Herb Gray

[Business Of The House, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the weekly business statement.

Today the House will continue with the budget debate. Tomorrow the House will proceed to second reading of Bill C-14, respecting the borrowing authority. We will continue this debate when we come back on Monday, March 7 and if it is completed before the end of the day, we will return to consideration of Bill C-7 and Bill C-5.

Tuesday, March 8 shall be an allotted day and there will be a vote on the budget subamendment at the end of the day.

On Wednesday, March 9 we will continue with the budget debate. On Thursday, March 10 we will conclude the budget debate with the votes, if any, at the end of the day on Thursday.

On Friday, March 11 we will commence the report stage of Bill C-3 respecting federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. Of course we will consult further about any other business that day.

Finally my parliamentary secretary has some motions to move on consent which I understand he will do as soon as I complete these remarks.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a brief response to the comments by the hon. member.

We should remind ourselves that this problem did not begin in the three months or so that this government has been in office. We are talking about a problem that built up for years without this kind of needed action by the previous Conservative government.

This government, along with its famous red book of plans for creating jobs and developing the economy, also has had to deal with problems that are surfacing that built up under the previous government. We should remember this in recognizing that this government has been willing to take action to deal with immediate needs and concerns like the smuggling problem.

Furthermore, we want to make sure that we do this in a balanced way. I am glad that the hon. member has pointed out for society the dangers of this problem we are dealing with. That is why our program has all these components. Yes, it has a tougher enforcement component. Yes, it has a taxation component but it also has a very important health related and anti-smoking component.

I look forward to the comments of the Minister of Health later in the debate to build on what this is all about. I also look forward to the committee study where we can provide further detailed information.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get too much in the area of the Minister of Health. I know she is going to speak and I am sure she is going to confirm that she and the government want to work co-operatively with groups like the lung association.

I am sure she will confirm that we want to take advantage of their ideas, programs and facilities. I look forward and I think the government looks forward to increasing close co-operation between the Minister of Health, her officials and groups like the lung association. This co-operation is necessary to make our program work.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the advice we received from the commissioner of the RCMP was that tougher enforcement measures alone would not have been sufficient to deal with the problem. We have to respect that advice, coming as it does from the head of one of the most respected law enforcement agencies in the world.

It is understandable why this advice came because we are dealing with a problem national in scope. It is true that there is a certain focus in eastern Ontario and Quebec, but the information also was that some 40 per cent of tobacco consumed in the Atlantic provinces was smuggled, some 35 per cent of the tobacco consumed across Ontario was smuggled, some 15 per cent of the tobacco consumed in the western provinces was smuggled and these numbers were rising sharply.

The information was that thousands of people were involved across the country in distributing this contraband tobacco. Tens of thousands more were buying it and consuming it. This involved increasingly organized smuggling rings which were not only involved in tobacco but also alcohol, drugs and firearms.

When the problem was of such scope we had to tighten up and hit the smuggling rings through tougher enforcement measures. We also had to get the profit out of the smuggling of tobacco as a means of reinforcing the tougher enforcement measures. This is why, even though we knew of all the problems and concerns and even though we knew this was not an easy decision, we knew there was no simple solution to a problem of this complexity. We knew that our national plan had to have in it a component involving the reduction of domestic taxes on tobacco in order to take the profit out of smuggling. Along with that we knew we had to impose an export tax on tobacco and an excess profits tax on the tobacco companies to further squeeze out the profit but also to generate funds for a major anti-smoking program. We knew all these things had to be done.

We concluded, and it was not something I have to say we were happy about, it had to be done in the public interest, that the national plan to deal with smuggling could not depend on enforcement alone. It had to depend on tax measures which as I have said did not only involve the reduction of domestic taxes on tobacco but involved substantial tax increases on the tobacco companies, an export tax on the products they made here and sent abroad, because we knew that was a source of a lot of what was smuggled back, and also a substantial tax on these tobacco companies to fund a major anti-smoking program.

I have the greatest respect for the organizations quoted by the hon. spokesman for the Reform Party, but I think most of their communications were published before our plan went into effect. They feared we would ignore the tobacco companies. They feared we would ignore the need for an anti-smoking program and of course we did not ignore those key necessities. They are parts of our national plan. I hope that these organizations will take another look at what we are doing. As I said, I respect their concerns about the implications of tax reductions but a lot of the other things we are doing involve measures that they themselves have called for for years and now we are proceeding to do them.

