House of Commons Hansard #85 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was recall.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
Francis Leblanc Liberal Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development regarding Bill C-28. The committee has examined the bill and has agreed to report it with amendments.
Rex Crawford Liberal Kent, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first is signed by several dozen residents of Walpole Island, First Nation, who call upon the government to maintain at all times their no GST status on or off the reserves for any purchases they might make.
Rex Crawford Liberal Kent, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by hundreds of my constituents of Kent who call upon the government to support a domestic ethanol industry in light of the fact that a $170 million plant for Chatham is in jeopardy without federal involvement and since legislative support of ethanol is Liberal policy. The petitioners want it to become government policy.
Also, in Chatham on Friday there was an Ethanol rally sponsored by the city of Chatham in the county of Kent. It was an outstanding day with enthusiasm and high spirits.
Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from business men and women who point out that some progress has indeed been made by government and the private sector with regard to access to more capital to provide more growth and therefore more jobs.
They also point out that there is a need to continue to work hard to eliminate the red tape which is often an impediment to conducting business in Canada. They see the current goods and services tax as cumbersome, as wasteful and as burdensome. They want the GST replaced and while doing so they want government and those who are working with government on an alternative not to forget the small and medium size business men and women.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour to present two petitions signed by several thousands of constituents.
The first petition which has 2,343 signature wishes to draw to the attention of the House that the incidents of sexual abuse directed toward children are becoming more and more frequent; that each incident of paedophilia harms the public and that there would be fewer such incidents if such persons were immediately taken off the streets for the protection of our children and the safety of our communities.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation that would remand to custody any person charged with the act of paedophilia and that such person be denied bail until such time as this person has been proven innocent or until they have served the full length of sentence imposed upon them.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, the second petition has some 465 signatures and draws to the attention of the House that the senior citizens of New Brunswick are outraged at the amount of taxation imposed upon them by the government.
Therefore they ask the House of Commons to oppose the taxation measures directed at Canadian seniors in the last federal budget.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Harrowsmith, Sydenham, Glenburnie, Belleville and Kingston. That pretty well covers the communities that have signed, all of which are objecting to changes in the human rights code of the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with same sex relationships and approval thereof.
Most of the constituents are from the neighbouring riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington but for whatever reason the petition was forwarded to me by them. I present it to the House on that basis.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition dealing with the issue of changes to the Criminal Code regarding assisted suicide.
The petitioners who signed this are from the same communities. They ask that the prohibition against assisted suicide be retained without changes and that the current law be enforced so that Parliament is not seen to be aiding or abetting assisted suicide.
John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased and honoured to present a petition signed by people in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton and other areas concerning young offenders.
No doubt they are joining the thousands of Canadians who are concerned about the violence in our communities, in particular the disturbing rise in youth violence.
This petition has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions and calls on Parliament to review and revise our laws concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to prosecute and punish the young law breakers who are terrorizing our society by releasing their names and lowering the age limit to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 49 and 50.
Question No. 49-
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
What action has the Department of Environment taken in response to the concerns raised by the Auditor General in his 1993 report that "parliamentarians and stakeholders were not comprehensively and equally informed about key issues affecting the effectiveness and cost of the pulp and paper regulations?"
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Environment Canada accepts these criticisms and is modifying its process. In the future, the process will involve early consultation with all stakeholders and partners (provinces, parliamentarians, industries, NGOs) in the development of options for a particular environmental issue.
Accordingly, Environment Canada has committed itself to implement a process that will fulfil the principles of: public participation, openness and transparency in the decision-making process; exploring options beyond traditional command and control regulations such as: market-based tools (trading programs, taxes and charges, financial incentives, environmental liability and deposit/refund systems); voluntary actions (guidelines and multistakeholder protocols); information provision (environmental labelling, technology development and transfer, government reports/inventories, citizenship); and regulations/guidelines/environmental quality objectives; and cost effectiveness, flexibility, and harmonizing environmental management regimes among federal and provincial governments.
