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.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

When Bill S-16 was tabled, Vic Toews, the Public Safety Minister at the time, said that he would simplify the investigation procedure by allowing provincial and municipal police forces to lay charges.

Do you feel that Bill C-10 is actually going to make your investigation work easier because you will be able to become directly involved in criminal matters?

[Chief Gina Deer, Council Chief, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake]

Thank you for having me here and listening today.

My name is Gina Deer. I'm one of the chiefs. I'm from Kahnawake. My document has been submitted, so I'll just touch on some of the points that we have submitted.

There are many challenges that have been imposed on our first nations that continue to hamper our progress towards full recognition and realization of our rights and interests. These challenges include the legacy of residential schools, traumatic and illegal expropriations of land, and the legacy and continued imposition of the Indian Act and other legislation that fails to take into account our history, our rights, and our grievances. Bill C-10 is one of those.

The Mohawks of Kahnawake have an inherent and aboriginal right pertaining to the production, transportation, trade, sale, and regulation of tobacco products. The Mohawks of Kahnawake assert these as inherent rights, but also as aboriginal rights under Canadian law.

The Mohawks of Kahnawake have historically and continuously engaged in the production, transportation, sale, and regulation of tobacco products for various purposes, including cultural practices, personal use, personal subsistence, trade, and for commercial gain. These practices are and always have been an integral part of our distinctive culture as Mohawk.

Bill C-10 proposes an infringement on our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights pertaining to the production, transportation, sale, and regulation of tobacco products. This application of proposed section 121.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada and corresponding mandatory minimum sentences to Mohawks of Kahnawake would constitute an unjustified infringement of our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights.

This bill is going to put people in jail. We bring up residential schooling because the residential schooling institutionalized people, our children. We had a great breakdown in our community. Simple things like hugging your children didn't happen. The effects were long-lasting, and then the government apologized for what they had done.

Yet, this bill just calls to reinstitutionalize people again, to take the mothers and the fathers and put them in jail. There's another breakdown in the family. Now the children will suffer again, growing up without a father. Does anybody know what it's like to grow up without a parent, a mother, a father? That's the effect this bill is going to have on our community and our people. How long will it take Canada to realize again that this wasn't the answer?

We already have an overpopulation of native inmates in our prison systems here in Canada. The prison systems were given recommendations on how to help rehabilitate inmates, and even that's failed. When we look at this as the answer, I can't comprehend where they come up with that: putting people in jail for what they believe and have known to be their rights.

In Kahnawake a lot of people have understood that as long as they practise within their own jurisdiction their right of the sale and trade of tobacco, they're not committing a crime, because it's not their duty to collect taxes. It's the duty of the people who come to our community to purchase it to remit those taxes. Nobody believed they were committing a crime.

We have a good economy around Kahnawake. We have nine municipalities that benefit from this trade, not just Kahnawake. If you look at all of the economic development, the stores, the growing economy in Châteauguay, Candiac, Ville Sainte-Catherine, it's had a positive effect for everybody there.

They talk about the criminal element and criminal organizations. They haven't just infiltrated the tobacco industry. Look what's happening in Montreal. There's the Charbonneau commission. They've infiltrated everywhere, right next door to us, right across the water, our neighbours, but Kahnawake seems to be highlighted as a spot for organized crime. Kahnawake works very hard to keep that element out.

One of the proposed solutions that Kahnawake has is for Canada to work with Kahnawake, to sit down and recognize the fact that Kahnawake has jurisdiction over our own territory. Let us make the laws that are needed to combat the criminal element, because that's how Kahnawake sees us doing this. We need to regulate and create laws within our community to protect ourselves and an industry that's been created in Kahnawake.

If you look back in history, you'll see that we as the native people are the ones who introduced tobacco. It was taken back to England to the Queen at one point. It was given by the native people. I had an elder say to me, “Gina, can you imagine if our moccasin making was a lucrative business? What would they do then?” This is something we've always had in our entire history and now we're going to be criminalized for practising something we've done throughout time.

We feel it is the responsibility of Canada to work with Kahnawake on a nation-to-nation or government-to-government basis. Canada gave permits to people in Kahnawake, licensed them to be tobacco manufacturers. They came to Kahnawake and they did inspections at these manufacturing places. They collected the taxes, and then they walked away. They didn't fulfill their part, which would have been to sit down with Kahnawake, Canada, and Quebec and discuss the transport of that tobacco. We were allowed to produce it, but we weren't allowed to transport it. It doesn't make any sense. It's not logical. Once they tried to transport it, they were arrested.

