1998-02-06

Points Of OrderMr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, during the course of question period yesterday, I was ruled out of order on a question directed to the Minister of Finance pertaining to the relationship of the Liberal Party with the banks and so on.
Part of my point of order was that I was ruled out of order with my question but the Minister of Finance was allowed to proceed with an answer to my supplementary question which was in order. I believe his answer cast aspersions on me in relation to whether or not I attended a particular committee meeting. The Speaker would not allow me to finish my point of order yesterday so today my point of order is the following.
The Minister of Finance suggested to the House that I attended or did not attend a particular meeting of a committee that I was not a member of. I think he referred to both the industry and the finance committees. I am asking the Speaker to make a judgment as to whether I have a point of order, whether the minister was in order to make reference to my attendance or non-attendance. According to Beauchesne's rules and forms this is a matter which all members are asked to cautiously guard against making reference to. I would ask the Speaker to make some judgment on this.
The Speaker: I reviewed Hansard as to the exact words. All of the words themselves are somewhat ambiguous. As a general rule I would appeal to all members of the House to cease and desist from referring to whether a member is or is not in the House or at a committee. These are the rules and traditions we have always acknowledged among ourselves. I would encourage all members, ministers of course included, not to make references to attendance one way or the other. I thank you for that.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of National Revenue): 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Raymond Chan: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity before the House of Commons to express my support for Bill C-18, legislation which I believe will enhance the safety and security of all Canadians, especially those who live in border communities across this land.
This bill will strengthen the enforcement role of customs officers by extending the scope of their powers so they can arrest and detain individuals suspected of Criminal Code offences. I am familiar with the work of customs officers. I have met many of these people across this country over my lifetime. In the process I have been enormously impressed with the scope of their duties and the professionalism with which they carry out their job.
I am also aware of the fact that on many occasions their efforts to protect the safety of Canadians have been hampered by the legal limitations of our Customs Act.
This legislation closes a longstanding gap in our ability to address at the border criminal activities such as impaired driving, child abduction and possession of stolen goods. It will also allow us to deal with individuals who are the subjects of outstanding arrest warrants. There is a clear need for our customs officers to be able to stop suspected criminals at the border before they have a chance to enter our country.
My region of southern Ontario has four major land border crossings which process 40% to 45% of traveller and commercial traffic coming into Canada. A lot of the criminal activity that has been observed by customs officers has occurred at these major ports and at others across the land.
Customs officers have witnessed behaviour such as impaired driving that has resulted in tragedy. They and their union have pointed out that such tragedies are preventable if the scope of the customs officers' powers is broadened to enable them to arrest and detain suspects until the local law enforcement can properly and fully respond.
Mr. Speaker, if you ask Canadians what distinguishes Canada from most countries, they will tell you that Canada is much safer and less violent. This is the type of Canada that Canadians want and the type of Canada this government will strive to maintain. We believe that all Canadians have a right to live in a peaceful and safe community and they expect us to do what we can to keep these communities safe.
Bill C-18 is one way that we can meet those expectations, by giving our customs officers the power to stop criminal activity before it reaches our communities. Clearly this bill will allow customs officers to do more value added work that makes a real difference. At the same time it will not diminish Revenue Canada's ability to continue with major initiatives that are allowing Canadians to seize opportunities created by liberalized trade and travel. It will also enhance and protect from any threat to our social or our economic well-being.
These initiatives are allowing the department to free up resources to concentrate on high risk traffic with more effective enforcement to control weapons and drug smuggling, as well as the illegal movement of people across our borders.
Customs officers already have the power to detain and arrest individuals suspected of customs offences under the Customs Act. For instance our customs officers deal with serious offences such as the smuggling of drugs and weapons.
Bill C-18 capitalizes on customs' unique position at our border points to act as a first response against crime. This means customs officers will be able to legally hold suspects until law enforcement agencies can intervene. Criminals will be dealt with at the right time, before they enter our country. By expanding the scope of customs officers' powers, Bill C-18 will greatly enhance the safety of citizens of border communities and in turn will contribute to the protection of all Canadians wherever they live in this country.
This legislation is not intended to replace police. What it does is it closes the longstanding gap by enabling our customs officers to act as a bridge to the law enforcement community. Customs officers will arrest and detain suspects, who will be turned over immediately to the police authorities for follow-up as they see fit. The provinces will continue to be responsible for the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Now customs officers will be able to assist them by providing the first response service.
This legislation is not about duplication. Customs officers will not investigate Criminal Code offences nor will customs officers be responsible for processing individuals for Criminal Code offences. Furthermore, customs officers will only be allowed to use these new powers while they are on duty at the points of entry.
The benefits of Bill C-18 to law enforcement in this country are very clear. That is why police officers, police chiefs and attorneys general all know that this bill enhances the ability to fight crime. As a result this bill has the support of police forces, police chiefs, provincial attorneys general, victims rights groups, the customs union and customs officers themselves. It has broad support because it makes sense. It is the right thing to do.
Bill C-18 is not broadening the scope of powers to customs officers who are untried and untested. Rather, the legislation entrusts these powers to a group of women and men who prove their value to this country every day as skilled, dedicated professionals.
The power to arrest is not new for customs officers. They have been arresting people for serious offences such as drug smuggling for decades. They have been doing so with professionalism and with respect for the rights of those involved. That will not change. Customs officers will continue to carry out arrests in a manner that respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fact is this bill supports the efforts of the police and those involved in both law enforcement and the judicial system.
Once Bill C-18 is passed it will take six to nine months to implement.
The time will be used to renovate facilities, to designate officers and train them on the identification of Criminal Code offences and also on important aspects of the law, especially as it relates to the charter of rights and freedoms.
Customs officers will have the training they need to ensure that they act fairly and responsibly and within the confines of the law in carrying out these new responsibilities under Bill C-18.
The broader role of this bill envisions for our customs officers that these provisions will be carried out by probably about 2,500 officers who will be specially designated and trained. They will be drawn from those officers who are in regular contact with the travelling public.
Student customs officers will not have these powers. They will continue, however, to work with the permanent customs staff and designated officers who will be on hand to respond to the Criminal Code situations.
Canadians can also be assured that these designated customers officers will receive additional training to ensure that they act fairly, responsibly and within the confines of the law in carrying out these new functions and duties. No custom officer will be put in a position of having to carry out their new responsibility without the appropriate training. That would be unacceptable to this government. Our border communities and indeed all Canadians deserve nothing less.
We already train our customs officers in arrest procedures, the charter and other issues that relate to the powers of arrest. We will expand this excellent training program to cover areas such as the identification of Criminal Code offences and related court jurisprudence. In addition, this training will be coupled with a clear accountability structure which will outline situations calling for first response action.
I know that for some there is still the issue of whether to arm customs officers. It is not an issue for this government. We are firm in our belief that our officers should not carry weapons. The safety of customs officers is something we care deeply about. Customs officers already encounter dangerous people such as drug and weapon smugglers. They have never needed guns to effectively handle these types of situations. This is because, like police officers, our officers are expected to assess the safety implications of any situation. We want to avoid violence, and the best way to do so is to use common sense, not more weapons.
We are committed to supporting the work of our officers by giving them the additional training on the use of force for personal protection and to compel compliance within the law. Furthermore, by the time this bill is implemented, the department will provide protective gear to officers who request it. On those occasions when customs officers have to confront a dangerous person, their training and common sense will dictate that they avoid placing themselves or the public in danger. If they assess a risk to their safety, they will be expected to contact the police and withdraw from the situation. In other words, common sense and training will work hand in hand to determine the smart and the smartest response in each case.
I will deal now with the cost of this initiative. We have estimated that planning and start-up costs will be approximately $5.5 million. This includes the cost for training officers and for renovating facilities so that we may properly detain suspects until law enforcement agencies arrive and can intervene. After implementation, the ongoing costs will be minimal.
Bill C-18 will do a number of things. First, it will close that longstanding gap and strengthen customs officers' ability to assist in law enforcement in this country. Second, it will make use of the unique position of customs at the border to stop criminals before they enter Canada. Finally, it will make efficient use of our law enforcement resources to enhance the safety and security of all Canadians.
This bill also has to date the support of all parties in this House, a rare situation and one that speaks to its importance. We are gratified, and I want to stress that, by this support. We also appreciate the input from members of this House as well as the groups and individuals who have offered their help and support. Your ideas and suggestions will be very valuable in the implementation of this legislation.
Customs officers and their union deserve special praise. They identified an opportunity to improve the safety of Canadians and have worked very hard to make this bill a reality. On behalf of the minister I thank all members for allowing us to do what is right for Canadians.
Rest assured that during implementation we will continue to consult with our partners, both within government and outside, to ensure that this bill once implemented meets expectations.
In conclusion, by supporting Bill C-18 we demonstrate to all Canadians that when it comes to their safety and security we will not compromise. This bill serves notice to those individuals who pose a threat to the safety of our communities that criminal activity will not be tolerated.
In approving Bill C-18 we are recognizing the important role of Canada's customs officers at our border and demonstrating to all Canadians that we are prepared to do what is right to enhance the safety and security of communities across the country.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek consent to split my time with the hon. member for North Vancouver.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Jason Kenney: I am pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition to address Bill C-18 which the Reform caucus will be supporting.
We think this bill seeks to achieve some worthwhile and admirable objectives in empowering our customs officers with certain police style powers to detain people suspected of serious crimes when they are clearly breaking our laws as they cross our borders. We support the intent of the bill.
In the debate on second reading of this bill we raised numerous questions which had not at that time been adequately addressed by the government but which we think have since been adequately addressed by the government and were comprehensively addressed by the parliamentary secretary in her remarks.
Those concerns included the cost of improving and upgrading the facilities of our customs ports to permit the detention of suspected criminals. The government advises us now that the costs entailed will be no greater than $5.5 million which we think is a reasonable cost for empowering these customs officers to protect our borders more thoroughly. We will of course, as in all matters, watch scrupulously the actual expenditures on this new program to ensure that costs are maintained within the amount estimated.
We also expressed concern about the training necessary to make our customs officers capable of exercising these new peace officer powers. We were particularly concerned about the growing number of student customs officers and to what extent they might be empowered by this bill. But we have been well advised by the government that adequate training will be in place for properly trained customs officers to exercise these powers and that student officers will not be permitted to exercise the powers granted by Bill C-18. So we are satisfied with that.
We were also concerned at the outset about adequate equipment. In particular, how is it that customs officers are not armed in order to enforce the law and protect themselves and to defend our borders against potentially aggressive criminals whom they may have to detain? We still have an outstanding concern in that regard. But the government has made a compelling case that immediate back-up support will be available with properly empowered peace officers, principally the RCMP, who can provide the kind of equipment needed to back up our customs officers in difficult and potentially violent situations.
Finally, we expressed a concern about the potential infringement of civil liberties of people who could be detained at the borders without due process. The government has satisfied us, as have organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, that the bill is narrow enough in its scope that it is unlikely to lead to abuse of these new found police powers on the part of customs officers.
Our principal concerns have been adequately addressed. We are pleased to support this bill. It is unfortunate, in one respect, that it has been so long in coming. It is a bill which is really a gesture of common sense, a gesture to take the necessary steps to protect the integrity of our borders.
Let me take this opportunity to say that I have an ongoing concern that we are not doing enough to defend the integrity of our borders against smuggling and the importation of contraband across our ports of entry. I have raised in this House the matter of a certain senior, 25-year veteran customs officer named Dennis Coffey. Mr. Coffey has made very troubling allegations, under oath, about corruption, fraud, nepotism and abuse at the customs branch of Revenue Canada. He has indicated that there are tens of thousands of shipments coming through our major points of entry, particularly in Ontario, trucking points of entry as well as airports, where potential contraband shipments are not being adequately inspected.
This is a concern which was confirmed by a document which the official opposition obtained from the security division of the Department of National Revenue, which we released in December. It is a document which indicates that Revenue Canada believes there is a reasonably large quantity of contraband narcotics and illegal drugs being imported into Canada, across our points of entry, without adequate inspection by customs.
What this report suggests is that some drug lords are actually couriering their shipments of hashish, marijuana, cocaine and heroin into Canada with 24-hour, 10 a.m. delivery. I find it quite astonishing that a drug lord can get his shipment of cocaine to where he wants it in Canada more quickly than Canada Post can deliver a letter, and he can do so without fear of very serious inspection on the part of customs agents.
There are still some very large and troubling questions with respect to the administration of the various customs statutes. We must ensure that these contraband materials are not being imported into Canada. The official opposition intends to introduce legislation at some point in the future in this place to address those concerns. We understand that less than 1% of courier shipments from countries identified as major narcotics exporters are being inspected. A foreign drug lord can make the reasonable calculation that if only 1% of his contraband is going to be inspected and detained by customs Canada, 99% will get to his customers.
While we commend the good work done by our customs agents in this country, while we are pleased that they will now have these new powers to exercise, we are concerned that the government has not taken seriously enough the issue of protecting the integrity of our borders and we intend to fully pursue that issue and demand that we take greater measures to ensure that shipments coming into this country are properly inspected.
We are also very concerned that the veteran customs officer to whom I referred, Mr. Coffey, a dedicated 25 year servant of the revenue department, was dismissed this week by the Department of National Revenue for making public his allegations about fraud, waste, nepotism and abuse in his department. This is not how we should treat our customs agents. We ought to honour the service they give to the country. We ought not take this kind of draconian action against people who blow the whistle when they see corruption in their departments.
It is scandalous that the Department of National Revenue has dismissed Mr. Coffey. This underlines once more the need for tough whistle-blower protection legislation so that public servants can speak the truth and identify waste, fraud and corruption where they exist in the public sector without fear of intimidation or losing their jobs because of the government.
We will support Bill C-18 but we are not entirely pleased with the way the government has dealt with the protection of our borders and with the commendable service of our customs agents.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18. The purpose of the bill, as has already been mentioned, is to give customs officers the authority of a peace officer, which means that they will be able to arrest without warrant certain individuals trying to cross the border who are perhaps suspected of child abduction, impaired driving and so on.
Certainly I am pleased to see these sorts of actions being introduced. It reminds me of a case not so long ago, I think in the Vancouver area, where an impaired driver came to a border crossing and because there was no power for the customs officer to detain the driver he had to be allowed through. It is not an uncommon situation, I would say.
The customs officers notified police but before the police were able to apprehend this person he had already driven off the road and down an embankment. It was by pure luck that he did not hurt anyone. It was a very good illustration of why this type of law is necessary.
Costs to implement these new requirements are a concern, as my colleague mentioned. One of the letters of response to our questions which came from the minister indicated that they estimated the planning and start-up costs to be approximately $5.5 million and that it would take approximately nine months to complete.
The history of the government is that it is woefully lacking in its ability to estimate costs. I rather suspect that this $5.5 million is more likely to be $11 million or $12 million. I will use the example of the Nunavut legislation that went through the House during the last parliament. Reform warned that the estimates for costs in that situation were nowhere near what it would actually cost. Already, in the last month or so, the government is asking for more money for that Nunavut program. We believe it will probably get to $1 billion before the dust settles from an original $100 million estimated by the government.
