Debates of June 13th, 2013

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Communications Security Establishment Canada

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following the letter that was sent to your office dated yesterday and pursuant to Standing Order 52, I am requesting that an emergency debate on the Communications Security Establishment Canada's metadata collection program be held as soon as possible.

An emergency debate is needed so that parliamentarians can take an in-depth look at the extent to which Canadians' personal information, metadata and other information are collected by the police, law enforcement agencies and national security agencies. This debate is also needed so that we can look at measures that will lead to appropriate parliamentary oversight and ways to balance public and national security interests with Canadians' privacy rights.

On Monday, it was announced that the Communications Security Establishment Canada was potentially collecting metadata on Canadians. Since then, Canadians have been very concerned. They want to ensure that a parliamentary oversight system is in place.

We know that, right now, just one judge, with the help of a small team, is responsible for examining this office's operations. He has testified in committee only three times since he has been in office. I think it is our duty to reassure Canadians by holding a debate here.

I can also say that, since that announcement was made, there have been online campaigns and petitions signed by tens of thousands of Canadians. They are very concerned about this news and about the possibility that their privacy is being violated. Canadians are not alone in this campaign. They have been joined by Amnesty International, Alternative Québec, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Council of Canadians and 10 other civil society groups. OpenMedia is also playing an important role in this situation. Thank you for taking the time to carefully consider my request.

I hope that we can work together as parliamentarians to respond to Canadians' questions in this regard.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville for raising this issue. Although it may be very important to some members, I am not convinced that it merits an emergency debate.

Elections Canada

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege.

This is the first opportunity I have had to do so since the member for Avalon asked a question yesterday, where he stated:

It has been one year since the member for Peterborough dared to show up to an ethics committee because of his unethical and illegal returns....

Over the past several months, there have been charges made against my character, which have served to impact on my functions as a member of this place, charges that I entirely reject.

I had hoped that the most recent report of the Chief Electoral Officer would set these allegations aside, exonerating me of any allegations, but it was instead silent on the matter.

On March 22, 1983, Speaker Jeanne Sauvé ruled that there was in fact a prima facie question of privilege with respect to allegations brought against the hon. member for Lincoln, Mr. Bryce Mackasey by the Montreal Gazette.

In reaching her conclusion, Speaker Sauvé determined that:

Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent Members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into “hatred, contempt or ridicule”. Moreover authorities and precedents agree that even though a Member can “seek remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while the slur upon his reputation remains.” Since there is no way of knowing how long litigation would take, the Member must be allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

I can attest that since Wednesday, June 6, 2012, I have been subjected to unfounded hatred, contempt and ridicule as the result of a leaked document belonging to Elections Canada. It was on that day that I was first contacted by a Hill reporter seeking comment on the Elections Canada investigation into my 2008 campaign filing.

The reporter in question had in his possession a sealed court document related to an ex parte proceeding that was entirely unknown to me, and it contained allegations and statements that I categorically deny.

Despite the fact that this reporter had this complete document, nobody else, not even I or my lawyer, was able to obtain a copy. Indeed, dozens of reporters, including CBC's Laura Payton were having the same problem as I was. This was a leaked document, not obtained through lawful public means. It should have only been in the possession of Elections Canada at that point in time.

The obvious question I had at the time was whether it was true. What was going on? Why did a reporter know about this before I did?

I believe this is a question of importance for all members of this place, given that the functions I perform on behalf of my constituents require that my privilege as a member of this place be upheld. As an agency of Parliament, Elections Canada has specific responsibilities that it must maintain, responsibilities I would argue it has failed to keep.

I would think any reasonable Canadian and, indeed, any member of this place would expect that when allegations are brought against them, they would be given an opportunity to respond to them before any legal proceedings or court options are undertaken. However, this was sadly not the case.

Certainly one would think that, with these rumours and accusations that were circulating in the press, I would have heard from Elections Canada but, again, even my calls to it seeking clarification went unreturned. This continued even as more false allegations were being leaked and then ultimately officially released. Indeed, it would not even confirm to me whether or not there was an investigation.

On Wednesday, June 13, my lawyer sent a letter electronically to Elections Canada. In the letter he made it clear I was seeking to have a meeting with Elections Canada to discuss any questions or concerns it might have and to address specific allegations that had been made by a single party with a motive.

