Sue Barnes

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today about Bill C-18.

As you well know, this bill was presented in the last Parliament and has been reintroduced in this Parliament. We have waited in Canada for this bill because it will help with the safety of our community. It will help our customs officers at the border points. As Canadians know, at the border points Revenue Canada, through its customs department which is integral to the department, the men and women who are peace officers at the border are there to be the first line of defence not only with having commercial goods come into the country and consumer goods come into the country, but millions of people visiting this land, both our returning residents and our tourists.

Here we do the primary immigration and the customs work and now, with Bill C-18, we have the opportunity to fill a gap in the legislation that has been there for some time. This matter has had intensive study over the last decade or so. There have been reports. We have very much our own customs unions on side with us. We very much have the police forces in this country on side with us. We very much have on side the interest groups that have come to us, for example, Priscilla de Villiers and her very good organization, CAVEAT, as well as Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

All of these interest groups have pointed out to us something that we do that had to be corrected. This gap had to be filled and it was a gap where our police officers, our customs officers—I really should not call them police officers. They are our customs officers at the border points.

Now, with this legislation, they will have the ability to put charges down where we suspect some criminal activity that was outside the parameters of the Customs Act and the other legislation that we cover at the border points.

I could tell you about suspected drunk drivers who in the past we could detain but we had to call the local police forces, whoever they were, at the border points, and they are different across this land. They would then come and we could hold them, but we did not have the legal right to hold them there forever. Now this gap has been closed because we can do those charges. We can also pick up the outstanding arrest warrants that come up with our intelligence systems at the border points.

This gap will help with the drunk drivers' situation. It will help with the possession of stolen goods' situation. It will be very material and will touch the lives of Canadians who fear children being abducted at the border points. We have very good lookouts and intelligence. A child find operation is dealt with by our customs officers at the border point. This will give them the added legal authority to make the necessary charges on those involved in suspected criminal activities. They will also have the legal authority to detain those individuals with outstanding arrest warrants.

It is a very necessary piece of legislation. My colleagues across the hall in this Chamber understand the need for this legislation and welcome it, as we do. It is very important to the men and women who daily serve us in our department and who serve Canadians in doing their very important jobs. They have been doing their jobs without this legislation but this clarifies in law and better allows them to complete the task.

They will have the adequate necessary training. We will start at selected points but it will be across this land. We will have to make some structural changes in some of our facilities to accommodate this situation but they are minor in the scope of things. We do not believe our customs officers need to be armed at our border points and we will not be arming them, although I know this was part of the discussion. This decision was taken after much investigation. We will ensure the safety of our customs officers.

We have been dealing professionally with this situation for a long time. Now we are giving our customs officers the tool that was needed to close that legal gap, to give them the power to charge individuals and detain them. We will be the first response only. We are not going to handle the regular processing after the fact. The local police will be called in and they will take over as quickly as possible but we will legally be in a position to fulfill the need for community safety at the point of entry.

I remember a time when individuals such as Jonathon Yeo were seen at our border points and there was limited ability to hold them. This will correct our situation. I can think of tales from across Canada of people not being able to detain those they suspected of drinking and then later those people getting into accidents. The safety of not only our peace officers but of Canadians is the number one area we are concerned with in this piece of legislation.

From a report of many years ago have come discussions with our unions, the public and within the department. Now we have this legislation. We hope that with the assistance of all members in this House it can be moved rapidly through all legislative stages with the appropriate amount of discussion in this Chamber. It will be sent to the justice committee, then at third reading we will have another level of discussion in the Chamber.

We in Revenue Canada are very proud of the men and women who serve us at the border. The percentage of complaints we get about these individuals is very low compared to the number of people and goods they process. It is a very low annual figure.

As a student customs officer at the border in 1974 I feel there are jobs that both full time and part time employees did which they will continue to do. My point about the students is that they will not get training in this area. We feel it is an area in which the full time and the full part time people should be trained in.

Not everybody will have to be trained at every border point. There will have to be sufficient numbers trained in this area of the law and procedure. They will be properly staffed at every border point so that we can continue to do the excellent job that we are doing now for Canadians. I wanted to make that point because even though we value every employee, full, part time, student, whatever, we recognize that these are skills positions, positions of authority. We want them to be carried out in the most professional manner. We will provide the facilities and the training so that our customs officers can do this across the land.

I want to highlight the fact that we have not gone so far as arming and we will not be doing this. We have given the legal tool that was missing.

