Bill S-16 (Historical)

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and to provide for minimum penalties of imprisonment for repeat offenders.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my friend intently and to the commentary and questions across the way. Of course, we know that members of the official opposition want to grow the civil service so that the unions will pay more dues to PSAC so that PSAC can then send some money over and give donations to other people.

However, here is the real question. I think the member for Ottawa South hit some of the nail on the head. First, of course, is how we get it across to young people that smoking is not the in thing to do. Young people, in some ways, want to be somewhat rebellious, so we have to get people from a level they understand, the people they look up to, to bring out the message.

I know that some of the messaging has come through the school boards in the province of Ontario. I am sure the member would agree. That is why we have increased the social transfer of funds to the provinces: so that they can actually do those things. That is why, instead of cutting back on health transfers, we have a $40-billion increase.

We also know that researchers were counting and analyzing the cigarette butts in schoolyards. They found that 30% or more come from illicit tobacco, and that is what this bill specifically addresses.

This government also enlarged the size of the warnings on the packages and gave a 1-800 number for people to call.

I wonder if the member could comment on some of the issues I just raised.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think part of it is that we have to help young Canadians understand that when they smoke contraband tobacco, it is not okay. It is not a petty crime. It is not a little thing to have just a few cigarettes here and there and think no one is being hurt.

We have to help our young people understand that they are supporting organized crime by smoking these contraband cigarettes. As much as we advertise in a number of different areas as parliamentarians through our householders and advertise as government, we have to help young Canadians realize and appreciate the chain of events, including where an illegal cigarette comes from, how it is smuggled into our communities, the dangers it poses and the cost to taxpayers.

It is not just the kids. There are adults who will actually buy cigarettes for young people. We have to help people understand that this is a very serious issue. This is not something that should be laughed at, thinking it is just a few cigarettes here and there. We have to work more closely.

I mentioned the member for Northumberland—Quinte West earlier. As an OPP officer, he worked for many years in the community and has first-hand knowledge of the scourge that this is and that organized crime is. I think he is right. We have to do a better job by working together across party lines and with our provincial and municipal officials to show how serious we are about this issue and to show that even one contraband cigarette is breaking the law and that these are the consequences of doing it.

While we will probably disagree on minimum mandatory penalties, I think this would add to or elevate the seriousness of this crime so that more Canadians can understand that this is a very serious issue.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in debate on Bill S-16, a bill to amend the Criminal Code to deal with contraband trafficking in tobacco.

As I have done with all the bills we have been debating the last number of days, weeks and hours, I have to underline and underscore where this bill comes from, denoting for those who are watching from home that when it has an “S” in front of it, it is of course a Senate bill.

As an elected member of Parliament representing my constituents, I have to underscore my concern about how egregious it is that we have yet another bill coming from the other place. It is clearly a strategy of the government to start legislation in the other place and then send it over here. We just debated one on cluster munitions. It is actually the wrong sequence, and the current government is seemingly dependent on it. It is like a crutch. Relying on the Senate is the government's own addiction.

For reasons of accountability, be it on this bill or on the bill we just debated on cluster munitions, it is important to underline that we should not have bills coming from the other place. Now we are at Bill S-16, but the numbers go higher than that, if members can believe it.

The government should not be dependent on the Senate to be the originator of these bills. We cannot honestly look at ourselves as an institution doing the best we can when we have bills coming from an unelected Senate that is right now under investigation. It is unaccountable and it is a problem.

It is a problem because we get these bills at the end of a session in which they have already been debated as fully as they can be in the other place, with witnesses, and then we get time allocation on bills of this nature. We have it on contraband tobacco. We had it on cluster munitions. We had it on a bill that was to deal with foreign corruption. They are very serious issues.

We are getting these bills through time allocation. I underline that point. We had time allocation for the 47th time in this House for bills that the Conservatives want to get through. It really undermines our ability to do our job.

They have not had to deal with that in the other place. They have had time to examine bills and have witnesses without the pressure of time allocation. This bill is under time allocation, as members know. That is why we are debating it for five hours with the clock running.

The Conservatives say it is important and tell us what a great job they are doing on fighting crime, and there is all the other propaganda we hear. However, the point is that this should be the place where we have full debate. When legislation comes from the other place—the unelected, unaccountable and under-investigation Senate—we cannot do that to the extent that we should. Why? We are at the last couple of days of this session. In the last couple of days of this session, what are the Conservatives doing? They are rushing, putting time allocation on bills and pushing them through.