Notwithstanding the estimates of the government of $5.5 million, I would be surprised if it happens in that cost range. Despite that, we believe these sorts of measures are necessary.
It is quite obvious from the background material that groups like CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, have been a long time lobbying for this type of legislation to be passed. I wonder about the fact that the government is finally responding to public pressure for this sort of legislation.
Is this is a sign that maybe the Liberals are finally getting the message that they have to get tough on crime? I hope this is a sign they are finally recognizing that the public calls for changes to the Young Offenders Act, that the public wants rid of ridiculous conditional sentencing provisions, and that they will actually be acted on. We are going to see some justice restored to what really has become just a legal system.
In that regard I hope the minister will avoid any temptation to interfere and to thwart the activities of customs officers once they have this new power to be able to arrest and detain people suspected of criminal activities. The minister does not have a very good history of allowing people in customs and immigration to carry out their duties.
I can give an example. During the last parliament five or six people arrived from India at the border port of entry at Vancouver International Airport, claiming to be a film crew that was going to make a documentary film all about British Columbia. The immigration officials, upon asking questions of this film crew, discovered that they had no film making equipment and could not answer basic questions about the making of films, so the immigration officials detained them. It was a Friday afternoon. They were put into the lock-up at the Vancouver International Airport.
The Vancouver Sun and several other bleeding hearts jumped on the bandwagon and said that this was racist and that the only reason these people had been detained was that they were from India.
The present Minister of National Revenue also jumped on the bandwagon. He was quoted widely in the news media, claiming that the immigration officials were racist, that they had detained these people for no other reason than racism.
Because of all this lobbying, on the Monday morning the Immigration Refugee Board allowed these people to go free in British Columbia. Surprise, surprise. Within three or four days they had disappeared. Nobody could find them.
About a week or 10 days later these people were arrested in Washington state. They had used Canada as an entry point to the United States. The immigration officials who were the front line people and had asked the right questions had certainly detected those criminals at the border.
The present minister thwarted those efforts. I would hope, now that he is minister of the department, he is treating his officials with a little more respect. Once this act is in law I hope he will not keep doing things like the dismissal of Mr. Coffey, will start to appreciate the skills in the department and will allow the customs people to exercise their rights under the legislation.
Getting a little tough on crime would not hurt. I saw a quote the other day that I think would apply very well to the situation, if customs officers are successful in detaining people who are subsequently convicted of offences. It reflects very well the feelings of Canadians:
We ought to require prisoners to work 48 hours a week and to study 12 hours a week. If we kept them busy for 60 hours a week doing something positive, they would be different people when they came out of prison and prison would have a different impact on them than watching movies and working out on weight machines. If you are not willing to work 48 hours a week and study 12 hours a week you shouldn't get any privileges.
That is a spectacular reflection of how people feel about the whole justice system in Canada. I desperately hope the passage of Bill C-18 is the beginning of some sort of Liberal change of heart that will begin putting some teeth into the justice system.
Security concerns were expressed by the customs union with respect to Bill C-18. It was a bit concerned that adequate training and facilities would have to be provided to ensure the safety of its staff. In consultations with the union and others the minister has assured that new facilities will be built and that there will be adequate training.
As I mentioned earlier, they are expecting that to cost about $5.5 million. Tied into that concern is an amazing figure. The customs department employs 300 students on an ongoing basis to help with customs inspection and 900 students in the summertime. I was amazed when I read those figures. An obvious concern is that the students be adequately trained to deal with the new types of responsibilities that may inadvertently come their way.
The minister indicated that these students will go through a three week training course. I see no mention, though, of any exam at the end of that course. I hope the minister will ensure there is some sort of examination protocol associated with the course, to ensure the people who go through the course are adequately equipped to handle the responsibilities they are given.
Finally I would like to mention that there has been some criticism of the gradual introduction of automatic ports of entry at some border crossings. The unions say the automatic barrier system, which looks at licence plates and allows people in or out, is subject to some problems from time to time. I am astounded that we should worry about it because our borders are so porous anyway. We have this huge and lengthy unpatrolled border. Quite frankly I do not understand why crooks even cross at border crossings.
There are many examples in the Vancouver area where number zero road runs right along the border for about 30 miles or 50 kilometres. All that separates Canada from the United States is a ditch. There have been many examples of smuggling across that border.
A famous case just a couple of years ago involved a store in San Francisco smuggling parrots into Vancouver. They would drive up to the border and put full cages of parrots in the ditch along the highway. After dark someone on the Canadian side would come along and lift the cages out of the ditch.
It is very easy to cross the border around the Vancouver area. There are several trails, like the west coast trail, which go across the border. There is a sign asking one to report to the next customs station whenever it is reached.
It astounds me that so many crooks come across the border and get caught. I hope they retain the same amount of intelligence they already have and continue to do so. Maybe Bill C-18 will help us to intercept them as they come through.
On balance, we support the bill with all its defects. I look forward to voting in favour of Bill C-18.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.
The purpose of Bill C-18 is to broaden the scope of the present powers of customs officers as far as arrest and detainment are concerned. It is in response to the necessity for enhanced control and effective intervention at Canadian customs posts. The proposed changes would affect about two-thirds of the 3,200 customs officers.
Like the other provinces sharing a border with the United States, Quebec is a target for dangerous individuals attempting to seek refuge there. There is an indisputably urgent need to reinforce border crossing points in order to intercept guilty parties.
Recent statistics from the Department of Revenue indicate that, over the past three years, 8,500 cases of suspected impaired driving, close to 200 presumed cases of child abduction, close to 2,000 persons with outstanding warrants, and more than 500 cases of persons in possession of stolen property, vehicles in particular, were apprehended. The department makes no mention of the number of people going through customs at the Canada-U.S. border with drugs and so on.
Eighty percent of these occurrences involve highway border crossing points, not ports of air or sea entry. These statistics speak volumes and justify the reinforcement of border posts, as Bill C-18 will do.
Customs officers would facilitate the role of the police through immediate intervention at the border. This would broaden the scope of custom officers' present power to arrest and detain, in order to fill a void between the time they detect an offence under the Criminal Code and the time peace officers arrive and intervene.
The proposed amendments would also enable customs officers to arrest persons for whom an arrest warrant has been issued under the Criminal Code.
In the case of individuals suspected of impaired driving, the designated officers would take a breath sample. Individuals testing high would then be handed over to the police for a breathalyser test. I wonder whether, at this point, whether they would be handed over to the RCMP or the to provincial police, in the case of Quebec. The provincial authorities would then have to continue the investigation and initiate proceedings against those presumed guilty of breaking the Criminal Code at the border.
The Bloc Quebecois and I support additional powers for customs officials. However, we first want Quebec's jurisdictions respected and then we want details from the minister on the provinces, cities and municipalities that would be affected by the changes proposed in the bill. Then, although the president of the customs officials' union has indicated his support for the bill, we want details on the terms of selection and employment of the new category of customs officers thus created, including their new responsibilities, whether the officers would be chosen from the pool of existing employees and what changes would be made to labour contracts.
In the case of Quebec, the one that interests us, we want details on the powers of these officials compared with those of the Quebec provincial police force, the RCMP and the courts involved, in particular on whether fines at customs posts in Quebec will be collected by the federal government or by the government of Quebec?
A few days ago, the Minister of Revenue sent us the second progress report on the creation of the Canada customs and revenue agency. I will take the liberty of making a few comments here, although it is related to C-18, because it is a serious matter for us Quebeckers.
I was surprised to learn the following from the fact sheet. “—the Agency's mandate is being broadened to allow it to administer a wide range of provincial tax laws and measures—”, “agency status means—more flexibility to manage its resources and operations—”, “the agency would administer provincial programs should that prove cost effective—”. This is blatant and direct interference in provincial jurisdiction.
The establishment of this agency clearly shows that the federal government is try to encroach even further on provincial jurisdictions. It is not dealing with duplication and overlap as it should, but is grabbing more and more powers from the provinces.
Quebec objected to the agency administering its programs and will stand by the position it has taken in the interest of Quebeckers.
As far as Bill C-18 is concerned, the Bloc Quebecois and I are in favour but we have serious reservations regarding the collection of fines. We will keep an eye on this government to ensure that this bill is not used as an excuse to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my comments within five minutes so as to allow my Progressive Conservative colleagues the opportunity to speak.
I want to send a special hello to the hon. member for Labrador who is watching us now from St. John's, Newfoundland. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members, for people who work in the House of Commons and for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when I say Godspeed and he is in our thoughts and prayers.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Peter Stoffer: I rise to speak in support of Bill C-18. I thank the Government of Canada for initiating this action. I would also like to mention a few concerns we have about the safety and concerns of our citizens and also the perspective the customs officers union presented to us. The customs officers were quite supportive that this bill would pass in order for them to do their job properly and in a more stringent matter so that they can protect especially the citizens in border towns.
The reservation I have is that the government in order to increase resources into the customs area will decrease resources from other police sources, that is the RCMP or that of local police officers. We encourage the government not to do that. We are quite pleased that it will include more resources for customs officers in order to do their job better.
I ask the government that when this bill is passed, which we hope will be very soon, to make sure the resources are there for the proper training of our customs officers to handle situations that at this time they have not been able to do.
On behalf of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other organizations which are fighting very hard in this country to get drunk drivers off our roads, I wish to thank the government as well as the official opposition and other opposition parties in the House for their support in passing this bill as quickly as possible.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party we do support this bill. We thank the government for its encouragement.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons to speak on Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.
As stated by previous speakers, this piece of legislation concerns the authority we are prepared to accord customs officers. Bill C-18 would grant designated customs officers the power to arrest without warrant and to release from custody any cases where an arrest without warrant by a peace officer is permitted. These designated officers can detain such individuals until they are able to hand them over to peace officers as defined under section 2 of the Criminal Code.
This bill received unanimous support from members of the justice committee, which included my colleague from West Nova on behalf of the PC caucus. On his behalf and on behalf of our caucus I would like to commend the representatives from the customs and excise workers union for their very informative presentations given in support of this bill.
Part of my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche runs along the Canada-U.S. border and is home to many customs and excise workers. I therefore have firsthand knowledge of the many duties and responsibilities these federal employees discharge on a daily basis. Bill C-18 gives these border employees needed resources to keep our country safe.
Ironically this government bill comes forward for debate from the justice committee without amendment less than a week after this House debated Bill C-211, a private member's bill sponsored by my Reform colleague from Langley—Abbotsford.
That bill dealt with granting peace officers additional authority with respect to arrest warrants for offenders who have breached their conditions of parole. The Liberals unfortunately continued to reject this worthwhile bill. Apparently what is good for the government goose is not good for the opposition gander.
In any case I will attempt to restrict my comments to the substance of this legislation, Bill C-18. One of the most positive elements of Bill C-18 is the proposal to add a section to the Customs Act which would allow customs officers to handle impaired driving situations in the same way peace officers do.
This section of Bill C-18 is so important because it gives our customs officers more power to respond to individuals who enter Canada and who are suspected of being impaired drivers. As we discussed several months ago in the House, Canada has more than enough problems with its domestic drunk drivers. This section of Bill C-18 would help clamp down on the import of drunk drivers.
Bill C-18 will also confer on customs officers any responsibilities which fall to a peace officer under sections 495 to 497 of the Criminal Code, as well as under subsections 493(3) and 497(3) upon the designation by the Minister of National Revenue.
Another section of Bill C-18 however clearly states that these designated officers may not use their new found responsibilities for the sole purpose of searching for evidence. This appears to be a reasonable limitation on individual rights.
The final portion of Bill C-18 is technical in nature, proposing two amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure its correspondence with the new section of the Customs Act.
There were some concerns regarding the potentially negative consequences of Bill C-18. At the justice committee my colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, raised the possibility of responsibilities being downloaded to customs officers without the appropriate resources being allocated by the federal government. Officials from both Revenue Canada and the customs employees union happily reported that this would not be the case.
In closing, I would like to emphasize the non-partisan nature in which Bill C-18 was handled. The government acted in response to an expressed concern from customs employees. The opposition parties raised legitimate concerns at the committee level with respect to potentially negative consequences of the bill yet there was not any political grandstanding or obstacle placed in the path of dealing with this needed piece of legislation. It was dealt with in a responsible and constructive manner. Perhaps this is a lesson which we can draw on in the future.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of moving ahead with the debate, I wonder if we could call it 11 o'clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a good idea, except that we do not have the list for Statements by Members yet. Therefore we will continue for a minute or so.
Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, you can count on me to fill a minute or two.
Given the words that I have been listening to in the lobby and in the House so far in this debate, it is important to emphasize the way this bill was handled. It was handled in a non-partisan and constructive manner. The input from all parties has been recognized and is appreciated.
This serves Canadians across the country well. It serves our employees well. It speaks to the good work which MPs can do in this country. When they see an initiative which makes sense, they move forward correcting irritating anomalies and bringing forth a consensus.
I do not want to make a presumption before the debate is over, but I believe this bill will pass third reading with the support of all parties. I look forward to continuing to work in this manner in the House. It is appreciated by all members of Parliament.
The Speaker: It being almost 11 a.m., we will now proceed to statements by members. I do not have the list of speakers. Members will therefore please stand to be recognized.

Statements By Members
The Late Jack PearsonMr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons today to pay tribute to Jack Pearson of New Hamburg who recently passed away.
Jack was a World War II veteran who loved his country, loved his community and loved his flag.
Sports and recreation, minor ball, the arena and minor hockey were his passions. The Waterloo—Wellington senior games were his pride and joy.
Wilmot transit for the elderly and disabled and home support for seniors were his causes and his legacy.
Representing New Hamburg on Wilmot municipal council was his calling and Legion Branch 532 was his life.
Jack Pearson touched so many people in so many ways over the years. He worked hard in a quiet, unassuming way. He never sought the limelight. He worked hard not because he sought recognition but because he knew it was the right thing to do.
I salute Jack Pearson for being a great Canadian. He will be missed.
Indian AffairsMr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to express my deep concern and frustration over the lack of compassion expressed by this government toward the residents of four mobile home parks on Indian reserve land in my riding.
This past November 51 families were evicted in the dead of winter because their sewage system failed. Working people, veterans and senior citizens have been devastated. Some are facing bankruptcy. This same fate is imminent for the residents of three remaining mobile home parks. Two hundred and twenty-five families will face the same situation this spring unless the federal government takes action.
Like victims of the ice storm, these people have no control over their circumstances. This is a disaster. This is a crisis. This government is legally responsible for lands reserved for Indians and will be held accountable for its failures.
When will this Liberal government act?
SevecMr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it when I was informed by an Oxford county teacher that the Ontario government has pulled its support for the Society of Educational Visits and Exchanges in Canada, also known as SEVEC.
SEVEC has been administering the Ontario-Quebec six month student exchange program on behalf of the ministry of education and training since 1990. This funding has now been eliminated by the Harris government.
Now is not the time to cut programs that foster understanding between Canada's regions. I thought Mike Harris was in favour of helping the cause of Canadian unity. This cut to a crucial program certainly does not help in keeping Canada united.
Thankfully the Department of Canadian Heritage assisted students last year in the Canada student exchange. Hopefully we at the federal level can fill this void so irresponsibly left by the Ontario Tories.
