Leon Benoit

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Conservative amendment as well. The government House leader in rejecting the amendment said that he could not possibly support it because it would put off the enactment of the law until after the election. It would do something that had not been done before.

I would like to ask the government House leader whether there has ever in legislation before been an opt in clause?

[D-Day, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we sit in the House of Commons today with the privilege of serving our country because our ancestors fought to make it so.

Fifty-seven years ago today on D-Day 14,000 Canadians were fighting, many dying, on the beaches of Normandy. The soldiers were mostly kids the ages of my three sons.

D-Day has often been called the beginning of the end of World War II. Despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles our soldiers fought on bravely. By day's end Canadian troops had progressed further inland than any of our allies. If Canada became a nation at Vimy Ridge we reinforced it on D-Day.

Our country has a long and proud military history which has helped purchase our freedom. Today I thank our veterans not only for their service and sacrifice but for ensuring I do not have to send my sons to war.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the group of motions which would amend the refugee portion of the new immigration bill.

I have to say that I agree a lot with what the member from the governing party said earlier. However one thing I have found is that what the government says and what is in its legislation is often completely different, and that is the case with the legislation today.

I think everyone would agree that what Canada wants to do with our immigration and refugee system is to make the immigration system work better than it does now for people who we want to attract to this country. Our system has failed miserably in that regard and the changes in the legislation will not fix that up.

I think most Canadians would agree that, when it comes to the refugee system, changes need to be made that would not only allow genuine refugees to be accepted in this country but that we would be able to offer refuge to genuine refugees in other parts of the world living in camps, sometimes for years and years, and those who are identified by the United Nations as genuine refugees.

The system we have now will not do that and the new legislation will not fix it. A very high percentage of people who have been accepted as refugees right now are not in fact refugees by the United Nations' definition or by this government's own definition which is broader than the United Nations' definition.

Canadians also want a much faster process in terms of reuniting families. When someone has been accepted to this country as a refugee or through the independent immigrant stream and they have dependants, a spouse, parents or grandparents, when they want to reunite their families our system fails miserably in a number of cases. Every member of parliament knows about that because we have cases in our offices.

In the case of a family reunification, which one would think would take less than a year certainly, sometimes it is three to four years later and the accepted refugee is still trying to be reunited with family members. That is not Canadians want. I suggest that there are not many in the House who would support anything much different. I think that is widely supported by members from all political parties.

Here we are today at report stage of Bill C-11 talking about the changes to the refugee system. What is in the bill now before these amendments certainly will make our refugee system work better in terms of accepting genuine refugees and keeping out those who are not genuine refugees. The system that is meant to work for those who are not genuine refugees is in the other part of the bill dealing with immigration.

The amendments, quite frankly, will not improve the bill enough to make it good legislation, although some would certainly help in that regard. It is pretty sad, after talking about this new bill, that it is the government's second or third attempt at it. It has been years now since the government brought forth its first effort to reform the Immigration Act. The legislation, which I will speak to tomorrow in a more general way, or whenever it comes back to the House for third reading, will not fix the immigration system.

I would like to say as well that the auditor general made something very clear in his last report and in the report 10 years ago when he said that even if the legislation were fixed to make it a good act that it would not solve the problems this government has in immigration. It would not fix it because many of the problems are in administration and this act would not change that administration.

That is the other thing I think Canadians should not forget. Even if this were a good piece of legislation that would bring forth a brand new act, even if that were the case, which it is not for the reasons I have outlined already, it still would not fix the problems in our immigration and refugee system because administration is a big part of the problem and this would do nothing to help improve administration.

Here we are after all these years, about four years since the government first brought forth the legislation, and the government's own member, the speaker before me, is standing and explaining what he wants from the piece of legislation. He knows in his heart that the bill clearly does not give what he wants in a new immigration act.

Here we are, all these years later, facing a situation where, if this legislation is to pass, which I hope it does not, we will be stuck with an immigration act that will not work for Canadians. It will not work for genuine refugees. It will not work for people who we desperately need in this country and who come through the independent categories. It will not work for family reunification in cases where we are genuinely talking about family reunification.

What has this four years done? What good has it brought? What would the new act do to help Canadians? In certain narrow areas it would make things better. In a broad way it would make things worse. While some of the amendments in this grouping would help if they were passed, we know that the government will pass only what it wants. We know that because that is the way things work around here. Should it pass—it has failed before—we will end up with a bill, after all of this, that just simply will not do what it is intended to do.

I would encourage Canadians to listen to members of the governing party when they are talking about what they want from an immigration system and to compare that to what the new act would deliver should this legislation pass. They will find the two just do not match whatsoever. What that means is that government members themselves know that this piece of legislation will not deliver what the government says it should deliver. It certainly will not deliver what the opposition says it should deliver.

