers that the member was making reference to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance today regarding a question of privilege I raised and the fact that the minister replied to that question of privilege yesterday.

It is my understanding from the government that Bill C-4, which is in connection with my question of privilege, is apparently supposed to come back for further report stage debate on Monday. I would request your guidance on whether it is appropriate to have the bill back before the House before you rule on my question of privilege.

[The Speaker]

As I understand the situation, the issue is not so much about Bill C-4 itself but whether the minister was in contempt of the House. I see no reason why the bill, if it is introduced, cannot proceed as such.

However, in case the member is wondering, and we spoke very briefly at the beginning, I will be rendering my decision very soon.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of some committees. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 20th report later this day.

Mi'Kmaq Education Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Equal Treatment For Persons Cohabiting In A Relationship Similar To A Conjugal Relationship Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-309, an act providing for equal treatment for persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this bill, the purpose of which is to guarantee common law homosexual and lesbian couples the same rights as those granted under federal legislation to common law heterosexual couples. I expect to have the support of all colleagues in the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, an act to require special interest groups that receive grants or loans from public funds to submit for tabling in Parliament a report on the purposes to which the funds were put.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are clamouring for more accountability at all levels of government. I am pleased to introduce a private member's bill that would require special interest groups and other groups to become more accountable to the government and thus to the Canadian public. I hope we have an opportunity to examine it in this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code (reimbursement of costs following a free pardon).

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Criminal Code, because it happens, very rarely, but it does happen, that there are judicial errors because of which innocent people must serve prison sentences, as is the case for a constituent in my riding, Michel Dumont.

This man is innocent. In all likelihood he will be granted a pardon, but whatever the compensation, he will have to subtract from it the amounts he owes in legal fees.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that, in cases of judicial error, 100% of the compensation goes to the victim of the error, and legal fees are paid by the Governor in Council.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of the people in the community of Strathmore, Alberta who are requesting that the honourable assembly acknowledge this petition to aid in our ongoing problems with young offenders. Crimes such as murder, arson, rape and robbery are on the rise at the hands of young offenders. These crimes have increased in recent years, and in light of this increase the laws have to be enforced. As duty bound your petitioners will every pray. I would like to add their signatures to the thousands that have already been tabled.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present two petitions, both dealing with pay equity.

The first requests Parliament to ask the President of the Treasury Board for authorization to pay the amount owed to all concerned employees, calculated based on what they know is owing to each employee.

The second calls on Parliament to put an end of this pay discrimination by implementing the results of the joint study through negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union representing these workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today to the House of Commons regarding the MAI and the conflict it would have in terms of direct investment by Canadian companies in order of their own country.

This certificate is on behalf of the Canadian auto workers, local 1990, a union of which I was a member for over 18 years. I am very proud today to present this petition on their behalf.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

Customs Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to speak at third reading of Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code. I am pleased to note that the party I represent, the official opposition, will be supporting this legislation.

I should say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey North.

In addressing this bill I would like to speak to the irony of the situation as I see it. We are addressing a very serious need in our criminal justice system with Bill C-18, but at the same time I was more than a bit taken aback by a ruling of the supreme court on May 22, 1997, which was known as the Michael Feeney decision.

Bill C-18 will assist our customs officers in making arrests and in conducting searches. As well it will enable them to assist police officers at the border as they will be able to detain people until police officers can intervene. Further, it closes an enforcement gap which has existed at the border by expanding the breadth of the powers of customs officers. It will allow them to arrest individuals who they suspect have committed or may be about to commit a crime.

It is a very important distinction because the split decision of the supreme court in the Michael Feeney case accomplished the exact opposite. That is where I find the irony in this situation. I would like to read from some clippings about that case so those watching the proceedings today will better understand what I am getting at.

Mr. Feeney confessed to second degree murder in the brutal death in June 1991 of Frank Boyle at his home in Likely, a small isolated rural community outside of Williams Lake. Mr. Boyle died following a fierce attack involving five blows to the head with an iron bar or similar object. The walls and furniture of his home were splattered with blood.

The RCMP went to a small storage trailer where Mr. Feeney normally slept, after a witness described seeing him walking away from an accident that morning involving the victim's truck. The Mounties knocked on the door and yelled “Police”, but Mr. Feeney was asleep and did not answer. The officers entered, woke him up, saw that his shirt was splattered with blood and then arrested him.