Question No. 50-
Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL
Is the Department of Environment taking the necessary measures to ensure that its regulatory impact analysis statements contain full and accurate information on its proposed regulatory initiatives, and will they remain "the essential means of disclosing information to cabinet, Parliament and the public"?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
The Department of Environment will continue to ensure that the regulatory impact analysis statements (RIAS) fulfil the Treasury Board requirements in terms of providing clear and concise information on:
the rationale for the environmental measure (regulations or economic instrument);
an assessment of alternatives to the selected environmental measure;
evaluation of both costs and benefits (quantifiable where possible);
the comments received in the course of the consultation period; and
how the environmental measure will be enforced.
Since the RIAS is a summary of technical and economic studies, any economic related information or questions could be answered by providing interested parties with these studies. These are available upon request and upon the publication of the RIAS in the Canada Gazette , Part I.
If any additional information needs to be clarified, the resource persons identified in the last section of the RIAS may be contacted.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Shall the remaining questions stand?
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
My dear colleagues, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a printing error that has crept into today's Order Paper .
The order for third reading of Bill C-11 which appears in today's Projected Order of Business at third reading stage is unfortunately not printed in the Order Paper .
Excise Act, Customs Act, Tobacco Sales To Young Persons ActGovernment Orders
Scarborough East Ontario
Liberal
Doug Peters Liberalfor the Minister of National Revenue
moved that Bill C-11, an act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, be read the third time and passed.
Excise Act, Customs Act, Tobacco Sales To Young Persons ActGovernment Orders
Essex—Windsor Ontario
Liberal
Susan Whelan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure every member appreciates, smuggling is both a serious and complex problem. It threatens our economy and the health of young Canadians.
Bill C-11 plays an important role in the fight against smuggling and in protecting the health of young Canadians.
We know that the Prime Minister's four point, anti-smuggling initiative announced on February 8, 1994 is having a positive impact in the fight against tobacco smuggling. Cigarette exports have plummeted. These exports represented the major source of smuggled products.
However, we need to maintain the momentum we established with the government's anti-smuggling initiative. The decisions by Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia to lower their tobacco tax rates and work within the Prime Minister's anti-smuggling framework are very encouraging.
Bill C-11 deals with the legislative changes we need to make to give our law enforcement agencies the flexibility and tools they need to fight the smuggling problem in its entirety. The proposed amendments to the Excise Act will allow the government to designate other Canadian police forces as appropriate with the authority to enforce certain seizure related sections of the act.
For example, section 88.(2) of the Excise Act provides an officer with the authority to seize vehicles that have been or are being used for the purpose of transporting contraband. As well, subsection 163.(3) will allow an officer to seize contraband spirits in any vehicle used to transport contraband spirits.
These powers have always been available to the RCMP. With Bill C-11, however, we can now extend these powers to other Canadian police forces. In particular, Bill C-11 allows us to respond to requests from Ontario and Quebec for additional powers for their provincial police forces.
In addition to this measure, Bill C-11 includes an amendment that will allow these law enforcement agencies to immediately destroy seized contraband without hindering the ability of authorities to bring criminals to successful prosecution.
This measure will provide our law enforcement agencies with increased flexibility in dealing with the smuggling trade without jeopardizing prosecutions. It will also save taxpayers over $200,000 a year in storage costs. This figure represents savings only to the Department of National Revenue. It does not include amounts to be saved by the RCMP.
An amendment to the Excise Act will also require individual cigarettes to be stamped. This measure will enable our law enforcement agencies and all law-abiding Canadians to more easily identify contraband tobacco products.
Under an amendment to the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, Bill C-11 would also ban the importation of tobacco products by persons under the age of 18. This amendment will help to protect young Canadians from accessing tobacco products from outside the country.
In short, Bill C-11 will help us crack down on smuggling. It will help us break the criminal networks that control the smuggling trade. It will help to protect the health of young Canadians and it is enforceable.