I know my time is almost up so I will just leave my comments at that. I look forward to speaking on third reading whenever that may come up. I would not be at all disappointed if it never comes up.

[Patent Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's comments about the government making promises during campaigns and then not respecting those promises. We saw it on the GST. We saw it on the free trade deal.

The member also made some comments about the Canadian Alliance critic never having enough good words to say about the government on this issue. I suggest that the Canadian Alliance critic was saying that because this was agreed to in NAFTA, in the free trade agreement, we can continue to have this special trade agreement and relationship with the Americans and we have to respect the agreement.

Would the member be willing to have Canadians in her constituency, thousands of them, lose their jobs because we do not respect the trade deal? Is that what the member is suggesting should happen?

[National Defence, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we need $300 million now, just to increase the housing improvement to a minimum standard.

The minister knows that with the current budget we cannot replace the equipment needed and increase the numbers to the level promised, to the 60,000 promised, and at the same time fix housing to the minimum standard.

Will the minister continue to run dilapidated equipment and to leave personnel below the promised level? Will he leave the substandard housing or will he continue to increase rents to men and women serving so that they can pay for the improvements necessary to increase the housing just to the minimum standard?

[National Defence, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the 1999-2000 military housing inventory obtained under access to information shows the need for $300 million to upgrade military housing just to a minimum standard. This is at a time when there is a need to replace billions of dollars of equipment and when we have to increase personnel numbers just to meet the commitments already made.

I would like to ask the minister a very direct and basic question. Where will he get the money to replace this housing so that men and women serving in the military have housing that at least meets the minimum standard?

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take my last five minutes.

I will begin by quoting Martin Niemoller, a famous German theologian who lived from 1892 to 1984. It is a very famous quote that we have all heard, but I ask every member in the House to listen to it again. It reads:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church—and there was nobody left to be concerned.

I would argue that many of the people who looked at this so-called gun bill, Bill C-68, and its implementation, fought the bill not because they cared about guns. Many people do not own guns and do not care about guns. They fought what was implemented with the bill. They knew it would be just one step in a process that would lead to exactly what the theologian Martin Niemoller said in his quote. If we do not protect the rights of others, even if it is an issue that does not directly affect us, the time will come when it is not possible under the system in place to protect ourselves and our families.

I would argue that the changes to our law that were put in place with the implementation of Bill C-68, the so-called gun bill, were a dangerous step down the road to allowing that to happen.

My bill, Bill C-245, would just take a part of Bill C-68, the part dealing with unusual search and seizure, and say no, that is dangerous, we are allowing unusual search and seizure here, and for what? What is wrong with the provisions already in the criminal code that deal with search and seizure?

It is a real threat to the individual. It is truly an issue that does lead down that path. I argue that such is the case and that is why I brought the bill forward.

The Canadian Alliance, when we become the government, would revoke all those changes that were put in place with Bill C-68. That includes the registry. That includes the need for a person to register guns. Even if a person is a collector, the law requires a person to register every gun. That also includes the section on search and seizure, which we believe is unreasonable, as we have argued all along.

All we want to do is put in place reasonable measures to ensure that we are not going to move one step further down the road to a point where we no longer have the power to stop government from infringing on our rights. I would argue that for that reason, that reason alone, even members of the government who implemented Bill C-68, the gun bill, should start working with the members on this side of the House and with Canadians across the country to change that bill. It was bad law when it was implemented and it is bad law now. I believe that quite a large majority of Canadians no longer support it. I would argue that a majority did not support it at the time it was implemented. There are some good studies to back that up. The Conservative member who spoke referred to one of those studies.

Unfortunately, my bill never will go to a vote because of our private members' procedures in the House. That has to be changed. Every private member's bill should be votable. I have done a lot of work on the bill and taxpayers have paid a lot of money to hire legal counsel to help me draft it. I believe the action in the bill is supported by a majority of people across the country, certainly by a large number of people. We could debate it and talk about that. We could have a vote in the House.

Madam Speaker, that is what should have happened. The best I can do is bring this to the attention of the public in this way. I think it does have an impact.

I thank the House for this time and I look forward to some action in the future to help fix the bad law that was put in place with the enactment of Bill C-68.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2001]

moved that Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search and seizure without warrant) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on my private member's bill, Bill C-245, which is an act to amend the criminal code regarding search and seizure without warrant. The act is directed specifically at the Firearms Act, the part of the criminal code that was implemented with the passing of Bill C-68, the infamous gun bill.

