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

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the essential points I stressed in my speech.

The funding must be part of an overall approach. We cannot merely put legislative measures in place; we must also allocate funding to tackle the problem. Border agent positions have been eliminated, but tobacco often moves across borders.

If we really want to tackle contraband tobacco, we must not only address the legal aspect, but also provide funding for the agencies that work to combat it. We also have to talk about tobacco addiction and do more prevention so that fewer and fewer people smoke and demand for these products shrinks. We also have to improve access to resources that will help people to stop smoking.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here tonight to speak to Bill S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco).

This important legislation would fulfill our 2011 platform commitment to address trafficking in contraband tobacco by creating mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for repeat offenders and establishing a new dedicated RCMP anti-contraband force of 50 officers.

This commitment was not made in a vacuum. The illicit trafficking of tobacco is a multi-billion dollar business that fuels organized crime and corruption and leads to addiction to what is widely accepted to be a deadly product. The illegal commerce in tobacco is so profitable that tobacco is well on its way to becoming the world's most widely smuggled legal substance.

If passed, Bill S-16 would equip the RCMP and our courts to deal more effectively with the scourge represented by the proliferation of these illicit tobacco products in Canadian society. These products, many of which are counterfeit or manufactured in unregulated and illegal facilities, often contain impurities and contaminants that add to the dangers already posed by smoking.

These illicit tobacco products are being sold in great quantities to teenagers and younger Canadians at a time when we as a society are strongly discouraging smoking due to the long-term and serious health risks it poses. The sale of illicit tobacco continues to represent a source of danger to the health of Canadians. This alone argues for strong measures of the type proposed in Bill S-16.

Importantly, the illegal nature of the production and distribution of contraband tobacco products means that they also escape Canadian taxes. This is one reason why they can be sold at discount prices. Clearly, this undermines the capacity of our tax system at the very time that the Government of Canada is working hard to balance our books in a responsible and effective way.

Before I get into the details of Bill S-16, I propose to give members a brief background on how the current law operates, why it needs to be changed and what the bill would do.

At the outset, I would observe that there are at present no provisions in the Criminal Code dealing directly with trafficking in contraband tobacco. Instead of being prosecuted under the criminal law, contraband tobacco is dealt with under the Excise Act. Although it contains prohibitions and penalties, the primary focus of this legislation is on revenue-related issues.

The range of tobacco-related activities the Excise Act prohibits includes the possession and sale of tobacco products not properly stamped. This means tobacco products for which the appropriate taxes and duties under subsection 32(1) have not been paid.

Contravention of this provision is punishable by fine. The size of the fine depends on the amount of tobacco involved. A jail term may also be imposed and may be up to a maximum of five years on indictment or 18 months on summary conviction.

While there have been successful prosecutions and seizures of illicit tobacco products and the vehicles used to transport them, it is indisputable that the problem persists and that it continues to grow despite the best efforts of law enforcement. In short, the strong measures proposed in this bill are necessary due to the serious nature of the challenges posed by trafficking in contraband tobacco.

Allow me to remind members that the current challenges are different from those of 25 years ago when the problem first gained national prominence in Canada. At that time, the issue was the criminal diversion of legally produced and exported Canadian tobacco products back into Canada at discounted prices.

Although the problem abated temporarily, it has returned over the past 10 years in the renewed form of the illegal manufacture of tobacco products and the illegal importation of foreign tobacco products.

There are many sources of illegal tobacco products on the Canadian market now: counterfeit cigarettes imported from overseas; cigarettes produced legally in Canada, the United States or abroad and sold tax-free in Canada, which is a recurrence of the issue we faced 25 years ago; and fine-cut tobacco imported illegally, mostly from the United States.

Most of the illegal activity involved in trafficking contraband tobacco in Canada occurs in Ontario and Quebec, and involves various organized crime groups that have established distribution networks that use violence, intimidation and bribery. They also use the income generated from contraband tobacco production and distribution to fund other criminal activities and to establish links with other criminal organizations. Clearly, strong measures are required.