Additionally, we requested that, prior to Elections Canada presenting any additional information, we be given notice and an opportunity to be present for my input and the opportunity to answer questions at the same time. Quite simply, I wanted to talk to them and I wanted them to make me aware of any other statements or proceedings before they were made public.

No member of this place should have to learn details about themselves from the press, as I did beginning on June 6. These serve to incapacitate members in their duty and responsibility to the tens of thousands that each of us represents in this place.

Sadly, once again, on the evening of June 14 I was contacted by the same journalist who had obtained the original leaked sealed document and was informed that he was in possession of an Elections Canada return to the Information to Obtain order, and he was once again asking questions related to allegations of which I had no knowledge.

I read in the press that my personal banking records had been sought, and that a document included in our audited return was unexplained by the person who had brought these allegations against me in the first place. These brought new allegations of forged or false documents in the return, allegations based on assertions made by the Elections Canada investigator, which I would later tell him were absolutely preposterous.

Upon learning these details, I was shocked. I felt violated, and it was clear that Elections Canada acted upon the allegations of a single person with malice and contempt toward me and my family. These ex parte statements and actions, which is Latin for one side only, were and continue to be hurtful, but I believe they achieved the objective they were seeking, which was to create a media firestorm. How does a member of this place respond when others are in possession of ex parte allegations and actions and he or she has no knowledge, none whatsoever, that they have taken place?

On Friday, June 15, nine days after I was initially contacted by a member of the press, I was able to obtain a copy of these now public documents. For the first time I had an opportunity to read what was actually being alleged and what actions had been taken against me. What struck me is that, throughout these ex parte statements, there was no attempt to provide full and frank disclosure of all of the material facts related to the investigation. Certainly, there are many statements and erroneous conclusions, but where is the legal obligation, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada, to be transparent and fulsome and to provide all material facts before the court?

I believe these actions firmly represent a violation of my rights under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The justice of the peace, prior to making a decision to issue production orders, including for my own personal financial records, had the right to know all of the details the investigator had learned, and the investigator had the legal obligation to provide them, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, but he did not.

I quote Supreme Court precedence. An analysis of the principles on which Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. was based shows that:

The exercise of a judicial discretion in the decision to grant or withhold authorization for a warrant of search was fundamental to the scheme of prior authorization...

—which Dickson prescribed as “an indispensable requirement for compliance with s. 8” in that case.

The decision to grant or withhold the warrant requires the balancing of two interests: that of the individual to be free of intrusions of the state and that of the state to intrude on the privacy of the individual for the purpose of law enforcement. The circumstances on which these conflicting interests must be balanced will vary greatly.... In order to take account of the various factors affecting the balancing of the two interests, the authorizing judge must be empowered to consider all the circumstances.

Additionally, the following propositions have been accepted by the Supreme Court in R. v. Debot and R. v. Greffe. First, hearsay statements of an informant can provide reasonable and probable grounds to justify a search; however, evidence of a “tip” from an informer, by itself, is insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds. Second, the reliability of the tip is to be assessed by recourse to the “totality of the circumstances”. There is no formulaic test as to what this entails. Rather, the court must look to a variety of factors including the degree of detail of the tip; the informer's source of knowledge; and indicia of the informer's reliability such as past performance or confirmation from other investigative sources. Third, the result of the search cannot, ex post facto, provide evidence of reliability of the information.

In the 2010 case of R. v. Morelli, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

In reviewing the sufficiency of a warrant application...“the test is whether there was reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the authorization could have been issued”....

In this case, the information to obtain included erroneous statements and omissions that violated the legal obligation to make full and frank disclosure of material facts. I assert that, had full and frank disclosure been provided and had the Elections Canada investigator met his obligation under the law regarding ex parte proceedings, then no such court orders would have been granted. To cite precedence, the judge in this matter was clearly not empowered by the statement of the investigator under oath to consider all of the circumstances or, at the very least, full disclosure about who was making these allegations about me and why.

