Debates of May 30th, 2014

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill on contraband tobacco.

We cannot separate the issue of contraband tobacco from the problem of tobacco consumption. We know how hard it is to stop smoking. If more people stop smoking and fewer people start smoking, demand decreases. The law of supply and demand affects smuggling. That is why we have to take a more comprehensive approach to this problem.

I am particularly pleased to rise because when I spoke to the bill when it was introduced in the House, I announced to my colleagues that I had just quit smoking. I would like to tell them that it has been a year since I quit smoking. It is possible to stop smoking, but it is not necessarily easy. That is why I am pleased to talk about it.

To grasp the comprehensive nature of an anti-tobacco approach, we must understand that a number of ministers are concerned. The Minister of National Revenue is one of them since we cannot collect taxes on contraband. The government cannot collect that money. Moreover, since smoking generates huge costs in the health sector, a portion of the government's revenues is used to deal with this problem. Therefore, if we cannot have these revenues, we are obviously affected. This makes one minister affected by this issue.

For her part, the Minister of Health is responsible for implementing anti-smoking initiatives and approving drug products to help people stop smoking and warnings on cigarette packages. She can act in a number of areas. That makes two ministers affected by this issue.

As regards international trade, a lot of contraband products cross borders. Therefore, it is in that department's interest to be involved.

At the same time, the Minister of Industry must supervise the tobacco industry, which is still legal and which is incurring losses because of contraband tobacco. The Minister of Industry can be much more proactive in encouraging people to stop smoking. We now have four ministers involved.

As for the Minister of Agriculture, he must work with tobacco producers, particularly aboriginal communities, whereas the Minister of Justice is responsible for offences, fines and jail sentences related to contraband tobacco. Of course, these ministers are also affected. So is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, since the issue involves the security of the borders where tobacco is smuggled into the country. This now makes six ministers.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is affected, of course, because criminal organizations sometimes use aboriginal communities. Under the Constitution, and because of how things are organized, these communities are particularly involved. In fact, since there are higher than average smoking rates in aboriginal communities, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs must introduce ways to help aboriginal people reduce their tobacco consumption. He must also provide police resources and financial means to help them take action in their communities. This is another minister involved.

The Minister of State for Small Business is also involved because it is small businesses, like convenience stores, that claim to be losing money.

I am no expert here, but I count eight ministers who could easily be involved, not just in the issue of contraband tobacco, but in the issue of tobacco use in general. If we want to take action on contraband tobacco, we need to take a comprehensive approach.

The Minister of Justice did not adopt a comprehensive approach. He introduced a bill containing several measures that will have an impact, but since he refused to sit down with aboriginal communities to discuss this, he probably did not take the time to sit down with his counterparts to adopt a comprehensive approach.

The minister introduced a bill with some effective measures, but this bill could probably have been more complete and comprehensive.

The NDP will support the bill, but we recognize that the Conservatives could have decided to take a much more comprehensive approach.

Not only did the minister not take a comprehensive approach to this bill, but he also took a long time to introduce it. It should move through quickly enough, unless the government decides not to put it back on the order paper. He could have acted much more quickly and globally. He did not, and that is unfortunate.

Tobacco is a real scourge. Some people start smoking very young. This is embarrassing to admit, but when I quit smoking, I realized that I had smoked my first cigarette at the age of eight. That is rather unusual. I was still in elementary school. There were two elementary schools and I was still in the smaller school with grades one, two and three when I started to smoke. By the age of 12, I was smoking every day. I quit smoking at the age of 29. I am now just 30, which means that I have spent more of my life as a smoker than a non-smoker. That is rather unusual.

That is why we cannot talk about contraband tobacco without having a comprehensive approach. Often it is young people who are targeted by this contraband because they cannot buy cigarettes legally. Obviously they are going to try to find other ways or people who are not concerned about their age and will sell them the product. Those people know full well that young people are particularly drawn to these products.