Finally, when we deal with smuggling we also address the underground economy and the problems it creates. Bill C-11 promotes greater co-operation between governments. We are better able to address the challenges we are facing and do it more efficiently by working together.
In closing, I want to highlight an observation that I made during the debate on Bill C-11 in the House and in committee. It appeared to me that all sides of the House agreed on the need to strengthen the anti-smuggling powers of our law enforcement agencies and on the need to protect and educate young Canadians on the dangers of tobacco. I believe that my statements here today have shown this government's commitment toward resolving these problems.
In the House of Commons on February 8 the Prime Minister stated that we must act to eliminate smuggling to protect the health of young Canadians and to restore respect for the law. Bill C-11 plays an important role in accomplishing these objectives.
I hope members of this House will act together to support this bill.
Gérard Asselin Bloc Charlevoix, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act.
I congratulate the government on finally living up to its responsibilities and bringing in amendments so that the Act can be applied more effectively. Unfortunately, it seems that the government has decided to tackle the serious problems caused by cigarette smuggling on the backs of the manufacturers and retailers.
Instead of applying the Act to the letter and having goods seized and offenders arrested, on Indian reserves among other places, the government has opted for dissuasion and retaliation against honest citizens. The Prime Minister himself has admitted that he had difficulty getting the Act applied.
Under the weight of public pressure, the Minister of Health, the Hon. Diane Marleau, the same one who gave her word that taxes on tobacco products would not be lowered, had no choice but to give in. You have to admit it is sad to see that the current government seems to prefer protecting criminals who break the law to concerning itself with the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.
Despite that, there are some good provisions in Bill C-11, although some others ought to be amended. I am going to use the few minutes at my disposal to discuss these provisions with my fellow members here in the House. The bill contains the following amendment to section 7.1(1) of the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act: "No person shall sell or offer for sale cigarettes unless they are sold or offered for sale in packages containing at least 20 cigarettes per package".
It should be noted that packs of less than 20 cigarettes are primarily bought and consumed by young people. You might be inclined to think that the purchase of cigarettes by young people would now drop significantly, except that the government has just lowered the tax on cigarettes, which could have the opposite effect to the government's stated goal, thus making it easier for young people to get access to tobacco products.
This brings me to what it costs young people to smoke. Although some young people have a bit of work, often at the minimum wage, they are not rich, and so it is to be hoped that they will decide to stop smoking and invest their money in something more constructive. This may be a hollow hope, since it was estimated in 1989 that 90 per cent of young Canadians aged 12 to 19 years of age smoked every day. The total volume of purchases by this segment of the population represents$436 million.
You will agree that this is a huge amount of money:$436 million gone up in smoke-if you will allow me a small pun-especially when 40 per cent of young Quebecers were living below the poverty line in 1990. My figures are a few years old, but the situation has hardly changed.
Equally appalling is the fact that adolescents are starting to smoke younger and younger, a situation that alarms me very much indeed. I know what I am talking about, because one of my own children is 12 years old now, and I am sure that I am not the only member of this House to be confronted with this harsh reality. You can try your best to persuade them not to smoke, but at that age young people often succumb to peer pressure. Moreover, it is often before the age of 17 that dependence on cigarettes develops, and the older you get, the harder it is to break the habit.
According to Health and Welfare Canada, 38,000 people die each year of illnesses directly or indirectly related to tobacco use. And what about the years of diminished productivity caused by inability to work thanks to tobacco-related illness? The amounts that have to be paid out by the government-and that means by you and me, through our taxes-for leave and health care are enormous.
Another aspect of the bill that perplexes me is the control of the age restrictions on people who want to buy tobacco products. It is commendable to make access to tobacco products more difficult for the young. One of the provisions in the bill prohibits vendors from selling tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18, on pain of fines or imprisonment. The problem I see with this clause is that of controls and application.