This is a very important piece of legislation. It is one that has been long awaited. It is one that is welcomed not only by the men and women in our department who have to work hard every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week at all of our many border points, but also those people in our communities, especially the policing community at these border points and in general the whole Canadian public, the men, women and children who cross our border points every day. This will make Canada better and more secure. I am very pleased.

It is not a long piece of legislation. It is not a difficult piece of legislation. The operative parts are actually in three clauses of the legislation. The bottom line is that it will make a big difference for the people who work every day at our border points.

I am open to questions from my colleagues on my side or across the floor and I will do my best to answer their questions or concerns. I am grateful that we are now in a position to put this piece of legislation before them.

[Women Entrepreneurs, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I recently reviewed a copy of the Bank of Montreal study on the economic power of women-led firms in Canada entitled “Myths and Realities”. There is tremendous progress being made by women in our Canadian business community. Here are some of the facts.

Women now own or operate over 700,000 firms, a number which represents over 30% of all firms in Canada. The number of women-led firms is increasing at twice the national average. They are creating jobs at four times the national average. These firms employ 1.7 million Canadians and provide 200,000 more jobs than the largest 100 Canadian companies combined.

Women-led firms are having a significant impact upon our economy. I congratulate these entrepreneurs. I also congratulate the Minister for International Trade who will shortly be leading a delegation of female business people to Washington.

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 1997]

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

In its 1997 budget, the Quebec government announced measures to help ensure that the tips of workers in the restaurant and hotel industry are reported and subject to tax. It announced that this would be accomplished in part through new measures to be introduced in legislation which would oblige the workers to remit their tips to their employers.

The Quebec budget also announced that tips would be eligible income in the calculation of various social benefits, notably employment insurance.

Prior to the Quebec budget announcement, Quebec officials had explained to federal officials that employees would be required to remit tips daily to employers who, in turn, would record them, withhold the appropriate deductions and return the remainder to the employees. On that basis, Quebec was advised that tips would be insurable for employment insurance purposes because they would be employer controlled.

Under the current employment insurance legislation, tips can only be regarded as insurable if they are employer controlled as a result of being remitted by the employee to the employer on an ongoing basis.

We are aware of the underlying objective of the Quebec government to curb the underground economy and address the under reporting of income, more specifically tips in restaurant and hotel industries.

The federal government also understands that following the publication of the Quebec proposals, major concerns were expressed by employers as to their added administrative burden. As a result, Quebec considered a number of options for alleviating this burden and has asked the federal government to advise whether these changes would be acceptable for EI coverage purposes.

These are being actively reviewed. I will assure the House that the federal government is aware of the importance of the issue and the tight time frame of the Government of Quebec to implement its program by January 1.

The government is treating Quebec's request as top priority. Quebec will soon be advised of the federal government's position on the matter.

[Telecommunications Act, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first occasion in this Parliament that I have had a chance to speak, I wish to congratulate the Speakers and to say that I will co-operate and respect this office and this Parliament.

I also take the opportunity to thank very strongly the voters in my riding of London West. I appreciate their support and I will continue to work with the dedication and the integrity and I hope the intelligence that they so richly deserve.

I would also like to point out that as we work in this capacity as parliamentarians there is a price in our families. I want to thank my husband and my children and also say to my colleagues across the floor of the House that I hope that throughout this Parliament I can continue to treat them with the respect and courtesy that any member of Parliament deserves.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of Bill C-17 which supports the government's strategy to make Canada a leader in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. Our overarching goal is to connect Canadians, to make Canada the most connected country in the world and to ensure that all Canadians have access to the information highway and the new economy which it supports.

The Minister of Industry has correctly identified this as perhaps the single most important action that the government can take to ensure our success in the knowledge based economy and I believe we all know that in our own ridings.

Underpinning any strategy to connect Canadians to this new economy is a competitive dynamic telecommunications industry. This is a very vital sector to the Canadian economy. It produces already 115,000 high wage jobs, high intelligence jobs, jobs that are in all our sectors across this country. It accounts for 3.36% of our gross domestic product and I see this growing.

If we take these necessary steps to encourage this industry's growth, we can take on the world. If we do not, we can sit back and watch international competitors take our share. There will be no more high quality jobs, no enhanced communications services, no new economy. I know that is not where Canada wants to be.

We are not sitting back. As a government we have moved decisively over the last four years to continue the liberalization of Canada's telecommunications sector. I want to review some of the steps we have taken.

