François Lapointe

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, there is a big coalition whose members are mainly associations of retail business representatives. The coalition does a great deal of work and speaks out against contraband.

As my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue so rightly said, let us imagine a small merchant in a small community or a small village. Between 20% and 30% of his revenue is from the legal sale of legal tobacco until suddenly, he loses up to 40% of that business to illegal tobacco. That is nearly half of the 30% or 35% from sales of legal tobacco products wiped out within a few years. Earlier, people talked about numbers produced by the association of convenience store owners.

Consequently, I believe the assessment by the association of convenience store owners is entirely reasonable when they say one small merchant a day is going out of business, largely because of the problem of contraband tobacco.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is highly likely that young people who get into trafficking in contraband cigarettes are later led to engage in worse activities by organized crime. I do not have much information on this and I am not a criminologist, but I think that is part of the risk.

However, I have a comment. Why reduce RCMP resources at a time when we all agree that contraband is part of a larger plan to catch the bigger fish? Catching the big crime bosses takes deep pockets, but it pays off in the end. Millions of dollars from criminal activity are recovered.

In terms of those views holding that smoking cigarettes leads to smoking crack, I have never read anything that was really convincing. However, with regard to criminal organizations, there are certainly questions that need to be asked. It is therefore essential to maintain and increase the RCMP's resources, not take them away.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the debate shifted away from the main subject of the bill.

I would like to say that I personally hate cigarettes because I am asthmatic. My brother and I—he more so than I—suffered the effects of second-hand smoke throughout our entire childhood.

I want to make one thing clear from the outset. I have never smoked and I dream of a world where people will spend the same amount of money—a carton of contraband cigarettes is worth $20 or $30—on healthy goods, and goods sold by merchants. I dream of a day when merchants will make money by selling goods that are less harmful to our health. I thought it was important to say that before some members asked questions outside the purview of the bill we are debating today.

We are debating S-16, Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act. First, I will explain what contraband tobacco is. It is any tobacco product that does not comply with the provisions of applicable federal and provincial legislation. This includes the importation, stamping, marking, manufacturing, distribution and payment of duties and taxes.

At present, there are no offences in the Criminal Code dealing specifically with contraband tobacco. That is why Bill S-16 was introduced.

By adding to the Criminal Code offences pertaining to contraband tobacco similar to those found in the Excise Act, 2001, Bill S-16 would authorize all police services to crack down on contraband. That is one of the interesting aspects of the current bill. I want to make it clear: any police force could take action to crack down on contraband tobacco.

According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, contraband tobacco products fall into five major categories. It is interesting and much more diverse than what one might think. It is a far cry from the cliché where contraband is found in only one Indian reserve located somewhere in Canada. It is much more complicated.

These types include the following: American product smuggled into Canada; product that is illegally manufactured within Canada; counterfeit product that enters by sea container, because all transactions at ports are a big problem when it comes to smuggling tobacco products; product to be sold on first nations' reserves that has been diverted to the wider market, which is an important nuance because when something is diverted to the market it is not exclusively an aboriginal issue, since anyone can be diverting the product in this illegal exchange; and product sold on the Internet, including illegally manufactured and counterfeit products, as well as products for which duties and taxes have not been paid. This is a serious problem that affects the entire country.

Where does the NDP stand on Bill S-16? The NDP will support the bill at second reading so it can be studied in committee. Why is this study important? Because the bill raises some questions.

For example, have the consultations with the provinces, territories and first nations communities thus far been sufficient? We hope that the study in committee will ensure that such consultations are held and will help strengthen them.

We are also worried about something that we have seen a lot of since the Conservative government came to power: the mandatory minimum sentences included in the bill. This really bothers me. I think it is an insult to the intelligence of the justice system and our judges, who are always dealing with very complicated situations.

Imposing a minimum sentence on someone who allegedly smuggled goods because of extenuating circumstances can be quite different from imposing that same sentence on a real smuggler who was running a quasi-professional operation and who may have also laundered money.

When the government puts a minimum sentence on everything it is essentially saying that our judges are not smart enough, but I think that they do a great job. Nevertheless, the minimum sentences are here again in this bill.

