Debates of Feb. 8th, 1994

West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it would meet the convenience of the House if I move that the sitting be suspended till 5.45 p.m. so that people do not have to sit here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall I suspend the sitting until six o'clock p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The bells are supposed to ring for 15 minutes starting at 6 p.m., so the vote can be held at 6:15 p.m. With unanimous consent we could move the vote forward to 6 p.m. and the bells could start ringing immediately. Is that agreed?

Does everyone understand? Instead of the bells ringing at 6 p.m. for the vote at 6.15 p.m., we will move ahead and begin the bells ringing at 5.45 p.m. and the deferred vote will take place at 6 p.m. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion.

Social Security System

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, this sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.18 p.m.)

The House resumed at 10.10 p.m.

Message From The Senate

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-10, an act to provide for the maintenance of west coast ports operations, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order, I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Government House Ottawa

February 8, 1994

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Major, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th day of February, 1994 at 10 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.

Yours sincerely,

Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:

Bill C-10, an to act to provide for the maintenance of west coast ports operations-Chapter No. 1.

As it is 10.20 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., in accordance with the standing orders.

(The House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.)

February 3, 1994

The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, P.C., M.P. Prime Minister House of Commons Room 311-S, Centre Block Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Prime Minister,

The purpose of this letter is to outline my serious concern over the alarming increase in cross-border crime which is occurring across Canada and growing on a daily basis particularly the smuggling of cigarettes, alcohol and other commodities.

We are at a point where existing RCMP law enforcement resources are virtually incapable of turning the tide in this rapidly expanding problem given our other responsibilities across Canada. While seizures have increased dramatically, the extent of the problem has been rising at a much faster rate with the involvement of organized crime groups and as otherwise law abiding citizens engaged in the criminal activity through the open purchase of contraband. I am convinced that a comprehensive strategy is required to address the smuggling problem which goes beyond an enhanced enforcement initiative.

What is needed, I believe, is an approach which includes enhanced enforcement, a strong communication package reflecting the extent of the smuggling problem as a law and order issue, enhanced public education on the health risks of smoking and a cigarette pricing policy which more closely reflects United States prices. This implies a need to reduce the tax on cigarettes significantly enough to approach parity, thereby eliminating the profit motive for smugglers. I believe we still need a moderately enhanced enforcement posture to remove organized networks which will continue to smuggle other commodities.

I have not come to this conclusion lightly. Normally, an enforcement only enhancement would work but, in this case, the smuggling problem has become so pervasive that the number of additional resources required to resolve the problem would be so intrusive as to be unacceptable, both from cost effectiveness and public perception perspectives. A comprehensive approach, while perhaps on the surface appearing to be capitulating to the smugglers, is the most balanced and efficient way to resolve an issue which one could strongly argue is out of control in present circumstances.

I would be pleased to discuss this matter in more detail, should you desire.

Sincerely

N.D. Inkster