Debates of Feb. 22nd, 1994

Excise Act

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the hon. member for Calgary Centre and congratulate him on his excellent speech. It was certainly very intelligent and totally comprehensive of the entire package that has been brought forward in this bill.

I would like to indicate to the member that he has convinced me as to how I should vote on this bill. In terms of his colleagues, I appreciate the point that he has brought out, that we cannot legislate social attitudes and social behaviour. We can do everything in our power in this House to look at each issue comprehensively and try to find the best solution that serves the majority of people who are law-abiding citizens.

I congratulate the member on the broadness and intelligence of his approach. I hope that he can take this to his colleagues and convince them of the merits of the bill.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his remarks seemed to equate law enforcement with the arrest and conviction of criminal smugglers.

I want to ask him whether he thinks it is a more effective type of enforcement where the measures taken deter or prevent the smuggling from occurring in the first place. It seems to me that is the type of enforcement that we have encouraged with the broad range of measures which he seems to support. In other words, through increased resources to the RCMP and to customs agents, increased by lowering the price of the cigarettes, by a wide range of measures that is in the program, we are deterring continued smuggling at the level that it was at.

I want to ask the member if that is not a better type of enforcement than having the crime take place and then attempting to arrest the person after the fact?

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. That philosophy and that argument is what is forcing a lot of my colleagues to argue that the government was afraid to enforce the law. The law was there. We knew where the smuggling was taking place and nothing was being done about it. Nobody was going there and arresting those people. They were staying away from those areas.

The member's philosophy now is or he is suggesting that by eliminating the profit out of smuggling that the smuggling will not occur and therefore the arrest will not have to happen.

[An hon. member]

Plus increase police resources.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Plus increase the police resources and enforce it. That is a fine argument, but we have not captured the people who were responsible for the smuggling in the first place. They will just find something else to smuggle now. If they knew who was doing it, why did they not arrest them prior to the price reduction?

Like the complete four point package, it is a package. I think it is a way to solve this problem. To shy away from enforcing the law-and the Minister of Justice is listening to us intently here-is backing away and shirking your responsibilities. I am not saying that the minister has shirked his responsibilities, but somehow, and I am just repeating what has been said to me by a lot of people, there is a perception that there are two sets of laws, one for native Indians and one for on reserve and off reserve natives. The RCMP has been reluctant-I am not saying it was ordered not to-to enforce the law where the law was being broken.

This is a package to eliminate all that. With respect to the members of my party who spoke out in terms of law enforcement, this is the area where the government's action has been weak; the argument about if the speed limit is being broken, then raise the speed limit and the law is not being broken any more. Let us enforce the law.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

My side woke up, finally.

I think it is imperative that the government not shy away from its law enforcement duties even though it changed the law so that the law will not be broken.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as in past weeks we have learned a lot today about the smuggling issue and we will continue to discuss the matter, but discussion is not enough. To the government members of the House the bottom line remains that we have a responsibility to take action now against what has become a national epidemic of problems created by smuggling. That is why I am speaking today in support of Bill C-11.

As the hon. Minister of National Revenue pointed out earlier today, smuggling has grown into a national problem requiring a national solution. No longer is the smuggling phenomenon restricted to specific regions of the country. It has been evidenced today by many members in the House that it is wide-

spread across Canada. It has spread to all parts of Canada and it affects all Canadians.

History has shown us that if left unchecked, the problem can only get worse. History has also shown us that empty threats and promises are not effective against this phenomenon. It is time for action now.

As well, we have learned over the past few months that the costs of smuggling are staggering. Tobacco smuggling alone has cost the federal government over a billion dollars in lost revenue. The provincial governments have also lost a billion dollars to tobacco smuggling.

This is revenue that was to be used for programs such as health, social services and employment, revenue that has been taken away from government thus reducing its ability to help Canadians who need it the most, revenue that has been placed into the hands of criminals and organized crime to finance their elicit activities.