The government says controls will be tighter, since some300 Health Canada inspectors will be responsible for ensuring that the legislation is applied to the letter. If these amendments are applied in the same way as those governing the sale of alcohol to minors, we are entitled to wonder about their relevance. We all know how easy it is for young people to obtain alcohol from unscrupulous vendors. You have only to visit any corner store in Quebec to realize that.
To follow up on what I have just said I would now like to speak about the fines that vendors would have to pay for selling tobacco products to minors, and manufactures for packaging cigarettes less than 20 to a pack.
The amendment that the bill proposes to section 7.2(1) of the Act would make anyone convicted of selling cigarettes to a minor liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $2,000 or a prison term of not more than six months.
You will agree with me that $2,000 is not a lot of money. In my opinion, the fine should be a little stiffer, to give the bill more teeth. On the other hand, the fines by the cigarette manufacturers will probably have a strong deterrent effect since they range from $100,000 to $500,000 and from six months to two years in prison.
In my opinion, education about the dangers and the cost of smoking, among both young and old people, is still one of the most effective ways of eliminating the problem of tobacco use in Canada-on condition, though, that the messages conveyed are relevant. Unfortunately, the government's publicity campaigns put forward in recent years by Health Canada are far from having had the desired effect. In the opinion of young people themselves, those campaigns did not get their attention. Instead of telling them that it is stupid to smoke or that their friends will drop them if they keep on smoking, we should show young people what really happens when people smoke.
In closing, I shall address the point of view of the tobacco product manufacturers and retailers concerning Bill C-11, an act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act.
The cigarette manufacturers have agreed to stop manufacturing packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes, and the retailers have agreed to stop selling them. However, the time allowed by the government to sell off that stock is too short, in the opinion of the manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Stopping the production of packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes will entail considerable costs.
Nor is taking packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes off the market right away justified: these products are not faulty and have no manufacturing defects.
Another point that should be noted is that whether the distributors and retailers have packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes in stock depends, essentially, on their sales in the past, when these packs were legal. A retailer who had ordered a large quantity of packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes but had not sold many of them would need more time to sell off that stock.
Nor should we forget that the cigarette companies will have to remove all machines that distribute only packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes, a move that also entails costs.
For all the reasons I have just mentioned, we in the Bloc Quebecois ask the government to extend the deadline for manufacturers, distributors and retailers so that they may sell off their stock while suffering as few losses as possible.
In conclusion, I express the wish that the amendments to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, will be strictly enforced and will help eliminate smoking, particularly among young people.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks in the third reading of this bill.
It has been a number of months since Bill C-11 was first debated in the House. During second reading of Bill C-11 in February the Reform Party used the opportunity to discuss and debate all the changes proposed by the government as a part of our national action plan to combat smuggling, particularly our opposition to the tax reduction on cigarettes. That was our main concern.
I wish to make it clear that while Reformers support the changes to Bill C-11, we are still opposed to the tax reductions on cigarettes which were recently introduced in Bill C-32.
Yesterday we introduced an amendment that would make it more difficult for young people to obtain chewing tobacco. We have grave concerns in that regard. We appreciate very much that the government listened. At this time it is not going to implement the amendment, but we appreciate its openness and acceptance of the idea.
Bill C-11 will improve enforcement under the excise and customs acts by giving the government the authority to allow police forces other than the RCMP to enforce specific provisions. Provincial and municipal forces can be designated with the authority to seize alcohol or tobacco, to seize vehicles used
to transport contraband, and to seize equipment used in illicit activities. Reformers support these increased enforcement measures.
Bill C-11 provides for the immediate destruction of certain seized goods, primarily tobacco and alcohol. Currently these goods would have to be kept for one month. It is estimated the measure would save taxpayers $200,000 per year in storage costs. Bill C-11 also provides for compensation to be paid to a person who is entitled to have the seized goods returned but the goods have been sold or destroyed.