We've been here before. It's been discussed before. This bill was Bill S-16 previously.

We would like to take the opportunity to briefly address three common points that were raised by senators during Mohawk Council of Kahnawake's presentation earlier this year.

The first is the link between the tobacco industry on first nations lands and organized crime, which I just spoke about.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the same form as Bill S-16 when it was before the House at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 41st Parliament.

Consequently, pursuant to the order made Monday, October 21, 2013, the bill is deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill S-16 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Motion No. 2

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleagues for the warm applause.

Let me start by making a few comments on the motion and what it means. Although many words have been spoken in previous days about government Motion No. 2, particularly by my colleague, the hon. government House leader, I think it is important for those people who may be watching for the first time that I try to explain what government Motion No. 2 is actually about.

Quite simply, government Motion No. 2 purports that all unfinished parliamentary business, which we left when we rose for the summer recess back in June, would return in the same state in which it was before we recessed. In other words, to use the vernacular, we simply want to pick up where we left off.

That in itself is not unusual. Many times before governments have, after prorogation, brought forward similar motions that allowed unfinished legislative initiatives, in other words government bills, to be brought back to Parliament in the same state that they were pre-prorogation. That is what we are doing with approximately seven bills that were still being debated when we rose for the summer and prior to prorogation.

However, we go far beyond that, because although it is normal for governments, previously, to bring back similar motions to try to start the debate on these important bills, we decided not only to just have government legislation brought back but all parliamentary work should be brought back in the same state that it was before we adjourned.

Why is that important? It is important because in committee work there are two, in particular, very important parliamentary studies being conducted by committees. These two studies, I should add, are supported wholeheartedly by members of the opposition.

We appointed a special legislative committee to study the issue of missing aboriginal women. Now, opposition members have been calling for such a study to be enacted for many months, in fact, I think over the course of the last two or three parliamentary sessions. We have agreed to that. We installed a special legislative committee that would allow for such a study to occur. However, if we do not pass Motion No. 2, that committee would be disbanded. That study would be halted.

We think it is incumbent upon us as a government to observe the hard work that parliamentarians did on all sides of the House on that committee, and bring the study to fruition. The only way we can do that is to pass Motion No. 2.

Failing that, what would happen is that there would have to be another legislative committee struck, membership presented and the committee would basically go back to square one on the analysis and study of that very important issue. Why do that? Why should we waste the valuable time that has already been spent on that very important issue? Motion No. 2 would take care of that.

The other study that is ongoing and quite frankly has just started is the study being conducted by the procedure and House affairs committee on members' expenses. I will speak about that in a little more detail in a few moments.

Let me now turn my attention to why the opposition apparently has a problem with Motion No. 2. What the official opposition has stated in its opposition to government Motion No. 2 is that it feels by lumping together government bills and committee studies somehow we are prejudicing the entire motion. They are saying we are somehow playing politics with the facts, because if the opposition wants to approve the continuation of committee studies, it is forced to vote in favour of the motion, which includes government bills.

Not only is that nonsensical, it really defies description to believe that we would even attempt to play politics with such important issues as the study on missing aboriginal women and children. I think any opposition it has to our attempt to pass government Motion No. 2 has now been allayed, because the Speaker's ruling of last Friday said we will now have two votes on the same motion.

The first vote will deal with government legislation. We will vote on whether or not to bring back all government bills in the same state they were in prior to prorogation. We are talking about bills such as the not criminally responsible reform act, the tackling contraband tobacco act, bills that had reached various stages of progression in this Parliament. Some had reached and gone through second reading. Some had reached report stage. Some had even passed third reading. Many of the government bills that we want to bring back had the full support of the entire Parliament. Yet the NDP, primarily, wants to see us refuse to bring these bills back, and in effect, reintroduce them and start the debate all over again.

I ask if there is any sensibly thinking Canadian who would look at this opposition and say that this is the way we should go. Rather than continuing on and getting these bills passed, which all parliamentarians support, would anyone say they want to start all over again, have the same debate again, waste Parliament's time and waste taxpayers' time? No. No one would agree to that, except, it appears, the opposition.

Because of the ruling of the chair, we are now going to be dealing with government bills in a separate vote. If members of the opposition vote in favour of our motion, that is not to say that they are voting in favour of each individual bill. It would merely be to say that they are voting in favour of bringing these bills back to Parliament in the same state that they were before we adjourned in June. To me, it seems like a common sense approach because most of the bills, as I said before, have been approved. Some of them have passed second reading debate. Some of them have passed third reading debate. Many have the approval of the entire Parliament. Why in the world would we want to discard all of that hard work and start over again? It does not make sense.