The liberalization began in 1984 with the licensing of competitive cellular telephone service. It moved forward with the privatization of Teleglobe in 1987 and Telesat in 1992, and still it advanced further with the introduction of long distance competition in 1992 and the passage in 1993 of a new telecommunications act.

The process has continued over the last two years with the licensing of competitive personal communications services in 1995 and local multipoint communications services in 1996. Further in 1996 the government set out its policy and principles for the convergence of cable and telephone services, creating one of the most competition driven policy regimes in the world.

This legislation marks the latest stage of this liberalization and clears the way for Canada's participation in the GATS agreement on basic telecommunications which was concluded last February. The agreement covers 69 countries with more than 90% of the world's $880 billion telecommunications market. It covers basic telecommunications services, voice and data, but not broadcasting.

The immediate purpose of the legislation is to implement those changes to Canada's regulatory regime that are necessary. The longer term objective is to foster competition, one of the government's top priorities in this area. We are already a world leader in this sector and we will get more of that market share when we widen it up with very visible rules.

Competition is not an end in itself. We need competition because it fosters innovation and innovation leads to the development of new products and services, more choice at cheaper cost for consumers, Canadians, voters, the people in this country who deserve this, and it creates jobs and economic growth. Still a longer term objective of fostering competition is to ensure Canadians have the advanced technologies they need to gain access to the knowledge economy.

Over the past four years we have developed and initiated a plan to ensure that Canada does take full advantage of these technologies. We are building an information highway where all Canadians can connect at a reasonable cost. We have created those conditions needed to encourage the private sector to build this information highway. Hardware and software developers and suppliers and content developers are now among the fastest growing industries in this nation.

Opening competition in telecommunications services is an important part of our strategy as a government. We know the best and fastest way to build the infrastructure for the knowledge based economy is through open competition. By developing a national strategy for the development of this infrastructure, the government will enable all Canadians to find new opportunities for business, learning and communicating with one another. This can only be good.

Canadians want us to move forward quickly to secure for them the benefits of a new economy. The government is working on a number of fronts to do this. For example, we will have high level talks at the OECD conference on electronic commerce coming up in the fall of 1998. Electronic commerce is not only central to a modern knowledge based economy, it is also the foundation for future growth and job creation.

By creating the best environment for electronic commerce, Canada will become the world leader in this emerging field, generating increased investment in electronic networks and growth in areas such as electronic transactions, multimedia products and online services. The OECD Canada conference ensures we can support, participate in and influence the creation of an open, transparent multilateral electronic commerce regime. The government is also working toward using electronic commerce when doing business with its own clients. By being a model user the federal government can encourage the private sector and other levels of government to adopt the technology. But it does not stop there.

As part of our national strategy, the government initiated a number of programs to ensure that Canadians acquire the tools and skills from the earliest age that they need to prosper in this new economy. These include computers for schools programs through which government departments, businesses and institutions donate surplus computer equipment and software to schools. It includes the student connection program which enables university and college students to help small businesses learn to use the Internet, as my colleague suggested. The community access program connects and will connect every rural Canadian community with more than 400 people to the Internet by the year 2000. And how could we forget the SchoolNet program which connects all our 16,500 schools and 3,400 public libraries in Canada to the Internet.

Across this country students, teachers, professionals, business people and just Canadians are using these facilities because we have to ensure Internet literacy and move forward into the next century which will be different than the last century. The government is going online itself making government services accessible to people wherever they are, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is being done in every department and agency in this country.

None of this would be possible without telecommunications infrastructure and those supports for it. We cannot have that infrastructure without a strong, dynamic telecommunications industry. This bill before us today is a necessary step toward giving our telecommunications sector service companies the keys they need to open the doors to the new world, the world market of vast proportions. Once that door is open we can rely on Canadian expertise, Canadian entrepreneurship in all our ridings to do the rest.

The result will be better telecommunications services. An infrastructure will support us in the next century. I suggest we are on the information highway and we will move forward on that highway together.

[National Revenue, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate and hopefully it will be clearer this time. The employee in question has filed an appeal with the Public Service Commission Appeal Board that he was inappropriately denied an acting appointment.

While this appeal is ongoing we will not be commenting on the particulars of this case no matter how many times members of the opposition ask.

[National Revenue, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada is responsible at the customs border points. Between the border points we have RCMP co-operation. A lot of our information is intelligence based. We work co-operatively on our anti-smuggling initiatives. There are money and resources behind this and Revenue Canada works on assessing high and low risk and will not be letting smugglers know how we do this in this House.