To sum up, enforcement is a necessary part of our program but it was concluded reluctantly that enforcement alone would not do the job. This just says something about the complexity of governing in a country like Canada. Sometimes problems arise for which there are no simple or easy solutions. Whatever way you go involves problems, but it still means that governments

have to take decisions and operate in the best interests of the country. Then when the time comes they must submit themselves to the judgment of the public. We are happy to do so in this case and with respect to the other things we have done and will be doing with the intention of serving the best interests of all Canadians, of people in every part of this country.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have these figures with me. I will endeavour to speak from memory. My remarks will be subject to correction either later in this debate or more particularly when the bill is studied in detail in the appropriate parliamentary committee.

I think the initial cost of the law enforcement measures, the additional customs officers, the additional RCMP officers, will be in the area of $100 million to $150 million a year.

The revenue implications of the tax reductions in the first year I think are in excess, again I am speaking from memory, of $300 million. We estimate that this revenue loss will drop sharply in subsequent years as the anti-smuggling program takes effect.

I offer these figures subject to correction as we study this matter in committee, but I think this is something in the ballpark area for what we are talking about.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support second reading of Bill C-11.

As the Minister of National Revenue said, this bill is an important component of the government's national action plan to combat smuggling, the plan announced by the Prime Minister in the House on February 8.

In launching this initiative, we underlined our commitment to taking a comprehensive and decisive approach to deal with the smuggling problem. This bill is a further demonstration of that commitment. The Minister of National Revenue has described how the provisions of the bill will support the revenue aspects involving his department of our national strategy. The Minister of Health will describe its health aspects. However, as Solicitor General I want to discuss the provisions of the bill that support the law enforcement component of the government's national action plan.

In announcing the government's strategy, the Prime Minister made it clear that we were attacking a national problem affecting all Canadians. He also clearly indicated that the rule of law had to be respected and enforced and that it had to apply equally to all citizens.

Given the seriousness of the smuggling problem, we knew it was imperative that we give police and customs officers the resources and powers they need to do their jobs properly to dismantle the smuggling trade, especially as it involves tobacco and alcohol.

For that purpose we doubled the number of RCMP and customs personnel dedicated to anti-smuggling operations. We knew that numbers alone would not solve the problem. We realized the increase in personnel had to be part of a greater law enforcement strategy, one that took into account the needs of the various police forces involved in the fight against smuggling.

This bill answers those law enforcement needs in three ways. First, the bill will allow the government to designate on an as needed basis provincial and municipal police services to enforce certain provisions of the Excise Act that formerly were within the sole jurisdiction of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

This means that when smuggled goods enter Canada, the RCMP is the only law enforcement agency legally authorized now to confiscate alcohol and tobacco under the present Excise Act. If there seems to be evasion of provincial taxes, this is an infraction against provincial law and the provincial and municipal police forces can intervene.

Given the seriousness of the smuggling problem, it is only common sense that we have the flexibility to allow not only the RCMP but also other designated provincial and municipal police services to seize contraband alcohol and tobacco wherever they may find it and also to seize the equipment used to manufacture them in Canada as well as the vehicles used to transport these products. This bill will make such action possible.

The Quebec Minister of Public Security and the Solicitor General of Ontario asked me to have the members of their provincial police forces, namely the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police, empowered to enforce the Excise Act as I have just described.

The bill responds positively to these requests. It will allow us to improve and expand on existing co-operation with provincial and local police and improve as well the efficiency of joint force operations. It will improve the efficiency of Ontario and Quebec

provincial police and other designated municipal forces working on their own in anti-smuggling activities.

We have emphasized our commitment to working with the provinces wherever we can to ensure that the fight against smuggling, especially of tobacco and alcohol, is as efficient as we can make it. This bill is a demonstration of that commitment.

Another key element of the bill is that it will help law enforcement authorities mount a more cost effective campaign against smuggling. It will do this through amendments to the Customs Act and the Excise Act that will allow the Minister of National Revenue to authorize officials to destroy seized goods, primarily tobacco and alcohol, immediately after keeping samples to be used as evidence in court.