This brings me back to the details of Bill S-16, also known as the tackling contraband tobacco act. What does this important bill propose?

First, it would create a true criminal offence by amending the Criminal Code to include a provision to deal with activities ranging from the sale, offer for sale, possession for the purpose of sale, transportation, distribution and delivery of contraband tobacco.

Second, it would set out a series of escalating penalties to send the message that this form of illicit trade will be dealt with sternly. The maximum penalty for a first offence would be up to six months of imprisonment on summary conviction and up to five years of imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment. However, repeat offenders convicted on indictment of this new offence would be sentenced to a mandatory minimum jail term of 90 days on a second conviction, a mandatory minimum jail term of 180 days on third conviction, and a mandatory minimum jail term of two years less a day on subsequent convictions.

The triggering quantity of contraband tobacco for this new offence and these new penalties would be an amount equal to or greater than 50 cartons or 10,000 cigarettes, or an equivalent amount of other unstamped tobacco products. This threshold has been chosen on the basis of the experience of the RCMP in dealing with tobacco smuggling.

Generally, only the provinces prosecute Criminal Code offences. However, in order to allow federal prosecutors to prosecute this new offence, a concurrent jurisdiction clause is proposed to be added to the Criminal Code. This is true criminal law. It is strong medicine for a serious national disorder. The primary target of this new offence and penalty scheme is organized crime groups and their associates who are involved in the large volume trafficking of contraband tobacco. In short, this important bill proposes a strengthened anti-contraband enforcement strategy that includes real jail time for repeat offenders in order to address the growing contraband tobacco market in Canada. These measures are timely and would be an effective way of dealing with this illicit and dangerous commerce.

In closing, I thank members for their attention and urge them to support this bill in the interest of the health and safety of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the member opposite. She clearly takes seriously the government's intention to crack down on contraband tobacco, and I could not agree more.

Does the member share with me the concern that this important endeavour that is being handed on to law enforcement agencies in this country would be jeopardized, in effect, because of the nearly $700 million cut to public safety that was announced in 2012 and that will be concluded in 2015? Nearly $700 million will be taken out of the budget of those agencies and departments that will be responsible for leading the efforts to control contraband tobacco at our borders and in our ports.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do take this very seriously. My riding of Newmarket—Aurora was one of the ridings in which they did some experimental studies to find out the seriousness of contraband tobacco coming in. What they found was more than 30% of the cigarette butts that were picked up around the local high schools were cigarette butts from contraband tobacco.

I care very deeply for the youth in my riding and I would like to do everything within my capabilities to ensure these young people have the opportunity to grow up safely and securely, without organized crime around them and in good health, because they are our future generations. They are our leaders of tomorrow, and we want to see them have a safe future.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my distinguished colleague’s speech, I noticed that we are in complete agreement with respect to our objectives. We are against crime, against the danger that tobacco use represents, and against the criminal activity surrounding tobacco smuggling.

However, I do have questions about our ability to deliver the goods. If we really want to fight crime, we must not only pass a bill, but also ensure that the legislation has teeth. Criminals have to go to prison; that is what I want.

I should point out to the member that I am from the city of Laval. Laval has big problems with organized crime and political corruption. It is a major problem. I cannot hide that. It is not pleasant to see our tax dollars pocketed by crooks and thieves—not petty thieves, but career criminals.

What I want to know, and what the people of Laval want to know, is whether, as in the case of the fight against tobacco, when we discuss this bill point by point, the Conservatives will have recommendations and accept them so that we will finally have legislation to take down the Mafia.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are always open to listening to thoughtful recommendations that are brought forward in committee. We look forward to what our colleagues on the other side of the House might propose.

The member identified his area as Laval. Indeed, Ontario and Quebec are some of the hardest hit areas. We have not created this bill without consultation. Long before I was elected, I had the opportunity to spend some time with the RCMP in Cornwall. We took one of its boats out onto the river. The officers told us where the contraband was coming from. They showed us what their problems were.