Judge Sopinka ruled that the police did not have reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Feeney when they entered the trailer without a warrant. Therefore, all of the evidence derived as a result of the arrest and subsequent search was inadmissible. This included the blood spattered shirt, his fingerprints which matched prints on the victim's refrigerator, some money found under the mattress and cigarettes of the same type that Mr. Boyle was known to smoke.

As I said, it was a split decision of five to four. The dissenting judges said that the investigators proceeded in a forthright and proper manner and had to act quickly before Mr. Feeney had an opportunity to destroy crucial evidence. Indeed had the police not moved immediately to arrest, it is likely they would have been criticized for allowing a murderer to continue to remain at large in the community.

It is interesting that on the one hand Bill C-18 will give more enforcement powers, more powers of discretion to customs officers and is supported by all parties in this Chamber regardless of political persuasion, yet on the other hand the supreme court is overturning traditional rights which have been granted to the police that when the police strongly suspect a criminal act and there is a fugitive from justice in a residence, they can enter and arrest that person.

The situation because of that ruling is that Mr. Feeney may face a second trial. It is possible he may not because that crucial evidence has now been effectively ruled inadmissible. A clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of May 24, 1997 states “Mr. Feeney faces a second trial but his lawyer said yesterday that it may never be held because the evidence is not admissible”. Mr. Charles Lugosi of Prince George, B.C. said that because his client had been drinking heavily, the appropriate conviction should have been manslaughter in the first place. Now is that not interesting?

Regardless of whether or not we favour capital punishment, it really pointed to the difference between the justice systems in Canada and our neighbour to the south. I am speaking of an incident that happened last week, the execution of Karla Fay Tucker, an individual who committed a horrendous crime similar to the crime of Mr. Feeney. She brutally killed two people with a pickaxe in the United States.

Had that crime been committed in Canada, I would suggest that because she was on drugs at the time she committed the offence, if she was not out today, she would be rapidly coming up for parole. She probably would have been convicted of manslaughter and not murder. In the United States it was the exact opposite. She was held accountable. Whether we believe in capital punishment or not she paid the ultimate price for that horrendous crime and she was put to death. I wanted to point out the difference between the two systems.

During last year's election campaign there was an all candidates forum in my constituency. Mr. Feeney's lawyer, Charles Lugosi, was the candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party and ran against me. During the all candidates forum he bragged about his victory at the supreme court. His line seemed to be that even the RCMP must follow the letter of the law. I am not averse to that and most Canadian citizens are not.

What struck me and the audience who listened to him that night was he defended the fact that he took this case to the supreme court and ultimately won it in Mr. Feeney's favour. Never mind that the guilty may go unpunished. Never mind that our system no longer cares whether an individual is guilty or innocent. Never mind that lawyers can have truth ruled irrelevant because of a technicality, he is still proud that Mr. Feeney will be granted a new trial and crucial evidence of his guilt may be ruled inadmissible.

The letter of the law must be changed. This is yet another ruling by the supreme court that makes a mockery of our justice system. Reality only serves to reinforce Canadians' view that the justice system is merely a legal system designed for the benefit of criminals and to guarantee income for lawyers.

This House needs to give our peace officers the tools they need to do their job properly and to protect society, especially the most vulnerable, women, children, the elderly and infirm, and victims like Frank Boyle, the gentleman who lost his life to the likes of Mr. Feeney. Is it any wonder that our law enforcement officers and crown counsels across the land are frustrated.

The irony is that while this House is debating and will undoubtedly pass this bill to give our customs officers a much needed tool to better do their job, the supreme court decision has shackled the hands of police officers.

I think I speak for a lot of people. Certainly a lot of constituents in my riding of Prince George—Peace River have relayed this to me. Indeed Canadians from coast to coast to coast are becoming increasingly frustrated with what they view as ridiculous decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada which are shackling our law enforcement services, whether they are the police officers or the crown prosecutors. I call today for putting an end to this.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation which is long, long overdue.