If Mike Harris has any sense, which I doubt, he will restore funding to SEVEC.
Girl GuidesMr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Girl Guides program began in the United Kingdom in 1909 and started in Canada in 1910. They now have units in all provinces and territories and most cities across the country with members numbering over 230,000.
These clubs allow and encourage young people to learn and explore the environment around them. Through different age based groups, Sparks, Brownies, Girl Guides, Pathfinders and Senior Leadership, Guides develop skills in camping, life skills and leadership.
Today I welcome 48 Pathfinders and their leaders from Kitchener—Waterloo to Ottawa. I wish them well during their visit. I also wish Guides in Kitchener—Waterloo, across Canada and those all over the world a very special day on February 22, their birthday and thinking day `98.
Ice StormMr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the recent ice storm hit every community in my riding, and the municipalities of Saint-Isidore, Saint-Rémi, Saint-Édouard, Saint-Mathieu and Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur in particular.
On behalf of the people of the riding of Châteauguay, I would like to salute and thank all volunteers. While most were themselves affected, they selflessly directed operations and helped those worse hit by the storm.
I thank the various levels of governments, town councils, police forces, artists, armed forces and, above all, to Hydro-Quebec workers. Having worked there myself for 35 years, I know full well what motivates them: the pride of serving their own people. To rebuild an entire hydro-electric system in a few weeks requires courage, determination, hard work and pride.
Quebec will come away enriched from this exercise of generosity and solidarity. To the great builders that we are, many thanks, the future is ours.
Andrew CarlsonMs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate a young man from Mississauga. Eight-year old Andrew Carlson from Russell Langmaid public school in Streetsville was the youngest winner of the “postcard Picasso challenge” sponsored by Bell Canada and the Canadian Olympic Association.
Andrew designed and coloured a postcard for the Olympic website which features four owls and an Olympic torch. His postcard is being featured on the wired Olympic website where Internet subscribers from all over Canada can select his card to send their best wishes electronically to our athletes competing in Japan.
Andrew is visiting Ottawa today with his father George. They will be meeting with several very important persons including the Sergeant-at-Arms and you, Mr. Speaker.
I and all of Mississauga are very proud of our young Andrew Carlson. Winning his first art contest at eight years of age bodes very well for an art future ahead.
WarMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Millions of lives lost in war. Soldiers fight, spill blood and lose life. They live or die in honourable service. Our veterans have our grateful thanks and respect beyond mere words. But others who die in camps of hell are victims of war as well. Unlike combatants, they have no swords to defend their souls. How we recall the horrors of war is a measure of our national conscience. We must remember all who die to reflect on the true carnage of war. The lessons to be learned are not only from the field of battle. Lessons too are learned from humanity's dark side. That's why two museums are of such importance. To properly display each face of war. Lest we forget.
Junior Women's CurlingMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to offer heartfelt congratulations to the new Canadian junior women's curling champions on behalf of all citizens of Tobique—Mactaquac
Last weekend the Grand Falls curling club rink of skip Melissa McClure, third Nancy Toner, second Brigette McClure, and lead Bethany Toner made all of New Brunswick proud when they beat the Ontario team in a close final.
The McClures and the Toners have proven what we in rural New Brunswick believe, that if you set your goals high and work very hard, you can accomplish almost anything.
Once again, congratulations and we wish them the best of luck when they represent Canada at the world junior women's curling finals this March in Thunder Bay.
BanksJohn Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the close and cosy relationship between the Minister of Finance, the Liberal Party and the banks is a matter of very deep concern for all Canadians. The Liberals want to look like they are standing up for consumers and small business people but the Liberals' false bravado is severely undermined by those huge donations from the banks.
In 1996 the Liberals received a quarter of a million dollars from the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank. Now we learn that during the last federal election the Bank of Montreal through its subsidiary Nesbitt Burns gave $1,000 each to 14 of the 28 inner cabinet members, including the Minister of Finance; that is $14,000 to Liberal cabinet candidates. The finance minister's former leadership campaign co-chair is also involved with the banks. He is running the $20 million PR campaign for the Canadian Bankers Association.
The Reform Party is promoting the foreign banks too. Why is that? It takes donations from Goldman Sachs, a good U.S. corporation.
Canadians have all these reasons not to believe the Minister of Finance and the Reform Party when they act like they really care.
Film And TelevisionMs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for your wonderful and thoughtful speech last evening to our friends from the Canadian Film and Television Production Association. Your impassioned challenge to them for continued leadership in helping to tell our Canadian stories was timely and obviously heartfelt.
I have been married to Peter O'Brian and the Canadian film industry for almost 19 years and I know firsthand their struggle. We are all grateful that people like our host from last night, Michael MacMillan from Atlantis Communications and my riding, and our minister of heritage are fighting to ensure that our Canadian values will always be reflected on our movie and television screens. They know the importance of reflecting our shared experiences as Canadians. Our culture, unity and understanding of what it is to be Canadian are strengthened and enhanced.
Yesterday the Department of Canadian Heritage released a discussion paper entitled “A Review of Canadian Feature Film Policy”. All Canadians are invited to make submissions on the discussion paper by March 20, and I encourage them to do so.
We must all continue the work of strengthening the film and television industry in Canada.
Winter Olympic GamesMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this evening will mark the opening of the 18th Olympic Games in Nagano, Japan. For two weeks, the world's best athletes will inspire a wide range of emotions in millions of people.
Some 2,400 men and women from 80 countries will boldly and bravely compete for the gold, silver and bronze medals in 68 events.
The Bloc Quebecois members are proud of the 43 Quebeckers on the 155-member Canadian team. Myriam Bédard and Jean-Luc Brassard have made their mark in Olympic history. They are setting out along with other athletes, whose cherished and justified dream it is to mount the podium.
We wish all the athletes in the Canadian delegation good luck. May they return home satisfied and rewarded for the years of courage, perseverance and tenacity that propelled them to Nagano.
ResearchMr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, basic research is the starting point for applied research and commercialization activities and the fuel for innovation in Canada. It is of fundamental importance to the well-being of our economy, standard of living and quality of life.
In Canada our basic research system is founded on federal funding. The three federal granting councils, NRC, NSERC and SSHRC, are recipients of this funding. They have been charged with the responsibility of making Canada the leader in the knowledge based economy of the 21st century.
Contrary to the other G-7 nations, levels of funding for the councils have declined throughout this decade. This is having an immediate impact and does not bode well for the future. It is leading to a brain drain of our best and brightest researchers.
In light of the great importance of basic research in our economy, on behalf of my colleagues in the government caucus on post-secondary and research, I urge the Minister of Finance to address the situation in the upcoming budget. From his actions in the past and his desire to make Canada a leader—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
International Development WeekMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government should not be forcing Canadian taxpayers to cough up funding for international development week.
Private capital is flowing into developing nations. It is private capital that reduces poverty, not government aid. On the other hand, the Liberals have driven up our debt and taxes to record levels. This government has cut 23% from health and education spending for Canadians.
It is the private sector that should pay for international development week, if it wants to. The Liberal and Tory governments have already wasted $50 billion in aid and there is still lack of accountability.
The CIDA minister's failure should not be rewarded. International aid has failed the poor in developing nations. Private investment has proven itself to be the real answer to poverty, not aid.
Canadians want the Liberals to let private capital lead business—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—St. Paul.
Liberal GovernmentMr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a wise man once said above all else be prepared.
This government has done just that. It has restored the fiscal strength of the nation. It has begun to modernize our valued social programs and to lay the foundation for the new economy. It has endeavoured to strengthen higher education, research and development to meet the challenges of the present as we continue to prepare for the future where knowledge will continue to play its pre-eminent role.
Canada has had its share of Nobel laureates for excellence in creativity and ingenuity. I am confident that our commitment to higher education, research and development in medicine, engineering and the humanities, measured in enhanced funding, will continue to be part of this government's knowledge agenda, thereby keeping the best and brightest of our citizens in the country and propelling us to greater heights in the new millennium.
Victoria Bridge RestorationMr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is good news about the Victoria bridge. This morning, the Government of Canada and Canadian National jointly announced a $46 million agreement in principle to share the costs of repairing this infrastructure, which is essential to Montreal's south shore and to the whole island of Montreal.
All stakeholders are quite rightly pleased at this outcome, which is the result of the extraordinary mobilization of the communities concerned and the willingness of the Canadian government to find a solution in this matter of importance to Quebec.
I would like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by Liberal members. Particular praise is due the members for Brossard—La Prairie and Saint-Lambert for their extraordinary contribution.
While the Bloc Quebecois looks for a raison d'être, and spends its time tarnishing the government's reputation and serving as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the pre-election strategy of its head office in Quebec City, the Liberal government and its members have once again delivered the goods and worked for Quebec's best interests.
Congratulations!
Ice StormJean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to the people of Madawaska—Restigouche who rallied together in support of our friends in Quebec during the recent ice storm.
Countless truckers and volunteers from throughout the riding set aside their daily business to give their unconditional support.
I personally travelled with a caravan of trucks carrying food, firewood and local Red Cross blankets from Restigouche and Madawaska to Quebec.
I saw firsthand the devastation encountered by the victims and I can only imagine the pain and suffering they have endured under these cold winter conditions.
I also saw the warm smiles on their faces as we pulled up and began to load their vehicles with supplies. It is acts of kindness such as these that should make every one of us proud to be Canadian.

Oral Question Period
Aboriginal AffairsMiss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister for Indian affairs asked natives to write to her about problems on their reserves, whether financial or democratic irregularities.
She promised that those letters would be kept confidential, but a clear and disturbing pattern has emerged here. As soon as these confidential letters come into the minister's department, they get stamped and promptly leaked back to the chief whom they are complaining about. There is a big problem here.
Why does the minister of Indian affairs think she and the officials in her department are above the law of the Privacy Act?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the premise, as far as I am aware, of the hon. member's question is wrong. We are aware of only one incident where a letter was leaked. That is the matter of the Starlight letter.
This is being thoroughly investigated by an experienced investigator from outside the department. The minister does not consider herself above the law. She takes the Privacy Act very seriously, as does the government, and the hon. member's premise, therefore, is totally unfounded.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, it is nice for the minister to talk about it, but it is certainly more than one isolated case.
Yesterday we talked about Stephen Constant and I am sure there will be more coming because these people are feeling betrayed.
A section in the Privacy Act says that letters that are to be taken in confidence possibly creates a breach. That is in the Privacy Act.
I do not think the minister could just toss this off. These are serious accusations by people who live in grassroots aboriginal reserves. The privacy commissioner has become involved now because he has had a request to look into it.
I would like the government to stand up now and say that it is now not only announcing that this investigator who is looking into it already is looking in but that the RCMP will be called in to make sure—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister of Indian affairs has already said publicly that the allegations in the Starlight letter are not only being looked into by her department but that a copy of that letter has gone to the RCMP.
I further want to say that the hon. member must be asking her question without having listened to my previous answer. I said the minister and her officials take the Privacy Act very seriously.
They are not trying to condone any breaches of the Privacy Act. They want to see it enforced and that is why there is an investigation under way now by an experienced—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, the problem is there is a more disturbing pattern developing here.
The minister said there was only one case when he knows full well that there are at least two that have been documented on the floor of the House of Commons. Rita Galloway, the president of the first nations coalition for accountability, says this kind of thing happens all the time.
It is not good enough for a government to just sit there and say we are looking into it, we hope this one isolated case goes away. It will not go away. Aboriginals are feeling betrayed by the government, by Indian affairs and by the minister himself.
Are these betrayals that grassroots Indians feel part of this new partnership the department is bragging about?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to bring forward the evidence she has, if any, about this alleged pattern.
She has not done so so far. I challenge her to bring forward the evidence of a pattern because this is a very serious allegation. It deserves to be looked into very thoroughly.
We are looking into any cases brought to our attention, as I have said, but I ask the hon. member—I challenge her—to bring forward the evidence of a pattern. This will be taken into account in the investigation.
We take any possible breaches of the Privacy Act very seriously. As I said the other day, we intend to pursue this to the utmost to make sure the Privacy Act is being obeyed.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much more evidence this government needs. We get aboriginal after aboriginal giving testimonials that this is going on and the government denies it. As a direct result of this government's breach of privacy, Mr. Starlight is being sued by his own chief.
I asked a question yesterday and I did not get an answer. I am going to ask it again today of the Deputy Prime Minister. Is this government prepared to pay Mr. Starlight's legal fees due to its breach of his confidentiality?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any precedent for this. Certainly this can be looked into by the Department of Justice. I am advised, by the way, that the second letter the hon. lady was referring to earlier was copied to the department and a Reform MP, and so far there is no evidence that second letter was leaked. So I think the hon. member ought to withdraw that allegation.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, again I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for his commitment here and now to pay Mr. Starlight's legal fees. This is a direct breach of confidentiality, a breach of the Privacy Act. We have got the Privacy Commissioner looking into it now. I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of Mr. Starlight and his family to guarantee to Mr. Starlight that the government is going to pay his legal fees. Will he answer that, yes or no?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have undertaken to have this looked into. I think that is a reasonable response and I ask the hon. member to accept that I will make sure his suggestion is pursued.
Canadian Olympic AssociationMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Ninety-five per cent of the ceremony to present the Canadian athletes to the media, which was sponsored by the Canadian Olympic Association, was apparently conducted in English. The French that was used for only 5% of the time was of poor quality, if not mediocre.
How can the heritage minister explain this situation, if not by saying that it reflects the inability of her department and her government to ensure that francophones in Quebec and Canada are respected?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that the COA's decision does not reflect the Canadian reality.
Like the hon. member, I fully disagree with the manner in which the event was conducted, and I certainly hope to have the opportunity to discuss it with Bill Warren and to ensure that Myriam Bédard, Gaétan Boucher, Jean-Luc Brassard and all Canadian gold medallists are treated with respect in both official languages.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her compassion toward the francophones of this country. However, I had several conversations with people in Nagano to check the facts, and my sources unanimously confirmed that, of all the Olympic events, this was the worst performance by the Canadian Olympic Association, which managed to project a “totally Canadian” image of our country.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage may take cover behind the COA, but will she admit that this incident is the direct consequence of her policy to use the Canadian flag as a symbol of Canadian unity, which has the effect of increasingly marginalizing the French language in this country?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
Reference To Supreme CourtMr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week we were treated to a series of contradictions by the federal government and its top guns on the topic of the Supreme Court reference.
It is clear that the government is becoming increasingly isolated in its attacks on Quebec's democratic institutions.
After this hard week, in which its main allies abandoned it, why is the intergovernmental affairs minister still stubbornly continuing with a reference which quite obviously will no longer have any credibility in the face of the broad consensus forming in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because Quebeckers are entitled not to lose Canada through confusion, trickery and unclear procedures. Nobody wants to force Quebeckers to stay in Canada against their will, should they ever clearly express their desire to leave, and Quebeckers are entitled to go on being Canadians as long as that is what they wish to do.
Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, speaking of confusion, we have just had a good example.
Yesterday, the minister said, and I quote: “Sometimes governments do things that are challenged in law by other governments, and that generally leads to difficulties. Things are obviously much easier when the people concerned are separated by an ocean”.