We have been in consultation with our RCMP officers on this. We are going to dedicate a new force of 50 RCMP officers to work on the contraband file. We will continue to work with our police enforcement agencies across the country and we look forward to solving this problem.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the debate shifted away from the main subject of the bill.

I would like to say that I personally hate cigarettes because I am asthmatic. My brother and I—he more so than I—suffered the effects of second-hand smoke throughout our entire childhood.

I want to make one thing clear from the outset. I have never smoked and I dream of a world where people will spend the same amount of money—a carton of contraband cigarettes is worth $20 or $30—on healthy goods, and goods sold by merchants. I dream of a day when merchants will make money by selling goods that are less harmful to our health. I thought it was important to say that before some members asked questions outside the purview of the bill we are debating today.

We are debating S-16, Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act. First, I will explain what contraband tobacco is. It is any tobacco product that does not comply with the provisions of applicable federal and provincial legislation. This includes the importation, stamping, marking, manufacturing, distribution and payment of duties and taxes.

At present, there are no offences in the Criminal Code dealing specifically with contraband tobacco. That is why Bill S-16 was introduced.

By adding to the Criminal Code offences pertaining to contraband tobacco similar to those found in the Excise Act, 2001, Bill S-16 would authorize all police services to crack down on contraband. That is one of the interesting aspects of the current bill. I want to make it clear: any police force could take action to crack down on contraband tobacco.

According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, contraband tobacco products fall into five major categories. It is interesting and much more diverse than what one might think. It is a far cry from the cliché where contraband is found in only one Indian reserve located somewhere in Canada. It is much more complicated.

These types include the following: American product smuggled into Canada; product that is illegally manufactured within Canada; counterfeit product that enters by sea container, because all transactions at ports are a big problem when it comes to smuggling tobacco products; product to be sold on first nations' reserves that has been diverted to the wider market, which is an important nuance because when something is diverted to the market it is not exclusively an aboriginal issue, since anyone can be diverting the product in this illegal exchange; and product sold on the Internet, including illegally manufactured and counterfeit products, as well as products for which duties and taxes have not been paid. This is a serious problem that affects the entire country.

Where does the NDP stand on Bill S-16? The NDP will support the bill at second reading so it can be studied in committee. Why is this study important? Because the bill raises some questions.

For example, have the consultations with the provinces, territories and first nations communities thus far been sufficient? We hope that the study in committee will ensure that such consultations are held and will help strengthen them.

We are also worried about something that we have seen a lot of since the Conservative government came to power: the mandatory minimum sentences included in the bill. This really bothers me. I think it is an insult to the intelligence of the justice system and our judges, who are always dealing with very complicated situations.

Imposing a minimum sentence on someone who allegedly smuggled goods because of extenuating circumstances can be quite different from imposing that same sentence on a real smuggler who was running a quasi-professional operation and who may have also laundered money.

When the government puts a minimum sentence on everything it is essentially saying that our judges are not smart enough, but I think that they do a great job. Nevertheless, the minimum sentences are here again in this bill.

The bill includes mandatory minimum prison sentences for repeat offenders. That is reasonable, given that we are talking about recidivism. Unlike other bills we have seen, we are not talking about a minimum sentence for the first offence. The mandatory minimum sentence is 90 days for a second offence, 180 days for a third offence, and two years less a day for every other subsequent offence. These are well-defined minimum sentences that may seem reasonable and would be in some cases, but are nonetheless minimum sentences. In some cases, there could be some mitigating circumstances for one of the accused. Are these minimum sentences, suitable sentences? The question has to be asked or minimum sentences will be handed down indiscriminately, based on personal experiences or what happened to our brother-in-law three years ago. We must absolutely allow the standing committee to address this.

