Debates of June 13th, 2013

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that certainly is a good question. Again, I want to thank the member for his input and contributions to the justice committee. He has certainly been a positive addition to that group of individuals who are working so hard to come forward and support legislation to better protect victims and address concerns within the criminal justice system.

He points out, quite correctly, that what we have done here is we have expanded beyond the Excise Act. By putting it in the Criminal Code, we do not repeal the former in favour of the latter; it will be in both pieces of legislation. This certainly gives more options to law enforcement agencies across the country.

I can tell him that I have had, for instance, members of the OPP say to me that when they came across contraband tobacco, they would turn it over to the RCMP for prosecution under the federal legislation. Again, what we are saying with this piece of legislation is that they do not necessarily have to get the RCMP involved. The OPP and local law enforcement agencies can come forward with the information and it can be prosecuted by a provincially appointed crown attorney, at the same time preserving the federal jurisdiction in this area.

We are adding one more significant tool to the fight against contraband tobacco. I would like to see this bill get to committee as quickly as possible to have the committee take a further look at this important piece of legislation.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the minister’s remarks about contraband and the problem we are now facing.

We know that when we are talking about contraband, we are also talking very often about organized groups and the impact on young people and those who are trying to get hold of cigarettes or other things more easily.

In terms of information, what has been done and what is planned in order to raise public awareness, particularly about the effects and the impact of cigarettes and contraband cigarettes?

We must not think only about the loss of revenue for the government. We must focus on the organization built up around contraband, which is inconsistent with basic principles, and the health impact of tobacco smoke. When people try to get cigarettes or other things as quickly and as cheaply as possible, we know very well that that is when consumption increases.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that organized crime is exactly who is running this business in this country. These are individuals who come together for the purpose of bringing in or distributing contraband tobacco in this country. Very often their target is young people they try to induce with inexpensive contraband tobacco. The tragedy is that tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death. We know the effects tobacco smoking has on individuals, and we know that the effects can be prevented and death can be avoided by non-use and by people stopping the use of these products.

I mentioned a couple of times today other aspects of the government's strategy to discourage tobacco use in this country. I made reference in remarks earlier today to changes to the labelling of cigarettes and to what the provinces are doing in terms of making sure that cigarettes do not get into the hands of young people.

We all have an interest in this. It is an area that desperately needs more attention, more regulation and more tools to combat it. This piece of legislation is an important component of that and is certainly a positive step forward.

In terms of directing this to make sure that young people do not get involved in this kind of activity, and recognizing that these are very sophisticated individuals who get involved in this kind of activity as part of organized criminal gangs, I agree that this is exactly who we have to target and what we have to do.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be rising shortly to expand on some of these issues.

I just want to say that there is no question that this initiative is a necessary one. It is an important initiative. It will also require some dedicated funding. I wondered if the minister could perhaps give this House some indication of the money that has been allocated to ensure that the police officials, the authorities, whoever would be involved in this, would be able to carry out these activities successfully.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I touched on the tobacco strategy. It is led by my colleague, the Minister of Health. The provinces and law enforcement agencies within the provincial jurisdictions are involved.

One thing I pointed out and that I think is an important component is the 50-unit contingent within the RCMP that would be dedicated to this whole area of contraband tobacco. That is a terrific and important utilization of the resources of the RCMP and is a step forward. Again, it is part of a greater package to go against contraband tobacco.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill S-16. It is an important piece of legislation, as I indicated moments ago when I asked the minister a question. The question, of course, was with respect to resources, whether it be the RCMP or whichever police force is involved, and if these enforcement agencies would have the resources necessary to carry out the added responsibilities that are part of this legislation.

The minister did not answer my question with the kind of specific information I was looking for. That is part of my concern about Bill S-16. We have a piece of legislation, an act to amend the Criminal Code to deal with trafficking in contraband tobacco. It is an important issue, and I will lay out why I think it is important. It deals with an issue that is vexing, to say the least. My concern is that the Conservative government is talking tough in the legislation and in the words it uses, but when it comes to actually bringing resources to bear to support those agencies it expects to now carry out these added responsibilities, I am concerned that the government is once again falling short.

This minister, in particular, and members of the government, have been criticized for not vetting legislation in terms of whether it would be subject to constitutional challenges in the Supreme Court. The government has been found at fault for not having done that. It is a requirement of the Minister of Justice when it comes to all pieces of legislation.

That is a problem. So too is the fact that the government says that it is going to do all these things with respect to justice issues and will crack down, but it seems incapable of putting the necessary resources in place to see that whoever gets the responsibility handed to them, be it the provinces, or in this case, the law enforcement agencies, has the resources necessary to carry them out.