Can the minister tell us since when oceans have become a determining factor in international law, and will the Attorney General of Canada be using this argument before the Supreme Court?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, those who listened to Oral Question Period yesterday would have heard me say twice that the Government of Canada feels it has acted within the principles of international law in the so-called turbot war.
Now, if the Bloc Quebecois wants to go on identifying its plans for secession with the only event in which the Canadian army was forced to fire on another vessel in peace time, that is its own decision, but it does not bode well for its plans.
Youth EmploymentHon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Two years ago the minister's government announced a youth employment strategy. Despite that strategy, there are now 50,000 fewer young people working today than there were two years ago.
I would like to ask the minister why that strategy failed. Why are there 50,000 fewer people working today than were working two years ago despite that strategy which was announced at least three times, including in the budgets of 1996 and 1997?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I was very disappointed with the numbers we had this morning on youth unemployment, but we have made progress on most of the unemployment across the country. He is quite right that the last month has not been very good on the youth employment front.
We as a government were disappointed to see that this morning. This has been a one month recul but it has not been that bad. Over the last few months we have had substantial progress. We were able to lower the rate down to 15.8% with hard work and with the youth employment strategy which I think is working out quite well. However, one month is not a trend.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister being forthright. I want to remind the House that the youth unemployment rate has gone from 15.7% two years ago to 16.5% today. In light of that figure, I think this is probably the most important negative crisis we have in Canada today in terms of the economy.
I want to ask the minister what new initiatives the government is going to take now to try to put young people back to work. Are we going to have new money coming into training, research and development and into education to counteract the cutbacks by the Minister of Finance a couple of years ago?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP member for his very interesting question. I am glad to see that some people in this House are interested in youth unemployment. It has not been raised by the other parties. This is a very important situation and as a government we are very concerned about it.
The first reports I have on the youth employment strategy are quite good. Eighty-five per cent of youth who have participated in our youth employment strategy have obtained a full time job within a year after leaving our internship program and service Canada program. They are working and 85% have had good results. However we need to do more. As much as we can, we will be doing more because that is the most important element we have to face in the labour market now.
Saguenay FloodMr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, given the series of disasters that have recently occurred in our country, the emergency debate held this week provided an opportunity to pay tribute to those who worked very hard and to also reflect on the measures that should be taken to deal even more effectively with such events.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is normal for a small municipality like Anse-Saint-Jean to still be waiting for a payment of $2.5 million, one and a half years after the flood?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is a specific case. I will take note of the hon. member's question and refer it to the President of the Treasury Board.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, emergency measures are covered by a federal-provincial agreement. Let me illustrate the problem, so you can see how serious it is.
I wonder if the federal government could ask the provincial government to at least make interest refunds eligible. Small municipalities with a population of 1,000 to 1,500 must currently pay interest on huge loans. This means monthly payments of $10,000 to $15,000.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chicoutimi is very familiar with the disaster that struck his region.
The Canadian government initially took action under the Canada-Quebec agreement dealing with disasters and their victims. This agreement worked very well, and the issue raised by the hon. member is indeed a very specific one.
In order to deal with damages not covered by the agreement, we implemented a temporary economic reconstruction program that was very successful. I should point out to the Conservative member that there are still funds in that program, which includes seven components.
It is a program which we would like to duplicate in the case of disasters such as the one created by the ice storm.
FisheriesMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister keeps insisting that a race based commercial fishery is legal. He has ignored advice from native and non-native commercial fishermen that racial tinkering leads to racial tension.
Last week a B.C. court ruled that the aboriginal commercial fishery has no validity.
Will the minister ask the crown to drop the charges against 22 B.C. commercial fishermen who protested his racial policy?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been an important case on the west coast dealing with the enforcement of regulations in the fishery. There is a member of this House who has been convicted. I think it is appropriate that we wait until the sentencing is completed before we comment on the case.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the department admits that there are 20 secret legal opinions on the race based fishery locked away in its vaults. The minister knows they exist and I assume you have read past the executive summary—
The Speaker: I would remind all hon. members to please address the Chair in their questions.
John Duncan: Will the minister release the documents and put a stop to this racially divisive aboriginal commercial fishery?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has omitted to mention a series of cases which are going to the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the issue of the aboriginal fishery and the right of aboriginal peoples with respect to other entitlements, be they land, game or other things.
It is important for him to remember the importance of restraining himself for a few more days, or even perhaps a day, as the case may be, until such time as the provincial court trial judge in the case of the Queen v Cummins renders sentencing.
Bill C-28Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance stated that his shipping companies, being Canadian, could not take advantage of the tax savings offered under Bill C-28.
On the other hand, the Vice-President of Canada Steamship Lines stated that his companies could not take advantage of the tax changes because they are foreign-operated, and the ethics adviser stated that he had been assured that Canada Steamship Lines does not intend to take advantage of the terms of the act, thus implying that it was entitled to do so.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. If it is as clear as can be, as the minister said it was yesterday, how can he explain these three different and contradictory interpretations?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I gave a rather concrete and clear answer yesterday.
The proposed changes in Bill C-28 do not in any way apply to either companies incorporated in Canada or their foreign affiliates which are administered elsewhere.
I wonder why the hon. member, having been given this information, continues to ask these questions and to make allegations that are totally unfounded.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, if the minister has been refusing since Monday to answer our questions on a bill he is sponsoring, is it because the scandal is so huge that he is afraid, or ashamed, to explain to us that Bill C-28 will make into law taxation practices which will save shipping companies millions of dollars, and from which he himself could benefit?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making allegations which are, as I have just said, totally unfounded. The Minister of Finance has all of his assets in trusts, with no right of inspection.
As Minister of Finance, he is not involved in any way whatsoever with shipping. It is the Minister of State from Toronto who is involved in those matters, and the staff of his department.
Bill C-28 is an omnibus bill with more than 300 amendments and, I repeat, the minister is not involved at all in these proposed amendments.
FisheriesMr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Yves Fortier has quit as Canada's chief Pacific salmon negotiator. Why? Because he knows the United States is not ready to change its negotiating position and most important, he has not received the support he needs from this government.
If Canada's ambassador does not believe in the government's process, how can British Columbian fishermen believe in this government? Will the minister tell B.C. fishermen how they can expect to have any confidence in this government?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has clearly failed to read Mr. Fortier's letter. In it he says “I salute the senior officers of DFO and DFAIT in Ottawa, Vancouver and Victoria. The dedication and professionalism evidenced by these individuals is without par and ensures that Canada's interests are well served”.
Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, it is appalling and disgraceful that this minister can stand before the House after four years of this government's doing nothing and be proud of its position. The government is no further ahead today than it was five years ago. Canada's chief ambassador has quit because he has no confidence in this government.
What is this government going to do? When is it going to do it? Does it have a plan? What is it doing? The fishermen of British Columbia have no confidence in this government.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the flip-flops of the Reform Party are very obvious. Initially the member praised Mr. Fortier but when I quoted Mr. Fortier's words to him in my response, he called it disgraceful and outrageous. That is the type of approach we get from the Reform Party, no consistent support for the position of British Columbia fishermen for which we need to stand up to the United States in this dispute.
Student Loans And Grants ProgramMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On December 2, the minister stated that even though Canada made a huge contribution to Quebec's student loans and grants program, it enjoyed little visibility.
After chipping away at transfer payments for education year after year, does the minister not find it shameful that his government is now planning to start investing again for the sole purpose of increasing its visibility at the expense of students' basic needs?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity the hon. member is giving me to remind the House of the major contribution the Government of Canada has been making since 1961 to Quebec's student loans and grants program. Indeed, Quebec's student loans and grants program is funded to a large extent by the federal government, and we are very happy with this. This, of course, is what a vibrant and dynamic federation is all about.
The hon. member may rest assured that the Government of Quebec will definitely get its share of any improvements to Canada's student loans and grants program for the country as a whole. Improvements to the Canadian program will be reflected in Canada's contribution to its Quebec equivalent.
Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, given that the Government of Quebec has the necessary know-how and the infrastructure to effectively manage student loans and grants, which do come under its jurisdiction, will the minister undertake to unconditionally transfer to Quebec its fair share of any new funds put into the program?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, any improvement to the Canadian loans and grants system will be reflected in Canada's contribution to its Quebec equivalent at the permanent structures level.
The hon. member may be referring to the millennium fund. I received a letter from Minister Marois two days ago. What I can say is that we will make sure that Quebec students will be well served by this fund.
We will strive to avoid any duplication of the services provided by the Government of Quebec and work together in partnership to make life easier for students who are having a hard time staying in school as long as they should in this knowledge-based economy.
Liberal PartyMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Norman Morrison, president of the B.C. wing of the federal Liberal Party, was found guilty of misappropriating almost $9,000 which he got for his work at the Canada Pension Plan Review Tribunal. He got caught lining his own pocket, but Liberal ethics said he could still keep his job with the tribunal.
Why did the government not remove him when he erred rather than waiting three months for the Globe and Mail to expose the story?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, we learned about the situation just before Christmas. We were concerned and looked into the matter.
We found that his actions did not constitute cause for dismissal according to the legal guidelines. The matter is now moot as Mr. Morrison has resigned anyway.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this guy was put in trust of $8,800 and he failed, and the Liberals did not call him on it.
What are we going to do as Canadians when we have Liberal appointed, Liberal protected hacks running a $1 billion Canada pension fund?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted by what they are making out of the story.
We are talking about a gentleman who did not have responsibility for $1 billion. We are talking about a part time job which on average was two to four days a month in terms of responsibility. Let us keep things in perspective. The gentleman has now resigned and we have accepted his resignation.
Youth UnemploymentMr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning Statistics Canada revealed that a further 22,000 jobs had been lost to young people.
In the past year, since the minister announced the youth employment strategy with great fanfare, jobs for young people have decreased and not increased.
When will the minister finally admit that his youth employment strategy is a miserable failure and that the only serious way to help young people would be to transfer these programs to Quebec?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the Bloc's finally taking an interest in young people at the end of question period. It is about time we paid them some attention.
I will tell you that the figures announced this morning are disappointing. We regret the increase in youth unemployment.
However, if you are asking me to transfer money to Quebec, I have to tell you that youth programs are shared. We alone are not responsible for the situation. It means the other side is not doing a good job either, which I do not think is the case.
I think that the youth employment strategy is working because 85% of those who have taken part in our programs have gone back to work.
Multilateral Agreement On InvestmentMs. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade a question regarding the multilateral agreement on investment.
With the recent tabling of the first report of the standing committee on international trade, trade disputes and investment came a number of recommendations regarding the MAI. However the agreement continues to raise issues of concern for people in my riding.
Could the minister assure the House that the best interests of all Canadians will determine the terms by which Canada would become a signatory to this very important agreement?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, as the member mentioned there was a report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. It should be noted that there was overwhelming endorsation representing the parliamentary consensus for Canada to continue to be at the table and to participate in negotiations.
Second, we have always said that we will do the right deal at the right time and not any deal any time.
Last, we also have said, and I believe very strongly, that this matter at the MAI must be transferred to the WTO. If we truly want an international agreement on investment it needs to find a home at the WTO.
FisheriesMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fisheries committee has repeatedly asked the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for foreign observer documents but the DFO refuses to hand them over.
Why? Remember Larry Murray from the Somalia cover-up. Murray now works for the DFO.
Is the minister hanging on to foreign observer documents until Murray warms up the Somalia shredder?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it really is amazing. Earlier in the first question the Reform Party talked about the importance of the Privacy Act. It talked about the importance of making sure it is protected. We now have a member get up here 30 minutes later and say he wants me to break the law with respect to the observer reports on the offshore fleet.
I do not understand the contradiction in the Reform Party. We have had one member do it in his question and supplementary and now we have two other members do it over the course of 30 minutes.
We will uphold the law. I am bound by that law and I will not break it despite the requests by the Reform Party.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know how many fish foreigners are taking from our waters. That is not a private matter.
What is the minister hiding? Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans hand over these documents today, or has Larry Murray brought the culture of cover-up to the DFO?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the information requested by the chair of that committee has been provided. What we cannot provide, under the law, section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act, is the actual observer's reports.
I have offered the chair of the committee to have the committee examine the documents in camera. What I cannot do is make them public without breaking the law, which this member keeps asking me to do.
With respect to Larry Murray, a distinguished public servant, a distinguished military officer, I find the member's cheap attack on the record of a distinguished person absolutely unacceptable. He should apologize for his cheap partisan attack on a distinguished public servant.
Post-Secondary EducationMr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the human resources minister told students in Ontario that the proposed millennium fund for post-secondary education would be based on need. Later that same time he told Quebec reporters that the fund would be based on academic merit. No wonder students are angry. They cannot get a straight answer from the government.
Could the minister tell us which is it? Is it based on merit or or need?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I keep saying the very same thing in both languages and in every region of the country.
There will be elements of both need and merit in the way the grants will be allocated.
Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, students are graduating with debts of $25,000 on average while the minister makes policy by holding up his finger to figure out which way the political winds are blowing.
Will the minister stop playing politics, get down to business, discuss the millennium fund with the students and commit himself to base the grants on need?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, let us understand things clearly. The government is working on two fronts. We are going to improve the Canada student loans program. I have a good indication that this will reflect what the stakeholders have told us, the student associations. We are going to address the needs of students. The permanent Canada student loans program will be improved. I hope we can do something about the debt load.
The millennium fund is another great element of our strategy to address student loans and debts. We are doing both.
FisheriesMr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Atlantic salmon stocks have dropped to crisis levels. The percentage of Atlantic salmon returning to our rivers this past year was alarmingly low. Meanwhile the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon still prosecute a commercial salmon fishery, intercepting salmon bound for Atlantic salmon rivers.
Will the minister immediately demand that France stop this commercial salmon fishery?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, first, I say to the hon. member that I accept his contention regarding the decline of the Atlantic salmon. It is extremely worrying. The numbers are approximately one-third of what we expected, calculated upon smolt escapement of the previous cycle year.
With respect to the French, this is the one nation where we do have, within our 200 mile limit, actual foreign territory. Therefore we have made an agreement, a procès-verbal, with the French government to address the problem.
Those islands are there for a fishery reason. Approximately 1.5 tonnes of salmon were taken, essentially for domestic consumption, by those islands. That is within the overall limit—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burin—St. George's.
Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that just a few short years ago his department had a buyout program for commercial salmon fishermen in Atlantic Canada in the name of conserving the Atlantic salmon stocks.
Will the minister engage, if necessary, the help of external affairs, because we are dealing with France, and immediately start action to request that France stop the commercial salmon fishery?
I know the explanation the minister has given, but Atlantic Canadians have stopped fishing. They have sold their licences. The stocks are low. Will the minister take action to end this commercial salmon fishery?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, which is factually based. I would point out, however, that we have not eliminated all salmon fishing, as he has indicated. Certain Metis, native people and other traditional holders continue to fish.
If he, as a member from Newfoundland and Labrador, is willing to agree that there should be a total ban on salmon fishing, commercially and recreationally, in his province, I would be quite willing to discuss with him how we might approach France.