These activities are not restricted to contraband tobacco products but also drugs, alcohol and weapons. Smuggling has also cost the legitimate business operators in Canada who cannot compete with the tobacco contraband market. These businesses are losing more sales and in more areas of the country as contraband sales steadily increase.

The costs are not all monetary. Smuggling is no longer just an issue of tax avoidance by smokers. It has resulted in cheap tobacco products being easily accessible to young Canadians. I want all Canadians to know that the smuggling networks have penetrated our school yards. They are offering cheap tobacco products to young people. These same networks that used to sell drugs and other contraband are used to sell drugs and other contraband products to our youth.

Past government inaction and intolerance of tobacco smuggling has resulted in a disregard for Canadian laws, disregard not only from criminals but from Canadians who would otherwise be law abiding citizens.

Bill C-11 is an integral part of this government's four point anti-smuggling and anti-smoking initiative. The proposed amendments that Bill C-11 will make to the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act are evidence of this government's resolve to act to restore respect for our laws and to protect young Canadians.

I would like to describe again for those members present in the House the basic elements of the bill.

The first amendment would allow the government to designate provincial and municipal police forces as appropriate with authority to enforce provisions of the Excise Act, expanding the police resources to combat smuggling.

This will assist in cutting off the flow and distribution of contraband products into the marketplace. These are the same cheap products that are reaching our young Canadians and the same cheap products that undermine anti-smoking initiatives and drain revenues from legitimate public programs.

The second amendment, both to the Excise Act and Customs Act, would allow for the immediate disposal of certain seized products without hindering the successful prosecutions of the criminals involved. This measure will save taxpayers significant costs each year by reducing the cost of storage of these goods and the resources needed to protect and monitor them.

The third amendment to the Excise Act will require that each individual cigarette that is to be sold in Canada be stamped to indicate that the federal taxes have been paid. This amendment will greatly assist enforcement agencies in identifying contraband cigarettes. In addition law-abiding citizens will be able to easily identify someone smoking contraband cigarettes. We will be able to know if anyone in the room or our neighbour has bought legal cigarettes.

The last two proposed amendments to Bill C-11 are to the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act. The first of the two amendments would prohibit the manufacture and the sale of so-called kiddie packs of tobacco products in Canada. These kiddie packs contain fewer than 20 cigarettes per package and are targeted specifically to the young people of Canada.

The second of the two amendments will prohibit the importation of tobacco products into Canada by anyone under the age of 18. This will provide Canada Customs with the authority to prevent young persons from importing tobacco that they could otherwise not legally purchase in Canada.

As the hon. minister has outlined for everyone today, action has to be taken to address the smuggling problem in this country. Bill C-11 specifically supports two key elements of the government's anti-smuggling initiative, enforcement and the health and safety of young Canadians.

The proposed amendments to the Excise Act and Customs Act will provide additional tools to police forces to help them crack down on all facets of the smuggling trade. The proposed amendments to the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act will support the protection of the health and safety of young Canadians.

This bill is an essential element of the government's overall strategy. We certainly do not pretend that these proposed amendments offer a complete solution to the problem. Rather, they support the broader anti-smuggling initiatives that this government has undertaken. Without these amendments the government's efforts to combat smuggling would be significantly undermined.

The time to take action is now. As we can see from the debate today, this is a very controversial topic. But as we can also see from the debate today, there are many members on the opposite side of the House who would agree with this government's action. This action by the government reflects the responsibility of all parties that have interest in this debate.

This government can no longer afford to allow the momentum of this phenomenon to continue to accelerate. It is for this reason that we ask all members to support the passage of Bill C-11.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member mentioned smuggling of alcohol. The price of a bottle of spirits in Canada is about $20 as opposed to about $10 in the United States. Eighty-seven per cent of the price of a bottle of spirits in Canada is made up of taxes. An estimated four million cases of 12 bottles are smuggled into Canada every year from the U.S. and about 13 million cases are sold legally in Canada.

Provincial governments and the federal government are losing billions of dollars in revenue as a result of this smuggling. I am wondering when the government is going to come up with a plan to reduce the taxes on alcohol because there is exactly the same scenario here. These cases are parallel in my mind.