Let me say at the outset, as many of my colleagues have said and will say this evening, that we support moving this legislation forward to committee so that we will be able to bring some of the organizations, experts and different jurisdictions before committee to ask them some of the questions I will raise tonight.

Flaws in the language in this legislation have already been identified. I hope that, for once, the Conservative government will recognize that this is such an important issue as it relates to this country that it will be amenable to making the kinds of amendments necessary to clean up those issues.

I want to talk a bit about why this is so important from a health and safety standpoint and about the forgone revenue for the country. I want to talk about the question of border security. Where are the threats in terms of contraband tobacco?

We have heard a number of comments from government members that would seem to suggest that the sole focus of the problem is first nations in Quebec and Ontario. Is that, in fact, the truth? Is that the case, or is it an unfortunate stereotype that exists on the government side that has not been sufficiently delved into to make sure that we are not heading in the wrong direction?

I asked the minister who he consulted. One of the groups was first nations. As we know, the manufacturing sites for contraband tobacco are generally found close to the border in both Quebec and southern Ontario. Some of the transit points have been identified as first nations communities. If that is where some of the activity is focused, then my question is whether the government sat down with the first nations communities to work together to come up with a comprehensive piece of legislation that talks about the issue from the ground up in a responsible, mature, holisitic fashion.

Provincial jurisdictions have been trying to deal with this issue, as have corner store associations and many health groups. These people need to be consulted. We need to bring these experts forward so that we can talk about it at committee.

First, let me talk about health and safety issues. We have seen the studies, and we know that there is a correlation between the price of tobacco and usage. That is why even though provincial governments do not want to increase taxes, they increase taxes on tobacco, not only as a revenue source but perhaps, most importantly, as a way of discouraging tobacco use. It has been found to be very effective, and the data clearly shows that.

Tobacco seriously harms Canadians. There are hundreds of millions or billions of dollars spent every year dealing with the effect of tobacco on Canadians. That is something we need to do everything we possibly can to deal with.

Governments are using awareness campaigns and warnings and various restrictions on tobacco packaging. People can go into a store, and tobacco products are hidden from view. That has been seen to reduce usage. Keeping advertising off television and out of newspapers and magazines has been seen to be an effective measure in reducing usage.

It is extremely important that governments use every single tool at their disposal to deal with this. What a conundrum. Governments increase taxation on tobacco products and restrict advertising. They insist that warnings labels be put on the packaging by manufacturers to ensure that they do their part in dissuading people from usage.

They made it clear that minors are not able to purchase tobacco products and they try to enforce that, yet at the same time, there is a proliferation of contraband tobacco getting into this country in various ways that makes all of those efforts go by the way.

Again, the issue with respect to health and safety is clear to us. It is clear to Canadians. The government must do everything in its power to try to discourage at every opportunity the use especially in young people. That is where the focus has been and has to be in trying to prevent young people from beginning to use tobacco products.

I understand that it is difficult to put an exact figure on the revenue lost from contraband tobacco, but it has been suggested by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in 2008 that governments have lost between $1.5 billion and nearly $2.5 billion as a result of illegal tobacco products. That is revenue that governments would have had in order to provide the services that Canadians so desperately need.

We talked a moment ago about a motion that was brought forward in terms of providing services to Canadians with disabilities to access employment, to access housing, to access support to services so they may contribute in their communities. Those are revenues that we forgo, that could be used in this area, as a result of the sale of illegal tobacco products. It is incumbent upon us to do something about that.

The bill goes through that in a number of respects and we are going to talk a bit more about that. As I said, the bill specifically addresses contraband tobacco. According to the RCMP, contraband tobacco is any tobacco product that does not comply with the provisions of all applicable federal and provincial statutes. This includes the importation, stamping, marking, manufacturing, distributing and payment of duties and taxes.

At present, contraband tobacco offences can only be prosecuted under the Excise Act of 2001, or various general provisions within the Criminal Code. Bill S-16 would make changes, amendments and additions to the Criminal Code so that police forces are now authorized to take action against these offences. That is extremely important and we would support this.

I want to get to the issue that I raised early on, the fact that the government once again is failing to recognize that the funding needs to be in place in order to make sure that, following these fine words and these honourable changes to the law, the law enforcement agencies are able to carry out their functions.

It has been suggested that 50% of contraband tobacco comes through one port, the Port of Vancouver, from China. As I said earlier, I know there are manufacturing facilities near the border of Quebec and Ontario and that has been discussed.