The presiding justice had the right to know and the investigator had the legal obligation to disclose to him that the allegations were being brought by an individual who had brought legal proceedings against me in civil court and that these proceedings were dismissed. He further should have been told that the very same investigator, who swore the oath that all facts were known to the case before him, had in fact spoken to me in person whereby he assured me that they were simply undertaking a routine review and indicated that, should they have any further questions or concerns, they would contact me.

In fact, I made two things clear to Thomas Ritchie during that November 2011 phone conversation: first, that if he had any questions regarding my 2008 campaign, I would happily meet with him; and, second, that I would provide any documentation that he may wish to review.

Sadly, if one reads the court documents, one can see they fail to indicate that the conversation between them and me took place or that I offered my full co-operation. The failure to disclose these critical details represents a serious violation of the legal obligations on Elections Canada to be full and frank in its disclosure to the courts in seeking a warrant.

Given that the justice was being asked to override the section 8 charter rights of a member of Parliament based on the allegations of one person, it is inconceivable that the presiding justice in this matter would not have asked the investigator quite simply, “What do we know about Frank Hall?” He is the person who has levelled all of these allegations against me.

Had Elections Canada considered this question, it would have found some concerning details, facts that I was able to assemble in a matter of a couple of hours, facts that are in some cases public record, facts that I provided to Elections Canada for its consideration many months ago.

Elections Canada could have and should have researched these facts, and they were required to be included in the full and frank disclosure before the court.

In ex parte or one-sided proceedings, the justice places trust in the investigator, in this case the Elections Canada investigator, who has sworn an oath before him that all the facts related to the investigation are before him.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, when you read the submission, you will note that you cannot find anything that demonstrates that contradictory accounts were in the possession of the investigator. Perhaps even more important, as a result you will not learn that I stand accused by a person who has admitted to falsifying records and reports, has failed to deliver on contracts time and time again, and has been involved in other civil disputes with public officials.

I feel violated and betrayed by an agency in which I and every other member of this place, indeed in which all Canadians, must place their trust. As I indicated earlier, I feel strongly that this process has been conducted with malice and contempt for me as a member and for my family's well-being. I cannot describe the pain that this unnecessary and contemptuous process has put those closest to me through, my wife Kelly, my mother, my three brothers in business, all in Peterborough, and their families.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Why? Ultimately I am alleged to have donated too much money to myself and to have used those funds to exceed my campaign spending limit. These are allegations that I outright and completely reject.

Elections Canada has been in possession of evidence that I have provided to it freely since last summer which very clearly demonstrates I did not exceed my personal donation limit, that I did in fact adhere to my election spending limit and that all public declarations related to my campaign are entirely accurate.

Sadly, as opposed to acting on this information and dropping the investigation, select details of that meeting were instead leaked to further provoke the press to attack me. The story which ran on September 19, 2012 states that I “vigorously asserted my innocence”, which is absolutely true and accurate, but the details of the meeting, in fact even that there was a meeting, were only known by Elections Canada. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how else, other than through a leak directly from Elections Canada, could they have known these details?

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, are the actions that have been undertaken, these extreme actions by Elections Canada that I have outlined, against a member of this place, appropriate? Are leaks to the press how members should expect to learn of allegations or actions brought against them by an agency of this place? Does Elections Canada not have a moral if not an ethical responsibility to at least speak to a member and seek clarification before it goes to court seeking an order to obtain information that would have been freely provided to it? Is Elections Canada not responsible to uphold its responsibility in law as dictated by the Supreme Court of Canada and provide a full and frank disclosure in ex parte proceedings concerning members of this place?

Mr. Speaker, in considering this question of privilege, I again refer you to the findings of Speaker Sauvé, who on March 22, 1983 stated:

...it is clear to me that while the Hon. Member could seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while this slur upon his reputation remains. The process of litigation would probably be very lengthy and there is no knowing how long it would take before the issue was finally resolved.

Mr. Speaker, I believe firmly that it is in the interest of each and every member of this place that you find the actions that I have outlined do constitute a prima facie question of privilege, at which time I will move that the matter be referred to the Standing committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I want to assure members that I will answer any questions they may have related to my 2008 campaign at that time.

What has happened to me could happen to any member of this place unless we take action today to ensure that it stops.