International Development WeekMs. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians often question why we are spending money in other countries when we have needs at home.
Since this week is International Development Week, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Co-operation and Minister responsible for the Francophonie tell the House how we are communicating to Canadians the important role that Canada is playing in international development?
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, International Development Week is a great opportunity to raise public awareness of the many facets of international development: how it benefits people in developing countries and how it benefits Canadians.
It is important that Canadians have the opportunity to make themselves aware of their contribution to development co-operation. International Development Week is one way to do this.
We are very proud that this week was paid for not only by the government but also by the private sector.
IraqGurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, Canada seems to be the only country that has declared no position whatsoever on the crisis in Iraq. This is both unacceptable and irresponsible. Every other country in the world has declared a position, whether asked or not.
Will the minister finally tell us what will be Canada's role, if any, in exposing and destroying weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein is hiding?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made very clear our position that the problem in Iraq can be resolved by Saddam Hussein complying with the security council resolutions.
At this stage diplomatic negotiations are going on. Other action may be needed, but I can give the prime minister's assurance that any action involving Canadian commitments would be preceded by a debate in parliament.
Bill C-28Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has just told us that the Minister of Finance is not involved in shipping issues.
Yet the Minister of Finance is sponsoring a bill that concerns this sector and making frequent comments outside the House, in front of the cameras.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why does he refuse to respond to our specific questions in this House, as is his duty as shipowner and legislator?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is continuing to make unfounded allegations. Let us be very clear. The Minister of Finance was never involved with and knew nothing of the provisions we are discussing.
Yvan Loubier: He is sponsoring the bill.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about amendments for tax purposes, they are directly related to shipping. All research, discussion and decisions on the matter are and have always been directed by the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions and officials of the Department of Finance.
I therefore repeat that the allegations must be withdrawn because they are groundless.
FisheriesPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, my question is on behalf of thousands of people in coastal communities along B.C.'s west coast.
The minister of fisheries has staked a great deal in pursuing quiet diplomacy to resolve the west coast salmon dispute with the Americans. Yesterday the chief Canadian negotiator resigned, claiming it would be naive to continue with this present policy.
Does the minister agree with the views of his former chief negotiator? Does he now acknowledge the abject failure of this preferred approach? Will he please advise the House and the west coast fishers of the government's next—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of fisheries.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I could read the letter again as suggested but it is unnecessary.
I will simply point out that the hon. member has obviously not read the letter. The chief negotiator, Mr. Fortier, did not say what has been implied by the member in the preamble to his question.
What he said was that we are faced with an extremely difficult situation because of American attitudes and the American political system and in his view the unwillingness of the United States federal government to impose its will, whatever that might be, upon the states involved, Alaska and Washington.
That is an understanding which the Canadian government shares. We have full confidence in Mr. Fortier. He was our negotiator for the last four years.
Campbellton CourtsJean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, several civil cases are not being heard in the Campbellton trial division, because there are not enough judges.
A mother requiring a support order must wait eight to nime months. And not a single small claims case has been heard for a year now.
Is the minister willing to assume her responsibilities and ensure that access to courts is no longer in jeopardy in this region?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
On behalf of the Minister of Justice let me say that we are quite aware of the situation. Representation has been made to the department and I am sure the minister will be able to respond on her return.
Rural CanadaMr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
To be competitive in the next century, rural Canada needs a state of the art communication system with which to converse with the world.
What is the minister doing to help rural Canadians communicate on the information highway by the year 2000?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government committed in the Speech from the Throne to making Canada the most connected nation in the world. It entails a very direct, active and aggressive campaign to ensure that Canadians in rural and remote communities are able to have access to the modern information technology and telecommunications systems that are available.
Through the community access program we have established the objective of connecting 5,000 rural and remote communities by the year 2000. We are about half way there now.
Communities in every region of Canada are experiencing the advantages both for social as well as for economic reasons of having direct access to the new technologies.
BunkersMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot say how relieved I am today that the government bought back the Penhold bunker so that we can put this bunker blunder in with all the other blunders like the Pearson airport, helicopters, airbus and on and on and on.
Will the finance minister set up a blunder fund in the next budget so that we can buy back a second bunker before it falls into the hands of some suspicious characters like maybe Doug Young?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me inform the hon. member that we have a total of 10 such bunkers across the country. Eight are being closed and sealed. One is being turned into a museum and we are buying back the other one to which the member made reference for security reasons.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last December, the Employment Insurance Commission was supposed to file a report with the minister on the first year of employment insurance reform.
Can the minister tell us when he intends to make that report public, and whether the Employment Insurance Commission recommends improvements to the legislation, as the Bloc Quebecois demanded when six bills were tabled in the House December 8?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Laval Centre for her interest in this report, which we are required to file under the act.
As you know, when employment insurance was reformed, we committed to tabling annual reports for the first five years.
In fact, we are very shortly coming up to the time when the first annual report ought to be tabled in the House. I will let you know a more definite date in the coming weeks. With this report, which will be an extremely interesting one, we will be able to take a look, a preliminary one of course, at the initial effects of the reform on communities, individuals and the economy of our country.
Points Of OrderGary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, the minister of fisheries read directly from the letter from Mr. Fortier in answering my question in the House. I would ask that the letter be tabled in the House today.
David Anderson: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table the letters of the special negotiator, Mr. Fortier, both to the Pacific salmon commission and to my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, also in response to a member's request, I would like to table a letter. The member for Red Deer asked the solicitor general and my department to make sure we acquire the bunkers that the member was making reference to.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance today regarding a question of privilege I raised and the fact that the minister replied to that question of privilege yesterday.
It is my understanding from the government that Bill C-4, which is in connection with my question of privilege, is apparently supposed to come back for further report stage debate on Monday. I would request your guidance on whether it is appropriate to have the bill back before the House before you rule on my question of privilege.
The Speaker: As I understand the situation, the issue is not so much about Bill C-4 itself but whether the minister was in contempt of the House. I see no reason why the bill, if it is introduced, cannot proceed as such.
However, in case the member is wondering, and we spoke very briefly at the beginning, I will be rendering my decision very soon.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsPeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
Committees Of The HousePeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of some committees. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 20th report later this day.
Mi'Kmaq Education ActHon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Equal Treatment For Persons Cohabiting In A Relationship Similar To A Conjugal Relationship ActMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-309, an act providing for equal treatment for persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this bill, the purpose of which is to guarantee common law homosexual and lesbian couples the same rights as those granted under federal legislation to common law heterosexual couples. I expect to have the support of all colleagues in the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability ActMr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, an act to require special interest groups that receive grants or loans from public funds to submit for tabling in Parliament a report on the purposes to which the funds were put.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are clamouring for more accountability at all levels of government. I am pleased to introduce a private member's bill that would require special interest groups and other groups to become more accountable to the government and thus to the Canadian public. I hope we have an opportunity to examine it in this House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Criminal CodeMr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code (reimbursement of costs following a free pardon).

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Criminal Code, because it happens, very rarely, but it does happen, that there are judicial errors because of which innocent people must serve prison sentences, as is the case for a constituent in my riding, Michel Dumont.
This man is innocent. In all likelihood he will be granted a pardon, but whatever the compensation, he will have to subtract from it the amounts he owes in legal fees.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that, in cases of judicial error, 100% of the compensation goes to the victim of the error, and legal fees are paid by the Governor in Council.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees Of The HousePeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMyron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of the people in the community of Strathmore, Alberta who are requesting that the honourable assembly acknowledge this petition to aid in our ongoing problems with young offenders. Crimes such as murder, arson, rape and robbery are on the rise at the hands of young offenders. These crimes have increased in recent years, and in light of this increase the laws have to be enforced. As duty bound your petitioners will every pray. I would like to add their signatures to the thousands that have already been tabled.
Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to present two petitions, both dealing with pay equity.
The first requests Parliament to ask the President of the Treasury Board for authorization to pay the amount owed to all concerned employees, calculated based on what they know is owing to each employee.
The second calls on Parliament to put an end of this pay discrimination by implementing the results of the joint study through negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union representing these workers.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today to the House of Commons regarding the MAI and the conflict it would have in terms of direct investment by Canadian companies in order of their own country.
This certificate is on behalf of the Canadian auto workers, local 1990, a union of which I was a member for over 18 years. I am very proud today to present this petition on their behalf.
Questions On The Order PaperPeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to speak at third reading of Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code. I am pleased to note that the party I represent, the official opposition, will be supporting this legislation.
I should say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey North.
In addressing this bill I would like to speak to the irony of the situation as I see it. We are addressing a very serious need in our criminal justice system with Bill C-18, but at the same time I was more than a bit taken aback by a ruling of the supreme court on May 22, 1997, which was known as the Michael Feeney decision.
Bill C-18 will assist our customs officers in making arrests and in conducting searches. As well it will enable them to assist police officers at the border as they will be able to detain people until police officers can intervene. Further, it closes an enforcement gap which has existed at the border by expanding the breadth of the powers of customs officers. It will allow them to arrest individuals who they suspect have committed or may be about to commit a crime.
It is a very important distinction because the split decision of the supreme court in the Michael Feeney case accomplished the exact opposite. That is where I find the irony in this situation. I would like to read from some clippings about that case so those watching the proceedings today will better understand what I am getting at.
Mr. Feeney confessed to second degree murder in the brutal death in June 1991 of Frank Boyle at his home in Likely, a small isolated rural community outside of Williams Lake. Mr. Boyle died following a fierce attack involving five blows to the head with an iron bar or similar object. The walls and furniture of his home were splattered with blood.
The RCMP went to a small storage trailer where Mr. Feeney normally slept, after a witness described seeing him walking away from an accident that morning involving the victim's truck. The Mounties knocked on the door and yelled “Police”, but Mr. Feeney was asleep and did not answer. The officers entered, woke him up, saw that his shirt was splattered with blood and then arrested him.
Judge Sopinka ruled that the police did not have reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Feeney when they entered the trailer without a warrant. Therefore, all of the evidence derived as a result of the arrest and subsequent search was inadmissible. This included the blood spattered shirt, his fingerprints which matched prints on the victim's refrigerator, some money found under the mattress and cigarettes of the same type that Mr. Boyle was known to smoke.
As I said, it was a split decision of five to four. The dissenting judges said that the investigators proceeded in a forthright and proper manner and had to act quickly before Mr. Feeney had an opportunity to destroy crucial evidence. Indeed had the police not moved immediately to arrest, it is likely they would have been criticized for allowing a murderer to continue to remain at large in the community.
It is interesting that on the one hand Bill C-18 will give more enforcement powers, more powers of discretion to customs officers and is supported by all parties in this Chamber regardless of political persuasion, yet on the other hand the supreme court is overturning traditional rights which have been granted to the police that when the police strongly suspect a criminal act and there is a fugitive from justice in a residence, they can enter and arrest that person.
The situation because of that ruling is that Mr. Feeney may face a second trial. It is possible he may not because that crucial evidence has now been effectively ruled inadmissible. A clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of May 24, 1997 states “Mr. Feeney faces a second trial but his lawyer said yesterday that it may never be held because the evidence is not admissible”. Mr. Charles Lugosi of Prince George, B.C. said that because his client had been drinking heavily, the appropriate conviction should have been manslaughter in the first place. Now is that not interesting?
Regardless of whether or not we favour capital punishment, it really pointed to the difference between the justice systems in Canada and our neighbour to the south. I am speaking of an incident that happened last week, the execution of Karla Fay Tucker, an individual who committed a horrendous crime similar to the crime of Mr. Feeney. She brutally killed two people with a pickaxe in the United States.
Had that crime been committed in Canada, I would suggest that because she was on drugs at the time she committed the offence, if she was not out today, she would be rapidly coming up for parole. She probably would have been convicted of manslaughter and not murder. In the United States it was the exact opposite. She was held accountable. Whether we believe in capital punishment or not she paid the ultimate price for that horrendous crime and she was put to death. I wanted to point out the difference between the two systems.
During last year's election campaign there was an all candidates forum in my constituency. Mr. Feeney's lawyer, Charles Lugosi, was the candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party and ran against me. During the all candidates forum he bragged about his victory at the supreme court. His line seemed to be that even the RCMP must follow the letter of the law. I am not averse to that and most Canadian citizens are not.
What struck me and the audience who listened to him that night was he defended the fact that he took this case to the supreme court and ultimately won it in Mr. Feeney's favour. Never mind that the guilty may go unpunished. Never mind that our system no longer cares whether an individual is guilty or innocent. Never mind that lawyers can have truth ruled irrelevant because of a technicality, he is still proud that Mr. Feeney will be granted a new trial and crucial evidence of his guilt may be ruled inadmissible.
The letter of the law must be changed. This is yet another ruling by the supreme court that makes a mockery of our justice system. Reality only serves to reinforce Canadians' view that the justice system is merely a legal system designed for the benefit of criminals and to guarantee income for lawyers.
This House needs to give our peace officers the tools they need to do their job properly and to protect society, especially the most vulnerable, women, children, the elderly and infirm, and victims like Frank Boyle, the gentleman who lost his life to the likes of Mr. Feeney. Is it any wonder that our law enforcement officers and crown counsels across the land are frustrated.
The irony is that while this House is debating and will undoubtedly pass this bill to give our customs officers a much needed tool to better do their job, the supreme court decision has shackled the hands of police officers.
I think I speak for a lot of people. Certainly a lot of constituents in my riding of Prince George—Peace River have relayed this to me. Indeed Canadians from coast to coast to coast are becoming increasingly frustrated with what they view as ridiculous decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada which are shackling our law enforcement services, whether they are the police officers or the crown prosecutors. I call today for putting an end to this.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation which is long, long overdue.
The constituency I represent, Surrey North in British Columbia, is situated between the city of Vancouver and the U.S. border. My home is a mere 15 minute drive from one of the busiest border crossings in Canada. I have had the opportunity to frequently come into contact with customs personnel at our border points to the state of Washington.
It is my understanding that in just the past couple of years our customs officers have encountered more than 8,500 impaired drivers, approximately 200 suspected child abductions and more than 2,000 people wanted on warrants of arrest. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how previous governments could be in possession of this type of information and not immediately act upon it in the interests of public safety both here in Canada and abroad.
Imagine, 8,500 impaired drivers crossing our borders with the potential of wreaking havoc on our streets and highways. Meanwhile our customs officers, government employees and our first line of defence being fully aware of the danger posed by these impaired individuals find themselves in a position where they are virtually powerless to do anything about it. Astounding.
This lends new meaning to the phrase “only in Canada”. This bill will provide increased powers for the apprehension of those who would enter this country to break our laws. As the justice critic for the official opposition, I cannot help but be in favour of this type of legislation.
Customs officers will now be able to effect Criminal Code arrest warrants and they will be permitted to administer the preliminary roadside screening test on motorists they suspect to be under the influence of alcohol. Canadians can only be better off now that finally something is being done. In the past our customs officers were restricted to reporting incidents to the police who would hopefully arrive on the scene in time before offenders moved on.
It is my understanding there are approximately 2,500 customs officers who will be provided with these additional powers. This is a significant improvement to what can best be described as law enforcement responsibilities within our country. But as usual, everything can never be all rosy with this Liberal government.