The government, apparently, has decided to ignore the fact that much more, approximately 50%, of all contraband tobacco comes not from traditional sources or other countries but from China, and it comes through one port, the port of Vancouver. The problem is that there are no inspectors left at the port of Vancouver to deal with this issue.

We know that in the past two budgets, the government has cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the Canada Border Services Agency. This means that there are hundreds fewer front-line officers in place at the borders to deal with this contraband product. That is just one agency; that does not take into consideration the cuts to the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies over the past two budgets. Tens of millions of dollars have been cut from the budgets. The budgets have been reduced for these law enforcement agencies that, as a result of Bill S-16, are now going to be expected to do more.

That is why I asked the minister that question. I will ask him again and I know he will be asked the question again when the matter goes to committee. How does he expect these law enforcement organizations to carry out the added responsibilities included in this bill? They are extremely important responsibilities, let us be clear, but they are responsibilities that are being piled on top of other responsibilities. At the same time that these agencies are losing hundreds of millions of dollars, they are losing hundreds of employees and the capacity to carry out this important work. That just does not fit. To me, that just does not make any sense and I have not heard an explanation from the government.

Let me point out a couple of things in that respect. The 2013-14 Public Safety Report on Plans and Priorities announced a decrease of $20.3 million to deal with counterfeiting crime and a $2.4-million decrease for national security. The department itself stated the following in its risk analysis:

That the Government Operations Centre...infrastructure may be unable to support a coordinated response to large-scale or multiple significant events affecting the national interest.

That current policies and strategies may be insufficient to address the evolution of organized crime.

Again, we are dealing with an important piece of legislation that tries to get at an important problem, whether it is terrorism or, in this case, contraband tobacco coming from other countries and from within, and we are not giving law enforcement organizations the capacity to properly enforce what Bill S-16 is asking them to do. That is irresponsible. I hope the minister and members on the government side are going to be able to answer some of those questions when the bill goes to committee.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very fine speech.

He told us that there had been many budget cuts. I would like him to go farther and tell us whether he thinks that in committee, the opposition will be able to convince the Conservatives to put in place the necessary funding to enforce this bill, which, after all, is a good bill, provided the necessary funding is forthcoming.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics now for 16 years and so I am obviously, by nature, an optimist.

The member asked if I thought the official opposition was going to be able to encourage the government to put resources into Bill S-16 so that it can do what the government claims it can do. Well, time will tell.

I know that I and other members will do their best to persuade the minister and members of that committee to recognize the fact that the Conservatives have cut money out of those departments and law enforcement agencies for what they do now. To then expect them to just carry on and fulfill these important duties without attaching some dollars to it, frankly, is naive. As I suggested earlier, it is more than just a little bit irresponsible.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which affects something important in our lives, must also bring us justice, and justice here includes the appearance of justice.

Essentially—my distinguished colleague will be able to give us his comments, as well as the Minister of Justice, if he wakes up a bit—by means of this bill, we do not wish to punish just petty troublemakers and traffickers in contraband tobacco, but we also want to attack the leadership of organized crime.

In what way in particular does this bill have a weakness with regard to the destruction of major organized crime? We no longer want the leaders of the Mafia to have a feeling of impunity or to think they can do whatever they wish. We want to put an end to that.

Why does this bill have a weakness in that respect, particularly when we see police strength reduced?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that member is right when he says that this is a very serious problem. It is a vexing problem for all of us in this country, and we need to find the solution.

I asked the minister earlier who he had consulted with and who his department had been working with in order to try to come up with the legislation and the best strategy to implement the legislation. He informed me that he talked to a few people here and there, some police officers and so on.

I am glad he did. I was thinking about complex strategies to deal with a very serious problem, as the member's question suggested. For example, there is a leading recommendation from the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco that strongly recommended the government engage in collaboration with the provinces and first nations. Those are the people directly involved not only in enforcement but also in dealing with the effects of the distribution of contraband tobacco.

I would be disappointed if I thought the minister had not consulted with the provinces and first nations to find a comprehensive solution for these problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, we must not deceive ourselves: if people buy contraband products, it is often because the legal product is expensive. I am absolutely not against the high price of cigarettes. Absolutely not. However, we have to understand the logic behind it.

Personally, when I started smoking, a pack of cigarettes cost me $2.70. The last one I bought before I stopped smoking 10 days ago cost me $12.50. It is certain that, unfortunately, people are going to opt more for contraband products.

I would like to know whether money from the taxes on cigarettes is at least used to fund stop-smoking programs, in order to reduce demand.