We just had it at the foreign affairs committee with a very important bill that we just dealt with there. The Conservatives actually went further than the time allocation at our committee. They said they would put five hours on it, but then asked if we would be willing to go down to three hours. That is what it has come to: rushing things through. Who cares if we even have five hours of debate? They just want to get it through. It is as if this is a rubber-stamp place.

I am sorry, but the Senate is the place that should be receiving the bills after we have a full debate here and hear from witnesses and have amendments. It would be nice if the Conservatives would actually accept an amendment every once in awhile. That would be just wonderful, but it is not likely.

We need to underscore this, because it is undermining our legitimacy as a House and it is undermining our committee work. I can say that for certain. If we just accept bills coming in and do not care where they come from and do not mention that, we fail to do our job as parliamentarians.

I mentioned at the beginning that this bill should not be originating from the Senate. It should be coming from the House of Commons. If the Conservatives cannot figure out how to make things work with a majority government and have to rely only on the Senate, then not only does the government have a problem, but our Parliament and our system have a problem that the Conservatives have created, and I need to underscore that.

The Senate is a crutch for the government, after 59 senators were appointed so they could do the business of the government, not the business of the people, and now we have bills coming through one after the other in the last number of days. One Senate bill after the next Senate bill; it is as if this is being passed along, photocopied and pushed out the door. It is offensive.

When we have senators like the one who apparently represents my area, Mac Harb, under investigation, the credibility of the institution is right now under question. We are now getting bills from senators as if we are supposed to be checking their work. It is supposed to happen the other way around. We are supposed to have the fulsome debate; we are supposed to have the amendments here; we are supposed to have an ability to have good legislation written starting here. Yes, they can look at it. That is the way our system works for now until we deal with that problem.

However, to have it the other way around is offensive. It is offensive to our constituents. It is offensive to our system, and it actually does not make for good law because of the pressures we are being put under: the time allocation pressures; the pressures at committee where the mentality is that we get only a couple of witnesses, we do the line-by-line and then we get the sucker out of there. That is the mentality of the government, and it undermines the credibility of our Parliament. It is on the government's watch, so at the end of the day it undermines the credibility of the government for any kind of notion of accountability.

I also have to underline the government's dependence or addiction, almost like a tobacco addition—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat is rising on a point of order.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just was wondering when the hon. member was going to get around to discussing the issue at hand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

As is often the case, the Chair will remind all hon. members to speak to the matters before the House and, as always and as is still the case, members are given a significant amount of latitude in so doing; but I remind all hon. members, in their speeches and in their questions and comments, to relate to the matter before the House.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member was listening, because it is important for him to know of the dependence of the government on the Senate.

Obviously, it is something that touches some of them who still believe that there should be some accountability. Kicking the addiction to tobacco is difficult. The government does not seem to be able to kick its addiction to the Senate. It is something it is going to have to work on. Clearly, it is a crutch the government cannot carry on with any credibility as a government that is accountable, particularly for those who pretended to come into town under the Reform banner suggesting that they were going to be different. However, that is another story.

When we look at the fact that this bill was brought from the Senate, that is one thing, but when the government talks about how important it is to deal with contraband tobacco and then puts time allocation on it, that makes one wonder. The government is suggesting that it heard enough witnesses in the other place, and now we can spirit it through here, because the other place dealt with it sufficiently. What happened to our independence over here? The government does not even distinguish anymore.

It has brought in time allocation, as I said, for the 47th time for Bill S-16. Why? I think it is that it really does not want to have debate, does not want to hear witnesses and does not care that there is actually more allowance for debate over there than here. That is what we are talking about.

An issue as important as contraband tobacco, which is something we have talked about here and that all parties agree on, the government will only allow five hours of debate on, because it actually does not want to debate. That is the subtext.

It is also important to note that this issue and this bill touch on not just what is happening in Canada. Contraband tobacco and the trade of contraband goods is an international problem. It is an international problem that has been affecting many of our allies, including our best ally and biggest trading partner, the United States. One of the things they have had problems with is trying to track it. If contraband materials are not checked, be it tobacco or other materials, that will actually undermine the credibility of governments and lead to massive corruption. Governments become dependent on contraband for revenue. That has happened.

We have seen this happen in countries. I will not name them, because I do not want to undermine the credibility of some of our allies. There have been recent cases where it has gotten so bad that countries, and some of the regions within countries, have been dependent on contraband revenues, and the very people who have been elected to represent the citizens of those countries have lost the ability to govern.

We have to be serious about it. I agree with those who mentioned that before. If we just look the other way when it comes to contraband, we will wake up one day and find that it is very difficult to deal with it. It is something that can corrode the ability of governments to actually do their jobs and govern. It is a serious issue.