Tobacco smuggling in general is a problem for a number of reasons. The first pertains to public safety. The RCMP estimates that about 175 organized crime groups profit from the sale of illegal cigarettes and use those profits to fund other criminal activities, such as drug and human trafficking. An increase in tobacco smuggling therefore supplies a chain of criminal activities. There was a drop in tobacco smuggling in the 1990s, but it has increased dramatically since 2000. Tobacco smuggling supplies an entire chain of criminal networks, which are even involved in the extremely reprehensible practice of human trafficking.

The government is introducing a law and order bill while making over $200 million in cuts to the RCMP's budget. That is disturbing. Once again, we have to wonder about this. The government is announcing that a certain amount of money will be allocated to the fight against tobacco smuggling, which is a measure that is welcomed by the associations that are directly involved. However, this is all just smoke and mirrors since, meanwhile, the government is making cuts to the RCMP's overall resources.

I have the same question that my colleague asked about 15 minutes ago. How can we eventually deal with serious crime if we have fewer resources? How can we get to mafia and gang leaders with fewer and fewer resources?

From a public health point of view, illegal tobacco products are of a lower quality. That also needs to be taken into consideration. A lot of illegal tobacco products are sold to young people. That is another problem, because 20% of Canadian youth between the ages of 12 and 19 smoke. In addition, if they are smoking illegal tobacco products, we do not know what they are actually smoking. It could be even worse for their health.

There is also the issue of lost tax revenue for the various levels of government. The federal government loses a total of $2.1 billion in uncollected taxes annually. In Quebec, lost tax revenue in the tobacco industry recently hit $125 million. Lost revenue is a serious issue.

As the official opposition critic for small business, I would like to talk about the impact that contraband has on small business owners. It is true, tax revenue suffers because taxes are not collected on the profits small businesses would make on tobacco sales. Revenue is also lost because of uncollected taxes. The criminals who sell illegal tobacco do not call up tax authorities to tell them that they will send in a cheque to cover the taxes on the products they sold.

However, business owners are the first victims. They are selling a legal product. There is also the issue of public health, but for now, it is legal for business owners to sell tobacco. It is one way to make money. It is often those who own smaller businesses—for example, family businesses that have very few or no employees—who need this. Much of their business may come from tobacco sales. When a region is suddenly saturated with illegal products, small business owners are the first victims.

In May 2010, the Canadian Convenience Stores Association raised a number of points. Contraband represents 40% of the tobacco market in Quebec and up to 50% in Ontario. Over the past three years, one convenience store a day has been forced out of business, and in most cases, lost revenues on the sale of legal tobacco products is what has caused these small businesses to fail.

One final testimony really struck me. Xavier Shi, who has a little smoke shop on Jean-Talon Street, said:

If we ask our customers, they tell us that they are buying them [cigarettes] elsewhere and that contraband cigarettes are much cheaper. They can even get them delivered to their door.

How is a small retailer on Jean-Talon Street supposed to compete with these kinds of illegal practices?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the linkages between organized crime and contraband tobacco. A number of speakers this evening have mentioned similar things. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, mentioned the linkage between smoking and young people and contraband tobacco.

I wonder if the hon. member could tell us his views on whether there is a strong linkage between the introduction of young people to contraband tobacco products and, through the same organized crime entities, the introduction of those young people to the other forms of illicit drugs in which they also transact. Maybe he could talk about that for us.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is highly likely that young people who get into trafficking in contraband cigarettes are later led to engage in worse activities by organized crime. I do not have much information on this and I am not a criminologist, but I think that is part of the risk.

However, I have a comment. Why reduce RCMP resources at a time when we all agree that contraband is part of a larger plan to catch the bigger fish? Catching the big crime bosses takes deep pockets, but it pays off in the end. Millions of dollars from criminal activity are recovered.

In terms of those views holding that smoking cigarettes leads to smoking crack, I have never read anything that was really convincing. However, with regard to criminal organizations, there are certainly questions that need to be asked. It is therefore essential to maintain and increase the RCMP's resources, not take them away.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is the official opposition critic for small business, I would like to look to his expertise in this area.