First, what I will do in my presentation is talk a little about what the bill does, why it is here, why I think it is very important and why a lot of people in my constituency and across the country feel it is important.

Second, I will talk about my specific concerns with the part of the criminal code which allows search and seizure without warrant and what I propose we should do about it.

Third, I will look at one or two cases, as time will allow, and work through them. One is a very recent case of a newspaper reporting an incident where a gentleman, actually a neighbour of mine on the farm where I was raised, had his house broken into, and what led up to that. That demonstrates probably better than any other way what some of the problems with the current act are.

That is what I will do with my presentation. I am looking forward to getting into this issue.

First, Bill C-245 deals with Part III of the criminal code as enacted by section 139 of the Firearms Act. It was implemented with the passing of Bill C-68 several years ago. The purpose is to remove the power in subsection 117.04(2) to search and seize without a warrant in cases where no offence has been committed.

I encourage people listening to the debate on the bill to look at this. It deals with search and seizure without a warrant in cases where no offence has been committed or is suspected to have been committed. It is really important to know that.

My bill, if passed, would end the unusual search and seizure provisions as put forth by Bill C-68 and bring them more in line with search and seizures in the rest of the criminal code. This is something for which Canadians have been asking, especially gun owners and those who understand that the whole so-called issue of the gun bill really goes way beyond guns. It speaks to our civil liberties, and constitutional implications are involved. I will get to some of those later.

The second part of the bill also makes provision for the restitution for unnecessary loss or damage in a case where a search has taken place. The way it is worded it takes into account whether the loss or damage was reasonably necessary in light of the evidence collected and in light of the behaviour of the person or persons on the premises. I am not saying there is no reason to cause damage in the case of a search process. I want this to be very reasonable.

What I am saying in my bill is that in cases where it is demonstrated that the damage done was unreasonable and unnecessary there would be restitution for the damage done. I think that will cause police officers to be very cautious in their search process, as well as peace officers, because of course under this act it does not even have to be police officers that break into a house without a warrant. It can be any peace officer, which broadens it considerably. That is what I am asking for in the second part of the bill. I would add a section which would ensure that if unnecessary damage is done there would be restitution. That in a nutshell is what the bill is about.

In regard to my concerns, subsection 117.04(2) allows a peace officer to enter the premises to search for and to seize weapons without a warrant. Removal of this section means that a warrant must be obtained for search and seizure except in cases of fresh pursuit, so again I am not being unreasonable. I think most members would agree that this is completely reasonable in a case of fresh pursuit where the police officers strongly believe that there could be some danger to someone and they want to be able to continue the pursuit. Of course I think the court would determine whether it was reasonable. I trust that process. Certainly it would end the measure put in place under Bill C-68 which allows search and seizure without a warrant at all. That is what is of great concern to me.

Under section 8 of the charter it says that Canadians have the right “to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure”. That is in our constitution. Does that sound unreasonable to anyone here? I do not think so. I have some problems with the charter in a broad sense, but I, and I believe many Canadians, would not have a problem with saying that Canadians have the right to feel secure and be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

I argue and many Canadians have argued very vigorously that the changes put in the criminal code as a result of the passage of Bill C-68, the so-called gun bill, really take away that right that is guaranteed under the charter. Whether the courts would or not I cannot say. However, I know many Canadians feel that it is a problem, a problem put in place with the passage of Bill C-68.

I would like to speak to the issue of compensation for unnecessary damage done. I may get to two examples, but I probably only have time for one. I will work through that example and talk about damage done to private property to a great degree in that case, damage which seems to be completely unnecessary and excessive and in my view unacceptable. When I get into the case I think that will be better understood.

The second part of the bill ensures that the damage and the confiscation of property without compensation violates a fundamental right of Canadian citizens, the right to own property. A problem we have as Canadians is that the right to own property is not enshrined in our constitution. Many thought that it should have been part of the charter. I certainly think it should be in our constitution. So far politicians have chosen not to put it there, but certainly common law and most Canadians would agree that we do have a right to own property in this country and that this right should be respected.

How could one argue that this right is being respected in cases where we have peace officers breaking into someone's house without a warrant and doing unnecessary damage to property or removing property unnecessarily? We are not talking about interfering in the actions of police officers where such actions are necessary. We are talking about unreasonable actions.

Bill C-245 adds a provision to the criminal code that enables a person to apply for restitution to the justice who issued the warrant, warrants being issued in all cases except those where there is fresh pursuit. In these cases they would have a right to apply to the justice for restitution of the property that has been the subject of entry and search under the authority of a warrant pursuant to the Firearms Act and if their property has been lost or damaged as a result of this entry and search.