However, if the opposition was only concerned with the lumping of the committee studies and the government bills, now they should not have a problem with it, because we will have a second vote. That vote will be to bring back other parliamentarian work, specifically committee studies, and restore them to the same state they were in before. Clearly, it gives the opposition an opportunity to make their views known on government legislation and on committee work. If the opposition wants to vote against Motion No. 2 with respect to government bills, it can do so. If it wants to vote in favour of bringing back committee studies, it can do so. However, it will be government Motion No. 2 that we are voting on. Even though it is split into two votes, the motion, I predict, will carry, hopefully with the support of all parliamentarians.

Again, on the legislative initiatives, on the government bills, it does not mean that if the opposition members vote in favour of it, they are voting in favour of each of those seven bills. It just means that we return those bills to the order paper at the same point they were before we recessed for the summer. It is a common sense approach. It saves parliamentary time. It rewards the hard efforts of all the parliamentarians who debated these very important bills for several hours last spring. That seems to be a common sense approach.

Let me spend a few moments on one of the other committee studies. I want to point out what appears to me to be an apparent contradiction and the blatant hypocrisy of the NDP when it comes to the second study that I mentioned, which is the procedure and House affairs' study into MP expenses.

Only a couple of months ago, we had a special meeting. It was held in the summer, when most parliamentarians were not in Ottawa, and initiated by the NDP for the sole purpose of trying to initiate some rules, practices and procedures surrounding this ongoing study into MP expenses, trying to increase transparency so that all Canadians would feel assured that their taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and appropriately. At the time, the NDP went to great lengths to talk to the media and try to convince the media that it was the only party that truly wanted a transparent approach to member of Parliament expenses. New Democrats talked for many days and many hours, trying to convince the media that the other parties in the House, the Liberals and the Conservatives, really did not want transparency, while the NDP, of course, did.

Since that time, interestingly enough, there are only two parties in the House that have voluntarily agreed to post their MP expenses online: the Liberal Party and our party. We are doing this voluntarily.

Our position, quite clearly, is that we would like to see a procedure and a system set up, hopefully approved through the Board of Internal Economy, that all parties could agree to. In other words, we would have a common approach to posting our expenses. However, in the interim, because that may take some time to develop, our party has agreed to have our MPs post hospitality and travel expenses voluntarily on a go-forward basis. The Liberals have also agreed to that. There is only party that has not agreed: the NDP.

On one hand, the NDP is trying to convince the media and Canadians that it is the only party in favour of transparency. On the other hand, it is the only party that does not want to post its expenses online. Let us think about that for moment. Think about the hypocrisy of the NDP. All of this time when its members were talking about their attempts and desire for transparency, it was nothing more than a political stunt.

There is a saying where I come from, and many Canadians share it. It is “put your money where your mouth is”. If NDP members truly believe in transparency, I challenge them to stand up today in questions and comments following my presentation and agree that their MPs should post their expenses online. It is a simple thing. One can do it voluntarily. Some members may be doing it individually, and I applaud them for doing that, but as a party they have refused to make their MPs accountable to Canadians. They have refused, as a party, to agree to posting MP expenses online. Let them stand up today and say that they will. I would be the first to applaud them and say they have taken a positive step. However, I cannot sit here, and I certainly cannot stand here during this presentation, and admit that they are in favour of transparency when they have not proven it.

Let us vote in favour of government Motion No. 2 this evening so that we can bring back all of the legislative initiatives of this government to the same state in which they were in order to allow further debate and allow those bills to go to a vote. Some may pass and some may be defeated, but at least we should bring them back without any undue delay.

Also, let us vote in favour of bringing other parliamentary business back in the same state it was, specifically committee studies. Let the committees continue their hard valuable work, the work that Canadians have been asking for.

Finally, let the NDP members today stand in their places and say they will join us in posting MP expenses online. If they do not, it only says one thing: that they are not interested in transparency. They are not interested in allowing Canadians to see their expenses but only in political stunts, and that is something we cannot abide.

MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the good news was that parliamentarians worked for more than a whole extra month's worth of debate time in the House in May and June. As a result, the House was able to get great things done, and it was not just the bills that we are seeking to have restored at the stage they were read: overall, in the first five months of this year, 37 pieces of legislation reached royal assent. In fact, that matches the most productive year of the Conservative government back in 2007, when we were in a minority, and we did that in just five months. That was done through the hard work of all parliamentarians, including sitting, on some occasions, as late as 2:00 a.m. to get work done here in May and June.

People did not take time off. People here worked very hard. They worked extra hard and put in extra time.