Every year at the crossing near my home, customs officers confiscate large numbers of firearms of all descriptions. Some I have no doubt are seized from travellers who are merely unaware of our laws regarding the transport of firearms. However I suspect others are being brought into Canada for more sinister purposes.
As I have previously stated, these officers will now be effecting arrest warrants and we all know that will, in all likelihood, involve unpredictable individuals and potentially dangerous situations.
This government in its wisdom will in the process of adding to the duties and responsibilities of our customs personnel be putting them at increased risk when dealing with dangerous persons. However, it will not be providing them with side arms with which to protect themselves when apprehending these people.
I believe at one point there was some mention of issuing bulletproof vests. I suppose that is better than nothing but sometimes I wonder whether the ministers in this government and the bureaucrats in their departments are aware of the conditions that really exist for enforcement personnel who are actually on the line when it comes to protecting our citizens.
My second concern is another common occurrence with this government which is the offloading of costs onto already overburdened areas of responsibility. Our customs officers will require additional training to carry out their duties. Detention facilities at border crossings will have to be upgraded. However this government has not seen fit to provide additional resources. Canada Customs will have to find the finances within existing budgets to accommodate these additional requirements.
It causes me to wonder whether this government is trying to convince its employees to shut up and to not make any noise. The government was forced to act because customs personnel complained loudly about crime proceeding unheeded through our border points, but the customs departments will have to pay the consequences and find the money to fund the added responsibilities from within already restricted and limited budgets.
Is the government really trying to coerce its departments into remaining silent, leaving citizens at risk all in order to protect their individual budgets? I hope not because we continually witness the passing off of financial responsibility. I cannot help but be concerned that a hidden and perhaps a very dangerous message is being sent that at some time in the future will become apparent, to the detriment of us all.
There is a third concern. It is related to the one just mentioned in that it is a result of the government's offloading. The customs department has been forced because of limited resources to automate some points of entry and to hire more part time employees. Both these developments will seriously limit the ability of customs to properly effect the aims of Bill C-18.
An automated customs port, by definition, means that customs personnel are not available to make arrests on site. Part time personnel, by definition, means less experience and capability to detect the criminal element or to conduct a proper investigation or inquiry and to effect appropriate arrest when required. Inexperienced personnel will also be exposed to increased risk if and when dangerous situations arise.
To sum up, I will be supporting the legislation because it provides better security of Canada's borders. Unfortunately once again the Liberals have taken years to do something which is relatively simple to accomplish but their efforts fall short. They go half way and then attempt to spin into the minds of Canadians that the problem has been fully addressed. I do not know why they simply go through the motions and refuse to provide adequate legislation and resources which are sorely needed.
I encourage my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-18 for the good of all Canadians, but I also call on the government to address the shortcomings regarding funding issues and the safety of customs personnel.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the legislation. I also support it because I believe some steps are being taken here that need to be taken. It is a good start but I do not think that is where it should stop.
The purpose of the bill is “to empower customs officers with the authority of a peace officer, in particular to arrest without warrant individuals who are wanted on criminal warrants or who are suspected of impaired driving”. The first thing that crosses my mind is that I know police officers have the power to arrest people who are wanted by the criminal courts for certain reasons. When they arrest them, police officers are pretty well protected. They carry guns and have clubs and other equipment that assists them in doing that. I do not see anywhere in the legislation where we are doing much in that direction.
If we are to empower customs officers with the ability to arrest without warrant criminals who are wanted, we should certainly see to it that they in turn will be likewise protected. To some extent this is true with respect to arresting people who are suspected of impaired driving.
You have been around for a few years, Mr. Speaker, and so have I. I do not know if you have ever had the opportunity try to persuade someone not to drive after drinking. Occasionally—and this happened to me a couple of times—some people take objection to that kind of persuasion. It can get just a bit debatable between the two people. If a customs officer tries to remove an individual from his vehicle because he is intoxicated, to prevent him from driving, he should be prepared for all situations. I am not sure the bill allows for that.
I reiterate what was stated by the member for Peace River with regard to the Feeney case. I am pleased to see the government is empowering some officers at the customs level. I would like to see a little more empowering at the police level.
I have driven around, as have many of my colleagues from all sides of the House, in the back seats of police patrol cars observing what is happening, what the action is out there. I found on many occasions that the abuse toward police is remarkable in the sense that they have no way to retaliate. There is nothing they can do about it. They have to take the verbal abuse and give in to certain things. When they finally make an arrest they have to make sure they have witnesses to make certain they do not get into any trouble. They have to make the arrest, make sure all the i 's are dotted and all the t 's are crossed. If they do anything wrong they are in for it quickly.
We need to empower our law enforcement people to a greater degree so they can better do their job. It seems the government is adamant about making sure the rights of the criminal far exceed the rights of arresting officers and the rights of law-abiding people. It is becoming more and more obvious. I hope the government will address those issues some time.
I am concerned about some of the things that happen at the borders in terms of treatment of normal travellers. Many MPs have likely received some of the same complaints that I have received concerning the way travellers have been treated on their return to Canada.
There have been complaints of rudeness and a lack of consideration of the fact that they are visitors returning to Canada. It may be a married couple returning from a vacation or whatever the case might be. Many times its gets a bit out of hand. I do not think Wild Rose people are much different from those anywhere else in Canada. They like to be treated fairly and with courtesy at border crossings upon their to return to Canada, which they deserve. Sometimes that does not happen so I would caution on that.
Some time in the future I will bring the following incident to the attention of the minister. The national rodeo championships are held every year in Las Vegas. This year we sent a good contingency of cowboys from the west and some from the east to compete. When they arrived there they received very nice jackets from the organizing committee to signify their status as national rodeo representatives. They were awarded the jackets in honour of their presence at the event as Canadian ambassadors.
On one occasion one of the cowboys who was wearing his jacket was crossing the border into Alberta. He was ostracized a great deal because he did not claim the jacket on his declaration. It had actually slipped his mind that he had obtained the coat. The customs officials went further and charged him a great amount of duty on the jacket that was given to him as a representative of Canada. That is wrong. We need to see what went on there and do something about it.
I do not think politicians, including the prime minister, who have visited other parts of the world have not received some sort of gift. I am sure they did not have to claim them or pay duty on them. Even you, Mr. Speaker. I am quite positive you do not have to pay duty on any gifts you receive when you are on official business as a member of Parliament. At any rate I would like that checked into.
Sooner than later one thing will hit the floor of the House of Commons. I believe it has to be sooner. There is a document that interferes a great deal. It is a real stumbling block to people who want to do a good job at border crossings, to people who want to do a good job of protecting society, and to front line prison guards who are working for the benefit of all of us.
That document is the charter of rights and freedoms. It is forever throwing up a road block to prevent them from doing the kind of job they would like to do. Someday that document will have to be brought into the House of Commons to be scrutinized by members to see if there is anything we can do to legislation which prevents peace officers of all kinds from doing the kind of work they want to do.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the bill before the House today.
We can all take some instructive lessons from the bill. It moves us closer to having the laws of the land more adequately enforced. That is important. It was talked about this morning. That is good. It is something members of Parliament on all sides want to see. We all want to see the laws of the land being enforced and the people who have taken on the task of enforcing our laws being given the equipment to do it effectively.
Why do we want that? We want to protect the vulnerable. We want to ensure that the laws of the land serve the best interests of the country and its citizens. If we passionately care about Canada, which I know we all do, we have a strong desire to see the laws of the land upheld and officers equipped to do just that.
Parliament, as I understand it, is where the laws are shaped and the foundation of our legal system is set in place through the democratic process. I heard today some members of my own party articulating that we have lost something in Canada. The intent of the law is to protect Canadians, the vulnerable. Sometimes it is being negated by technicalities in the courts. This is tragic. It does not serve to strengthen the country. It serves to tear it down.
Many of us are concerned about it. We will continue in the days ahead to make sure the intent of law, protecting the vulnerable and the interests of the majority, will be dealt with.
There are some other side effects when technicalities overrule the intent of the law and the courts. One of the real tragedies is for the officers we are talking about to have new powers when after carrying out their duties and possibly putting their own lives at risk in difficult situations they see all their work blown away in a courtroom due to a technicality. It is greatly demotivating.
It is not just customs officers. In my own riding several constables on the police force have had every bit of their motivation and passion for their work torn out of their hearts by seeing again and again cases thrown out due to technicalities in an obviously guilty situation. To see the guilty go free is not only devastating for them. It totally shatters the intent of the law to protect the vulnerable. We put more Canadians at risk when we let the courts run the land. As has been said today, we have a legal system and not a justice system.
What does it mean for the youth of the land when they see someone who is clearly guilty, and the evidence is greatly stacked to suggest that some sort of court action needs to be taken, being treated lightly or possibly freed? Respect for the law by the young people of Canada is diminished when this happens. This is not only tragic for today, but as young people grow up with that kind of an attitude toward the laws of Canada we reap very significant negative returns. We need to instil a respect for Canadian law that has been set in place through the democratic process and the parliament in which we serve.
Probably my most important concern is that when guilty parties are treated lightly or set free, innocent, hardworking, law-abiding Canadians and Canadian families are put at risk.
These are the people I and the members of my party are very concerned about. We must make sure that we do not just have law enforcement officers and laws that are greatly diminished in their effectiveness by a legal system and not a justice system.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will start by recognizing the good work the customs officers at the borders are doing for Canada. They are our ambassadors. When visitors and businessmen come to our country they are their first contact. Their behaviour brings goodwill to Canada. Therefore I would like to recognize the good work they have been doing.
I feel that Bill C-18 which gives them power to enforce our laws is a good bill and we are in support of this bill. The only caution I make is that while it is empowering them, our ambassadors of goodwill, we do not want them to be carried away with these powers and abuse them at the borders, creating negative feelings toward Canada.
Nevertheless, as all Canadians know, our laws are lax specifically when it comes to our justice system in upholding our laws. Everywhere across the country we can hear people who are supposed to uphold our laws asking for more powers to help them fulfil their duties. I think this bill goes toward that intent. At the same time I would like to see that more laws like this are passed so that our officers who are upholding the law can carry out their duties.
Time after time in my riding and everywhere when I talk to law enforcement officers they say their biggest concern is the inability to enforce the laws of the land. Police are strongly hampered by their inability to enforce the laws because they feel that when they do their hard work it is difficult for them to ensure that the final result is conviction.
I have travelled across the world and have come in contact with officers at border crossings in many countries. At times I am ashamed by the treatment they give to people who are visitors to their country. At times we can see that their rudeness and their practices of corruption are a detriment to their nation's desire to have visitors and businessmen come into the country.
Our customs officers, the ones I have come in contact with, have actually performed their work very well and have a respect among travellers who are coming to Canada. I would like to again say that I am proud and happy about the work that they are doing.
Here we are empowering them with something which we hold dear to ensure that the laws of this country are upheld. I wish them good luck in this. But I would also like to caution and bring to their attention that they are our ambassadors of first contact to bring goodwill to Canada.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what I see happening today is that a lot of times governments will use certain law enforcement officers to fulfill their mandate or to proceed with a mandate. I know in my riding, and in Manitoba especially, customs officers have become known as the enemy of farmers. They have begun to prosecute farmers for selling their grain at a better price than they can get in their marketing system.
I do not blame the customs officers. They do a tremendous job. They try to do what is right. However, when they get orders to enforce an act such as the wheat board act instead of prosecuting farmers on the act itself, then they are manipulating these people and the act. That is very dangerous for our country. That is not the way the justice system is supposed to work.
I support this bill. Customs officers are a very important part of our democratic system. When we travel to places like the Soviet Union or Mexico we really know what a customs officer is worth, what he can do for you, what he can help you with. He is very important.
I say more power to the customs officers. They should work at arm's length from government. That will make them efficient and they will be a real benefit to Canadian society.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this whole question.
We are always told that Canada is a wonderful country. It is a wonderful country for one wrong reason among all the extra fine good reasons. The wrong reason is that it has become a haven for a lot of people who engage in different kinds of criminal activity. There is too much trafficking in things like illegal credit cards. We have people smugglers. Some people come to Canada to work illegally. People are trafficking in illegal substances.
Anything that can be done to strengthen the enforcement of our criminal law at the border should be supported.
One of the areas that the government should look at very closely is the increased use of automation, whenever possible. There are many high tech devices available to detect illegal substances. I would like the government to do an honest assessment of the effectiveness of some of this equipment. If it is effective, it should introduce it and use it in greater measure.
The other concern I have is with the training of customs officers. They have to be trained technically. They have to know the law. They should also have a good amount of training in how to deal with people. This is a matter of considerable concern. Clearly it is a large concern because a lot of people are moving across our borders, transporting goods. It is very important for us to strengthen the integrity of our borders so that illegal activities are not attracted to this country. We need to do that more efficiently.
In that regard, even though this bill has some flaws, I would be willing to support the positive changes in it. I hope there will be more in the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that we read the clock as 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give its unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the benefit of the visitors in the gallery, of whom there have been quite a few, we proceed now to Private Members' Business which normally begins at 1.30 p.m. Because we finished with the bill at hand earlier, we see the clock at 1.30 p.m so that we can proceed to the next order of business for the day.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business
PairingTed White: moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing should be abandoned and the standing orders be amended to establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party cast properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25% of its members.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for explaining to those watching either from the gallery or on television why we have advanced the clock. It is always a great source of amusement to people these strange and antiquated rules we have here.
This motion I am putting forward today deals also with another one of these strange and antiquated rules that have come to be part of the procedures in this place.
I would like to read the motion one more time because it is an important motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing should be abandoned and the standing orders be amended to establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party to cast properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25% of its members.
In a moment I will go into describing what vote pairing is and why we should change it. First I would like to mention that unfortunately this motion is not votable. Even though it talks about amending the way this very House works and it would affect potentially every single member of this House it has been made non-votable.
I have a very good friend in the New Zealand house. As many members know, I am from New Zealand. The New Zealand deputy speaker, who also has the name Ian, is a good friend of mine. I was visiting New Zealand recently and I told him that some private members' business is non-votable. He was astounded because in New Zealand they are all votable. That gives a sense of accomplishment to members to at least get their material votable. It is very sad that this motion is not votable, because I am going to read from a portion of a 1994 report of the standing orders committee from New Zealand.
The reason I introduced this motion is that it is a part of a package of motions that I put forward based on some changes that were made in the New Zealand house in 1994 which proved so successful that they have been adopted as permanent changes.
On the issue of proxy votes, I will read a paragraph from the report, because it describes for everybody what vote pairing is and why there should be a change: “Parties in New Zealand have for many years operated a system of pairing where the effect of a member who is absent from the House is cancelled out by a member from another party agreeing not to vote while the other member is absent. Initially it was an arrangement entered into privately, but since 1951 in New Zealand it was recognized as part of the proceedings of the House. Paired members were recorded in Hansard for any division that is taken in their absence. The primary use of pairs was to ensure that members could be absent from the House to carry out public business in relation to their portfolios or constituencies and that ill members did not have to attend the House for close divisions”.
The system worked effectively for the two main parties of the House but the committee believed in New Zealand that it would be good to introduce a proxy system.