Is the money devoted more specifically to that, so that people consume less tobacco and so that one day, contraband becomes less attractive for lack of customers? Has that been done, at least in part?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say right here, right now, how proud I am of my colleague for having dropped the evil weed. Good for her, because it is important to us, it is important to her family and it is important to anyone who knows her that she be around as long as she possibly can, and that will be extended if she is not smoking tobacco. Good for her. I know I and my colleagues here in this caucus will do everything to support her in those efforts.

To answer her question, I realize that smoking is expensive, and that is a good thing. I know governments are using the revenues they collect from taxes on tobacco to come up with awareness programs and preventive programs and to try to fund some of the damage that is done by tobacco use. That is a good thing.

I indicated earlier in my remarks that there is a direct correlation between tobacco usage and price and that is a good thing. That is why we have to double our efforts to make sure contraband tobacco is not as available as it seems to be. That is why Bill S-16 is so important and why it is important that we assign the appropriate resources to allow law enforcement agencies, provinces, first nations and others to crack down and make sure that the proliferation of illegal contraband tobacco ends, and ends right now, for all of us.

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

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

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

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

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is extraordinarily smart and so are all the members opposite, but why is it then that we get so many bills that end up getting passed through here and then have to be fixed? It is because they will not listen to us. They will not make the amendments that are necessary. Legislation that is challenged before the courts as unconstitutional is a result of the government not doing its homework. That is the issue. That is the problem.

The Conservatives think they are the smartest ones in the room, and unfortunately sometimes they are just wrong. They need to bring other people in to make sure that the legislation that comes in and leaves here is the best legislation it can be, because as in this case it is meant to correct a very serious problem and we need to make sure we do it right.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this debate, and it is a pleasure to rise in any debate in the House of Commons.

Let me start by saying that we heard some comments a bit earlier about the quality and level of debate in the House over the last little bit. In defence of all members of Parliament, I would say that this is a place where debate does happen. It is a Parliament where 308 people can discuss, debate and talk about issues, and sometimes that gets a bit lively and sometimes people get a bit upset. However, I would rather have that than 308 bumps on logs sitting here collecting $160,000 a year and not earning it. This is the place where we have that debate, and we should all be proud of the fact that we actually have that type of debate here, that we do debate back and forth. Sometimes we get frustrated with each other, but we should all be proud of that and maybe we should all stop talking down about the good quality of work we all do on both sides of the House.

This is a difficult topic for a number of reasons. We cannot talk about contraband tobacco and about this bill unless we talk about the problem of smoking and cigarettes in general.

Maybe this was not common in other homes, but when I was a kid my father smoked a lot. He smoked about two packs a day. I remember actually going to the store to buy milk or something, and I would also get a pack of cigarettes for my dad. I remember at home during dinner my dad would be smoking, and when we were in the car he would have a cigarette. We did not think anything of it, but we have come so far since then.

I bring this up because smoking is one of those things that is a very frustrating vice. It does not make me happy to say this, but I could tell those watching and some of the younger people who are in the galleries tonight that my father died a horrible, painful, miserable death because of cigarettes. It was a terrible death. He was only 49 when he died, and a big majority of the problems he had were because he started smoking when he was 16 and he smoked two packages of cigarettes a day right up until the end. Even in the last couple of days in the hospital, he would still want to have a cigarette. At that time back in 1983, people could actually smoke in the hospital—not in their rooms, but they could go into the hallway and have a cigarette.

I remember further back to both of my grandfathers who also died with problems related to cigarette smoking. My mother died at 61 years old. She was never a smoker, but she lived with a person who smoked two packages of cigarettes a day from the time she was 19 to the time my dad passed away. This is something that is just a brutal, disgusting, terrible vice.

For those people who smoke, it is a hugely difficult thing to quit. I think we all know people who yearly make resolutions that they are going to quit smoking, and we see how much they struggle to quit smoking. Some can go two or three months or even longer. I have an uncle who has not smoked for 25 years, but every day after dinner he still craves a cigarette. He has to put something in his hands to mock the motion of smoking, because he still has that craving for a cigarette, 25 years later.

I think it was the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who brought up the fact that smoking at one point in time was marketed as a luxurious thing to do; it was somehow glamourous. However, the marketers did not tell people about the addictive nature of cigarette smoking. Provinces and the federal government have made huge progress. We have made huge progress in helping to reduce the amount of cigarette smoking we have. We have seen the labels on the packages, the horrifying images that show the results of prolonged cigarette smoking. When we see smokers with those packages, we often wonder how they can smoke when they see those images right on the package. It is very difficult for them to kick that habit.