I would like to ask the hon. member when she would recommend that taxes on alcohol be reduced.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex—Windsor, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government's action plan has addressed the issue of smuggling. We have addressed and acknowledged that smuggling is not limited to tobacco. This plan is set out with that focus in mind: to address all aspects of tobacco, alcohol, guns, whatever. We are increasing enforcement by 25 per cent. The bill allows certain sections of enforcement to be expanded and given to designated police forces to assist in combating smuggling, not just of tobacco but of alcohol and other items as well.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that most of the comments and arguments in support of this bill are, as everyone will concede, quite logical. Sadly, these arguments should have been made one, maybe even two, years ago when the Government of Quebec requested Ottawa's help in halting the spread of contraband activities and in eradicating this problem.

We were experiencing similar problems with our young people. They were dropping out of schools and joining smuggling rings. However, the problem was not viewed as too serious because it was occurring primarily in Quebec. Now that Quebec, through the presence of 54 Bloc Quebecois members in Ottawa, has forced the government's hand, forced it to take action and support Quebec's position, others are starting to get worried. It is as if suddenly, it is morally right to abolish a law which had become punitive.

People no longer obeyed the law, not because they had become thieves, but because they were no longer able to obey it, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are trying to denounce today.

Steps should have been taken two years ago so that these situations could have been avoided altogether. In some cases, it is perhaps too late. Our young people have been drawn into these smuggling networks. Perhaps the future of these 15 or 16 year olds who make $1,000 a week through their involvement with smuggling has been ruined forever.

The government should have admitted at the time that the problem existed, not just or primarily in Quebec, and that it represented a real danger for the rest of Canada. It should have intervened.

If the government takes action that is too harsh, such as imposing ill-considered fines, it runs the risk that these fines will be paid under the table. If people start bribing officials, our jails will never be big enough and we will have another problem on our hands. That is what always happens. I hope that the government has learned its lesson and that in its budget speech this evening, it will not announce further ill-considered taxes which will push citizens to the breaking point.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the parliamentary secretary wish to comment?

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex—Windsor, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the hon. member more that if two years ago the government had taken action we would not find ourselves in the situation we are today.

Unfortunately the government two years ago did not take action. There are members on this side of the House who have pressed this issue for the past five and six years. Unfortunately the past government did not take action. However that is what we are doing with our anti-smuggling and action plan. We are taking action.

I would also like to inform the hon. member, in case he is not aware, that this government was aware of the problem as an opposition party. We took hold of the problem when we became the government. We began addressing the problem immediately after the October 25 election.

If the hon. member would refer to newspaper articles he would see that before the House was recalled in January we had already begun discussions. We are dealing with the problem.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the member for Essex-Windsor on a very thoughtful presentation.

The speaker previous to her started a debate that got picked up by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. It relates to enforcement. There are two ways of doing that. Looking at policing nowadays, there is proactive policing which is being promoted by all police forces versus reactive policing. The concept of proactive policing is that we try to prevent crimes from taking place versus reacting to a crime and trying to catch the criminals after the fact.

Has the member thought about the distinction between the two and which she might find more preferable?

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex—Windsor, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has addressed the criminal aspect and how we can prevent it from happening.

As mentioned earlier, clause 3 of this bill allows for enhanced enforcement of other police officers and other police forces designated by the government. That will assist us in preventing future smuggling and will stop it before it accelerates any further.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I see from the list I have been asked to speak on justice enforcement. I am pleased to do that because I believe justice is one word which is rapidly disappearing from Canadian society.

Justice to me has always meant that the wrongdoer is caught, brought to accountability, prosecuted and when found guilty is punished. And the punishment is supposed to meet the crime. Seeing what is going on today with Bill C-11, we have really shown these smugglers a thing or two. We have lowered the taxes and has that not taught you a lesson, Mr. Smuggler? Boy, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I bet that frightens you.