The constituency I represent, Surrey North in British Columbia, is situated between the city of Vancouver and the U.S. border. My home is a mere 15 minute drive from one of the busiest border crossings in Canada. I have had the opportunity to frequently come into contact with customs personnel at our border points to the state of Washington.

It is my understanding that in just the past couple of years our customs officers have encountered more than 8,500 impaired drivers, approximately 200 suspected child abductions and more than 2,000 people wanted on warrants of arrest. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how previous governments could be in possession of this type of information and not immediately act upon it in the interests of public safety both here in Canada and abroad.

Imagine, 8,500 impaired drivers crossing our borders with the potential of wreaking havoc on our streets and highways. Meanwhile our customs officers, government employees and our first line of defence being fully aware of the danger posed by these impaired individuals find themselves in a position where they are virtually powerless to do anything about it. Astounding.

This lends new meaning to the phrase “only in Canada”. This bill will provide increased powers for the apprehension of those who would enter this country to break our laws. As the justice critic for the official opposition, I cannot help but be in favour of this type of legislation.

Customs officers will now be able to effect Criminal Code arrest warrants and they will be permitted to administer the preliminary roadside screening test on motorists they suspect to be under the influence of alcohol. Canadians can only be better off now that finally something is being done. In the past our customs officers were restricted to reporting incidents to the police who would hopefully arrive on the scene in time before offenders moved on.

It is my understanding there are approximately 2,500 customs officers who will be provided with these additional powers. This is a significant improvement to what can best be described as law enforcement responsibilities within our country. But as usual, everything can never be all rosy with this Liberal government.

Every year at the crossing near my home, customs officers confiscate large numbers of firearms of all descriptions. Some I have no doubt are seized from travellers who are merely unaware of our laws regarding the transport of firearms. However I suspect others are being brought into Canada for more sinister purposes.

As I have previously stated, these officers will now be effecting arrest warrants and we all know that will, in all likelihood, involve unpredictable individuals and potentially dangerous situations.

This government in its wisdom will in the process of adding to the duties and responsibilities of our customs personnel be putting them at increased risk when dealing with dangerous persons. However, it will not be providing them with side arms with which to protect themselves when apprehending these people.

I believe at one point there was some mention of issuing bulletproof vests. I suppose that is better than nothing but sometimes I wonder whether the ministers in this government and the bureaucrats in their departments are aware of the conditions that really exist for enforcement personnel who are actually on the line when it comes to protecting our citizens.

My second concern is another common occurrence with this government which is the offloading of costs onto already overburdened areas of responsibility. Our customs officers will require additional training to carry out their duties. Detention facilities at border crossings will have to be upgraded. However this government has not seen fit to provide additional resources. Canada Customs will have to find the finances within existing budgets to accommodate these additional requirements.

It causes me to wonder whether this government is trying to convince its employees to shut up and to not make any noise. The government was forced to act because customs personnel complained loudly about crime proceeding unheeded through our border points, but the customs departments will have to pay the consequences and find the money to fund the added responsibilities from within already restricted and limited budgets.

Is the government really trying to coerce its departments into remaining silent, leaving citizens at risk all in order to protect their individual budgets? I hope not because we continually witness the passing off of financial responsibility. I cannot help but be concerned that a hidden and perhaps a very dangerous message is being sent that at some time in the future will become apparent, to the detriment of us all.

There is a third concern. It is related to the one just mentioned in that it is a result of the government's offloading. The customs department has been forced because of limited resources to automate some points of entry and to hire more part time employees. Both these developments will seriously limit the ability of customs to properly effect the aims of Bill C-18.

An automated customs port, by definition, means that customs personnel are not available to make arrests on site. Part time personnel, by definition, means less experience and capability to detect the criminal element or to conduct a proper investigation or inquiry and to effect appropriate arrest when required. Inexperienced personnel will also be exposed to increased risk if and when dangerous situations arise.

To sum up, I will be supporting the legislation because it provides better security of Canada's borders. Unfortunately once again the Liberals have taken years to do something which is relatively simple to accomplish but their efforts fall short. They go half way and then attempt to spin into the minds of Canadians that the problem has been fully addressed. I do not know why they simply go through the motions and refuse to provide adequate legislation and resources which are sorely needed.