Reformers have some concerns about this provision because it is not completely clear to us whether the person would get the fair market value of the goods if the goods were sold. I am referring to subsection 9(3) which states that if it is not possible to return them "the person shall be paid (a) where the goods were sold the proceeds from the sale".
Our concern is that the proceeds from the sale may not be the fair market value for the goods, vehicles or equipment sold. While we have some reservations concerning compensation for seized goods that have been sold or destroyed, Reformers still support the new provision.
Bill C-11 will also amend the Excise Act in order to require individual cigarettes to be clearly stamped to indicate that excise duties have been paid. This will make it easier for everyone to identify those persons who are smoking contraband tobacco products.
The Canadian Cancer Society still believes that individual stamping of cigarettes may not be visible enough and has recommended that Bill C-11 be amended to make it possible to require tobacco manufacturers to produce cigarettes with different coloured paper. If individual stamping does not prove to be effective, certainly a different coloured cigarette would be more noticeable. While Reformers support the amendment proposed by the Canadian Cancer Society, we will still support Bill C-11.
Just as an aside, I think it would be an interesting research project to see what effect black paper would have on the outside of cigarettes rather than white paper. It would be an interesting research project for someone to do some time.
Bill C-11 also amends the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act by raising the legal age of purchase to 18 years and prohibiting the sale of so-called kiddie packs. The amendment will make it illegal for tobacco vendors to sell kiddie packs and make it illegal for tobacco manufacturers to package cigarettes in packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
There has been some concern by tobacco manufacturers about the cost and the timing of the implementation of the amendment, but Reformers believe it is not a major issue. The health of young people is more important and we support the government's amendment.
I wish to remind the government of the comments made by the hon. member for Wild Rose in the House on February 22. I should like to quote them at this time: "Stopping the so-called kiddie packs is one thing that is excellent about this bill. The only problem is that we will not have to worry about kiddie packs any more because now they can afford the 25 packs".
This statement illustrates a real concern about the government's national action plan to combat smuggling. The tax reduction on cigarettes has made cigarettes more affordable for everyone, especially young people. We just do not know how many thousands of people will start smoking or start smoking more as a result of the tax reduction on cigarettes. Consequently we do not know how much the government's action plan will cost taxpayers in increased health care costs. This is a major concern for us.
Our concerns were confirmed when the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Health appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance on June 7 and advised that the government's goal was "to reduce the demand for tobacco, the number one cause of preventable death in Canada. It is the number one cause of preventable death". She went on to say: "The government fully recognized that the action plan to combat smuggling and the tax measures associated with it would pose health risks".
It is inconceivable to me how the government could rationalize those two statements. It recognizes the problem and it recognizes that what it has done will compound the problem. I think this needs to be addressed.
In conclusion, once again I express our support for Bill C-11, as amended, even though we oppose the government's tax reduction on cigarettes. Reformers look forward to the real debate on the government's national action plan to combat smuggling when Bill C-32 comes back to the House from committee.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to take but a few minutes to say a few words on the bill.
As the member of Parliament who has the honour and privilege of representing Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and more particularly Glengarry for the purpose of this conversation, I would be remiss if I did not take a few moments in the House to express my gratitude to hon. members for supporting the legislation.
Unless members have actually seen what it was like in and around Cornwall, Ontario, at this time last year they really cannot have an appreciation of how big and how serious the issue was for our government. It was obvious to the previous government that the problem would never go away on its own and that very drastic measures needed to be taken.
I remember around this period last year receiving telephone calls in my constituency office and in my Ottawa office virtually every day from people who were telling me: "Last night there was a van parked in my driveway along the St. Lawrence River when I got home. People were loading cigarettes right in my yard". I remember people telling me: "I was sitting on the veranda. A boat came up to my house and just stopped. A van wheeled in and they unloaded cigarettes and in 10 seconds flat they were gone. They had unloaded a cargo in my yard before my very eyes in the daylight". I remember constituents telling me how the smugglers would shoot their guns to frighten them into their homes so that they could continue their illegal activity.