Unless we take action to ensure that each and every person in this place is afforded the basic respect, process and rights that we all swore to uphold for each and every one of the people we collectively represent in this great country, my fear is that this will once again play out in the not too distant future and another member will find himself or herself a victim in the process I have just described.

We must draw a line in the sand here on a matter that transcends party affiliation and state clearly and collectively that members of this place are entitled to equal, fair and unbiased treatment, treatment without prejudice and in keeping with the laws of this land, and when we clearly do not receive that treatment, that a finding of violation against the privilege of a member is found and declared.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first off, there is the personal, the political and the parliamentary in this matter. I consider my colleague from Peterborough to be a friend, so I feel some honest compassion for the strain that he and his family have been under. That was obvious in his speech to us here today.

We are going to take a look at all that he said here and we would like to reserve the right to come back on the substance and the merits of the question of privilege.

From my hearing of what the member said, there are two pieces to it. One was on the comments by the member for Avalon yesterday in question period toward the member for Peterborough. The second one, which perhaps is a privilege, is with regard to the treatment my colleague has received from Elections Canada and throughout the court process that he is now engaged in.

Let me address the first one briefly. I did listen to the comments that were made in question period yesterday. While question period sometimes can be quite a heated affair, and I myself perhaps have made numerous mistakes in crossing over certain lines that are sometimes not clearly laid down, I think yesterday my friend from Avalon did cross the line in terms of the personal nature of the attack on the member for Peterborough. We pass that to you, Mr. Speaker. I suspect my colleague from Avalon would want to come back to the House and perhaps retract his statements.

On the second piece, with regard to Elections Canada and a question of privilege, this perhaps will be a more difficult question to answer for you, Mr. Speaker, as often things that occur outside this place and the effects they have on the privilege of members of Parliament can be a difficult thing to ascertain.

I would offer to my friend that my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has posed questions in the House during question period previously. We were just discussing them as my friend was speaking and looking over the text that was used. We try to ask direct questions. For various reasons on that side, the member for Peterborough was unable to answer or prevented from answering questions about this particular case. I can understand there are some tensions that go on within any party. The Prime Minister's Office is obviously involved in something of this important nature.

The context of that is important, that questions have been put and the member has been unable or unwilling to answer. I am not going to pass judgment as to why he has chosen not to answer and other members have answered instead.

The further challenge for my friend, if I honestly reflect on the situation, is there are so many cases right now of, particularly, Conservative members of Parliament dealing with Elections Canada in a difficult way. We had a recent court ruling on the robocall event. It was quite condemning. I have not read a ruling like this before. The judge found that the Conservative Party lawyer had acted in such a way that the judge awarded penalties to the side that lost because of the contact of the solicitor.

The cloud, in general, with the robocalls, the in and out scheme, and the former member for Labrador, Mr. Penashue, creates a certain context in which my friend is arguing from and that has to be recognized. It creates a difficulty in understanding the clarity of his own case. I think context is everything in politics, as my friend knows.

We will reserve the right to come back to the House as soon as we can, once we have looked over what my friend has offered.

I would say that the fairness of our election process, that our electoral system is sustained and that Canadians have confidence in what happens at the polls, has taken a real hit. This is not an aspersion on my friend in this particular case, but in general, it has taken a real hit from some actions of either members or others in his party. Canadians' confidence has been shaken and that is an unfortunate thing. Whatever our political nature or orientation is in this place, the idea that Canadians can go to a ballot box and register their opinion in a free and fair vote obviously is something that is essential to our democracy. The weakening of that has unintended consequences to others across the spectrum.

Canadians cannot lose any more faith in this place. Cynicism is already at an all-time high. In order for us to do better, we all must do better. Therefore, I urge all those involved in the court cases that are going on right now, and right now there are two other Conservative members who are before the courts with Elections Canada, to deal with it, to settle it, to come forward and not do what happened in the robocall case and others, which was to drag it on.

I realize that is out of context for the privilege that we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker. Context is everything.

I will end on a personal note. This obviously has had great impact on my friend from Peterborough and his family. We live a very public life and those who are related to us, married to us, our kids, oftentimes are also impacted by the things that go on in that public life. I am sure all members in the House understand that. I hope that my friend's own case can be resolved quickly and that the courts decide what in fact occurred.