We also have to accept the fact that we need people abroad to do that job. I just want to mention that one of the things we are very concerned about on this side of the House is the fact that the people who are representing us abroad right now are feeling that they are not being represented by the government. They have not been able to actually negotiate with the government.

It has gotten to the point that we have foreign service officers, who actually keep an eye on things like contraband and work with our border agencies, are having to go on strike and picket embassies. Right now, they are not being listened to. As I mentioned in the House earlier today, it has gotten to the point that the government cannot even negotiate with diplomats. That is how bad it is.

It is very important that we have those foreign service officers and border agencies that represent us abroad ensure that they are working with other jurisdictions to look at the patterns of corruption and at the sources of corruption when we are looking at contraband.

Contraband moves globally. It moves around the world, and we have to have good eyes and ears to work with our allies on it.

I would encourage the government to sit down right now with the people it needs to negotiate with, and that is our foreign service officers. The interesting thing that most people do not know is that they have accepted the government's demands for wage increases and the elimination of severance pay. If we are not negotiating with foreign service officers, and the government does not have the trust of our foreign service officers who deal with an issue as important as contraband, then it will be very difficult to crack down on it, and the government should know that.

I underline the importance of the government sitting down and negotiating with the brave men and women who are patriotic and represent us overseas. They are foreign service officers. I hope the government will have common sense and sit down at the table with them. The men and women abroad and the Canada Border Services Agency are the people who will deal with the concerns we all have with regard to the trade of contraband.

In the case of tobacco, it is important to underline that it is not just our friends to the south. This is a global issue. The markets are global. The trade of contraband tobacco is everywhere. It is in Asia, Europe and Africa. What I have not heard enough about from the government is the need to deal with corporations that right now are involved in the trade of contraband by way of fiat. What I mean by that is that there are corporations that are able to move product around the globe. We need to look at that. This is not just a couple of guys deciding that they are going to buy a bunch of tobacco, make their own product and sell it to kids, although I am sure that is happening. This is big business. These are big interests with big money, and we need to have the proper resources to fight it.

The government talks a good line on trying to crack down on this kind of crime. I will give it credit for that. The problem is that when we actually dig into the numbers and look at what the government has done to reach the goal of dealing with contraband tobacco, it is cutting border services and the capacity of the RCMP. Then it says that it is really serious about this. It cannot be serious about this issue unless it is going to have the requisite laws—and, yes, there are some good things in this bill that should be passed—and fulfills its commitment by having the resources on the ground. It has to make sure it has good labour relations with foreign service officers, gives the Canada Border Services Agency the tools it needs and makes sure the RCMP has the capacity it needs to deal with the issue.

By the way, on the RCMP, it is very important that we have a system to decide who is going to represent it. Recently, the government brought forward an initiative in the RCMP that is going to undermine the ability of the RCMP to do its work. Why do I say that? We learned recently that the government seems to reject the whole notion of allowing the RCMP to bargain through a union. The government thinks this is somehow going to undermine its credibility as a police force, when, in fact, what many within the RCMP want is to select their own representatives to bargain on their behalf, like other police forces, and bring forward the issues that matter to them.

The government does not want that. However, if there is going to be professionalism and the requisite training, the most important issue, when it comes to the relationship between management and those doing the job, is trust. The trust between the government and the upper levels of the RCMP, I do not have to tell anyone, is fragile.

For the RCMP officers to do their jobs and crack down on contraband tobacco, they need to have the trust of the government. They need reforms, which the government has fought against, and they need to have trust.

Right now, we do not often have trust between the border agents and the government. The RCMP is the same. Now we have the weird spectacle of diplomats actually striking, which is unprecedented. We look around the world and see diplomats on strike because our government cannot sit down and talk to diplomats.

It is not just the law. It is the capacity to enforce the law. I am very concerned that the government passes a bill and then says that all is fine. We have seen that with its crime bills. We have had provinces declare that these bills will hurt them.

When some of the players in the government were in the Ontario government, they passed laws, downloaded and said, “Here it is. Go deal with it”. They do nothing to help at the local level, or in this case, with provinces, which end up having to deal with laws the government passes without consultation and without any accommodation for the cost of their bills. We saw the costs being passed down for prisons and the basic justice system.

We will support the principles of the bill, but we have to note that the government has failed when it comes to gaining the trust of those who have to carry out and enforce this bill, in particular, when it comes to capacity, be it the RCMP, foreign service officers, who are simply trying to sit down and negotiate, or the Canadian border service agents.