The bill also adds that the justice will fix a date for a hearing on the matter. The justice will notify the applicant, the officer or officers involved and the officer who applied for the warrant as well as anyone else the justice sees fit to notify. After the hearing, the justice may order restitution to the person whose property has been damaged.

I ask members to think of the practical benefit of this. I have heard numerous complaints, as I am sure many of my colleagues have, about searches conducted by peace officers which have caused incredible damage, way beyond anything that makes sense.

Part of the reason for that is that police officers have become so frustrated because their hands are tied under laws which, quite frankly, have been protected by the government. They feel their hands are so tied that even if they get a case to court and have a lot of evidence, quite frequently the case is thrown out. They are frustrated by that. I have actually heard the thinking on this from some police officers, although I do not think it is justifiable. I think it is wrong, but the thinking on the part of police officers is that they know this person is a law breaker so they will make him pay in this way. They will do considerable damage in the search and that will be justice in itself. Any of us in the House would agree that is not proper and not right. I think this change would only give reasonable protection to that type of action.

In the bill there are exceptions to compensation. The bill does list several situations where compensation is not warranted. According to Bill C-245, no person is entitled to restitution for loss or damage resulting from entry or search “if the person is convicted of an offence on the basis of the evidence discovered during the search”. Even in this situation, the justice must conclude that the loss or damage was not excessive in light of the nature of the offence.

Second, if the applicant lost something he or she did not have the right to possess, then of course the applicant would not be compensated. For example, if someone had stolen some property, in this case guns, ammunition or other property that was discovered in the search, then of course the person should not be compensated for the loss of that property. It does cover that kind of thing. It also covers loss or damage if it was a result of the applicant and/or another person on the premises refusing to co-operate with the police officer. It recognizes that in cases where the occupants refuse to co-operate, there may be more damage done than there would be in another type of search. It covers that kind of thing.

With regard to the limits of restitution for loss or damage, Bill C-245 states that there are no limits to restitution for loss or damage if the damage was not necessary. That is only reasonable. Again, it goes to the very right to own property and to the expectation that police officers will conduct themselves properly in the case of a search.

It is recognized in the bill that speed in a search may be necessary because of the circumstances and the loss or damage may be reasonable where speed is necessary. There may be more damage in a case like that. The justice can also take into account the behaviour of the applicant and other persons during entry and search.

I will now go through a case. I will start by reading, if I may, a short article from the Edmonton Journal . I also have one from the Edmonton Sun . They are very short articles which will not take a lot of time to read. I will then go through them and talk about the case. This article is entitled “Machine guns, ammo found in Lloyd home”. This is an article from March 23. It says:

More than 100 firearms, including machine guns, and thousands of rounds of ammunition were seized during the search of a home about 20 kilometres southwest of Lloydminster on Wednesday.

“RCMP received a tip in February about the weapons, many of which were unlicensed and illegal”, said Const. Jason Simpson of the Kitscoty RCMP detachment.

It continues:

A firearms expert is sorting through the prohibited and unregistered restricted weapons to make sure proper charges are laid. Simpson said the machine guns were found among a large quantity of hunting rifles.

The article goes on to say the man would not be named and that the police declined to give details about the suspect because of the small population. Of course everybody in the country knows who it is just as a result of this article.

There was a reference to more than 100 firearms. Immediately I can see the reaction: that there was no reason the guy would need 100 firearms and so of course he deserved what he got. However, he is a gun collector. He has been collecting guns for years. In regard to the machine guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition, people would think that there was no good reason for him to have them. All of the weapons could well have been legally obtained and may have been legal to own when he came into possession of the weapons. Since that time the laws have changed, making them illegal.

People would then argue that he should have registered them, that he should have done what was necessary. I will not argue that it is the law. However, the individual knew that if he had registered the weapons, if he had done what was proper, they would have been taken away from him without compensation. Consider how that could change how one would think about the situation. It is important to consider that.

I am being given the signal to wrap up, but I look forward to the opportunity to talk more about this at the end of the hour.

[Immigration, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, she can try to blame the customs department but it is not customs, it is the immigration department that is violating the concerns of Canadians and of the privacy commissioner.

Some items intercepted have been affidavits which have then ended up in the hands of government lawyers. The minister is indiscriminately reading mail as a form of intelligence gathering.

I will ask once again if she will explain to us how affidavits can be distributed throughout her department if they have not been read first.

[Immigration, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the immigration minister told the House that her department does not read seized mail. However her training manual goes through step by step instructions on how her officials are to input details into the national database, such as the place of birth, family members' names, and there is even a place for comments.

Would the minister explain how her officials can obtain this detailed information if they do not read the opened mail first?