We saw all of that in my riding. We saw it for a long time. We saw that kind of illegal activity going on. We also know how all of it was run by organized crime, or at least the great majority of it. This was no cottage industry for a few local people. No, it was way beyond that. I am sure deep down inside all members know this as well.
To pretend that simply applying an export tax to tobacco would solve this problem is wrong, and I think members know it. To pretend that changing the colour of the cigarette and making it obvious that anything not that colour is contraband would solve the problem is also wrong. People were proudly displaying, otherwise law-abiding Canadians, in their pockets cigarette packages that were strictly made for the contraband market.
I will never forget the day when I found a package of contraband cigarettes beside a dumpster near the West Block and I brought it to the attention of the House at that time.
We all knew the contraband market was everywhere. Changing the colour of the barrel of the cigarette, plain packaging or a few other measures like those simply could not work on their own. We needed an all encompassing plan. As the centrepiece of that plan we required a reduction in cigarette taxes.
And that is the only thing that makes the plan work. Without that main element, without that cornerstone, nothing would have worked, and parliamentarians know it.
My colleagues in the Bloc know it perhaps better, certainly a bit better than the Reform members, because Quebec and eastern Ontario were affected by the smuggling much more than were some other regions.
But the country was not spared, not in the east, not in the west, or anywhere else. We heard about major seizures, even in cities like Edmonton. Mr Speaker, you heard about them yourself: seizures of smuggled goods worth millions of dollars. So, that we know.
The announcement by the Prime Minister came on February 8. I conclude by reading a bit from an article in the Standard Freeholder of February 16, eight days after the government announced its plan. That was barely enough time for smugglers to liquidate their stock of illegal cigarettes. Yet eight days later the following story was on the front page of Cornwall's daily newspaper, the Standard Freeholder :
Smuggling is down to a trickle. The volume of black market cigarettes moving through this region has dropped significantly since the federal government's crackdown on smuggling began one week ago today.
OPP Det. Inspector Chris Lewis said police have seized some smuggled smokes since the federal anti-smuggling plan went into effect last Wednesday. But the volume of contraband seized in the past week has "been quite a bit less" than the police had been accustomed to seizing in a seven-day period.
Lewis, with the Anti-Smuggling Task Force in Cornwall, could not give specific figures, but he did attribute the slowdown to the stepped-up police enforcement.
Snowmobile activity on the river has slowed down as well. Lewis said during the week there was a lot of activity from mainland U.S. to Cornwall Island but very little between Cornwall Island and mainland Ontario. This too he attributes to the stepped-up enforcement.
Then there is the quote from then Grand Chief of the Mohawk community of Akwesasne, Mike Mitchell, who said: "If there is anything moving it is just a trickle".
In eight days, the plague that had stricken my constituency had been eliminated: eight days.
My constituents experienced in a free and democratic society not even being able to leave their homes to go outside in their own backyards without being threatened by gunshots. This was not in Sarajevo, not in Mogadishu and not in Rwanda but50 miles from Parliament Hill. That is what my constituents were subjected to. That is what they had to live through for a long period of time.
To anyone who tells me that these high cigarette taxes should be reimposed like I heard yesterday I say: "Do not try selling that policy in Glengarry. Do not try selling that policy to the millions of Canadians who know the illegal activity that went on and the fact that otherwise law-abiding Canadians by the millions were no longer respecting that law".
The social contract had broken down, not the Bob Rae social contract but the Hobbesian kind, that rule by which we all agree to respect the laws of this country. That rule no longer existed as it pertained to taxes on cigarettes. When society decides collectively that the rule no longer exists, it ceases to exist. That is the reality.
Yes, we could bury our heads in the sand and say "Oh, no, no, we could have hired six more policemen to patrol a 4,000 mile unprotected border and that would have fixed it".