Under the recommended proxy system, instead the pairing members would be required to give proper authority for a proxy vote to be cast for an abstention to be recorded in their name. It must state, among other matters, who is to exercise that proxy. In practice what happened in New Zealand was that generally members would give the proxy to their party whip and the whip was able to exercise that vote in their absence. A member not wishing to vote with his or her party, in other words a dissenting vote, could be given to a member of any other party as long as it does not exceed the 25% limit.
The limits are policed fairly closely. As I mentioned, after having run this now for close to four years it was determined last year that it should be made permanent because it had worked so well. It has enabled members to fulfil their requirements in ridings and to attend conferences related to their critic roles or particular areas of interest. It has enabled ministers, for example, in close governments which the New Zealand government has to attend important conferences like the Kyoto conference without having to worry that there may be some sort of urgent vote where they suddenly have to be told to race back because it could be a close vote. It is just a very civilized way of handling necessary absences from the House that do occur.
There is no absolute requirement for the party to use its entire 25% but that figure was adopted in New Zealand and found to be very satisfactory.
As I mentioned, it is part of a package of changes that were introduced on a whole range of issues. Another thing they have done in New Zealand—and I have put another motion in on it—is that they have compressed the sitting days of the House into three days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, so that Mondays and Fridays are free days for members to have extended weekends in their ridings. This is working very well.
For members of this House who are from Ontario and Quebec it would be extremely convenient. Even for those of us who have to travel long distances, to have those extra days to do riding business would be very valuable. That is another change that was introduced in 1994.
We really should learn from houses that have gone through the process of studying these changes and have found that they are very good to introduce.
The New Zealand House has also dealt with the issue of quorum and, one that interests me, question period. The changes to its standing orders require reasonable answers to questions. If the speaker rules that the answer to the question was not actually an answer to the question, the minister must appear at the end of the day and re-answer the question. That has had the effect of tightening up the entire question period into something meaningful.
To get back to the basic motion I introduced today, it reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing should be abandoned and the Standing Orders be amended to establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party to case properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25% of its Members.
I defy any member to say that it would not be an advantage to be able to have that percentage available to a party whip for members to be necessarily absent for some purpose. It is an absolutely sensible position to take. It is very distressing that the motion cannot even be voted on when it is something that is important to the operation of this place.
Because the House has the power to do anything I would like to ask at this time for unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable so that members would at least have the opportunity to indicate whether or not they think it is a good idea. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not unanimous consent.
Ted White: We can see who does not support democracy, but I am still astounded that any member of this place would not want to vote on something that affects their working conditions. I am absolutely astounded.
I hope members who are bullied into voting a certain way by their whip or somebody else will at least work behind the scenes to have the issue considered in more detail.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. M-28 regarding absentee proxy voting. I thank the hon. member for presenting the motion. As he indicated, it allows us to discuss some of our fundamental responsibilities as members of Parliament.
Canadians have elected us to represent their interests, to propose and debate motions and laws on how best to meet those interests, and to vote at the end of debate. The Fathers of Confederation expressed this principle in the Constitution. Section 49 of the British North America Act states:
—questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority of Voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the Voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a Vote.
Voting is fundamental to what we do in the House. As all members know, the pairing of votes noted in the motion refers to the practice whereby two members on opposite sides of a question agree not to vote on a specific issue. As a result, paired votes cancel each other out and do not affect the outcome of a vote.
Pairing is essentially a convenience to members of Parliament which allows a member to be absent and have his or her vote protected. The roots of paired votes go back to Great Britain in the time of Cromwell. Pairing is a common international practice. For example, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia all have arrangements for pairing.
The first paired vote in Canada was recorded less than three weeks after the first parliament began to meet in 1867 under the terms of the British North America Act. Pairing is therefore a longstanding practice in Canada although its use has varied over the life of this House.
In one recorded vote in 1946, for example, 124 members were paired. On the other hand, between 1949 and 1957 pairing became a rare event. One writer has suggested that this was because the government of the day had a very large majority so the issue of pairing became less of a priority.
The arrangements for handling pairing have also evolved since Confederation to protect the parties involved and to ensure the efficient functioning of the House of Commons. Codes of procedure were developed including informal arrangements between whips. This culminated in the introduction of Standing Order 44.1 which was adopted as part of the changes to the standing orders made in 1991.
Standing Order 44.1 states:
(1) The Clerk of the House shall cause to be kept at the Table a Register of Paired Members, in which any Member of the government party and any Member of an Opposition party may have their names entered together by their respective Whips, to indicate that they will not take part in any recorded division held on the date inscribed on that page in the Register; provided that independent Members of Parliament may sign the Register in their own right.
(2) On any day on which one or more recorded divisions have taken place, the names of the Members so entered shall be printed in the Debates and the Journals , immediately following the entry for each of the said divisions.
The purpose of that procedure under our existing standing orders is so that pairing is transparent, so there is public accountability for members who pair, so the arrangement between two members on each side of the House is a matter of public record.
The standing committee on House management stated in April 1993 that these 1991 amendments on pairing were built on long established experience in Canada and other jurisdictions.
The committee observed that the introduction of a register of paired members at the table was an attempt to revive an earlier practice of the House where a procedure had existed for registering pairs.
The committee also noted that members often have other commitments which prevent them from being in the House on a certain day and pairing is an attempt to accommodate those members.
This brings me to proxy voting which is the other arrangement for members who, as suggested by the member, cannot for one reason or another be in the House.
While pairing is a common procedure among parliaments in other countries, some jurisdictions, as the member has indicated, have sought to address the issue of absence in other ways. One of these ways is to vote by proxy whereby a parliamentarian who is present may cast his or her own vote as well as the vote of an absent parliamentarian. This is the absentee voting suggested by the Reform member today.
Representatives of the French National Assembly, for example, can vote by proxy. Indeed the French constitution itself provides that votes can be delegated in exceptional cases by one member to another member. The cases in which members are authorized to delegate are laid down in law.
On the other hand, proxy voting was proposed in the Netherlands but was rejected because the terms of its constitution did not allow it.
If members look at the overall international experience with proxy voting they will find that proxy voting is an exceptional practice.
Voting by proxy, as far as I know, in addition to the case cited by the member is only allowed in Brazil, Cameroon, Comoros, France, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Mali, Senegal and the United Kingdom. In a number of these cases I would add that proxy voting is only allowed under certain conditions such as sickness or absence on official duty.
In the United Kingdom, for example, a proxy vote is only allowed if a member is incapacitated by illness and provided he or she is in the House precincts.
The international consensus is against proxy voting. Why is this so? The basic objection to proxy voting is that a member cannot exercise his or her fundamental duty if he or she is unaware of the issue being voted on, as frequently has been shown to be the case if the member is not present in the House of Commons.
International experience shows that proxy voting encourages absenteeism. I hope the Reform Party does not want to encourage members of the House to be absent while the House is in session.
Finally, I would point out that proxy voting has led to abuses in other jurisdictions which have undermined public confidence in parliamentary institutions. One writer, in commenting on the widespread use of proxy voting in Great Britain's House of Lords during the Napoleonic wars, stated:
—any one whose conscience did not forbid him to legislate without listening to debate could delegate his power to a peer present at the voting, and it was customary for—indolent men—to assign their votes to the leader of their party.
I hope the Reform Party is not encouraging indolence in the House. I urge members to look for other ways of improving our voting procedures.
I thank the hon. member again for raising these important matters. I would suggest that in considering the motion members take note of the traditions and experience of this House of Commons. I would urge that we look at issues related to voting in a larger context which would include the possibility of other options to address any concerns that members of the House have with respect to our voting procedures.
I would point out that pursuant to another part of the standing orders of the House of Commons we are required to have a full debate on our entire standing orders between the 60th and 90th sitting days of any parliament. Shortly there will be an opportunity in the House to address all our standing orders, including our voting procedures. I hope the member opposite and all members here will use that opportunity to re-examine our standing orders.
The member is to be commended. I think he realizes that without regular reviews such as that provided for by the debate in our standing orders, the basic rules of this House of Commons could easily become, whatever his expression was, strange and antiquated. It is important when the debate on the standing orders comes forward that we all participate fully.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by simply reminding this House that democracy is not something static, something that exists unchanging. Democracy is a principle which must be defended and cherished every day. But it evolves. It is transformed.
The democracy within which we operate here in Canada in this House of Commons is, in a way, the heritage of numerous generations of parliamentarians who passed through these hallowed halls before us and who made Canadian democracy what it is today. Similarly, it is our duty to keep on with this work so that the evolution will continue.
In that spirit, I believe that the suggestion from our Reform Party colleague is most worthwhile, but only if it serves as a point of departure for an in-depth examination of all of the rules governing this House, as the parliamentary secretary has suggested.
When I look at the specific wording of the motion by the Reform Party, I cannot help but recall that, when this party first appeared in the House in 1993, it arrived with the avowed intention of changing everything. They came here as the Reform Party and, as such, they wanted to reform everything.&gt;
For a while, they tried to operate without a whip, without a House leader. For a while, they tried to change the rules for oral question period. But, as I have just said, the British parliamentary system is not something that dropped out of the sky completely formed. It is something that has been built up over many centuries. It is an evolving process. It is what I would call the outcome of lengthy reflection which had produced our institutions as we know them today, operating, functioning, in the way that they do.
I note some frustration on the other side, but when I saw our Reform Party friends finally re-adopting practices that are very common in the British parliamentary system, such as having a whip and a House leader, such as maintaining oral question period as is in Canada, I said to myself they have somehow understood that this is how the system is, that they must operate within the specific framework the system calls for.
That does not, of course, exclude the possibility of our looking at potential changes to the Standing Orders, but let us go back to the wording of the motion. As the text of the motion indicates, the proposal is to replace the pairing system with a proxy system.
As the parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out, the Constitution, which forms the basis of the institutions we are part of, speaks clearly on the subject of voting by members of Parliament. In order to vote, a member must be in the House and cast a vote.
The pairing system was set up at the outset, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, at the time of Cromwell in the United Kingdom, in England, to allow members with opposing opinions not to vote and be recorded as such in the record of divisions.
The advantage of this measure is that it preserves the inviolate aspect of the vote while allowing members who have not voted to indirectly express how they would have voted. Voting by proxy could definitely have a detrimental effect on our democracy.
Does this mean that a member wishing to vote in the House could do so some way from his riding office in New Brunswick, Ontario or the Yukon? What is the direct effect of such a practice? The direct effect comes when the institution representing democracy in a country informs the public that proxy votes are permitted. Will we end up with the public voting by proxy in an election? If we allow the representatives of the people to vote by proxy, will the people have the same right as parliamentarians?
We have to think about that, and I think we should consider the principle of voting. Nevertheless, the problem remains for the time being. It remains because allowing members to vote from outside the House could have the deleterious effect of weakening some of the dynamism of this House through the acceptance of less rigorous requirements for attendance in the House.
The member quite rightly pointed out that the duty of a parliamentarian naturally includes not just the work of a lawmaker, which must be performed here in the House, in the form of voting, but also the work of representing the public, of serving as the link between the public and government organizations. As society evolves, this requires that parliamentarians spend more time in their ridings.
Earlier, it was mentioned that parliamentarians in New Zealand sit only three days a week. A bill is now in the works to consider whether it would not be possible to set aside one day a week for parliamentarians to spend more time in their ridings. This is another matter that we must consider. But until then, does vote pairing not answer this very concern of the member that parliamentarians be allowed to do their work in their ridings, to perform parliamentary duties outside the walls of the House, and still have the opportunity to make their voice heard here in the House?
The answer is yes. As I was saying earlier, when two members of opposing views do not vote and their absence is recorded in the record of the division, implicitly we know how the member intended to vote. But to allow proxy voting would, I think, be to go against the notion that the vote is a solemn, sacred duty.
As things now stand, since no more thought has been given to this issue, and since we will probably be called on to reflect more generally on all the rules of the House, I can only urge my colleagues to reject this motion and to give careful consideration over the coming weeks and months to a possible reform of the rules of the House.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to say a few words on this Reform motion which calls for ending vote pairing. The motion also asks that we establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party to cast properly authorized proxy votes of no more than 25% of its members.
As a member of the House of Commons, I am as open and embracing of new ideas as are most members in this House regardless of their party. I am always anxious to hear new ideas particularly from my colleagues in this House.
However, I do not want to give the impression that I support this motion because it has some very interesting implications. I agree with the member for Peterborough. He said that with proxy voting, members voting from a distance on issues, on amendments to acts and amendments to motions and bills would be hard pressed to know what they were voting on.
As whip of the New Democratic Party and someone who has been a member of this House for over four years, I can share the following with my colleagues. Even when members of all parties have been in the House full time during the week and have paid attention to the debates, the amendments, the motions and the committee work, they sometimes still do not have a clue what they are voting on unless their whips tell them to their faces what it is they are voting on. Sometimes there are 20 or 30 votes in the matter of an hour and a half in the House.
It is up to the leadership of the caucuses to make the decisions in co-operation with their caucuses and to advise others who were not at the meetings of how their caucus is going to vote or how their individual members might want to vote if they wish to have an independent vote from the caucus.
This proposal would further weaken and diminish the authority of the member of Parliament. It would certainly weaken and diminish the authority with which a member would be voting. I flag that issue.
I am quite surprised with the Reformers. They talk about democracy. Reform members should learn the meaning of parler, or Parliament which is a derivative of parler. It means to speak. We come as representatives of the thousands of people in our constituencies to speak in the House of Commons in Ottawa on behalf of our constituents. We are here to parler, to speak on behalf of our constituents on issues that are important to them. Voting happens to be one of the responsibilities of a member of Parliament after giving speeches or listening to the debates.
I am surprised that Reformers would want to promote democracy and the opportunity for members to have free votes while they say that the House of Commons is not important to them, that they will go back to their ridings and visit with whomever they want and not come to Ottawa to at least earn their paycheques. That diminishes democracy. It diminishes Parliament. It certainly blows into shreds their argument that they believe in democracy. Time after time the evidence shows that they believe in the contrary. The record should clearly show that.
If Reformers want to stay home in their ridings to vote, they should resign from Parliament and run for office in municipal or provincial government. They could stay in their cities, their towns or their villages or their rural areas in their provinces and they would not have to worry about coming to Ottawa. They have options if they do not like coming here. They can resign or they do not have to run next time, which I think is the option preferred by millions of Canadians for Reform members who believe in this sort of anti-democratic move.
This is just another example of the Reform Party wanting less government. Reformers do not have a great deal of respect for the institution of government. They do not believe that government works. They say to everybody in this country “Vote for me and I will prove to you that government does not work”.
In Saskatchewan we have had the evidence of the Reform Party proving to Saskatchewan people that Reform policies do not work. In 1982 a Reform style politician, Grant Devine, said the same thing as this Reform member is saying today, that they do not want to have involvement in government. “Government does not work. You vote for us, Saskatchewan people, and we will prove to you that government does not work”.
Saskatchewan people were tricked and they voted for this Reform style politician, Grant Devine. He had 10 consecutive deficit budgets in nine years. He went from a zero debt to $16 billion in debt for the one million people in the province of Saskatchewan.