We have done a heck of lot, working together, to try to reduce it. The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour talked about how cigarettes have to be hidden now. They are not on display behind the counter. In Ontario, and maybe a lot of other jurisdictions—I do not know, but I can speak to Ontario—one has to be 18 to buy a package of cigarettes. When the package is scanned, the machine will display “Show ID”, so the person buying the cigarettes has to show ID. The vast majority of retailers are very hard core on this. They make sure they do not sell to minors.

This is where we get into the dilemma of contraband tobacco. Any form of crime is obviously annoying. It is annoying for so many different reasons. I will just take a minute to congratulate the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and all members of Parliament who actually support the bills and the initiatives we bring forward with respect to reducing crime in this country.

The justice system is what it is supposed to be. It is a justice system. We have to put the rights of the victims ahead of the criminals. The justice system also has to be just. It has to show the victims of crime that there will be justice.

We know crime costs billions and billions of dollars to the Canadian economy every year. I should not cite a number, but I think one of the reports I read at some point said crime costs the Canadian economy $100 billion annually.

It is not just that. When we take a look at organized crime, which is responsible for a lot of this contraband, we see that its impact on our communities across this country is unbelievable. What we have is the big crime bosses who set their own crazy targets for what they want to accomplish and where they want to go. Then they recruit other people who will carry out their objectives. It is not just the drug smugglers. We are talking about contraband tobacco, and there is lots of money for organized crime to make. Organized crime gangs fight over this in communities across the country. They put the lives of our police officers at risk. They put our young people at risk. Sometimes the gangs fight it out on the streets over turf. We have to do something to combat that. That is why this is so very important.

One of the members opposite talked about how she had just quit smoking 12 days ago, and she also talked about the tax revenue that is generated from smoking. It is vexing in the sense that she is right. When something is taxed and it becomes profitable to go contraband, then there has to be a balance.

What makes this even more offensive is that these contraband cigarettes take away the revenue that would then go to pay for things like health care for the people who actually get sick because of cigarette smoking, and for those programs that we could then put in place that would help smokers stop smoking, kick the habit. Contraband cigarettes take away from the resources we have to combat crime.

It is offensive on so many different levels. That is why I am very happy that we brought this legislation forward.

Some of the members opposite have talked about budget considerations with respect to this initiative. Obviously the government has been focused and seized with the global economic downturn, on which we have done a spectacular job as a government and as a nation, working together, making sure we could create the million jobs and keep the economy going.

We were also focused on restoring balance to our criminal justice system. We have been focused on that since we were elected. What we are seeing, because of that focus on justice issues and because of the focus on trying to rebalance our justice system, is that crime rates are coming down. They are coming down in so many different areas.

That is allowing our police forces and communities across the country—our provincial police forces where we have them, including the OPP in Ontario, and our national police force, the RCMP—to redirect resources into areas where we have not seen the same amount of progress.

When we talk about budgets, it does not always necessarily mean that the only way we can solve the problem is by putting more money toward an issue. It means that when we have solved problems and made progress in certain areas, we can redirect resources to combat something that has become so important and this clearly is something we have to address.

We have heard many members on this side of the House and I suspect on the other side of the House talk about the problems that contraband tobacco is causing in their ridings and communities. We are hearing it on a number of different levels. We are hearing it because they do not want organized crime in their communities. However, we are also hearing it from a small business point of view.

I am no fan of cigarettes. If tomorrow there would be no more cigarettes at all sold in stores across the country, I would be the happiest member of Parliament. I am sure we would all celebrate that. However, as long as they are being sold, they have to be sold legally. They have to be sold in a controlled way, so only people who are old enough can do that and they have to pay their share of the taxes that come with that. When we do not tackle this issue, we are telling small business owners across the country that although they have to play by the rules, other people do not. We have to ensure that everybody plays by the rules and that is why the government has brought this forward.

As the Minister of Justice mentioned, part of this is a 50-officer RCMP anti-contraband task force. That is very exciting because also as part of the bill we will see a better opportunity for the federal government to work more closely with our provincial and municipal partners. This is an issue that one 50-member RCMP task force working in isolation is not going to solve this problem. We have to work more closely with our provincial counterparts.

The bill allows them to do that and puts a more direct approach into combatting this. I think we can all agree in the House that the RCMP is second to none when it comes to making our communities safe. I am very proud of the fact that there are a number of former RCMP officers within our caucus and sitting in Parliament who have had an opportunity to share their input on this, to share their frustrations as RCMP officers in dealing with this issue and how they would like to see the government tackle this problem.

