Sue Barnes

[National Revenue, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we understand there is some difficulty right now. Revenue Canada has taken the steps necessary to assist Canadians to meet their obligations and to ensure that we deliver the child tax benefit credits for which we are responsible.

Businesses and individuals can make their payments at any financial institution. They can go to any of our customs offices or our Revenue Canada offices.

I also remind the federation that we have fairness legislation at Revenue Canada. We are fair.

[Revenue Canada, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Absolutely. Client confidentiality, whether it is an individual or a corporation, is the cornerstone of our system of taxation in this country. It is voluntary compliance and we would take seriously any efforts to access information. This is a serious matter and I would like to clearly state that Revenue Canada is well aware of this obligation and that recent press reports do not involve the department.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to participate in this debate on Bill C-212 which was introduced by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

Bill C-212 would reinstate the death penalty for first degree murder committed by a person 18 years of age or over. This bill would also provide for an increase in prison terms for first and second degree murder which can be imposed upon persons under the age of 18.

I would like first to address the issue of reinstatement of the death penalty.

Capital punishment was debated extensively in this House prior to the 1976 vote that abolished it more than 20 years ago. Capital punishment has been debated a few times since it was abolished, not only in Parliament, but elsewhere. The most extensive debate since the abolition of capital punishment took place in this House in 1987. I clearly remember that debate because, as a private citizen, it was the first time that I actually wrote to my MP to encourage him to vote against capital punishment.

The 1987 debate was on the then government of the day motion and that motion called upon the House of Commons to support in principle the reinstatement of capital punishment and to establish a special committee to provide recommendations on the offences which should carry the death penalty, and on the method or methods which should be used to carry out the sentence of death.

The question as I said earlier was debated at length. There was a free vote in this House. It seems that some people cannot understand that a free vote democratically given in Canada has been done and it was refused. Some people push the agenda all the time.

A majority of the members then voted against the motion and thus against the reinstatement of capital punishment in the Criminal Code. Since that vote, capital punishment has not been an issue of great national prominence.

Why are we asked to debate the reinstatement of capital punishment at this time? It is private members hour and a Reform member has brought it forward. Are there any new circumstances that require or seriously say that Parliament should re-examine this issue? Perhaps I would understand if there was a trend showing a significant increase in the homicide rate. This could institute a requirement that we should again debate this issue and would justify reopening this debate on the death penalty.

Surely the hon. member from Prince George—Peace River is not motivated by an increase in the homicide rate. In fact the rate for 1996 is the third lowest rate since 1975. The homicide rate was three per hundred thousand of population in 1975, the last year when capital punishment was in force for murder. In 1987 when this House held an extensive debate on a government motion for the reinstatement of capital punishment, the homicide rate was down to 2.4 per hundred thousand, which means a 20% decrease compared to 1975.

In 1995 the homicide rate had decreased further to 1.99. This represents a 33% reduction since 1975, the last year the death penalty was in force in this country. For 1996 the rate is 2.1.

I want to be clear. I do not underestimate, nor does anybody in this House, the crime of murder. Today we are all aware of yet another tragedy in Canada over the weekend. Every homicide is a tragedy and it raises questions about our society and raises questions for our society. Every homicide or murder must be punished with the most serious penalties and it is.

However, statistics do show us that the homicide rate was three per one hundred thousand of population when capital punishment was in force and it is down to around two per one hundred thousand now that capital punishment is no longer in our system, having been abolished, as I said, for over 20 years.

This decrease hardly supports the deterrent element of capital punishment. Not only has the homicide rate not increased with the abolition of the death penalty, it has actually decreased by one-third.

What these statistics mean is that there is no evidence that the death penalty is a useful tool to fight murders. If the death penalty is not an effective tool against homicides and murders, we should ask ourselves what useful purpose would be served by reinstating it.

I personally believe that the death penalty is an excessive means of achieving the objectives of sentencing. In recent years at least three well publicized cases have come to light which would cause one to pause and should cause this society to pause when considering the reinstatement of the death penalty: the wrongful murder convictions of Donald Marshall, Jr., Guy-Paul Morin and David Milgaard.