The question before us now is whether we shall throw away some of the product of that extra time, pretend it did not happen, and force everybody to go back to "go", or should we respect the hard work of parliamentarians, the debates that occurred, and the advancement of legislation, which in most cases all parties supported? Perhaps that was not so in some cases, but bills such as the not criminally responsible reform act and the tackling contraband tobacco act were apparently supported by the NDP.

We would encourage them to once again support their continued processing through the parliamentary process.

Business of the House and its Committees

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, for the purposes of facilitating and organizing the business of the House and its committees in the autumn of 2013,

(a) during the thirty sitting days following the adoption of this Order, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown in the previous Session, or that it is in the same form as a bill which had originated in the Senate and stood in the name of a Minister of the Crown in this House in the previous Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current Session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous Session;

(b) in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (i) conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body, (ii) invite the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons to participate fully in these hearings, (iii) study the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as other jurisdictions and Westminster-style Parliaments in order to compare and contrast their administrative oversight, (iv) propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary, (v) propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons, (vi) examine the subject-matter of the motions, which had stood in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper for the previous Session on June 10, 2013, and (vii) report its findings to the House no later than Monday, December 2, 2013, in order to have any proposed changes to expense disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year;

(c) when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meets pursuant to the order of reference set out in paragraph (b) of this Order, one Member who is not a member of a recognized party be allowed to participate in the hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of that Committee;

(d) the Clerk be authorized, if necessary, to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs within 24 hours of the adoption of this Order;

(e) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees, including the proceedings on the debate held on Friday, February 17, 2012, pursuant to Standing Order 51;

(f) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee designated for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code;

(g) the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be the committee designated for the purposes of section 67 of the Conflict of Interest Act;

(h) the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, adopted in the previous Session as Private Member’s Motion M-315, shall be renewed, provided that the Committee shall report its findings to the House no later than Wednesday, December 11, 2013;

(i) a special committee be appointed, with the mandate to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada, and to propose solutions to address the root causes of violence against Indigenous women across the country, and that, with respect to the committee, (i) it consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, (ii) the Chair and the Vice-Chairs shall be the same Chair and Vice-Chairs elected by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, (iii) the routine motions respecting committee business adopted on March 26 and April 18, 2013, by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women shall be deemed adopted, provided that it may, by motion, vary or rescind their provisions at a later date, (iv) it have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada, subject to the usual authorization from the House, (v) the members serving on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party’s members of the committee within ten sitting days of the adoption of this Order, (vi) the quorum be seven members for any proceedings, provided that at least a member of the opposition and of the government party be present, (vii) membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), and (viii) it report its recommendations to the House no later than February 14, 2014;

(j) with respect to any order of reference created as a consequence of this Order, any evidence adduced by a committee in the previous Session shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table in the present Session and referred to the appropriate committee;

(k) the reference to “September 30” in Standing Order 28(2)(b) shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “November 8”;

(l) the reference to “the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day in December” in Standing Order 83.1 shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “Wednesday, December 11, 2013”; and

(m) on Thursday, October 31, 2013, the hours of sitting and order of business of the House shall be that of a Friday, provided that (i) the time for filing of any notice be no later than 6:00 p.m., (ii) when the House adjourns it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 4, 2013, and (iii) any recorded division in respect of a debatable motion requested on, or deferred to, October 31, 2013, shall be deemed to be deferred or further deferred, as the case may be, to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on November 4, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of government Motion No. 2, and I look forward to the continuation of what has proven to be a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament.

This year alone, from the end of January until the end of June, Parliament passed 37 new laws, matching our government's most productive year in office. This, of course, included a budget that will help fuel job creation, grow our economy, and increase Canada's long-term prosperity. Since the last election and the 2011 throne speech, we have witnessed 61 government bills become law. On top of that, an unprecedented 19 private members' bills received royal assent, heralding a renewed empowerment of individual members of Parliament to bring forward initiatives important to them and their constituents. It is a long way from the days when a Prime Minister derisively described backbenchers as “nobodies”, 50 yards off the Hill.

Yesterday's Speech from the Throne has outlined the government's objectives as being those that matter to Canadians. As a new parliamentary session begins, we remain squarely focused on jobs, the economy, and protecting families, while taking pride in the history and institutions that make Canada the best country in the world. Here in the House, these policy objectives will be given legislative expression in the form of bills that will be introduced over the coming weeks, months, and years. As we look forward to implementing the new initiatives outlined yesterday, we also want to ensure that important, unfinished work from the previous session, whether it be bills or committee business, is not forgotten.