In practical terms, what is the impact of contraband cigarettes on small villages where, in many cases, there is just one convenience store and grocery? Both my riding and the member's have villages like that. What is the practical consequence of contraband cigarettes for these businesses and the village economy?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, there is a big coalition whose members are mainly associations of retail business representatives. The coalition does a great deal of work and speaks out against contraband.

As my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue so rightly said, let us imagine a small merchant in a small community or a small village. Between 20% and 30% of his revenue is from the legal sale of legal tobacco until suddenly, he loses up to 40% of that business to illegal tobacco. That is nearly half of the 30% or 35% from sales of legal tobacco products wiped out within a few years. Earlier, people talked about numbers produced by the association of convenience store owners.

Consequently, I believe the assessment by the association of convenience store owners is entirely reasonable when they say one small merchant a day is going out of business, largely because of the problem of contraband tobacco.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from the NDP will be able to explain something to me.

The Conservatives chose to go through the Senate in order to tackle a really serious problem. We know that tobacco smuggling is a scourge on both the economy and people's health.

Given everything that is going on with Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, we know that nothing is working within that institution. It is going through one of its worst crises at the moment.

So can someone explain to me why the Conservatives decided to have this bill go through the Senate?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there has been some poor judgment in the choice of a number of senators. Everyone knows that now.

This illustrates the current government's lack of judgment, but also the official opposition's good faith. This is the second time we are compromising our principles, which are clear. To us, people who are not elected should not be legislating. We also set aside our convictions for the bill on prize fights, which also originated in the Senate.

We are demonstrating incredible good faith for the well-being of the Canadian public.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate about the terrible scourge of contraband tobacco.

In our ridings, people regularly approach us to support causes, and we frequently do just that. It sometimes amounts to moral support. Since coming here in 2004, although I have also worked for some federal members of Parliament since 1993, I have found that this moral support is just not enough. I always try to find a way to provide concrete assistance, to raise awareness about the problems that people in our ridings bring to our attention.

On the issue of contraband tobacco, I had the pleasure of meeting people from the Association des dépanneurs du Québec who were campaigning a few months ago about the scourge of contraband tobacco. Needless to say, they were representing people who sell cigarettes. As a non-smoker with a brother who smokes but who is trying to quit and a mother who has stopped smoking, I am well aware of the fact that everyone would probably like it better if it were impossible to sell cigarettes simply because everyone decided to stop smoking for health reasons.

I like to talk about my grandfather, a farmer by the name of André Bellavance. One day at the age of 94, in Causapscal, he told us that he had stopped smoking. We all found this very amusing because he had begun to smoke when he was 13, so we asked him why he had stopped smoking. Although he was a little hard of hearing, he eventually understood our question. He told us that it was for his own health and to set an example. We found it extraordinary that this proud man should all of a sudden decide that he would like to live a little longer, and in fact, although he is not yet 100 years old, he is getting close.

Getting back to the point, the association approached us because contraband tobacco was causing convenience store owners to lose a lot of money in Quebec, and no doubt just about everywhere in Canada. With a view to taking real action, I went and spent a few hours working in a convenience store with the owner to see what it was like and what people came to buy.

The issue, of course, was the price of cigarettes. People were complaining as much about that as about the price of gasoline. When people go to a convenience store, they do not often complain about the price of a newspaper or the price of a litre of milk. They complain about the price of gasoline and the price of cigarettes.

I am also fortunate to have my own regional community television program. I therefore invited experts to come and speak about the topic for 30 minutes and to use the small screen to raise awareness. Like all members of Parliament, I can send out householders, which I also use to inform the public about contraband tobacco. These are all concrete actions to inform people that we are very much aware of what is going on and that we can all do things to combat contraband tobacco.