Twelve of his colleagues in that government have been charged and most of them have been found guilty for criminal acts while members of the legislature. That is the Reform style kind of government.
Reformers promise less government. They say they believe in more democracy and of course they end up giving all the assets away in the objective of less government to all their friends who then take away the assets and leave the debt with the people of Saskatchewan. I am kind of surprised at this motion and why the they would promote this.
My very major concern in the New Democratic Party is that technically this motion is preceding ongoing meetings and ongoing decisions being considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the member for Peterborough ably chairs.
We are discussing the very nature of modernizing parliaments. We are looking at electronic voting and all sorts of things that would modernize our system. While modernizing, we are not looking at diminishing democracy or the role of members of Parliament. We are actually looking at enhancing the role of Parliament and making sure that Canadians have a voice in this assembly regardless of their being in Ottawa or not.
My final words are that the Reform Party also surprised me with the fact that it wants to let the government off the hook. For the record, the NDP has never supported officially the pairing of votes. To this day we continue not to support that.
We believe that if elected, members should be here, be accountable and be responsible and should be on duty like many of my colleagues here today on a Friday afternoon. I give them all credit for being here. It is an honourable thing and a very important thing to be doing.
I am surprised because the Reform Party, whose members want to hold the government accountable, now wants to allow 25% of the Liberal MPs not even to be here to ask questions. I do not think that defines democracy or more accountability.
What Reformers are doing is encouraging the stampede away from the House of Commons. They are encouraging the authority of the House of Commons to be so watered down that members may as well not come to Ottawa to vote. They may as well all vote by proxy from their various constituencies.
I am not sure if I oppose this but the arguments that I put forward I think persuade me that this recommendation by the Reform Party member is not well thought out. It is anti-democratic. It reduces the effectiveness of the House of Commons and really is another effort by the Reform Party, very supportive of Liberal policies, to provide the Liberal government with yet one more opportunity to avoid being accountable, responsible and answerable to the people of Canada.
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague, who introduced this motion in the House. I think it important to emphasize all the effort that goes into introducing a motion. You will understand, however, that I am not necessarily congratulating his party. I will come back to this in a few moments.
I would like to commend the parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House, as well as our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party, on the quality of their speeches.
If it has done no more than clarify certain important principles, I think this motion was important. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on our role as parliamentarians, on the principle on which our fellow citizens rely and on which our work must be based if it is to meet the expectations of the public.
I am, nonetheless, a bit surprised at this motion, which alludes, among other things, to the formal disappearance of vote pairing and, obviously, to proxy voting. It is a bit worrisome to recall, but sometimes it is important, that, during the last election campaign, the Reform Party wanted to see the seven million Quebeckers and the eight and a half million French Canadians across the country all but unrepresented in the House. They practically wanted to exclude Quebeckers and French Canadians from the Parliament of Canada.
When there are suggestions such as this one about voting by proxy, we are aware that there are some things in life not properly done without direct contact with our colleagues, those within our own party first of all and then comments from MPs in other parties. A vote in the House of Commons represents a rather special dynamic.
There must be reflection. There must be exchanges with our colleagues. In our caucus meetings I am glad to be able to exchange views with my Newfoundland colleague, a former minister in the Peckford cabinet, who makes a huge contribution on certain specific issues, particularly natural resources, fisheries in particular.
Our Reform Party colleague must realize that the formula we have at the present time, of having an official register of paired members, is a very acceptable formula. If there is one important privilege for Members of Parliament, it is their attachment to their personal vote. The MPs' votes are not the responsibility of the whip, the party leader, or the Speaker of the House.
Members of Parliament must endeavour to be present here in the Parliament of Canada, both for the official vote and for all the proceedings leading to it. A vote is not carried out without reflection, without exchanges with our colleagues.
Huge progress has been made in this House in the past 15 or 20 years in speeding up votes. New parliamentary habits have developed. Thought is being given to electronic voting. Let me point out immediately that electronic voting does not mean remote voting. MPs must be physically present on the Hill for the proceedings leading to a vote and for the recorded vote itself, and this is a process about which our fellow citizens have strong feelings.
We were not elected to this place to let our whip vote for us. What would happen if there were surprise votes? Would the whip pull out his list of proxies and record the votes? That is totally unacceptable. I, as a whip, consider that this would be too much power.
The practice of pairing is a matter of honour and respect between MPs. Even if our colleague's motion were formally adopted, I am convinced that this privilege could not be taken away from MPs. That would be a change to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons which would be unenforceable and unacceptable. Even if it were adopted, it could not have any legal force.
I am convinced that my colleague, who is a conscientious member of Parliament, will reflect upon this. There is no way that two MPs could be prevented from working out a pairing arrangement.
The reality is that an MP is the only one responsible for his vote. It is not transferable. It would be quite unusual for a vote to come from a whip. The vote belongs to the MP, not his or her whip. It is a privilege conferred upon us by our fellow citizens. We may not transfer responsibilities to others, particularly not the responsibility to vote.
Proxy voting reduces MPs' freedom to vote. It could even go so far as to lower the quality of voting.
Nothing is more effective than contacts between parliamentarians of all parties, except between parliamentarians of the same party in order to take a stand on an important issue or even a less important one. I personally think that they are all important and that many members feel the same way. Mr. Speaker, because I know you, I know that you share this viewpoint.
There is a very special dynamic on Parliament Hill. Many meetings are held to ensure that members voting will do so in full knowledge of the facts of the matters, which are often very complex. Voting cannot be done at a distance, and, because of its importance, cannot be left to others.
It would be easy to argue on the subject of voting by proxy that it could mean significant savings, since members would not have to travel from Vancouver or Whitehorse simply to come and vote in Ottawa. If this is the intention of the motion introduced by the member for North Vancouver, I would submit that electronic voting would achieve the same result.
And so, if one day electronic voting becomes acceptable, I am sure that voting from elsewhere will be out of the question. This is where we vote. We must certainly not vote electronically from somewhere else and especially not hand over the responsibility to the whips or to others.
Be assured that I and my party will always be here to defend the importance of the privilege of pairing with a colleague. This is one of the members' important privileges. We will be here to defend the importance of being physically present on the Hill and in Parliament in order to vote, to take a stand on behalf of our colleagues and especially on behalf of our fellow citizens.
If there is one party that frequently speaks of its constituents, because they take a stand in voting, it is the Reform Party. It is an honour for them, I admit, but it involves being physically present here in Parliament.
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important issue, which will be followed with interest in the coming months by all my colleagues.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am going to use just a few minutes to give a few of my thoughts because I want to give my colleague from North Vancouver ample time to sum up.
A couple of observations have come to my mind as I have been listening to the debate. I find it rather ironic, and if I can dare use the term hypocritical, among members here. I use hypocrisy here in the good sense where members are trying to portray something where really it is not an accurate representation.
All the members who have spoken after my hon. colleague in the Reform Party on his private member's motion have spoken against this motion. They claim that it is because of a diminishment of democracy.
If pairing does not diminish democracy, where you agree not to vote, how can one then argue that by giving your actual vote and simply asking someone else to deliver your actual vote is a diminishment of democracy compared to what we have now? To me that is not a valid argument. I respect these other members for their point of view but I also respectfully say that is not accurate.
I would also like to point out that in a sense our standing here this afternoon and debating this is a diminishment of democracy. We are trying to persuade each other of a point of view but there will not be a decision on this.
Just before Christmas I had a motion in the House that all private members' business should be votable. It is ludicrous that we should stand here and persuade each other but that the members themselves voted I think almost unanimously and said they do not want to vote. They want to put forward a private member's bill but they do not want to vote on it.
I would call it a total lack of democracy. Freedom of speech is an important factor, which is diminished by the eight pages of words we cannot use, so I am very restricted now in being able to express myself.
It is one thing to be able to speak, but is it not the essence of democracy that we actually get to vote and make decisions? That is a very important missing link.
I hope that we sincerely go about changing this Chamber. I hope we change this place of democracy, this place of debate and votes so that it truly works on behalf of Canadians.
I am in my second term as a member of Parliament. I discovered very quickly that it is a full time job twice. One should be here 100% of the time to look at the bills and the motions, analyse them, work together with staff and communications people. At the same time there is a full time job in the riding. People want to be heard. They want to have access to their member of Parliament.
Whenever I go home I go to meetings. People are eager to give me their ideas on the issues facing our country.
We are not being realistic when we pretend that everyone is going to be here all the time. The House sits five days a week. Maybe we ought to look at that and make a provision so we can all do our jobs better by having more time to be in our ridings.
We cannot be here debating issues in the House and at the same time be in our ridings doing that work which is so very important.
It appears to me that the way it works right now is that the members, by pairing, are really abdicating their democratic ability because they are agreeing not to vote. It is just like they said in the private member's motion I presented before Christmas, that they agree they do not want to vote on private members' business.
We need to really think hard about these things.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I must say that, as a young member and newcomer here, this is the type of situation one must often deal with. Still, I cannot believe that members from other parties can possibly think that to vote under an absentee proxy system would enable them to do a better job and to better serve democracy.
I fully support the comments made by my friend, the hon. member for Chicoutimi, by the parliamentary secretary and by Bloc Quebecois and NDP members. When I got elected, it was to represent my constituents and, of course, democracy must go hand in hand with voting. When I am here, when I am representing my constituents by voting on legislation, I have no intention of waiving this responsibility and letting my whip or someone else vote on my behalf. I believe that one serves his or her constituents by assuming one's responsibilities, and assuming one's responsibilities means to be present when a vote takes place.
The practice of vote pairing is totally irrelevant. We all know that, most of the time, there is no vote pairing. When we must vote, we are here in this House. As my friend, the hon. member for Chicoutimi, pointed out, vote pairing is a tradition based on an honour system involving two members, and we must respect and preserve that tradition.
I am also pleased that the subject of electronic voting has been raised, because, obviously, we will have to look at what enables us to do our work effectively as parliamentarians. But I do not think the two should be mixed.
My constituents are happy to see that their member for Bourassa is not only present in his riding but also physically present in the House. I think a lot of people follow our debates on television, and when I vote, the entire riding of Bourassa votes.
I do not think that this practice is hypocritical or that it undermines democracy. On the contrary. However, we should look very seriously at the time of voting. We should set aside a specific time for voting every Tuesday or Wednesday.
I know that this is negotiable, that we could sit for four days rather than five. I work Saturday and Sunday as well, so Friday, Saturday and Sunday we could work in our ridings.
There exists a form of technology called the telephone. It permits great efficiency on the days we have to be in Parliament to resolve certain issues. I think everything lies in the way things are orchestrated. There has to be a work plan.
Personally, I think we should be focusing on the number of days we sit in the House. I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party that our constituents want to meet with us, to come and talk to us. They expect us to be physically present not only in the House of Commons but also in our ridings, because they need us. Proxy voting will not solve anything.
I add my voice to that of all my colleagues who opposed this motion. I think that not only is this a false debate but it undermines democracy and makes this institution appear even more cynical. Perhaps we could fulfil our duties differently and come up with a better system in the House, but there is no way I will give anyone a proxy to vote in my place.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As is customary, we will give the hon. member for North Vancouver, who moved the motion, an opportunity to sum up.
Ted White: Mr. Speaker, all the members who stood mentioned democracy. The last member who stood also talked about opposing the motion. However, the point we have been trying to make here is that we cannot even vote on it. This place is so undemocratic that there is not even an opportunity to vote at all.
The member from the NDP got up and talked about democracy but all he could talk about was representing the NDP's position. He talked about this motion as if it were a Reform motion. This is Private Members' Business. It is the business of individual members of Parliament. If a well experienced member like the member from the NDP has not caught on yet that this is supposed to be a period of free voting for members then he has a lot to learn about democracy at this point.
Pairing is something also that Reform does not support because it does not work for a party like Reform which has written into its party constitution that we have an obligation to represent the majority will of our constituents in this place, as I have done on three separate occasions, voting against the line of my party.
Therefore it is impossible for pairing to work for new style parties. It is great for the old line parties that refuse to change. That is one of the problems.
For the members who stand and say that a vote in this place actually belongs to the member and that he is representing his or her constituents is not only naive, it treats Canadians as if they are fools, as if they do not know what happens in this place. Everyone over there is instructed by the Prime Minister how to vote and everyone down at this end is instructed by their leaders how to vote. Every single one of them is instructed how to vote. When we talk about democracy and freedom it is just not true.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: As a private member you are lying. Private members should not lie, Ted.
Ted White: The speaker from the government side tried to mix participation in debates with voting as if that made a difference.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair is not certain the Chair heard the accusation that the member was lying, but the Chair would ask all members not to address other members in that way under any circumstances at any time.
Ted White: Mr. Speaker, if there is evidence that can be shown to me that people in other parties do not always vote their party line, I would be pleased to see it.
The speaker from the government side tried to mix the participation in debates with the voting, as if somehow the debates were meaningful. The fact is even on government bills there is hardly anybody in this place. Members stood today and acted as if this place was full of people taking notice of the debate and not even a dozen people are here.
John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Reform private member is casting aspersions upon all members of this House by making reference to either presence or non-presence of members of Parliament, talking about naivety—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is quite right in saying that we have a convention not to refer to the absence or presence of other members. He was perhaps stretching the notion of a point of order and went into debate. The hon. member for North Vancouver.
Ted White: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly hitting some nerves today. And we understand why that certain convention is in place, don't we?
They talk about tradition. The member opposite on the government side talked about tradition and how we could not change anything because we have got to live up to tradition. The fact is, he just wants to find a reason not to do something. It used to be tradition in this place that there were not any women. It used to be tradition in this place that we sat for six weeks a year. The fact is it does not have to be a tradition. We can change anything we want to in this place.
To say or to imply that the only reason one would want to vote by proxy is to avoid ever coming here is also ridiculous. The proxy votes would be under the control of the whip. The whip would not have to allow a single person to be absent. But the whip would have the right, if necessary, to issue a proxy vote privilege to a member who had to be away for some reason.
I just see it as a modernization of the procedures of the House. To say that the member has to be in the House to vote is just a crock frankly. As anyone except the most naive will know, most members monitor the proceedings of the House on television from their Hill offices or their riding offices when they have to be away. There is absolutely no earthly reason why a member could not provide an intelligent proxy vote on any type of bill.
As a member myself who has the opportunity to speak many times in this House, I take ever possible opportunity to do so. Every day that I am here on duty I get up to speak in this House. I recognize the value of speaking here. But to pretend or to claim that I would not be able to vote intelligently if I was not standing in here every day is totally ludicrous. In these days of telecommunications, members simply do not have to be here in order to make intelligent voting decisions.
I think we should wrap it up here. It has obviously created a fair amount of emotion among the members. If I have been successful in anything today, I would be thankful that I have done that because we should be discussing these things, and frankly, we should be doing it openly and publicly. We should not be pretending to the public out there that certain things happen here when they do not. And the public already knows they do not.
The public knows that people vote the party line in this place. The public knows that MPs for the most part do not represent them. They represent the parties. We really have to do something to put real democracy into this place instead of constantly pretending.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 1.58 p.m, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.58 p.m.)