Government Motion No. 2 would seek to facilitate and organize House and committee business for the autumn in view of our calendar and circumstances. Government Motion No. 2 proposes that June's unfinished work, in which all parties have an interest, carry on where we left off. I stand here today asking that all opposition parties join me in taking a balanced, principles-based approached to getting Parliament back to work. The bills and committee work I am today proposing be reinstated are those that have received support and praise from members opposite. It is also work that matters to Canadians.

We are not asking that only items proposed originally by the government be reinstated; we are proposing on behalf of all parties that everybody's proposals and initiatives be restored. It is a fair approach. It is a non-partisan approach. In respect of government legislation, paragraph (a) of the motion sets out a procedure for the reintroduction of government bills that advanced in the House in the previous session. In total, up to seven bills from the first session could fall into that category.

What sorts of bills are we talking about here? They are the type of legislation the New Democrats say they are keen to debate all over again. What are they? Let us consider some examples.

As pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, we are deeply committed to standing up for victims of crime and making our streets safer for Canadians. The former Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, was designed to make sure that public safety comes first in the decision-making process regarding persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It would provide additional security for victims and would enhance their involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

During the previous session, the NDP and the Bloc agreed with the government and supported the bill. We hope that they will continue to support this important initiative.

In order to protect families and communities, we must also eradicate contraband tobacco from our streets to ensure that children are not exposed to the dangers of smoking through access to cheap packs of illegal cigarettes. That was the goal of the former Bill S-16, Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, through the creation of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders in the trafficking of contraband tobacco. The bill will not only protect children against the dangers of tobacco, but it will also address the more general issue of contraband tobacco trafficking driven by organized crime groups.

A look at the debates at second reading in the Hansard shows that members of the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc spoke in favour of sending the bill to committee. We are counting on their continued support of this initiative and we will adopt a non-partisan approach as Parliament resumes its work.

Former Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, would implement our government's commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a significant achievement. Over time, the enactment of this convention will save the lives of many thousands of people around the world and will help put an end to the use of a weapon that has shattered the lives of too many innocent civilians.

In the previous session, support for this bill came from the Bloc and the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward to renewed support from them on this bill as part of our balanced, principle-based approach.

Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, former Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, offers an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

This bill received support from the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward again to their continued support.

Our commitment to improving the lives of Canadians from coast to coast continues. In the case of aboriginals, former Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, would provide a robust election system that individual first nations can opt into. The act will help to create a framework that fosters healthier, more prosperous, and self-sufficient aboriginal communities through stronger and more stable and effective first nations governments.

The bill is the product of recommendations developed by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and a lengthy national engagement campaign with first nations leaders across the country. As we see from Hansard, that bill passed second reading without the opposition even asking for a recorded vote.

The new parliamentary session will see our government stand up for Canadian families and consumers. This includes ensuring they do not fall victim to counterfeit goods. Counterfeit goods hurt our economy, undermine innovation, and undermine the integrity of Canadian brands, and they threaten the health and safety of Canadians on occasion. This is why I am asking that the NDP and Liberal MPs who stood in the House and spoke in favour of former Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, going to committee will agree to allow that to happen again.

By allowing these bills that received varying degrees of support from across the aisle an opportunity to be reinstated, our intention is to finish where we left off on key pieces of legislation important to Canadians—not to enter into partisan gridlock, not to re-debate legislation that has already received support from parliamentarians, but to reinstate and pass bills so that we can move on to new initiatives and deliver results for Canadians.

As I made clear, government Motion No. 2 is about restoring everyone's business. That includes bills and motions that are important to everyone here and, more importantly, to Canadians.

Many of the Canadians I speak with want their elected politicians to work, make decisions, and get on with the important work we were sent to Ottawa to do. I can only imagine the reaction I would get if I told them we had to spend over a dozen days to have the exact same debates we had already had, to make the same decisions we had already taken, to have the same votes we had already voted on, in many of these cases on bills that we all supported.

It would be a remarkable waste. It would seem absurd to anyone in the real world, where efficiency and productivity count for something, but believe it or not, that is what the official opposition wants to do: play partisan games, hold debates that we have already had, and enter into the kind of unproductive and unsavoury political deadlock just witnessed south of the border.

A news article on Tuesday noted that “the NDP is fundamentally opposed” to the legislative component of our balanced approach to restoring the work of all members of Parliament, yet just a few short paragraphs later in the same article, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is reported to have said he is “not opposed to bringing back some of the legislation”. Which is it? Are New Democrats fundamentally opposed, or are they actually in favour? Is this a matter of principle, or is it really just a matter of partisan gamesmanship? Is it just that some people like to stand and grab attention? I think the answer is obvious.