We will return to the House, and I thank the Speaker for that consideration.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank both hon. members for their contributions. I will await further submissions before coming back to the House.

Bill S-16--Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will now be a 30 minute question period. The hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Here we are again, Mr. Speaker. It is incredible. I am amazed by the fact that the government House leader has to actually read these orders. He has said them so many times that certainly, they must be put to memory by now.

We are just checking with the Table, but we think this is the 48th time the government has invoked time allocation, which is a way of shutting down debate. It does not really matter whether the official opposition agrees with a bill or whether we have negotiated a timely and orderly fashion for the bill to pass through the House, it is irrelevant. The facts do not interfere with the government's ideology when it comes to Parliament and debating legislation.

This is an important piece of legislation. We had a grand total of 15 minutes of debate last night on this one. Fifteen minutes seems to be sufficient time for the government to understand that something so controversial as this issue is enough for the House to make its decision and pass it on to committee.

This is the way that mistakes are made. When legislation is rammed through Parliament, particularly legislation that would seriously impact Canadians and the communities we represent, big mistakes are made. We know that the Conservative government is not open to amendments, but we go through the process and we hear from witnesses.

I have a simple question for the minister. This is the very tail end of the session. If this were some sort of priority, if this were somehow important for the government, certainly it would have moved something a little sooner than this. Certainly if it were important, the government would also think that the debate on making it better was also important. Why the rush? Why push the panic button? Why is the government shutting down debate for the 48th time over something as critical as this?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last part of the member's question about why we are doing this now for this legislation, the House knows we have a very extensive justice agenda, and all of these bills are very important. People might ask why we addressed elder abuse, or why we cracked down on the sexual exploitation of children. They might ask why we are doing these things. All of these things are very important.

Certainly this bill is important. This bill would crack down on contraband tobacco.

That being said, the hon. member made comments about the debate. My understanding is that there were discussions with members. The bill is straightforward. It would get the job done. It is focused on what it is we are supposed to do. A couple of members of the Liberal Party and a couple of members of the Conservative Party were to talk to the bill. The NDP was offered 10 spots but apparently that was not satisfactory. When I was asked if I was surprised that 10 speakers for the NDP were not enough, I said that when it comes to justice legislation for those members 100 or 1,000 speeches would not be enough.

I am pleased that we are moving forward on this legislation, and I think most Canadians would agree with me.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we carry on as we customarily do, I will ask for the number of members who wish to participate in this 30-minute question period so I can gauge how much time should be allotted.

A minute and a half is probably going to work well for each intervention.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is, why do we go through elections? Why do we have a Parliament, and why is it that the Conservatives decide how many members will speak on a bill? Why is it that the Conservatives get to decide that 10 is enough?

We belong to a party. The citizens know which party we belong to. They have sent us here to be able to debate and vote on bills.

Well, for the NDP, 10 is not enough. I am sorry, but it is none of his business. It is the business of the member who is elected by the citizens to speak here on their behalf. Who are they to take away my right to speak on a bill? That is the problem. They have used time allocation 48 times to take our democratic rights away to get up in the House and argue on a bill that we want and that we have been elected to speak on.

That is the problem with the Conservative government. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has misunderstood what I was saying. Again, when there were discussions as to how many speeches there would be from each party, I was the one who said—and my colleagues will attest to this—that I was not surprised that 10 speakers would be unacceptable to the NDP. I believe that 100 or 1,000 speakers would be completely unacceptable to the NDP. It would want to delay all justice bills and all the bills that stand up for victims and law-abiding Canadians. The New Democrats would want to talk about it forever.

I stood up for the NDP, in that sense. I said that I am not surprised at all. They would want to go on for years and debate all our justice legislation.

Why do we have elections? It is because Canadians have the opportunity to say very clearly that they want us to get tough on crime. They want us to stand up for victims. That is why I am pleased. In each of the last four elections, more and more Canadians have made that point. They want exactly what it is that were are doing in Parliament, and I am very proud to be associated with that.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister and his government colleagues clearly do not understand the message the official opposition is trying to get across.

The minister is targeting the symptoms of something he considers to be a problem: thoroughly debating important bills. We are not denying that Bill S-16 is an important bill.