This is being done to reduce the increasingly high costs of storing seized goods as seizures increase as they have done in recent months. This is particularly true in the case of tobacco products.

I am told that in Ontario alone the current costs to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for storing alcohol and tobacco it has seized is close to $2 million annually. In British Columbia the RCMP has run out of existing warehouse space and has had to take over part of an underground parking lot to meet new storage needs. These increasing overhead costs as seizures of alcohol and tobacco increase are unnecessary and avoidable. The proposed amendments will help us to control and hopefully to reduce them.

I do want to say that in cases where the courts ultimately decide-and that may happen from time to time-that goods were improperly seized and later destroyed, the bill will require full compensation to be paid to the original owner of those goods.

Finally, the current provisions of the Excise Act authorize the marking of cigarette packaging but not the marking of cigarettes themselves. This is not satisfactory because we have seen that certain criminal elements have become adept at counterfeiting package markings to make contraband cigarettes appear legitimate. The bill would broaden regulatory authority to include requiring the marking of cigarettes if they are for legal use in Canada, thereby helping enforcement authorities to curb counterfeit and therefore illegal packaging operations. In addition, clearly marked cigarettes would make it easier for police to identify the use of contraband cigarettes.

To conclude, these three provisions-increasing the jurisdiction of provincial and municipal police; authorizing officials to destroy seized goods immediately; and marking and packaging tobacco products made in Canada in a way that will help police recognize smuggled goods-will strengthen law enforcement in the fight against smuggled tobacco and also help fight liquor smuggling.

Together with the proposals regarding the prohibition of the sale of kiddie packs of cigarettes and other related matters to be discussed by the Minister of Health, the bill will continue to further the government's national objectives of ensuring respect for the law, especially the law against smuggling, everywhere in Canada and also protecting the health of Canadians.

We promised Canadians that our response to smuggling would be far reaching and comprehensive. Given the complexity of the contraband issue, it must be so. The bill provides valuable tools for us in the fight against smuggling, especially of tobacco and alcohol, and it supports our commitment to protect the health of Canadians, especially of young Canadians. This Bill C-11 is an important aspect of our overall effort and I ask members on all sides of the House to give this bill their support.

[Native Affairs, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I never gave the assurance that there would be no police action on Mohawk reserves. I said exactly the opposite. I said that it was in the hands of the RCMP and that they would make their own decisions regarding inquiries and action if warranted. I never promised anyone that there would be no such action.

[Native Affairs, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should ask Chief Mitchell, if he wants to know the reasons for his resignation. I can say that the RCMP has tried to enforce the law everywhere, and continues to do so, but I see no link between the resignation of Chief Mitchell and the work of police forces, including the Sûreté du Québec.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to read over carefully the meaty speech of the Bloc Quebecois critic as it raised very complex and interesting issues.

I would like to respond briefly to his last comments. He feels that a certain section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act gives police sufficient powers to control sales, but based on court decisions and legal opinions from our counsels, it is not enough. That is why we came up with clause 54(2).

I may not be an expert in the field, but it seems to me that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act cannot give powers to other police forces, like the Sûreté du Québec or the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police. That is why we need the amendments proposed in this bill.

I can assure you that I take great interest in preserving the freedoms guaranteed to Canadians from coast to coast under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it is the duty of the Justice Department to let us know whether or not a bill meets constitutional requirements, including those set in the charter. Without their advice, no bill could be tabled in this House.

The interesting comments made by my hon. friend indicate why, although there is a place and a need for general debate, in my opinion we should get this bill into committee as quickly as possible so that we can deal in depth with the very interesting points the hon. member has made and so that we can give all possible explanations and assurances with respect to the charter of rights and freedoms and in general with respect to the foundation and need for this law.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to see what we can do under the rules. But I would remind my hon. friend that under the rules any member can attend any committee, even a committee in which that member is not a regular participant, and take part in the discussions. In fact, a committee like the justice committee-if that is the way it turns out-could and would have to have the Minister of Health and her officials appear.

If it turned out that the justice committee would be the best overall vehicle, this would not exclude consideration of the health aspects or prevent members who are more interested in the health aspect from participating. That is my understanding of the rules.