Our approach to restoring the work of all members also includes the important work that is being done in our committees. This means continuing our commitment to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent efficiently and in a transparent manner.

That is why we are taking action to reinstate the mandate for the procedure and House affairs committee's study on members' expenses, including a special provision for independent members to participate at the meetings of the committee on this issue. We ask all members of the House to support this mandate so that we can increase accountability and transparency in MP disclosures.

Our balanced, principle-based approach to making Parliament work this session will also mean the reappointment of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There is no question that the deaths and abductions of these women are a tragedy that has caused deep pain for many families. By reinstating this committee's work, we are ensuring that this tragedy receives the careful attention it deserves.

Other uncompleted committee mandates flowing from House orders include a private member's motion that would also be revived.

Finally, some scheduling adjustments are proposed. They include items to reconcile some deadlines to our calendar as well as the usual indulgence granted by the House to allow members from a recognized party to attend their party's national convention.

What I have just outlined to you, Mr. Speaker, is a fair and balanced proposal to get Parliament back in the swing of hard work. Government Motion No. 2 is balanced. It is based on a principle, a principle that we will be back where we were in June and that nobody is prejudiced by our prorogation. It is a non-partisan approach, one that would restore everyone's business regardless of their partisan affiliation and regardless of which side of the House they sit on.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[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.

[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?

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked my colleague a question earlier and said that I quit smoking 10 days ago. I appreciate the warm applause I received from most of the members in the House. I think that if everyone got that kind of encouragement when they quit smoking, far more people would do it and feel motivated. I wanted to thank my colleagues before starting my speech.

Today, I will be speaking to Bill S-16 on tackling contraband tobacco. The purpose of the bill is to add offences to the Criminal Code, particularly with regard to contraband tobacco. The bill also introduces minimum sentences, among other things.

The 2012 National Assembly of Quebec study on measures to counter the use of contraband tobacco found that:

In 2007, more than one-third of the cigarettes smoked in Quebec and Ontario were contraband and over 90% of these illegal cigarettes came from aboriginal reserves and lands.

It is important that we not take these statistics lightly. These are alarming numbers, and I think they are also cause for concern when it comes to health and safety.

The provisions being introduced by the government seem superficial or do not reflect all the issues associated with contraband cigarettes. We want this matter to be addressed in committee so that we can understand and clarify all the related issues.

We must think more comprehensively. Contraband cigarettes are one part of the overall issue of smoking. I think it must be addressed in a much more comprehensive, societal manner. We must adopt a holistic vision. Contraband is a symptom. It is one factor that reveals a whole.

This increasing production and distribution meet a consumer demand. Why is that demand growing? Why is contraband growing?

First we have to understand that demand among young people is high because prices are low. Cigarettes are unfortunately readily available and everywhere. It is much easier for a youth to get hold of contraband cigarettes than cigarettes purchased in the legal market, if you compare the two products. Legislation has been made tougher. Stiff fines can be levied on food markets, and they will no longer take the risk of selling to young people. However, dealers in contraband cigarettes have taken advantage of this by the back door. That causes another problem.

Info-tabac.ca has offered an explanation regarding young people:

While legally sold cartons cost approximately $60, smokers can buy 200 aboriginal cigarettes (the equivalent) for one third of the price. In addition to being available to anyone who wishes to buy them, including minors, these “discount” packs do not carry any health warnings.

This unconditional permanent availability at lower prices is the crux of the problem. It undermines health, but also safety and the economy. The situation results in major monetary losses for various countries and monetary losses for businesses and authorized resellers.

Furthermore, the Association des détaillants en alimentation has noted that cigarette sales have fallen by 30% to 50%. We would be very happy if there had been a similar decline in smoking, but there has unfortunately been no significant reduction in tobacco consumption. Sadly, it even continues to increase.

According to that same association, sales of contraband tobacco are still rising at a tremendous pace and now exceed legal tobacco sales. The result is a genuine social and economic crisis. Criminal groups control most of the market. The rise in tobacco use by young people is caused by the low price and high availability of illegal tobacco.

Tax revenues from tobacco sales in Canada have fallen by nearly $2.4 million, and there have been job losses as a result of the thousands of convenience stores that have closed since trafficking in contraband tobacco began.

This illegal trafficking is also alarming from a public safety standpoint because of uncertainty over the content of these cigarettes—the chemicals they contain—and unfortunately because of the growth in illegal rings in the area. These trafficking rings often have targets because this is a financing method for them. However, they do not merely engage in cigarette trafficking; they also traffic in drugs and weapons. In my opinion, these two factors pose even greater threats to our security both nationally and internationally.