What is more, contraband cigarettes are a lot cheaper. Sometimes a bag of 200 cigarettes are sold for the same price as a pack of cigarettes at the corner store. Young people do not have the same financial means as adults and are more likely to turn to these products. Some organized crime groups recruit young sellers. They tell them that they can smoke for free, by keeping a bag of cigarettes and selling the rest.

This is a serious problem. That is why if we want to tackle such a big problem, we cannot compartmentalize it. We cannot tackle contraband tobacco, tackle consumption, tackle consumption among young people and tackle the safety of contraband products without taking a comprehensive approach. Unfortunately, the government did not want to do that with this bill. That is what I find unfortunate. If the government had taken a global approach, then we probably would have had a much more comprehensive bill.

We know how long it takes to pass a bill. We cannot start over with four different bills that address different aspects. Considering how much time it takes, it would be much more strategic and advantageous to come up with a more comprehensive bill where all the stakeholders could share their experiences. That is how we end up with better legislation.

I was pleased to speak to this bill a second time and I will be sure to remain a non-smoker.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who works very hard for her constituents. From what she said, I can see that the NDP takes Canada's contraband tobacco problem very seriously.

Contraband tobacco is a very complex issue. It is wrapped up in problems with health, public safety, loss of tax revenue and loss of profitability for small businesses. My riding, Brome—Missisquoi, shares a border several kilometres long with the United States. Are the Conservatives going to solve these problems by cutting funding for police forces and the Canada Border Services Agency left and right? I do not understand. They should be doing the opposite because this is not really an expense. The government should invest in police officers and agents to fight contraband tobacco. I will turn things back over to my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is what I was talking about in my speech—the whole problem with the comprehensiveness of the approach. When one takes a comprehensive approach to a problem, one automatically becomes aware that some other decisions are called for.

In the case of contraband tobacco, one would automatically realize that one cannot do anything about the problem without increasing budgets for first nations communities so they can have more police officers who get paid better and have a greater presence on the ground. One cannot take action against contraband tobacco without making sure our borders are safe. That is quite logical and sensible. When one takes a comprehensive approach, one immediately becomes aware of that.

This is like when the Conservatives ask people to fill out their employment insurance claims online, then turn around and close community access centres that provide Internet access. Taken together, those two decisions make no sense. If the government were capable of looking at its policies logically and comprehensively, it could adopt a much more effective approach, the kind of approach that, unfortunately, we are not seeing here.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Questions and comments. Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek consent of the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Time Allocation for Vanessa's Law

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to a point of order concerning the time allocation motion that the House received yesterday in relation to Bill C-17.

As you know, yesterday the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stood and announced his intention to move a time allocation motion for Bill C-17. There has not been much debate about the bill in the House because all of the parties support it. Even more important is the fact that all of the parties are prepared to send the bill to committee.

As members also know, the short title for the bill is “Vanessa's Law”, in honour of the tragic death of Vanessa Young, who was the daughter of the member for Oakville. However, this week, I am very sad to say, that member levelled unfounded and partisan comments against the opposition for so-called delaying the bill. Given the prominence of the attacks from the government in question period and the members' statements lineup, it is clear he was doing this with the government leader's full endorsement and encouragement.

The problem is that the only reason the bill was not been sent to committee months ago was that the government House leader did not consider it important enough to qualify for debate. He, of course, sets the agenda for what bills are called and he is responsible for asking other parties to help expedite legislation when he wants to.

At the beginning of December, the bill was tabled in the House. The sad truth is that in the nearly six months since this proposed law was tabled, there have been only 60 minutes of debate in March and then a couple of hours of debate this week. In fact, in the March discussion, we moved on to another bill before the third party even had an opportunity to speak.

Questions need to be asked about why the bill has not been brought forward to committee, and here is a good example. With almost an hour left in government orders, the government has asked to move forward to private members' legislation. It could have brought Bill C-17 forward for debate at this time.

The problem is that we have never been asked, not once at any of the meetings we have had with the government House leader. One cannot say that one does not have agreement if one has never asked the question.