That is not all, however. The government is also making efforts, as are all of the members of the opposition parties. In the case of Bill S-16, it has been decided to refer it to committee, and everyone is in full agreement, yet I can see once again that the Minister of Justice included minimum sentences in his bill.

That is how the minister proceeds. He continually tells us that he is doing it for the victims and to fight criminals. However, since he was elected to the House and became the Minister of Justice—in fact I believe he has always been the Minister of Justice under the Conservative government—he has never been able to prove that minimum sentences help victims and reduce the crime rate. He has never provided any evidence or statistics in this regard.

As for the victims, I certainly cannot see how a minimum sentence can assist them in any way. He included this in the bill, although there is one interesting aspect, and that is that finally, for once, a government has thought to include sanctions for contraband tobacco in the Criminal Code.

Previously, I believe that this was simply a matter for customs and excise. The police could nevertheless lay charges and people did end up in prison because of contraband tobacco. However, it would be more logical for the Criminal Code to include sanctions for contraband tobacco. That is the good news.

I hope that a number of improvements will be made in committee, including those advocated for some time now by the Bloc Québécois concerning the possibility of doing what we must do as legislators. As I was saying earlier, the idea is to eradicate contraband tobacco or at least combat it more forcefully.

For example, stricter police and administrative measures are needed to put a stop to this contraband. For example, the traffickers’ vehicles should be seized because the black market thwarts the policy on high prices for tobacco. This option is not available to the police. People might well ask me what seizing the traffickers’ vehicles might accomplish. The answer is that if every time a trafficker was caught with cases of cigarettes in the back of his vehicle, and the vehicle were seized and he had to buy another one, this would be a significant deterrent.

Increasing the amount required to obtain a federal tobacco manufacturing licence would be another example. At the moment, a licence to open a tobacco factory costs $5,000. Just about anyone can come up with that much money to open a tobacco factory, yet perfectly legal companies have recently closed their doors just about everywhere in Canada, laying off thousands of employees. This is unfortunate for the employees, but because fewer people are smoking and less harm is being caused to their health, it is good news.

For $5000, these new plants can manufacture cigarettes that very often end up on the contraband market and can be very harmful. We therefore suggest that the cost of these licences be much higher—in the millions of dollars—because it would appear that making cigarettes is profitable. The idea is to charge a much higher price to at least discourage those who want to open cigarette factories to sell all or some of their product on the black market.

There could also be a ban on supplying raw materials and cigarette-making equipment to unlicensed manufacturers. The government could also revoke the licences of those who fail to obey the laws and introduce an effective system for labelling and tracking cigarette packages to allow much closer monitoring of tobacco shipments.

Why not try to persuade the American government? We have good relations with our neighbour. It could take action against illegal manufacturers on the American side of the border. We are somewhat at the mercy of these manufacturers, who need only cross a river in a boat to deliver illegal tobacco for the contraband market in Quebec and Canada.

I also raised another problem a little earlier, when the subject came up, because we had to deal with a time allocation motion for this bill. I mentioned to the Minister of Justice that the Conservative government's policies were inconsistent. On the one hand, the government has been reducing the number of customs officers and people responsible for catching contraband of all kinds, including cigarettes. On the other hand, it claims that it wants to introduce measures to combat contraband cigarettes. This is inconsistent.

We need to increase the number of people who monitor what crosses our borders, including contraband cigarettes.

While I agree that Bill S-16 should go to committee, I would like the government to take into account the arguments that I have just put forward so that, for once, we end up with a more complete bill, even though there is no such thing as a perfect bill.

I would like the government to show the people and those who complain to us that we voted in favour of a bill which, in our view, will reduce and perhaps one day even eliminate contraband cigarettes.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my previous speech, I spoke about the position adopted by Quebec's National Assembly, which stated that it was crucially important to communicate with the U.S. and Ontario governments and with the aboriginal communities.

How does he think the federal government could adopt a similar approach in studying this bill to achieve co-operation between governments in order to come up with a better bill?