When we talk about input, I look at the RCMP officers who are sitting in the House and the years of experience. I think it was the member for Kootenay—Columbia who was a very distinguished RCMP officer. He has been used for a tremendous amount of advice on this. The member for Northumberland—Quinte West, a former OPP officer, dealt with a lot of this in the constituency he represents now. He gave advice on how we should deal with this, and a number of other members. We took the advice of members of caucus, the member for Peterborough, the member for Wetaskiwin. We asked what some of the issues were for residents in their communities surrounding contraband tobacco. The member for Yukon, who was also in law enforcement, has dealt directly with this.

A number of members on this side of the House and I suspect on the other side of the House have talked about the problem with contraband tobacco. One of the things that made me want to get involved and be elected was some of the issues with respect to the gangs such as the biker gangs that were a problem in Quebec and in Ontario.

Organized crime is not only involved in things like drugs, tobacco and alcohol. We see the influence it has in things like the construction industry, not only in Quebec but other parts of the country. We cannot allow it to get a foothold in any part of our economy or communities. We have to take action. No matter how small the transgression, we have to show that the Parliament of Canada is very serious about those who seek to take advantage of our people and communities.

Make no mistake about it, this is one of the worst groups of people. When it comes to contraband tobacco, the people being targeted are kids, not parents, and those who maybe cannot afford to go to the store to buy cigarettes at full price. The people being targeted are the people we should be saving from organized crime.

When we talk about some of the things that will be brought in, the minister has also put in the bill, after a number of consultations with groups of people, minimum mandatory penalties, which we have seen in other bills. We see that they actually work, but they work for a number of reasons. They work because it shows the people who seek to commit these crimes that we are serious about justice in our country. Yes, it is important to rehabilitate, we have no problem with that, but the justice system is about justice to the people who have been aggrieved. When we bring in minimum mandatory sentences on issues like this, we show just how serious we are.

I am pleased those penalties are contained in the bill. I know it has been talked about a lot, but I will mention some of them. The penalties for a first offence are up to six months imprisonment on summary conviction and up to five years if prosecuted on indictment. Repeat offenders would face minimum mandatory penalties of 90 days on a second conviction, 180 days on a third conviction and two years less a day on subsequent convictions. It shows just how serious we are.

I have listened to the debate and a lot of members on both sides of the House are very supportive of this initiative. It is quite clear that almost all of us agree this is something that has to be tackled. We have to do a better job of protecting our communities. We want this bill to go to committee so we can get even more input.

I know the minister and the member for Burlington, who is the chair of the justice committee, have worked very hard to bring other people on board when it comes to legislation. When amendments are brought forward that make sense, that do not water down bills, that do not put the rights of criminals ahead of victims, we will listen. If we can make a bill better, of course, we will make it better. We will take that opportunity. This gives us an opportunity in our ridings over the coming weeks to communicate better with those who are involved.

I am very excited that there is support from all sides of the House to move this forward.

Again, I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice for another very important piece of legislation that will help us take the $100 billion a year that crime costs the economy, that is taken out of the pockets of hard-working Canadian men and women and put it back in their pockets. We are going to deal with the people who seek to take advantage of the youth, who are so important to us. With 55,000 more young Canadians working, it is even more important that we ensure we protect them. We are going to tell those involved in organized crime that if they are going to take advantage of people in society, the Parliament of Canada is going to go after those who seek to take advantage of others and we are very serious about it.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear our colleague from the Conservative party talking about reorganization, in order to ensure that the regions and the provinces have the necessary resources. We all agree that everyone should stop smoking. We also agree that contraband should not exist. We disagree, however, on the means required to achieve this.

When the member talks about reorganization, he is talking about resources. We know that the port of Vancouver is a place where there is more smuggling. There have been cuts. How is it possible to reorganize? Is it the provinces or the municipalities that will be responsible? Ultimately, it takes money, resources, education and prevention.

I am trying to understand how the member can tell us that with fewer resources, less money and less prevention, we can manage to eliminate contraband in this country.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. What we have done since being elected is focus on issues with respect to criminal justice in our country. We have put an enormous amount of resources into our Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces. We have transferred billions and billions of dollars to our provincial partners so they can also get on board with some of the things we have done with respect to criminal justice, and they have done that quite well with us. We are very proud of that.

As I said in my discussion, we have seen crime rates come down in certain areas because of the hard work of our government and Minister of Justice. We have seen that our security service, the Border Services Agency, and the RCMP, with the additional resources that we have transferred through to the provinces, can redirect their resources to areas where it is important for us to tackle issues.

With respect to contraband tobacco, we know where those issues are. The new RCMP task force will be able to work with the provinces and municipal organizations to ensure that we target those areas and we start to solve this problem, as we have in so many other areas of the criminal justice system.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for his openness and powerful personal experience and anecdote. It is very helpful for Canadians who are watching the debate to understand just why it is so important to address the scourge of tobacco addiction.

