Peter MacKay

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her assurances and her remarks with respect to these new duties and the funding. I think that is reassuring. I do find it interesting that, at a time when we are increasing the powers and essentially expanding on the duties currently carried out by customs officers, I cannot help but draw an analogy with what is happening to our ports police.

Much like customs officers, ports police perform a very specific duty that is very much akin to or in keeping with those duties carried out by peace officers. I would say that there is a direct analogy that can be made with those duties carried out by customs officers.

There does appear to be a bit of a contradiction in the government's approach in bestowing new powers on a body of individuals, customs officers, while at the same time we know there is legislation being brought through. It is actually through the House now and it is going to wipe out the ports police.

Again, this is a concern that I have. I do not know that this is the proper forum to address that but I point that out to the hon. member. Again, I look forward to discussing it further with her and other members of the committee.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

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

It is in fact a very timely piece of legislation. I would go so far as to say that it is a good initiative. I am encouraged to see the government bringing this legislation forward.

It deals specifically, as previous members have mentioned, with the power to enforce Criminal Code sections as they pertain to powers of arrest at the border crossings or the first point of entry for persons coming into the country. As previously stated this piece of legislation is aimed at increasing the powers of customs officers themselves in their ability to arrest without a warrant and to release from custody in cases where an arrest has been effected without the warrant from a peace officer being involved.

The peace officers themselves I would suggest would be greatly aided by the ability of the border crossing guards or the customs officers being able to effect this duty independent of the involvement of the police here. Much like police themselves, customs guards are routinely encountering a great deal of what I would suggest ongoing difficulty at the border involving persons coming into the country under the influence of alcohol to whatever degree and this is certainly something that we want to deter.

I spoke in the House previously, as have other members, with respect to the difficulties Canadians face daily on the roads and the carnage that results from impaired driving. It is a very legitimate purpose that customs officers would have the ability to make that intervention and to effect an arrest. This is not to say that the age old common law powers of arrest and a person's ability to make a citizen's arrest could not have been utilized, but this certainly legislates it and empowers customs officers specifically in this regard.

Designated officers at customs stations and border crossings also encounter a fair degree of danger as it pertains to the illegal importation of weapons into the country and often cases involving the importation of drugs and banned or illegal substances.

It is trite to say that persons who are prepared to take these risks are often individuals who could be described as desperate in some circumstances. Customs officers are basically in the line of fire when they discover a person may be in possession of illegal substances, illegal handguns or other items. They are in a position of confronting the individual at the border, which can lead to a dangerous situation.

I have one concern about the bill. The increased power of customs officers to effect arrest and to exercise their discretion is not backed up with specific protections for those persons wielding this new power. I am sure this will be discussed at the committee level. I speak specifically of such things as the right to carry firearms and the right to wear protective body armour like a flak jacket or a bulletproof vest. This has to be given more thought.

To simply empower customs officers to make these arrests and to intervene more at Canadian borders is a good idea in principle which I and my Conservative Party colleagues endorse and encourage, but we have to be very careful when we empower people to give them adequate protection.

There is some irony in the timing of the bill. Less than two weeks ago there was a reading of private member's Bill C-211 sponsored by my Reform colleague from Langley—Abbotsford. That bill also dealt with peace officers being granted authority with respect to arrest warrants. Apparently the government did not feel this was a proper initiative and failed to support it.

I have heard other members refer to increased traffic at our borders. This has been taken into account. It is an important factor when one considers the amount of traffic that flows daily back and forth across our various border crossing points. We enjoy the largest unguarded border in the world between Canada and the United States, which is by far our biggest trading partner. That is certainly beneficial to this country.

The implementation of the new powers of arrest for customs officers is very much a good thing. It will allow customs officers to carry out their daily tasks more effectively.

One of the most positive elements of Bill C-18 would be to add a section to the act that would allow customs officers to handle impaired drivers in the same manner as peace officers. This will perhaps lessen the workload of some local constabularies whether the RCMP or the municipal police.

I noted with great interest the possibility of including in the ability of a provincial prosecution office the additional duty of handling the types of cases that would be brought forward by customs officers. That is something that could be explored.

I would suggest to the House based on my experience that provincial prosecution offices, much like the offices of the municipal and RCMP forces, are very much weighted down already. The downloading of this on to provincial crown offices is not something that should be entered into lightly as an initiative by the federal government. It is certainly something that could be looked at in the sense that it would be done on a per diem basis or contracted to various provincial offices.