I encourage my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-18 for the good of all Canadians, but I also call on the government to address the shortcomings regarding funding issues and the safety of customs personnel.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the legislation. I also support it because I believe some steps are being taken here that need to be taken. It is a good start but I do not think that is where it should stop.

The purpose of the bill is “to empower customs officers with the authority of a peace officer, in particular to arrest without warrant individuals who are wanted on criminal warrants or who are suspected of impaired driving”. The first thing that crosses my mind is that I know police officers have the power to arrest people who are wanted by the criminal courts for certain reasons. When they arrest them, police officers are pretty well protected. They carry guns and have clubs and other equipment that assists them in doing that. I do not see anywhere in the legislation where we are doing much in that direction.

If we are to empower customs officers with the ability to arrest without warrant criminals who are wanted, we should certainly see to it that they in turn will be likewise protected. To some extent this is true with respect to arresting people who are suspected of impaired driving.

You have been around for a few years, Mr. Speaker, and so have I. I do not know if you have ever had the opportunity try to persuade someone not to drive after drinking. Occasionally—and this happened to me a couple of times—some people take objection to that kind of persuasion. It can get just a bit debatable between the two people. If a customs officer tries to remove an individual from his vehicle because he is intoxicated, to prevent him from driving, he should be prepared for all situations. I am not sure the bill allows for that.

I reiterate what was stated by the member for Peace River with regard to the Feeney case. I am pleased to see the government is empowering some officers at the customs level. I would like to see a little more empowering at the police level.

I have driven around, as have many of my colleagues from all sides of the House, in the back seats of police patrol cars observing what is happening, what the action is out there. I found on many occasions that the abuse toward police is remarkable in the sense that they have no way to retaliate. There is nothing they can do about it. They have to take the verbal abuse and give in to certain things. When they finally make an arrest they have to make sure they have witnesses to make certain they do not get into any trouble. They have to make the arrest, make sure all the i 's are dotted and all the t 's are crossed. If they do anything wrong they are in for it quickly.

We need to empower our law enforcement people to a greater degree so they can better do their job. It seems the government is adamant about making sure the rights of the criminal far exceed the rights of arresting officers and the rights of law-abiding people. It is becoming more and more obvious. I hope the government will address those issues some time.

I am concerned about some of the things that happen at the borders in terms of treatment of normal travellers. Many MPs have likely received some of the same complaints that I have received concerning the way travellers have been treated on their return to Canada.

There have been complaints of rudeness and a lack of consideration of the fact that they are visitors returning to Canada. It may be a married couple returning from a vacation or whatever the case might be. Many times its gets a bit out of hand. I do not think Wild Rose people are much different from those anywhere else in Canada. They like to be treated fairly and with courtesy at border crossings upon their to return to Canada, which they deserve. Sometimes that does not happen so I would caution on that.

Some time in the future I will bring the following incident to the attention of the minister. The national rodeo championships are held every year in Las Vegas. This year we sent a good contingency of cowboys from the west and some from the east to compete. When they arrived there they received very nice jackets from the organizing committee to signify their status as national rodeo representatives. They were awarded the jackets in honour of their presence at the event as Canadian ambassadors.

On one occasion one of the cowboys who was wearing his jacket was crossing the border into Alberta. He was ostracized a great deal because he did not claim the jacket on his declaration. It had actually slipped his mind that he had obtained the coat. The customs officials went further and charged him a great amount of duty on the jacket that was given to him as a representative of Canada. That is wrong. We need to see what went on there and do something about it.

I do not think politicians, including the prime minister, who have visited other parts of the world have not received some sort of gift. I am sure they did not have to claim them or pay duty on them. Even you, Mr. Speaker. I am quite positive you do not have to pay duty on any gifts you receive when you are on official business as a member of Parliament. At any rate I would like that checked into.

Sooner than later one thing will hit the floor of the House of Commons. I believe it has to be sooner. There is a document that interferes a great deal. It is a real stumbling block to people who want to do a good job at border crossings, to people who want to do a good job of protecting society, and to front line prison guards who are working for the benefit of all of us.

That document is the charter of rights and freedoms. It is forever throwing up a road block to prevent them from doing the kind of job they would like to do. Someday that document will have to be brought into the House of Commons to be scrutinized by members to see if there is anything we can do to legislation which prevents peace officers of all kinds from doing the kind of work they want to do.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the bill before the House today.