I am the former legal counsel to the Non-Smokers Rights Association of Canada. I spent several years working to drive up Canada's non-smoking levels, which are now the leading levels. We have the lowest smoking levels in the OECD. I am really pleased to see many changes have been brought at the federal and provincial level. For example, in Ontario, there is no smoking allowed in cars with children under the age of 12 or 14 and there are no open displays of tobacco products in our corner stores.

I want to come to a point with my colleague and ask him to sort of square it up for me. It is a question I put to his colleague earlier today. The community police in my district tell me that now it is very important to get to the 8- to 14-year-old kids before they make the wrong choices. That includes the choice to smoke.

We have differences on this side of the House with the member and his party on mandatory minimums and their effectiveness. We look for real evidence to substantiate the claims that they are working. However, I will leave that aside for a second.

I want to ask the member how he sees the government moving forward on outreach and engagement, messaging, smoking cessation, advertising campaigns, explaining to the Canadian citizenry, particularly in our aboriginal communities where smoking rates are increasing the fastest. How do we deal with this as a national government? The answer surely cannot be that we simply transfer money to provinces. How do we deal with this to ensure that we message out to continue that success?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It is certainly not something that we can just farm out to the provinces. Obviously members of Parliament have a big role to play. We lead by example.

Of course, the Minister of Health has been working on a strategy to reduce tobacco use, and we have seen that. Working with our provincial partners, we have seen what we have accomplished with respect to cigarette packaging and what we have accomplished in having cigarette displays covered up at convenience stores.

However, the member is 100% right. We have to do more with respect to getting young Canadians to realize that there is nothing glamorous about smoking. I do not have the answers on how we can solve that problem, but I think we have to start talking to people about how miserable their lives will be if they continue to smoke.

When I talked about my father, it did not give me any great pleasure to rise in the House and remember those last few months, but I will talk about that with my kids. My kids are four and six, so it is a bit early, but I will certainly tell them why they should not smoke. I will explain very clearly why they never met their grandfather or grandmother. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to do that sort of thing.

I do not have all the answers, but I think that is one area on which parliamentarians on both sides of the House could probably come together and figure something out, because it is such an important issue to deal with.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my friend intently and to the commentary and questions across the way. Of course, we know that members of the official opposition want to grow the civil service so that the unions will pay more dues to PSAC so that PSAC can then send some money over and give donations to other people.

However, here is the real question. I think the member for Ottawa South hit some of the nail on the head. First, of course, is how we get it across to young people that smoking is not the in thing to do. Young people, in some ways, want to be somewhat rebellious, so we have to get people from a level they understand, the people they look up to, to bring out the message.

I know that some of the messaging has come through the school boards in the province of Ontario. I am sure the member would agree. That is why we have increased the social transfer of funds to the provinces: so that they can actually do those things. That is why, instead of cutting back on health transfers, we have a $40-billion increase.

We also know that researchers were counting and analyzing the cigarette butts in schoolyards. They found that 30% or more come from illicit tobacco, and that is what this bill specifically addresses.

This government also enlarged the size of the warnings on the packages and gave a 1-800 number for people to call.

I wonder if the member could comment on some of the issues I just raised.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think part of it is that we have to help young Canadians understand that when they smoke contraband tobacco, it is not okay. It is not a petty crime. It is not a little thing to have just a few cigarettes here and there and think no one is being hurt.

We have to help our young people understand that they are supporting organized crime by smoking these contraband cigarettes. As much as we advertise in a number of different areas as parliamentarians through our householders and advertise as government, we have to help young Canadians realize and appreciate the chain of events, including where an illegal cigarette comes from, how it is smuggled into our communities, the dangers it poses and the cost to taxpayers.

It is not just the kids. There are adults who will actually buy cigarettes for young people. We have to help people understand that this is a very serious issue. This is not something that should be laughed at, thinking it is just a few cigarettes here and there. We have to work more closely.

I mentioned the member for Northumberland—Quinte West earlier. As an OPP officer, he worked for many years in the community and has first-hand knowledge of the scourge that this is and that organized crime is. I think he is right. We have to do a better job by working together across party lines and with our provincial and municipal officials to show how serious we are about this issue and to show that even one contraband cigarette is breaking the law and that these are the consequences of doing it.

While we will probably disagree on minimum mandatory penalties, I think this would add to or elevate the seriousness of this crime so that more Canadians can understand that this is a very serious issue.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in debate on Bill S-16, a bill to amend the Criminal Code to deal with contraband trafficking in tobacco.