When we are talking about a matter that falls solely into federal jurisdiction, that is international trade across our borders, although we are into the area of criminal activity per se involving impaired driving as an example or possession of firearms, there is room for some interaction and perhaps interplay between provincial prosecution services and those put forward by the federal Department of Justice.

With respect to impaired driving I can only reiterate comments I have made in the House. My party and I support tougher drunk driving measures. Bill C-18 is important because it gives customs officers an effective interventionist role in combating impaired driving within Canada.

The powers and obligations placed on customs officers under Bill C-18 are very much in line with those currently found in the Criminal Code under sections 495 to 497 and specifically under subsections 495(3) and 497(3) which put customs officers very much in line with their ability to act as peace officers, as designated by the Minister of National Revenue, as if they were in fact peace officers. An official designation would be placed upon them.

Generally speaking the feedback I have received on this initiative is positive. Customs officers are embracing the initiative and are prepared to act in this new found role.

Another section of Bill C-18, however, clearly states that designated officers may not use their new found responsibilities to engage in the sole purpose of searching for evidence. This might be a reasonable limitation. I would like to hear from the officials in the customs office, union, law enforcement officers and other civil libertarian organizations and associations throughout the country at committee stage.

This is an area we have to tread lightly on. When bestowing the powers of arrest and intervention on customs officers, we have to be very careful when it involves an infringement for the sole purpose of gathering evidence. There has been much contention in the past on this area of the Criminal Code. I suggest there will be continued contention.

The final portion of the bill deals with proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure it corresponds with new sections of the Customs Act. I have a few concerns about the impact of Bill C-18. Perhaps the minister or parliamentary secretary could provide further details on how the government plans to address potential problems.

Will customs officers be able to respond adequately to the emergency type situations I referred to earlier? There are sensitive areas when a customs officer encounters a person engaged in an illegal activity or engaged in an offence under the Criminal Code for impaired driving.

There will have to be an allocation of funding and a commitment to increase resources as they relate to the training of customs officers and how to deal with the new powers bestowed upon them.

As we have seen by example in the House involving previous legislation, the Liberal government is often quite quick to grant new powers or to expand powers as they pertain to arrest or search warrants. We do not necessarily see adequate back-up in terms of resources to allow individuals to effectively carry out the particular powers.

I would be very much interested to see what commitment we will have from the federal government to adequately arm and protect customs officers in their desire to combat crime at Canadian borders.

I have a concern with respect to granting customs officers the ability of peace officers to avoid providing additional resources to municipal and federal police forces. I do not think that is the intent of the legislation. I do not think that there is an attempt to take powers away from police officers.

I would not want to see the reason given that no increased funding would be put into the area of expanding the availability of justices of the peace to assist police officers. I would not want to hear that money could not be allotted for that because money was being put into the area of increased training, et cetera, of customs officers at our borders.

When customs officers are put in a position where they have to act like police officers and carry out the duties, it is extremely important they have the feeling and the assurance the federal government will give them the training and back-up they will need to perform that role.

While I support the legislation which will make the job of customs officers easier by granting them new authority, I do so on the premise the government will not give carte blanche to new obligations without proper support in terms of resources.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, as I have said throughout my remarks, we support the legislation in principle. I look forward to the opportunity of discussing further details and fine tuning the act at committee level. It is a very important and timely piece of legislation.

Many customs officers throughout the land have felt a need for the legislation for some time. I commend the minister for bringing it forward. I look forward to discussing it further at committee level.

[Airbus, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary. You ask a simple question, you get a convoluted answer.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us in a straightforward way who is responsible, who is at the bottom of this and, speaking of letters, when is the government going to withdraw the accusation it made and sent to the Swiss authorities?

[Airbus, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the millions of dollars and the forced red faced apology of the Liberal government for the mishandling of the Airbus affair, will the Deputy Prime Minister, in keeping with his promise and his government's promise of accountability and openness, tell this House who exactly is responsible for this debacle and what does it plan to do short of waiting for the lawsuits to roll in and then say it is saving us millions of dollars?

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again with respect to this amendment as it pertains to a revision or an adaptation to an amendment contained in Bill C-16. This refers specifically to form 7.1 as it exists currently in the Criminal Code. The amendment is aimed specifically at allowing a police officer in the form of the warrant to include a description as it pertains to a person the police are seeking.

That person may be found within a dwelling House and may be unknown in terms of the actual name of the person sought by the police. The acceptance of this amendment and including this in the form would allow the police to give a description to a justice of the peace that is acceptable to the justice of the peace to the extent that they might then fill out the warrant. The police could therefore go to the dwelling house named in the warrant and make proper arrest.