[National Revenue, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, allegations that Revenue Canada gives preferential treatment to any courier company in this country are false and unfounded. Right now there is a risk management system that has been in place and is supported by all courier companies.

If any member of this House has any evidence that we should be investigating, let them place it before us and we will investigate.

[National Revenue, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The member opposite should very well know that any matter before the Public Service Commission Appeal Board will not be disclosed in this House because it is inappropriate to comment on it at this time.

[Police And Peace Officers, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on Parliament Hill the 20th annual police and peace officers memorial service was held.

It was a solemn occasion to pay tribute to the men and women who have given their lives over the years to protect Canadians. It was an occasion for families and friends to remember their loved ones. It was an occasion for all of us to remember that part of the reason why we live in this secure and safe society is because of the dedication of professional police and peace officers who work across this country.

Unfortunately it is ceremonies such as the annual memorial service that make us realize our safety has come sometimes at the cost of those who are working, the best and the brightest that we have in these forces.

Being a peace officer is a very difficult job full of many challenges. In Canada we are fortunate to have police forces who carry out their daily work with honesty and integrity and dedication.

It is a time when we should all pause to reflect on the contribution of our police and peace officers, who they are and what they make as a contribution to our Canadian society.

[Broadcasting Act, April 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this issue of billing in a certain manner was the number one issue in London West as far as responses or input directly from constituents were concerned in the whole time of this Parliament to date. I think the number two issue was quite a bit behind that.

People were not lobbied in my riding to phone in or write in about this issue. This is something that genuinely affected them in their pocket books and they felt very strongly about it.

I can remember two Christmases ago being in my riding a couple of days after Christmas and the phone calls coming in. I had to keep emptying our telephone banks and resetting them.

This is an important matter for a lot of my constituents. It is not an important matter only in London West. It is an important matter across the country.

I am a little concerned and confused by the Bloc's continued attack on the consumers across the country who are concerned about negative option billing. Bill C-216 would protect consumers in all provinces, wherever there are cable companies.

This negative billing practice in essence requires people to pay for specialty channels without being able to say they want these options and they choose to pay for them. I have always resented any practice which assumes I want a product by not responding. This is the type of marketing that I know suits mass industry because of the volume. Most people maybe do not pay attention to the fine print as well as they should, but we should not punish them for not doing so. We should protect them in a manner that they can give an informed consent, which the majority of the population is capable of. I believe in those choices.

There has been a Senate amendment to this and now the Bloc is rallying to protect the cable companies which will be the main beneficiaries. It will not be the average Canadian. The Bloc has allied itself with the big business and special interests in this area. I feel strongly that the French language is protected in the bill as amended by the Senate.

There are people in this country who struggle to pay their bills every month. I think the Bloc would be wise instead of trying to talk about only part of the issue to consider the consumers in Quebec and protect them, as is their obligation in Parliament.

Many people have spoken against the bill, one being a strong lobbyist and former member of this place. When there are paid

lobbyists on one side of the argument, they are going to oppose the bill because that is their job. That is the position they are supposed to be stressing as strongly as they can.

I cannot argue against someone doing their job. I can just say there is the position of the lobbyist and the position of the consumer.

Consumers have contacted my office in my riding, as I am sure they have contacted the offices of members of the Bloc.

The cartoon channel which is at the centre of this issue is not going to be the only channel. There will be others. What is at risk here is full consent, informed choice. In my early training informed consent was an important principle. It is one that maybe does not go well with the concept of mass marketing.

However, as a representative of my riding I listen to the people and I have considered the bill and supported it at second reading.

I Know it is the intention of Bloc members to run out the debate. I want to put on record that there are a number of people in the House from a number of parties who want to support the bill because they are responding to their constituents. I do not see anything wrong with that position. I know other issues have to be considered but I certainly would not support anything that I felt would inhibit the French language in this country. I believe very strongly in official bilingualism. I believe very strongly in learning to speak French and I support that principle. To me that is the red herring in this debate.

I have spent time in this Parliament trying to learn the second language. This is not a French-English debate, it is a consumer debate. The consumers would very strongly wish to have a choice in how they spend their money and have their choices spelled out to them and then choose to pay for the channels they wish to have. Negative option billing is something I cannot support on a mass scale. It is a practice. Cable company representatives spoke to me after this happened in my riding and they said that they would never be doing this again. I do not think there is a lot to fear from this point.

I know the clock is ticking and I want to put my support on record. If there were a vote in this House I would support the bill.