I cannot for a moment believe we think this is justice. We have a country full of smugglers who are happy to carry on with smuggling cigarettes east and west as much as they can but will probably move into other areas, maybe alcohol. They may have to go to illegal drugs. Probably a lot of pornographic material could be worked on. Smuggling has become a thriving industry. But there is a tough government and if smugglers are caught it will compromise.

We have become a country of compromisers. No longer do we punish for wrongdoing. We need only to look at first degree murderers. We have compromised to the point where a first degree murderer can be back on the street in 15 years. Through legislation we have compromised to that.

We have compromised so successfully that in my riding when I tour around I see bars on the windows of the houses and stores. We do not need bars on jails any more; we need them on the doors of our homes and businesses so we can lock law abiding citizens in while the crooks run around on the streets.

I really am concerned. What is wrong with the idea of justice?

We have a new bill, Bill C-11. This bill was brought about because the government could not or was not willing to enforce the current laws. We have laws against smuggling and now we have a new bill. I am not sure whether this is a way of finding work for certain bureaucrats. It will keep them busy producing more paper for us to look at.

We certainly did not need a new law to enforce smuggling. What we need is action from a government that has the political will to say it is time to stop compromising with the criminal element in the country and that justice will prevail regardless of race, colour, creed or who one is. Criminals in the country must pay the consequences.

The Prime Minister admitted that 70 per cent of the cigarette smuggling problem occurred in limited areas in Quebec and Ontario. If that was known, why did the government not do something about the law breaking under the existing law? "Oh, but we did. We lowered the taxes". I keep hearing that. "We have stopped the smuggling cold. No, we did not want to go in there with guns blazing. We cannot do that. We have to take these other kinds of compromising positions". It is going on and on and has been going on for many a year.

The Prime Minister filled the House with sounds of fury the other day, blustering about getting tough with smugglers. I am waiting to see that happen. One moment the government concedes that smuggling occurs in limited areas in Ontario and Quebec. The next moment it is telling Canadians that smuggling is Canada wide. I do not doubt that for a moment.

When are we going to address the fact that there are law breakers out there? Instead of sitting back in our closets trying to dream up some scheme that will cause them to quit, why not bring punishment forward? Justice is one thing the country has been proud of in the past and should be proud of in the future.

I really became discouraged when I heard a member a while ago saying that enforcement was going to take place. Then he talked about the young person who would have a pack of cigarettes in his possession. Boy, we are really going to get that young person if we catch him with cigarettes.

The other day we talked about a bill and how severe it was going to be if a person was caught using an illegal drug. I did not hear anything about what we were going to do to the suppliers, not a great number of people, who put those things in the hands of our youth. We never hear that.

We hear stories about car bombings that are supposed to be the result of some organized crime associated with smuggling. Yet a Canadian journalist cannot find this car bombing, if it took place. I did not read anything in media reports about a car being bombed because there was some kind of battle going on over

smuggling territory. I did not read anything about it, but apparently that is what happened. Why are these things so hush, hush?

The Prime Minister states there are no no-go zones. Yet a journalist reports of an RCMP officer having shots fired at him while observing smuggling. I did not see any report anywhere where the police had entered, searched or confiscated the weapons used to fire upon that police officer. Is it not the law that you do not fire upon police officers when they are trying to do their duty? If so, why was that law not enforced?

The Prime Minister has stated that the warriors on the Mohawk reserve have paramilitary weapons. Mr. Speaker, you had better not have any paramilitary weapons up there in Edmonton because they are going to come after you. Why is this just being ignored?

I inquired and discovered that aboriginal Canadians on reserves are bound by the same laws as all Canadians. When are we going to treat it that way? I did not hear that police had confiscated any restricted weapons that were documented as being used upon members of the RCMP.

I have problems believing that any new law preventing smuggling is going to be any better than the old law. Until we get the political will in this House, until we get to the point where we say justice must prevail, we have got to stop compromising with criminals and start enforcing the law and making justice happen. It has to meet the crime.