Our approach to combating contraband has to change. First of all, it is fundamentally important to consult the provinces, the territories and first nations communities. In its study on measures to combat illegal tobacco use, the Public Finance Committee of Quebec's National Assembly recommends:

That the Government of Quebec create a joint commission involving five parties, namely the governments of Quebec, Ontario, Canada and the United States as well as the Mohawk nation, to fight contraband tobacco and to develop an action plan dealing...with: A “win-win” agreement among the governments and aboriginal people to stop the large-scale tax-exempt sale of tobacco to non-aboriginal people...

I think we need to apply this logic at the federal level so that we can get to the crux of the issue and understand expectations. The 2009 report of the Government Task Force on Illicit Tobacco Products stated:

...any comprehensive attempt to address the domestic tobacco situation in Canada will require the participation and collaboration of First Nations communities.

In order to fight contraband effectively on the ground, we need to work in partnership with the communities that are most affected, just as we need to work with aboriginal people, youth and people faced with social challenges or living in poverty.

We can also target youth with public awareness and information programs on contraband cigarettes. We can do more to protect minors. Of course, it is already illegal to sell tobacco to minors, but we can do more to highlight the dangers of smoking.

One of the measures is to work with grassroots campaigns spearheaded by associations, neighbourhoods, merchants and relatives. We must work together with those who are already in the field, with those who are directly involved.

A study of the problem giving rise to the bill requires a comprehensive strategy at the federal level, in conjunction with the groups that are affected and involved. We must facilitate a dialogue in order to find possible courses of action and ensure consistency in the measures implemented.

In my opinion, if we send the bill to committee, we will have an opportunity to hear from witnesses and experts who have legitimate experiences to share. I sincerely hope the committee will do some very good work, so that we can adopt a holistic approach that is a great deal more comprehensive than what is set out in the current bill. We must not only work with grassroots groups on the ground, but also with law enforcement authorities to make sure we have enough police and they are able to get to the root of the problem efficiently.

There must also be better control at borders and for that, unfortunately, we need more people. Because of recent cuts, it is increasingly difficult for teams of border officers to play a part in this campaign.

We must think in terms that are much broader than those in the current bill and set up a global strategy that takes into account all the stakeholders who are doing everything they can to fight the problem, a strategy that maintains or increases staff in the Canada Border Services Agency and one that preserves funding allocated to the police.

One of the measures to be taken involves resolving the paradox between the lack of preventive action and the elimination of smuggling. Unfortunately, people still talk about the law of supply and demand. So it is appropriate to take action that reduces the demand.

We need to do more to encourage people to stop smoking so that, when they realize that smoking costs too much, they do not turn to smuggled cigarettes but rather to smoking cessation help.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill S-16, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco).

The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to create a new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and provide minimum penalties of imprisonment for persons who are convicted for a second and subsequent time for this offence.

I am going to be speaking very specifically about the bill, unlike some of the other speeches that we have heard from the other side today, so members will not have to make sure that I am being relevant.

The bill would fulfill the government's 2011 election policy platform commitment to help reduce the problem of trafficking in contraband tobacco by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders of trafficking in contraband tobacco. I have to thank the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Health for working together to bring about all the aspects of what we are trying to accomplish with Bill S-16.

Bill S-16 proposes to create a new offence dealing with contraband tobacco trafficking. Indeed, the bill would prohibit possession for the purpose of sale, offer for sale, transportation, delivery or distribution of a tobacco product or raw leaf tobacco that is not packaged, unless it is stamped. The terms “tobacco product”, “raw leaf tobacco”, “packaged”, and “stamped” have the exact same meanings as we see in section 2 of the Excise Tax Act of 2011.

The maximum penalty for a first offence would be up to six months' imprisonment on summary conviction and up to five years' imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment.

Repeat offenders convicted of this new offence in cases involving 10,000 cigarettes or more or 10 kilograms or more of any other tobacco product or 10 kilograms or more of raw leaf tobacco would be sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 90 days on a second conviction and a minimum of 180 days on a third conviction, and a minimum of two years less a day on subsequent convictions.

These proposed measures would undoubtedly have an impact on organized crime and on the sale of contraband tobacco. I also believe that this initiative would have a positive effect on the health of Canadians.

We all know, and we have heard it said here earlier today, that there are really three general rules for healthy living. If we want to have a healthier Canada, there are three things that we really have to do: get physical activity on a daily basis, eat well and eat healthy, and stop smoking.