There is still judicial discretion. The justice of the peace will always have the discretion to refuse the police if that description is unnecessary. So there are sufficient safeguards in place.

I do not want to speak at length. The proposed amendment is very straightforward. Mr. Speaker, I believe you will unanimous consent with respect to this amendment.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty whatsoever with having these two amendments split and discussed separately, that is amendment 3 and amendment 5. I am certainly prepared to agree to that suggestion by the parliamentary secretary.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 6 the following:

“or a person with the following description (—),”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 8 with the following:

“of A.B., or a person with the following description (—),”

In circumstances where the exact name of the individual sought is unknown to police officers, rather than put in the actual written name of that individual, they could put in a physical description, thus increasing their ability in investigations where the name of the person sought by police for whatever reason could be pencilled in. Obviously this will be at the discretion of the justice of the peace. It is something that will be monitored. It is not an arbitrary or frivolous change to the form that would be included in the warrant.

I would strenuously suggest that this is something to which the government should give due consideration in its adaptation of both amendments with respect to clause 3 in the bill, as they pertain to Form 7 and Form 7.1. For those reasons I would again solicit the support of the House, including the government, with respect to this amendment.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comment made by the parliamentary secretary that the government had to get this legislation through. There was reference to the court essentially setting a deadline without any compromise. That is not the case. There is precedent that there can be extensions. A request could have been made to the supreme court quite simply. That is my point of clarification.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-16, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following:

“529.6 For the application of section 529 to 529.5 inclusive, and without referring to the Interpretation Act, the word “dwelling-house” shall be deemed to include “dwelling- houses” when the circumstances arise.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by

(a) replacing line 27 on page 7 with the following:

“house or houses);”

(b) replacing line 29 on page 7 with the following:

“to enter the dwelling-house or houses for the purpose of”

(c) replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 7 with the following:

“dwelling-house or houses unless you have, immediately before entering the dwelling-house or houses, reason-”

(d) replacing line 36 on page 7 with the following:

“dwelling-house or houses.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by

(a) replacing line 21 on page 8 with the following:

“in (here describe dwelling-house or houses);”

(b) replacing line 23 on page 8 with the following:

“enter the dwelling house or houses for the purpose of ar-”

Madam Speaker, I am proposing in this amendment a very practical common sense solution that would go a long way in assisting police officers when encountering a situation where they are looking for an escaped criminal, breach of parole individual, or looking for a person wanted by the police for a serious or indictable offence.

In its present form this amendment speaks of the naming of a single dwelling house. I know the government's response may include the Interpretation Act wherein the singular includes the plural. One of the purposes of parliament should be to create new, wordy and mellifluous sounding legislation and to simplify for the police, and as I said in the House yesterday for the purpose of the general public, understanding of the legislation that directly applies to them.

This amendment is quite simple in its drafting. It includes dwelling houses rather than dwelling house. It would allow a police officer faced with a situation where he had to seek a warrant to go and speak to the justice of the peace and explain. It also allows him to name specifically the areas where he is looking.

For example, if a criminal was believed to be harboured in the home of a friend, at a clubhouse or at a residence that he was known to frequent, the police could quite simply place on the warrant a number of dwelling houses or house in which they were searching for him. It gives the police more flexibility in their ability to investigate. It is a very straightforward amendment. I would be surprised if the government were not quick to embrace it.

I also want to address a question posed by my hon. friend from the NDP with respect to why this is the forum in which to make these amendments.

As I indicated earlier, what occurred in committee was a simple ramrod railroad approach to clause by clause discussion of these amendments. There was no opportunity to discuss or to put these amendments forward. It was done in the blink of an eye without any ability to put the amendments forward in any substantive way, to the point where we were so rushed in the compromise of this committee that we did not even have the opportunity to speak of the ground rules that would govern the committee itself. This was done after the fact.

We brought this piece of legislation to the committee level without having set the rules to govern the committee that was going to be making decisions on the amendments. This causes me great concern.

I do not blame the parliamentary secretary. I have empathy for her and the chairman of the justice committee who found themselves in this position and were doing the government's bidding in a very uncomfortable situation.

I put this amendment forward in all god faith and in all seriousness. I encourage hon. members of the House to look at it. I have tried to explain it in a very straightforward way. It is one which would assist police in their very necessary and very public duty to carry out and exercise arrests throughout the country.

Once again I encourage members to support this amendment and I thank the House for its indulgence.