However, instead of trying to understand why we are hesitant and why we want to have thorough, comprehensive debates in which a large number of MPs can speak, the government is systematically refusing to listen to recommendations from the opposition. That is a very serious problem.

We will therefore not stop putting pressure on the government. As long as it keeps refusing to listen to our recommendations and our amendments in committee, we will keep up the pressure. As soon as the government is open to our suggestions, as the Prime Minister claimed he would be in previous years, it might see less heated debates or, at the very least, debates could come to a natural end because of a lack of speakers.

Why does the minister refuse to consider the real reason behind our resistance?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I thoroughly understand the NDP, and I know exactly where it is coming from. When we bring forward pieces of legislation to crack down on crime in this country, to better represent the interests of victims, they are against it. I understand that, and I completely disagree with it. If that is what he is saying, I do disagree with the positions that the NDP take, but I certainly understand where they are coming from.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake brought a bill here to increase the sentences for those individuals involved in kidnapping, sexual assault and murder. The NDP sat on its hands. It did not want that bill to go forward. It did not want to get on its feet to support the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

I completely disagree with the New Democrats, but I want to have it on the record that I thoroughly understand where they are coming from. Again, I completely disagree with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, all we ever see from the Minister of Justice are bills with minimum sentences. If he is in such a rush, why did he not introduce a more complete bill? The Bloc Québécois, the industry in general and police officers have been calling for stricter measures for a long time. In particular, we have been calling for police officers to have the ability to seize smugglers' vehicles.That is not included in this bill.

Why did the minister not include this type of offence in Bill S-16 to enable police officers to be more aggressive and do their job better?

In addition, there is no increase in the cost of factory permits for tobacco manufacturers. It only costs $5,000 for a permit to manufacture cigarettes, which, in many cases, go directly to smugglers. Why not increase that amount to $5 million?

Those are only a few examples, and here is one more. Why is the government making cuts to border services when it claims to want to put an end to contraband tobacco?

In my own riding, I have worked with the Association des marchands dépanneurs et épiciers du Québec. That is what people want to see and that is not in this bill. I would like the minister to explain why.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says the Minister of Justice always wants the same thing. Yes, we want to better represent victims in this country and we want to crack down on crime. That is exactly what my colleagues and I want. We have been very consistent in that regard.

If the hon. member wants to have a look at some of the details and accompanying announcements, my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, made it clear that there is going to be a 50-person unit within the RCMP devoted to cracking down on contraband tobacco. Again, this is a step in the right direction. There are now more border guards. More resources have been directed toward that since this government took office. As well, we have updated the laws.

The member talked about car thefts. Again, with no help from opposition parties, we have brought in separate laws with respect to automobile theft and the gangs and organized crime that get involved with chop shops. This is by no means the only bill we have put forward that tackles this area, and I would ask him to look at our overall record. I hope he will finally come onside and start supporting these important efforts.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are being muzzled. This is not surprising, coming from a government that was found to be in contempt of Parliament, which was a first in Canadian history. This shows the extent of the government's contempt—not just lack of understanding—for what we call democracy here in Canada. We are talking about a 48th gag order. The government is shutting down debate on a bill that is important to us.

The minister said that if the NDP had the choice, it would talk about the bill forever, but this is because this bill affects so many ridings and so many people. We have questions, and it is only natural we would want to discuss them, for our constituents. I remember that when I ran in 2008, people came to talk to me about contraband tobacco. This issue is very important, not only in terms of public safety, of course, but also in terms of health.

Democracy implies consultation. We know that the minister did not hold consultations, particularly with first nations. I would like to know why not.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he asked about how democracy works, and he said he spoke with individuals in his own constituency about the problems with respect to contraband tobacco. We heard the same thing. I would put it back to him. What is he going to say to the people after he tells them that when the government brought in legislation directed at cracking down on contraband tobacco and dedicating greater resources to it that the NDP did not want to move forward and wanted to delay it?

I think he is going to have some challenges when speaking with those people. We have heard from those individuals. I have heard from individuals who have described what a problem this is. We want to help everyone across this country crack down on this issue. This is exactly what this country needs. These are specific provisions that would deal with contraband. This is how democracy works. When he goes back to tell his constituents what the government is doing, they are going to applaud and say this is exactly what needs to be done in this country. That is what democracy is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister speaking on these very important matters. I must be frank. I am a little disappointed, particularly with the members of Parliament from Quebec. When it came to our megatrials legislation, they quickly came on board because they saw that the government was taking comprehensive action on dealing with organized crime.