For those who do not smoke, do not start. Smoking cessation is key to ensuring that people live longer. Smoking is tied to so many health problems, whether it is lung disease, heart disease or cancer. Those are the things that we have to ensure we prevent and save people all the agony of going through those terrible chronic illnesses.

We also know that there are a number of things that we can do to stop smoking and reduce smoking and other tobacco intakes. We know that implementing high tobacco prices achieved through excise taxes is an evidence-based strategy to reduce the use of tobacco products. We know among Canadian adults it is estimated that a 10% increase in price is estimated to result in a decrease in cigarette demand of up to 4%. There is a correlation. It is proven and it is statistical.

However, the presence of cheap contraband cigarettes, sold without all appropriate taxes applied, undermines the potential health benefits of this effective intervention by providing an accessible alternative to quitting, thereby increasing relapses and encouraging people to start smoking again.

The illegal sale of contraband cigarettes increased exponentially in Canada between 2002 and 2008, particularly in Canada's largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec. In 2008, the contraband tobacco market in Ontario was estimated to be as much as 42% of total cigarette sales. Contraband cigarettes enter the Canadian market through many sources: unlawfully or lawfully manufactured and smuggled in from the United States, unlawfully manufactured right here in Canada, counterfeit products entering the country illegally, and other related criminality, such as thefts.

Studies have demonstrated that persons who smoke contraband cigarettes have higher levels of nicotine dependence, have been smoking for longer in terms of pack-per-year history, have no intention to quit, perceive themselves to be very addicted, have previously used pharmacotherapy to stop smoking and are exposed to smoking in the home, compared with those who used premium or discount tobacco brands. Studies have also shown that people who smoke contraband cigarettes are somewhat less likely to attempt to quit compared to those who use a premium or discount tobacco brand.

We all know that tobacco products are ranked by the World Health Organization as a level one carcinogen. That puts it on the same level as asbestos, mustard gas and nuclear radiation. Therefore, we need to make sure that people stay away from tobacco products. As the member for Oak Ridges—Markham mentioned earlier tonight, I have witnessed people in my family, loved ones, suffer horribly and die horrific deaths because of their heavy tobacco use throughout their lives.

In my view, a successful approach to combatting contraband tobacco cannot rely solely on legislation. Although tough legislation such as Bill S-16 is necessary, a government strategy must also involve the use of law enforcement.

We have been talking tonight about some of the efforts being made by law enforcement agencies, particularly the RCMP. In this regard I have to note that our government is advancing its efforts to combat the trafficking and cross-border smuggling of contraband tobacco by standing up and establishing a 50-officer RCMP anti-contraband tobacco force. This anti-contraband tobacco force would target organized crime groups engaged in the production and distribution of contraband tobacco. Its goal is to have a measurable impact on reducing the contraband market and on combatting organized criminal networks. This would align with the RCMP contraband tobacco enforcement strategy, which focuses on reducing the availability of and demand for contraband tobacco and the involvement of organized crime, as well as build on our existing federal enforcement measures.

The Government of Canada recognizes that contraband tobacco smuggling has become a serious problem in the last few years. Certainly, Canadians want to be protected from offenders involved in these contraband tobacco smuggling operations, which threaten their safety and that of their families, as well as their health and the health of our youth.

I can speak for the communities of Selkirk—Interlake, which are very rural ridings, and Metis and first nation communities. No one likes having criminal elements in our neighbourhoods. No one wants those criminal elements and organized criminal gangs selling contraband tobacco and other illicit drugs to our youth. Canadians want to be protected from organized crime that is associated with contraband tobacco activities. These proposed amendments and the establishment of a 50-officer RCMP anti-contraband tobacco force would do just that.

I have to say that I respect the RCMP and all of its efforts related to community safety. I respect the work that it is doing on the Hill. I know it wants to stop contraband, stop organized crime and stop smoking. I just wish that the NDP leader would stop at stop signs, that he would stop for the RCMP cruisers when they chase him and he would stop being so mean.

[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.

[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—

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on Bill S-16. I think it is an important bill, moving forward. However, what is it about the NDP members that, whenever they agree with the pith and substance of a bill, they always say there was not enough consultation?

The member for Northumberland—Quinte West said today that this issue has been before committees. We have had witness after witness from a variety of backgrounds come in to talk about the issue. The government has put forward a strong bill. It would receive further consultation through the parliamentary committee process, and I invite the member to attend to see the variety of witnesses we receive at justice committee.

It seems that when they do not want to say it is a good bill, they always say there is a lack of consultation.