[Criminal Code, November 7th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-16, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 45 on page 5 and lines 1 and 2 on page 6 with the following:

“529.5 A warrant under section 529.1 or an authorization under section 529 or 529.4 may be issued on an information submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and, for that purpose, section 487.1 applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to the warrant or authorization.”

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this amendment with some regret that we are in this situation. We are facing a problem within the Department of Justice when important amendments are being made to the Criminal Code that for all intents and purposes are being ramrodded through at the committee level and through the House.

As a result of the supreme court decision in the Queen v Feeney, the Department of Justice was faced with a situation in which it had to fill a gap that had been left by the supreme court when it struck down sections of the Criminal Code that pertained to the powers of arrest.

What has happened here is akin to the trampling on the right of Parliament to actively and in a substantive way participate in the debate and the process to make recommendations as they pertain to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Time was certainly of the essence. The supreme court, by virtue of a stay that was entered back in July of 1997, gave Parliament the time to react to fill the gap left by the decision handed down in the Queen v Feeney.

The problem that I have with this is that five and a half months have past. The justice department was given ample opportunity to react, to make the appropriate amendments to address this situation. By the time it reached committee stage, members of Parliament, the elected officials of this House, were given less than five days to consider it. To be precise, they were given approximately eight hours to discuss, in the presence of witnesses and among each other, these very important amendments which affect the powers of arrest for all police throughout the land.

The committee did have the benefit of hearing a number of very important witnesses. The witnesses included the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Chiefs of Police. We heard from a victims' advocate group, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.

We also had the benefit of hearing from a very distinguished criminal lawyer, a gentleman by the name of Irwin Koziebrocki. Mr. Koziebrocki is the treasurer of the Criminal Lawyers Association of Canada. Of all the witnesses, he made a statement which I found quite startling. He deemed one of the proposed amendments to be unconstitutional. He said that it would not withstand a charter of rights challenge.

That is not to say that his opinion could not be wrong. However, when an experienced trial and appeal court lawyer makes this pronouncement before a committee, hours before the amendments are tabled and given third reading, that should give the department and all members of the committee reason to pause and to ponder whether we want to have this legislation pushed through in a flawed form, leaving it open to the possibility that within months, weeks or days we could be faced with another court challenge which may strike down, in the worst case scenario, these amendments.

The first amendment which I have put before the House pertains to the authorization of telewarrants in Canada. This amendment came about after some consultation with the Quebec bar association, which did not appear before the committee but which submitted a brief.

The amendment speaks to the evolution of new technology in communications which should be made available to all peace officers in the country.

The reality of Canada, of this vast land, is that we are not all centred in large metropolitan areas like Calgary, Toronto or Halifax. A great part of this country is spread out in rural areas. Police officers are often working out of one or two person detachments. They need to have access to justices of the peace. They need to be able to get authorization to act quickly and in a very decisive way.

Telewarrants, this new form of technology that we have with fax machines, with telephones and with cell phones, increase the possibility that a police officer can do something when faced with exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is a newly coined phrase that came out of the decision of the Queen v Feeney. Exigent circumstances often exist in the daily lives of police officers that are faced with very serious situations.

Telewarrants permit police officers to contact justices of the peace, but that is all for naught if the resources are not allocated to make justices of the peace available. It is easy to pick up a phone or to dial a fax number, but if no one is on the other end of the line to receive the information and authorize the warrant, a real problem exists.

I would suggest that this amendment goes further than the present amendment as proposed by the government in enabling peace officers in broader circumstances to avail themselves of the ability to have a warrant granted. I want to add to that the necessity of the resources. The resources have to go cheek and jowl with the ability to get these warrants. We need to ensure that there are going to be more justices of the peace available, particularly in rural parts of the country.

I would emphasize the remarks I made at the outset. It is with some regret I find myself in this situation where we have to debate this further on the floor of the House of Commons. The committee level, had it been conducted in a more professional and timely way, would have avoided this necessity.

This amendment is one that all members of the House should consider and support. It goes to increasing the security for all Canadians and aids the police in their very important role in enforcing the criminal law within the country. As members of this House, particularly members of the justice committee, we have to be very strident in our attempts to oversee what is happening with the amendments to the Criminal Code.

The Minister of Justice, the chief executive officer for administering law in this country, can and should have at least contemplated the necessity of rising from her seat, walking down Wellington Street, knocking on the door of the Supreme Court of Canada and ask for an extension. It would have avoided the necessity of pushing this through at the eleventh hour. It would have allowed us to have proper debate at the committee level and if necessary on the floor of the House of Commons.

I speak in favour of this amendment. I would be very interested to hear the remarks of the hon. members present today.