This bill also cracks down on organized crime. In fact, law enforcement officials tell us that this has been a long-standing problem that creates a threat to public safety. I want to see this legislation brought to committee so we can start discussing it and bring in experts to have a full vetting on this.

Could the Minister of Justice again explain why this is not only in our economic interests but also in the interests of having safer streets, and why this needs to go forward to committee?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his continued interest in all our efforts to better protect Canadians. It is a public safety issue. It is an issue that is related to criminal activity. As we know, tobacco use continues to be the most preventable cause of premature death in this country. Cracking down on tobacco in this country is a health issue as well.

I think the bill addresses all those areas. We do not want contraband tobacco being distributed or brought into this country. We want to get the message out that this is a preventable form of death for many individuals.

We want to make sure the message about tobacco and its use gets out to people. This is exactly what we need. We have expanded the provisions, and not just from the Excise Act. By putting it directly in the Criminal Code, it now sends a message to organized crime about the seriousness with which this government takes this matter. I want to say again how much I appreciate the member's support on this, and indeed all the measures we have brought forward in the justice field.

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

Mr. Speaker, given that we live in a glass house, I will not be throwing stones at anyone. However, I would like the Minister of Justice to realize that we need a law to fight organized crime and contraband cigarettes. We want the law to be effective. Therein lies the problem.

All too often, this Parliament has passed laws that had good intentions, but were not used by prosecutors because they felt that the burden of proof imposed by the laws in question was too onerous and they were not more effective than the old laws. The prosecutors preferred to continue using the old provisions of the Criminal Code rather than the new ones because they got better results.

Attorneys do not like to have laws that will be deemed ultra vires by all judges because they cannot be enforced. That is a major problem.

When we want to fight organized crime, it is not enough to say that we want to fight it. We have to actually do it. Unfortunately, all too often, the Conservatives listen to no one, not even us or the experts. What is more, their laws are not used.

For example, they want to play hardball when someone is convicted of kidnapping and murder. However, the Criminal Code already provides for a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 25 years. They cannot impose a longer sentence. Nevertheless, they talk tough and put out propaganda. That has to stop.

In closing, I will say that we want a law to fight organized crime, not just an advertising flyer.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the NDP members. They say they want to do something in the area of crime, but then they oppose all the measures that do exactly that. It is like a trade deal. They say they do not have a problem with trade deals, but they have opposed all the trade deals over the last 40 or 50 years because they are all wrong. This is the problem with the NDP.

What we are doing is actually implementing legislation and moving forward. The member asks whether people can be prosecuted under the old law. Guess what? I have some wonderful news on this piece of legislation. He will notice when it gets before the committee that we are keeping the provisions of the Excise Tax Act. If there is a decision to proceed under the act, all those provisions are right there. That is the way it is in Canada. In addition, we have also now put it in the Criminal Code, to have this alternate avenue by which these offences can be prosecuted. If the member likes the old law, then he will be very happy and pleased when it gets to the committee. In order to crack down on organized crime we need new provisions, and that is exactly why we have put it in the Criminal Code.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Conservatives for bringing in measures to deal with contraband tobacco. That is a positive thing.

When I was first elected in 2008, this issue was being discussed. When I was a member of the public safety committee in 2009, we had a study on contraband tobacco. Every member in this House realizes that there is a serious problem, both for the health of Canadians and in dealing with criminal law.

However, the real issue that we are talking about is the proper way to pass those laws. We on this side of the House think that we should not rush a bill through, that every bill deserves proper scrutiny, not only to ensure that it does what it is set out to do, but also because every member of this House can make a contribution to improving a bill like this.

What have been the statistics on contraband tobacco entering our country over the last five years? Can the minister give us information in this House about whether we are seeing increases in contraband tobacco entering our communities, or have we had some success?

One thing I will point out is that the current government has closed certain border crossings over the last three years. I am sometimes concerned that we have made the border a bit more porous and allowed entry points for contraband tobacco to enter our communities.