The government House leader actually has my cellphone number, although it is telling to note that I do not have his. I have been meeting with him regularly, and we have told him very clearly that Bill C-17 can to go committee without time allocation. The reality is that he has not asked me because he seems to want to play political games rather than deal with the fact that we want some debate on the bill before it is sent to committee.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to rescind that notice of time allocation given under Standing Order 78.3 because the government House leader simply has never asked us the question in the many opportunities he has had in the last few months.

We do not want to set a precedent around the use of time allocation, and the Conservatives have used it so abusively already. Sometimes they have asked us the question, but in this case, the question was never asked. The government seems to want to play political games with this bill rather than work with the opposition so we can improve upon it in committee and move it back into the house.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I thank the member for his submission. Obviously it is the type of issue I would assume the government will want to respond to. We will take under advisement the comments we have heard so far, but we need to give the government an opportunity to respond to the argument that has been made.

I understand the point the member is making. I think this may have already been ruled on once, but the Speaker will review the blues and will make a decision.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the matter has been discussed, but our party does not discuss what goes on in the House leaders' meetings. Obviously the issue has been brought to the House.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill had four hours of debate this week. The NDP continued to put up speaker after speaker to delay it. What the member is doing now is again delaying the process.

I would suggest that we move forward and, if the members like, we could perhaps pass it right now.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I thank the member for Oxford for his comments, but I will reserve this to the Speaker for a ruling.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

moved that Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present my private member's bill in the House today regarding this issue. I would like to take time to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for initiating this bill as Bill C-478 in February 2013. The member was unable to forward the bill at that time and is now excluded from doing so. I am more than willing to champion this bill as it has merit and would provide guidance and accommodation to our judiciary to further protect victims of violent crimes.

Today my bill, Bill C-587, would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of an abduction, sexual assault, and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or a series of events would be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person had served a sentence of between 25 years and 40 years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendations, if any, of the jury.

My bill is targeting sadistic murderers. Sadistic criminals convicted of such crimes are never granted parole, thus the hearings are unnecessary and extremely painful for the families to endure. This bill is modelled on Bill C-48, passed in 2011 with the support of the NDP. It amended the Criminal Code with respect to parole inadmissibility for offenders convicted of multiple murders. Because of Bill C-48 receiving royal assent, Travis Baumgartner, the former armoured car guard who shot four of his co-workers, three of them fatally, in a robbery on the University of Alberta campus in June 2012, was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years.

My bill seeks to extend the parole ineligibility period for those convicted of the abduction, heinous acts of sexual assault and murder of an individual, as did Bill C-48 for multiple murderers. My bill would spare families and loved ones of murder victims from being re-traumatized by repeated parole hearings.

Families of those whose lives have been lost or severely damaged may go through many emotions, namely, shock, horror, physical and emotion pain, nightmares, heartbreak, sorrow, grief, stress, sadness, anger, rage, and may end up distrusting of our social values. To have to go through this over again at a parole hearing is cruel, to say the least.

The seriousness of offences set out in the bill would ensure that the parole ineligibility period would only be applied in cases of the murderer's lack of remorse and where the act of violence would be a heinous and brutal act of violence or sexual assault ending in murder. Allowing for judicial discretion and not a mandatory minimum sentence would ensure charter compliance.

Bill C-587 is focused on preventing the unnecessary agony and trauma of parole hearings for victims' families. The bill would spare the families of victims from having to attend unnecessary parole hearings every two years after the offender's 25-year sentence expired. Making murderers ineligible for parole for 40 years could save families up to eight unnecessary parole hearings.

I want to empower our courts with the ability to increase parole ineligibility when sentencing individuals who have abducted, sexually assaulted and killed our innocent and vulnerable, from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years. Currently, any Canadian convicted of both first and second degree murder is given an automatic life sentence. However, the provisions rarely have put an offender in jail for longer than 25 years, the time at which first degree murderers are eligible for parole.