Stopping the so-called kiddie packs is the one thing that is excellent about this bill. The only problem is that we will not have to worry about the kiddie packs any more because now they can afford the 25 packs. Nothing was solved but it was a good gesture just the same.

I really do not understand why we could not put a high import tax on all Canadian manufactured tobacco products. If we would have done that, the price differential between domestic and smuggled cigarettes would have been so small that would have stopped it. However, that still does not for one moment indicate to me that is the answer. The smugglers can now carry on and find something else to smuggle. They have now been punished because we have made it impossible for them to smuggle cigarettes.

I have looked at the whole issue. I am prepared to support Bill C-11 if it will cause the government to go out there and uphold the law and treat all laws with equality. Good for them, if that is what it takes. However, I do not see where it is going to make a lot of difference if it continues to have the same lack of will to go out into our communities and tell the law-abiding citizens that for once it is going to look after their needs and their best interests because the bad guys are the ones who need to get caught and punished. When are we going to start doing it? The sooner the better.

I can recall not too many years ago when I saw people sell booze to minors. Those people were arrested and put into jail for 30, 40 or 60 days. It was at a point when people would say: "We'd best not do it because we can get into trouble". There is no fear of the law. I use fear in terms of respect. There is no respect and it is bodies like this that cause that lack of respect. Put the respect back into the law by giving the police and those who are asked to enforce it the power that is necessary to support them and concentrate on the victims.

I will support Bill C-11 simply because if that is what it takes for the government to do something then I will support it. Law enforcement and justice must prevail. I have not seen where it is going to do it. I am waiting for the big day.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the gist of what the hon. member for Wild Rose has been saying is that reduced taxation results in too much disposable income in the hands of certain people and those people then go and buy cigarettes and alcohol.

I wonder if it is the policy of the Reform Party that taxation should not be reduced in any area because it will leave too much disposable income in people's hands.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I see they listen as well now as they do during Question Period. I never mentioned for one moment that reducing taxes was going to cause any problems.

What I am saying is that reducing taxes is not what I call justice for the criminal element. We are going to reduce taxes and, boy, that will teach those guys a lesson. That is what is hogwash.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been concentrating on law enforcement and talking about the criminal element. I would like to take this opportunity to make a comment and to remind the member that there is a distinction between civil legislation and criminal legislation and the enforcement of criminal provisions versus the enforcement of civil provisions. This proposed bill does not lessen or detract from the criminal law, nor does it detract from the enforcement provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. It introduces a new authority to enforce the civil provisions of the Customs Act, the civil provisions of the Excise Act and the civil provisions of the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act.

No authority currently exists under the Excise Act to allow police forces other than the RCMP to enforce civil provisions of the act. What we are talking about today is the enforcement of civil provisions of these acts.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I was distracted a little bit. I did not get all of the comment. As far as enforcement of the civil aspect, yes, we want that.

I am talking about the criminals, the smugglers. That is criminal. That comes under the Criminal Code if I am not mistaken. If you get caught for smuggling you should pay the penalty. I have not seen that happen and it is high time it did.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and in his speech he repeated several times that justice should prevail. Of course we all agree that justice should prevail, but I notice that the hon. member's definition of justice is to be as tough as we can on the criminal and then everything will be just fine and dandy.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

They all agree. It is my interpretation that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to prevent crime from taking place, to protect the public from crime.

In the southern United States they do just what the Reform Party is suggesting, be tough and throw away the key. They have the highest rates of violent crime in the civilized world. That is what the hon. member is suggesting, be tough, but forget about protecting the public from the crime that takes place in the first place.

What you have got to do if you are interested-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if this member thinks for a moment that all we have to do is go out there and say: "You're not going to be able to do this any more, you lawbreakers, because we are going to lower the taxes", and they are not going to get engaged in some activity, then I do not know what he has been thinking about.

It has always been in this country, as long as I can remember since I have been here, that if one breaks the law one will pay the price and the price of that lawbreaking must fit the crime. Letting the criminal go on the streets is not doing that.