As I have done with all the bills we have been debating the last number of days, weeks and hours, I have to underline and underscore where this bill comes from, denoting for those who are watching from home that when it has an “S” in front of it, it is of course a Senate bill.

As an elected member of Parliament representing my constituents, I have to underscore my concern about how egregious it is that we have yet another bill coming from the other place. It is clearly a strategy of the government to start legislation in the other place and then send it over here. We just debated one on cluster munitions. It is actually the wrong sequence, and the current government is seemingly dependent on it. It is like a crutch. Relying on the Senate is the government's own addiction.

For reasons of accountability, be it on this bill or on the bill we just debated on cluster munitions, it is important to underline that we should not have bills coming from the other place. Now we are at Bill S-16, but the numbers go higher than that, if members can believe it.

The government should not be dependent on the Senate to be the originator of these bills. We cannot honestly look at ourselves as an institution doing the best we can when we have bills coming from an unelected Senate that is right now under investigation. It is unaccountable and it is a problem.

It is a problem because we get these bills at the end of a session in which they have already been debated as fully as they can be in the other place, with witnesses, and then we get time allocation on bills of this nature. We have it on contraband tobacco. We had it on cluster munitions. We had it on a bill that was to deal with foreign corruption. They are very serious issues.

We are getting these bills through time allocation. I underline that point. We had time allocation for the 47th time in this House for bills that the Conservatives want to get through. It really undermines our ability to do our job.

They have not had to deal with that in the other place. They have had time to examine bills and have witnesses without the pressure of time allocation. This bill is under time allocation, as members know. That is why we are debating it for five hours with the clock running.

The Conservatives say it is important and tell us what a great job they are doing on fighting crime, and there is all the other propaganda we hear. However, the point is that this should be the place where we have full debate. When legislation comes from the other place—the unelected, unaccountable and under-investigation Senate—we cannot do that to the extent that we should. Why? We are at the last couple of days of this session. In the last couple of days of this session, what are the Conservatives doing? They are rushing, putting time allocation on bills and pushing them through.

We just had it at the foreign affairs committee with a very important bill that we just dealt with there. The Conservatives actually went further than the time allocation at our committee. They said they would put five hours on it, but then asked if we would be willing to go down to three hours. That is what it has come to: rushing things through. Who cares if we even have five hours of debate? They just want to get it through. It is as if this is a rubber-stamp place.

I am sorry, but the Senate is the place that should be receiving the bills after we have a full debate here and hear from witnesses and have amendments. It would be nice if the Conservatives would actually accept an amendment every once in awhile. That would be just wonderful, but it is not likely.

We need to underscore this, because it is undermining our legitimacy as a House and it is undermining our committee work. I can say that for certain. If we just accept bills coming in and do not care where they come from and do not mention that, we fail to do our job as parliamentarians.

I mentioned at the beginning that this bill should not be originating from the Senate. It should be coming from the House of Commons. If the Conservatives cannot figure out how to make things work with a majority government and have to rely only on the Senate, then not only does the government have a problem, but our Parliament and our system have a problem that the Conservatives have created, and I need to underscore that.

The Senate is a crutch for the government, after 59 senators were appointed so they could do the business of the government, not the business of the people, and now we have bills coming through one after the other in the last number of days. One Senate bill after the next Senate bill; it is as if this is being passed along, photocopied and pushed out the door. It is offensive.

When we have senators like the one who apparently represents my area, Mac Harb, under investigation, the credibility of the institution is right now under question. We are now getting bills from senators as if we are supposed to be checking their work. It is supposed to happen the other way around. We are supposed to have the fulsome debate; we are supposed to have the amendments here; we are supposed to have an ability to have good legislation written starting here. Yes, they can look at it. That is the way our system works for now until we deal with that problem.

However, to have it the other way around is offensive. It is offensive to our constituents. It is offensive to our system, and it actually does not make for good law because of the pressures we are being put under: the time allocation pressures; the pressures at committee where the mentality is that we get only a couple of witnesses, we do the line-by-line and then we get the sucker out of there. That is the mentality of the government, and it undermines the credibility of our Parliament. It is on the government's watch, so at the end of the day it undermines the credibility of the government for any kind of notion of accountability.

I also have to underline the government's dependence or addiction, almost like a tobacco addition—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat is rising on a point of order.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just was wondering when the hon. member was going to get around to discussing the issue at hand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

As is often the case, the Chair will remind all hon. members to speak to the matters before the House and, as always and as is still the case, members are given a significant amount of latitude in so doing; but I remind all hon. members, in their speeches and in their questions and comments, to relate to the matter before the House.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.