Darlene Prioriello, age 16, was murdered May 6, 1982, by David James Dobson. She was abducted by Dobson at a Mississauga bus stop. She was raped and mutilated, and suffered a slow, agonizing death. Dobson was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison on April 11, 1983. He was scheduled for the first parole hearing in March 2007, but he rescheduled it, causing the Prioriello family much agony since it had to prepare for the emotional day over and over again. In April 2007, he was denied parole.

Daryn Johnsrude, age 16, was murdered on April 21, 1981, by Clifford Olson. Olson applied for parole in 1997, 2006 and in 2010, and was swiftly denied parole every time. Daryn was brutally raped, tortured and killed. He was one of 11 victims murdered by Olson; three of the victims were boys and eight were girls. All were between the ages of nine and 18.

Olson, while in prison, tried to cause the victims' families as much suffering as he could by sending graphic, detailed letters to Daryn's parents, explaining what he had done to their son. He also once sued Daryn's parents for calling him a pedophile. Olson also tried to sell memorabilia online, and made a dozen videos of how to abduct children.

This constant reminder of Olson's cruelty made it very difficult for the families to have any kind of peace or closure. Daryn's mother said, “The only thing more bizarre than Olson's antics is the system that gives him a right to a parole hearing”.

Janet and Karen Johnson, aged 13 and 11, were murdered by David Shearing, aka David Ennis, in August 1982, as were their grandparents and parents. He had parole hearings in 2008 and 2012, and was denied parole each time.

Linda Bright, aged 16, was murdered in 1978 by Donald Armstrong. He has applied for parole hearings numerous times, and then has always cancelled at the last moment. The most recent time was in March 2012.

This bill is all about saving the victims' families from having to go through the agony of attending unnecessary and traumatic parole hearings. My bill would give the judge the discretionary powers to make a recommendation to the jury and also in the sentencing process to award a period of parole ineligibility that would be increased from 25 years up to 40 years.

In my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap, I met with Marie Van Diest, mother of Taylor Van Diest of Armstrong, B.C., whose daughter murdered in October 2011 by Matthew Foerster of Cherryville. He was found guilty of first degree murder. Taylor, 18, was found beaten with fatal head wounds by the side of railroad tracks, hours after going missing on Halloween night 2011.

When my bill is passed, it will assist families by not having them deal with the re-enactment of what happened to their loved ones over and over again, having to face a loved one's killer, to read what was done to their loved one and how their loved one died.

A re-enactment of the offence in court is traumatizing for victims' families as it is. To attend parole hearings is very painful, in fact cruel. Family members have to once again find the pain they have tucked away and bring it back to the surface, and relive it and think about what was done.

If a convict is denied parole, the victims' families will once again have to be prepared to do it again at another parole haring. They should not have to go through this, but they do. They present their victim impact statements to try to ensure the convict is not released. The scheduling of parole hearings is emotional torture.

I ask members of the House to pass the bill. Families have already been victimized once. Having to attend parole hearings causes families of victims a lot of suffering and does not provide them with any closure. They should not have to relive their tragedy.

My bill would save families from going through parole hearing after parole hearing. We must save families from having to endure the cruel punishment of reliving their horror. Sharing a victim impact statement, revealing raw pain and memories is unimaginable.

Let us not fool ourselves. The Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Shropshire, stated “parole ineligibility is part of the "punishment" and thereby forms an important element of sentencing policy”.

I will close with the following quote from Susan Ashley, Linda Bright's sister, who said:

...once they have recovered from the horrific abduction, sexual assault and murder of a loved one, then a lengthy Court process, they can spend the next many years healing their wounds...not facing parole hearing after parole hearing.

(Bill C–17. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 27—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act—Minister of Health

Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law)

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, following the comments of the opposition House leader, I hope that we can get unanimous consent for the following:

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to say that we are glad that the government finally got its act together after six months and finally asked the question. Of course, our response was, as it has been for six months, yes, let us move it to committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

To the leader in the House for the official opposition, does this have the effect of you withdrawing your point of order from earlier this afternoon?