If capital punishment had been in effect, they may not have had a second chance at life. Capital punishment is final. There is no chance to correct the mistakes of the state, however well intentioned, however strongly we feel and however many inches of press can be generated. This type of error is also tragic and it is totally preventable when we do not have capital punishment as part of our recourse in our justice system.

On practical grounds, these are reasons I personally oppose the death penalty. The onus is on those who would want to change the law in such a fundamental way to make a compelling case. For myself, I am not persuaded by the arguments I have just heard and those being made.

It is not only on practical grounds that I oppose the death penalty, but I also oppose it on moral grounds. The issue of capital punishment raises the question of how we see ourselves as a country and a people. The trend in the world, at least among western nations, is to abolish the death penalty. To return to capital punishment in Canada would be contrary to the international trend and I personally believe that supporting a return to the death penalty for murder would be a very regressive step, one that my hon. colleagues in the Reform Party seem to wish to embrace.

Do Canadians really believe that they would feel safer living in a society where capital punishment is meted out? In fact to be very crass, do they even believe that this would save tax dollars? Please look to what is going on with our neighbours to the south. Canadians will find some of those answers.

The hon. member's bill would also increase prison terms for murder for persons under the age of 18 years. I found it surprising that he did not address that, seeing as that is part of the bill, but I am going to comment. I would like to remind the hon. member that parole eligibility periods for youth convicted of murder were significantly increased as of December 1, 1995.

I would like to outline for the House the provisions that currently apply to young offenders who are found guilty of murder. A youth who is 14 years of age or over at the time of the commission of the offence of first degree murder or second degree murder may be transferred to adult court. If convicted of murder in adult court, the minimum sentence is life imprisonment.

Before December 1, 1995 a youth convicted of either first or second degree murder in adult court was subject to a prison term set by the court at between five and ten years inclusive. Since our government changed this law after December 1, 1995, the following provisions apply.

First, a 16 or 17 year old youth convicted of first degree murder must serve a term of at least 10 years in custody. A 16 or 17 year old youth convicted of second degree murder must serve a term of at least seven years in custody and a youth 14 or 15 years of age who is convicted of either first or second degree murder in adult court must serve a custody term of between five and seven years inclusive as set by the court. If not specified by the judge, then the person must serve a term of five years.

I want to go back to before December 1, 1995 when youths of any age convicted of first or second degree murder in youth court were subject to a maximum sentence of five years less a day which was composed of two parts. The maximum custodial period was three years and the maximum period for conditional supervision in the community was two years less a day.

It is unfortunate that I am out of time because I do have the facts that could be presented. Maybe one of my colleagues will finish this.

Right now I need to make the point that all youth convicted of first degree murder in youth court are subject to a maximum sentence of ten years which is comprised of a maximum of six years in custody and a maximum length of conditional supervision of four years. Youths convicted of second degree murder in youth court are subject to a maximum sentence of seven years which is composed of a maximum period of four years in custody and a period of conditional supervision which may not exceed three years.

It has only been two years since we have changed these rules. We have a justice committee looking at it. I am going to suggest that we let the Minister of Justice, who knows this is an important issue, deal with this as we have been doing all along. We take this seriously. In my submission, capital punishment plays no part in our just society.

[Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Institute, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry recently celebrated the opening of the National Research Council's newest research facility, the Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Institute. This institute will eventually house 140 scientists, engineers, technicians and support staff and will further enhance London, Ontario's reputation as a leading centre of research and development in Canada.

Research programs at IMTI will be aimed at keeping Canadian manufacturers at the forefront of technological innovation and advances needed in our highly competitive global economy. These programs will continue to position Canada as a world leader in our future knowledge based areas of concern.

I congratulate the NRC on over 80 years of improving the lives of Canadians by performing and supporting relevant research and development. I also applaud the diverse team of stakeholders from the University of Western Ontario, industry, levels of government and the local business community in attracting this high valued added institute to our city.

Congratulations. Félicitations.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of relevancy. Some of those issues which were raised by my hon. colleague across the floor are not particularly relevant to this bill as it stands and is going forward today.

The questions of justice are relevant at any time to our whole Canadian society. We are constantly looking at ways of doing our work better. I think it is always useful to hear different views and suggestions presented in a constructive manner.