We can all take some instructive lessons from the bill. It moves us closer to having the laws of the land more adequately enforced. That is important. It was talked about this morning. That is good. It is something members of Parliament on all sides want to see. We all want to see the laws of the land being enforced and the people who have taken on the task of enforcing our laws being given the equipment to do it effectively.

Why do we want that? We want to protect the vulnerable. We want to ensure that the laws of the land serve the best interests of the country and its citizens. If we passionately care about Canada, which I know we all do, we have a strong desire to see the laws of the land upheld and officers equipped to do just that.

Parliament, as I understand it, is where the laws are shaped and the foundation of our legal system is set in place through the democratic process. I heard today some members of my own party articulating that we have lost something in Canada. The intent of the law is to protect Canadians, the vulnerable. Sometimes it is being negated by technicalities in the courts. This is tragic. It does not serve to strengthen the country. It serves to tear it down.

Many of us are concerned about it. We will continue in the days ahead to make sure the intent of law, protecting the vulnerable and the interests of the majority, will be dealt with.

There are some other side effects when technicalities overrule the intent of the law and the courts. One of the real tragedies is for the officers we are talking about to have new powers when after carrying out their duties and possibly putting their own lives at risk in difficult situations they see all their work blown away in a courtroom due to a technicality. It is greatly demotivating.

It is not just customs officers. In my own riding several constables on the police force have had every bit of their motivation and passion for their work torn out of their hearts by seeing again and again cases thrown out due to technicalities in an obviously guilty situation. To see the guilty go free is not only devastating for them. It totally shatters the intent of the law to protect the vulnerable. We put more Canadians at risk when we let the courts run the land. As has been said today, we have a legal system and not a justice system.

What does it mean for the youth of the land when they see someone who is clearly guilty, and the evidence is greatly stacked to suggest that some sort of court action needs to be taken, being treated lightly or possibly freed? Respect for the law by the young people of Canada is diminished when this happens. This is not only tragic for today, but as young people grow up with that kind of an attitude toward the laws of Canada we reap very significant negative returns. We need to instil a respect for Canadian law that has been set in place through the democratic process and the parliament in which we serve.

Probably my most important concern is that when guilty parties are treated lightly or set free, innocent, hardworking, law-abiding Canadians and Canadian families are put at risk.

These are the people I and the members of my party are very concerned about. We must make sure that we do not just have law enforcement officers and laws that are greatly diminished in their effectiveness by a legal system and not a justice system.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by recognizing the good work the customs officers at the borders are doing for Canada. They are our ambassadors. When visitors and businessmen come to our country they are their first contact. Their behaviour brings goodwill to Canada. Therefore I would like to recognize the good work they have been doing.

I feel that Bill C-18 which gives them power to enforce our laws is a good bill and we are in support of this bill. The only caution I make is that while it is empowering them, our ambassadors of goodwill, we do not want them to be carried away with these powers and abuse them at the borders, creating negative feelings toward Canada.

Nevertheless, as all Canadians know, our laws are lax specifically when it comes to our justice system in upholding our laws. Everywhere across the country we can hear people who are supposed to uphold our laws asking for more powers to help them fulfil their duties. I think this bill goes toward that intent. At the same time I would like to see that more laws like this are passed so that our officers who are upholding the law can carry out their duties.

Time after time in my riding and everywhere when I talk to law enforcement officers they say their biggest concern is the inability to enforce the laws of the land. Police are strongly hampered by their inability to enforce the laws because they feel that when they do their hard work it is difficult for them to ensure that the final result is conviction.

I have travelled across the world and have come in contact with officers at border crossings in many countries. At times I am ashamed by the treatment they give to people who are visitors to their country. At times we can see that their rudeness and their practices of corruption are a detriment to their nation's desire to have visitors and businessmen come into the country.

Our customs officers, the ones I have come in contact with, have actually performed their work very well and have a respect among travellers who are coming to Canada. I would like to again say that I am proud and happy about the work that they are doing.

Here we are empowering them with something which we hold dear to ensure that the laws of this country are upheld. I wish them good luck in this. But I would also like to caution and bring to their attention that they are our ambassadors of first contact to bring goodwill to Canada.