I would urge the government to deal with the full spectrum of what it means to deal with contraband tobacco and actually invest in the human resources. It should stop the rhetoric, deal with the reality and come up with a fulsome spectrum when it comes to contraband.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, here are some statistics. Since 2008, the RCMP has laid approximately 5,000 charges under the Excise Act, 2001. The RCMP disrupted approximately 66 organized crime groups involved in contraband tobacco. Approximately 3.5 million cartons and unmarked bags of cigarettes were seized nationally by the RCMP, along with numerous vehicles, vessels and properties.

Since 2009, RCMP seizures of contraband tobacco have decreased by 41%, from 975,000 cartons and unmarked bags of cigarettes to 580,000 cartons and unmarked bags in 2011.

The member talked about the province. Has he spoken to the province about some of these statistics and how they impact Ontario, his province?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very direct with the member. Ontario and many other provinces have concerns about the downloading by the government when it comes to bringing in laws and not providing the support to enforce them.

While I am on my feet, I also want to underline the point that the government has to deal with this as a health issue. I heard some very moving testimony from my colleague about his father. I think we all have stories within our families about those who are addicted to tobacco.

We should lessen the effects of tobacco on our population. The government is actually bringing forward the regulations for dealing with light and mild cigarettes, which were announced in 2007 and re-announced in 2011. We are still waiting for the government to act on that. I would encourage the government to do that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, by my count, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre spent about 60% of his remarks on the Senate. I would just like to walk through that door with him if I could, just to pick up where he left off. I would also caution him not to speak too openly about the RCMP. Most Canadians are looking at CTV News right now watching the RCMP in hot pursuit of his leader.

However, I share the hon. member's concern about the place of origin of the bill and the sequence by which it has been placed in the House of Commons. I also share his concern about the Senate having challenges. There is no doubt about it.

However, the member has been quite forceful and quite direct about his views on the Senate. I think that by implication, he is in favour of the Senate's abolition. Fair enough. That is a good position for him to take. I respect his position. I do not agree with it, but I respect it.

However, could he take a second and walk us through exactly how the NDP would abolish the Senate? Please do not tell us that he would simply conduct a referendum in the country. What measures, what sequence of events, would have to take place that would lead, if the NDP were in power, to the abolition of the Senate?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member should talk to his brother. I actually agree with his brother on one thing: Dalton and I do disagree on a lot, but Dalton and I agree on abolishing the Senate.

I know we are talking about contraband tobacco and I will get back to that, but to answer the member's question about how we would do it, we would listen to the people. It is probably not a bad thing. There are members over there who used to believe in referendums and going to the people, but they lost that long ago. They were corrupted by power.

We should talk to the people. The people of Canada should be heard. We should go to the people of Canada and ask them. We should then ask the premiers if they want to listen to the people of Canada, and if so, then let us do this, let us amend the Constitution and abolish the Senate.

Speaking of hot pursuit, I hope the RCMP are in hot pursuit of Mac Harb. My God, the constituents in my riding who are waiting for affordable housing would love to see the $200,000 go toward building affordable housing and not to Mr. Harb—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about the fact that Canada's legislation is good but the way the government is going about it, by bringing it in through the back door, is wrong. The lack of consultation and shutting down debate is wrong.

I wonder if he would agree with me that there is an additional concern here and that is the fact that the government has cut $687.9 million from public safety from 2012 to 2015. That was in budget 2012. Then again in 2013, these cuts continued with a 29.8% decrease.

I would like the member to comment on the fact that the Conservative government is great at standing up and pontificating on how it is tough on crime, but when it comes to putting dollars where they count, in order to make sure that law enforcement agencies can do something about these issues, it falls flat.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, finally a question that is so focused and clear that I can answer it with absolute certainty.

That is exactly the problem with the government. It passes these laws, it talks at great lengths about cracking down on crime, but the problem is it takes all the tools away, so we end up with a lot of rhetoric and laws on the books but no enforcement mechanisms. It is undermined.

That is why provinces are speaking out. That is why people are concerned about the lack of consultation. We have a government that is actually downloading all of its responsibilities to someone else. That is called freeloading where I come from. If the government says that it is going to do one thing in terms of law and then turns around and makes someone else pay, I call it freeloading. That is what the Conservative government is doing.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously an important bill.

I did not hear much in the member's speech on some of the more technical issues and I would just like the member to weigh in on them. Does he recognize that tools are given to both the provincial attorney general and the federal Attorney General to coordinate on these issues?

There is the premise that the current system of enforcement is mainly in the Excise Act. I would like to know if he appreciates having these other tools in the Criminal Code to charge and go after those who are trafficking in heavy amounts, because they often support organized crime.

Since the member said that some provinces are not supportive, I would like him to name one or two of the provinces that are not supportive of this bill.