Although it is not relevant to this bill today, on the issue of the visa I would like to say that certainly it is very serious. Not only our minister but more importantly the Minister of Foreign Affairs is dealing with this issue with the Americans at this point in time on their piece of legislation that could affect us. That, as the hon. member knows, is being dealt with not only on the political level but on the diplomatic level with our ambassador and on other things that have been out there.

We are aware of the seriousness of this issue. I just did not want to leave this debate without addressing that problem because I thought it was too large an issue not to say some words on it.

I thank the hon. member and all hon. members on all sides of the House who have contributed to the debate today. I think we have an unusual consensus in the House. I hope now that this bill can move toward closer examination at the committee stage with a consensus in the House.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his thoughtful presentation.

I want to address one of the areas of misunderstanding which he has about the bill. He believes quite honestly that students will have the first response powers. That is definitely not the case. I have stated that a number of times in this House today.

I want to assure him that the decision has been made to give these extra powers to full time and permanent part time employees but they will not be given to the student officers who we utilize in customs, and utilize quite well I might add, having been one in 1974 at one of the busiest border points in Canada, the Niagara border point.

He can be assured that the decision has been made and that his concerns are unfounded in this regard.

I believe that we have a smart border in Canada. I do not say that just because it sounds nice. We have designed our customs administration to protect Canadian society, and not only against contraband. We have set up a system which facilitates legitimate travel and legitimate trade. We use our intelligence networks to target high risk situations.

Canadians have to understand the volume we are dealing with. It is a very large border. We are processing approximately 109 million travellers a year at our border points. We expedite our trade. We all know that one out of three jobs in this nation is dependent on trade. It is a growing area. It has grown from the time we took power in 1993. At that time it was one in five jobs and now it is one in three.

We are dealing with 158,000 large importers and exporters. There is a huge responsibility at our border crossing points to expedite and professionally deal with trade. However, we must always be on the lookout for the other element of society which tries to get through our screens. It is a big responsibility.

It is important to understand that the first line people are going to be assisted by this legislation. That is really important to understand.

The numbers are phenomenal and they are growing. In 1996-97 Revenue Canada processed $248 billion in trade, representing more than 28 million transactions, resulting from 10 million commercial entries.

This is very important for the hon. member to understand. He raises many different areas in his speech in which he has an interest but which are not truly the subject matter of this bill. However, I am glad to hear that the hon. member is in agreement with the subject matter of this bill.

I will let him comment on my comments, but I did want to correct the misunderstanding involving the students.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the many questions posed by the hon. member in his speech, many of the answers were delivered earlier today in this debate. For the edification of the hon. member I have no problem restating some of the answers. I hope it will assist him because this is a very good bill for tous les Canadiens et toutes les Canadiennes.

This is not a partisan bill, no matter what the questions or how they are posed. The RCMP will continue to do all of its work between the border points across this country. That will not change.

The work of our customs officers throughout this country, including Quebec, will also not change. They are still dealing with all these issues under the customs and excise acts and the numerous other acts that our customs officers administer for us at our border points.

This is a first response not only after discussion with the people and the unions involved but is also being supported by these same employees inside. They are very supportive. This honourable member may very well find that the head of the union of customs will have sent a letter to all members asking for support for this bill, and I draw that to his attention.

This is not replacing or creating some new police force. This is a situation where we are filling a gap, a narrow gap that existed, that will help the safety at first response, the point where we can first intercept at our border point, and security for Canadians.

There are situations where children are being abducted. This is the place where we can detain until the appropriate and responsible police force comes to the assistance and follows out with the rest of the process. This is the place where a drunk driver, driving up to our borders, can be intercepted. Before, we could not detain an individual for a lengthy period of time in case the appropriate local police force was not, through other responsibilities, able to assist in a timely manner. This is a better situation. We will have the legal authority to charge and to detain.

Also, very clearly this gives us that authority to make an arrest where there is an outstanding warrant and then turn over to the appropriate authority.

These are very positive measures. We are giving the human resources, as we have given many other tools over a time period in all of our experiences as professionals. We have to work with upcoming technology, new technology. Unfortunately, I do not think all of us get pay raises every time a new machine comes in. I wish that were true, but it does not necessarily happen that way.

This is, though, a tool, a legislative tool that will assist our people, the people who protect Canadians, to do their jobs better. To give the assurance to this honourable member which he deserves, yes there has been ongoing consultation and there will continue to be ongoing consultation not only with the provincial and other policing authorities but with our unions, the people who work for us. This is very much a welcome piece of legislation and I respect that this honourable member did, in his concluding remarks, actually indicate that the Bloc is being supportive overall.

If I can help with any of his further questions, as a parliamentary secretary I am at his disposal to give him further briefings whenever he requests that. As the parliamentary secretary, I wrote to the representative of their caucus as well as the other caucuses, offering briefings in this matter.

I would like to give a little time before question period for the member opposite to acknowledge it.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent speech. It is my knowledge that he has been consistent and has persevered in bringing the attention to these matters that they deserve not only in this Parliament but in the last parliament.

Many members have worked and lived in constituencies across the land with border points. The member has written to the department. He has been involved in continuing dialogue and supporting the legislation as it came forward. Many members with border points in their constituencies have been there, which we as a department appreciate.

It is my firm belief that concern for Canadians is not a partisan issue. Members on the benches opposite have the same concerns the hon. member and I have about the safety of Canadians. We have different size border points and different needs. I hope we will start on this exercise shortly.

To train staff appropriately, we will probably start with the very large centres. We will do the appropriate training. We will manage this change as well as other changes we have made over the past number of years to make our border a smart border, a border that customs officers and Canadians can be proud of.

We do not want to hassle people as they cross the border. We want proper risk management. We want to target goods and people who present a security or a criminal risk to the country.

We want to stop smuggling. Our goal is to help the tourism industry. Our goal is to help returning Canadian residents when they travel abroad to access all the facilities they need in a professional and competent manner.

We at Revenue Canada are providing customs officers with tools to help them better do their job. In the last parliament we brought forth initiatives on some new projects that we are working toward implementing throughout the land.

We will have a very sophisticated, modern customs administration. As the minister said earlier, Canada can be very proud of its customs administration. We can be very proud of the people in customs. I know union officials in the hon. member's riding have talked to him.

I congratulate him in his work and all other people in the House, no matter what party, who helped us move the legislation forward.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, having heard those comments I do wish to assure the member opposite that in this situation it is our people working at the border points who are also very anxious to have this legislation. We are enhancing their role with their consent and also in support of them.

We are doing something that is beneficial to the people most directly involved as well as society as a whole.

Maybe as an example that people would be able to understand, I will just show where the limitation would come in. I will take the example of someone, a customs officer, encountering someone who looks impaired at a border point.

Our officers under this legislation would be authorized to administer a roadside screening test but for individuals who registered high on that test, they would be then turned over to the police who would then do the administration of the breathalyzer test and obviously all the other things that would go after that.

We are being very limited. We are having our customs officers perform their functions at the border points only. Obviously between border points the RCMP, as it has always done, will be responsible for the security of our borders and will continue with its functions.

I think what we have here is a beneficial piece of legislation. It is absolutely essential to us that we properly train and provide all the necessary tools and safety and security not only to the public but to people who are within our employ and who the department is responsible for. We take that responsibility extremely seriously.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and to other members who spoke this morning. In my comments I want to address some of the very worthwhile questions posed by them.

By expanding the scope of powers for customs officers to include Criminal Code offences, I stress that we are not creating an extra police force. It is a means of assisting police forces across the country. It does not replace them in any way, shape or form. The new powers designated to customs officers will be limited and specific, and there will be adequate training.

Right now many custom facilities have secure rooms so a lot of infrastructure is in place. Earlier today there was a direct question from a member of the Reform Party on this cost. Quite frankly Revenue Canada has in place in its customs facilities sufficient infrastructure. There will have to be some upgrading and some training at a cost of probably about $5.5 million across the country.

It is not as large as one would expect because we already have most of the facilities in place now. We are just upgrading and putting in facilities where needed. It will probably be somewhere between six and nine months after the legislation is brought into law that training will be complete. For the security and safety of our own officers and the public, obviously we will not move before everyone is properly trained and the facilities are in place.

I assure members opposite, the Canadian public and, most important, the men and women who work in our customs facilities that this will be the case.

What new powers? Customs officials will have the power to detain and arrest individuals for Criminal Code offences which they encounter in the course of their regular duties.

Maybe the hon. member would wish to respond. I have more details if he wishes them.