The bill includes mandatory minimum prison sentences for repeat offenders. That is reasonable, given that we are talking about recidivism. Unlike other bills we have seen, we are not talking about a minimum sentence for the first offence. The mandatory minimum sentence is 90 days for a second offence, 180 days for a third offence, and two years less a day for every other subsequent offence. These are well-defined minimum sentences that may seem reasonable and would be in some cases, but are nonetheless minimum sentences. In some cases, there could be some mitigating circumstances for one of the accused. Are these minimum sentences, suitable sentences? The question has to be asked or minimum sentences will be handed down indiscriminately, based on personal experiences or what happened to our brother-in-law three years ago. We must absolutely allow the standing committee to address this.

Tobacco smuggling in general is a problem for a number of reasons. The first pertains to public safety. The RCMP estimates that about 175 organized crime groups profit from the sale of illegal cigarettes and use those profits to fund other criminal activities, such as drug and human trafficking. An increase in tobacco smuggling therefore supplies a chain of criminal activities. There was a drop in tobacco smuggling in the 1990s, but it has increased dramatically since 2000. Tobacco smuggling supplies an entire chain of criminal networks, which are even involved in the extremely reprehensible practice of human trafficking.

The government is introducing a law and order bill while making over $200 million in cuts to the RCMP's budget. That is disturbing. Once again, we have to wonder about this. The government is announcing that a certain amount of money will be allocated to the fight against tobacco smuggling, which is a measure that is welcomed by the associations that are directly involved. However, this is all just smoke and mirrors since, meanwhile, the government is making cuts to the RCMP's overall resources.

I have the same question that my colleague asked about 15 minutes ago. How can we eventually deal with serious crime if we have fewer resources? How can we get to mafia and gang leaders with fewer and fewer resources?

From a public health point of view, illegal tobacco products are of a lower quality. That also needs to be taken into consideration. A lot of illegal tobacco products are sold to young people. That is another problem, because 20% of Canadian youth between the ages of 12 and 19 smoke. In addition, if they are smoking illegal tobacco products, we do not know what they are actually smoking. It could be even worse for their health.

There is also the issue of lost tax revenue for the various levels of government. The federal government loses a total of $2.1 billion in uncollected taxes annually. In Quebec, lost tax revenue in the tobacco industry recently hit $125 million. Lost revenue is a serious issue.

As the official opposition critic for small business, I would like to talk about the impact that contraband has on small business owners. It is true, tax revenue suffers because taxes are not collected on the profits small businesses would make on tobacco sales. Revenue is also lost because of uncollected taxes. The criminals who sell illegal tobacco do not call up tax authorities to tell them that they will send in a cheque to cover the taxes on the products they sold.

However, business owners are the first victims. They are selling a legal product. There is also the issue of public health, but for now, it is legal for business owners to sell tobacco. It is one way to make money. It is often those who own smaller businesses—for example, family businesses that have very few or no employees—who need this. Much of their business may come from tobacco sales. When a region is suddenly saturated with illegal products, small business owners are the first victims.

In May 2010, the Canadian Convenience Stores Association raised a number of points. Contraband represents 40% of the tobacco market in Quebec and up to 50% in Ontario. Over the past three years, one convenience store a day has been forced out of business, and in most cases, lost revenues on the sale of legal tobacco products is what has caused these small businesses to fail.

One final testimony really struck me. Xavier Shi, who has a little smoke shop on Jean-Talon Street, said:

If we ask our customers, they tell us that they are buying them [cigarettes] elsewhere and that contraband cigarettes are much cheaper. They can even get them delivered to their door.

How is a small retailer on Jean-Talon Street supposed to compete with these kinds of illegal practices?

[The Environment, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, although the Réseau d'observation de mammifères marins has an agreement with Environment Canada, it is still waiting for a simple signature from the Minister of the Environment to keep its operations going this summer.

It is mid-June, and staff could be laid off in a few days. The lack of environmental monitors on the river could cause difficulties for tourist operators who are required to demonstrate that their activities are not causing harm to the whales. Both the tourism industry and the environment in the Lower St. Lawrence region are at risk.

Will the minister sign off on this funding immediately or will he wait until there are no more whales in the river before he does his job?

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's eight national wildlife areas, the Baie de l'Isle-Verte National Wildlife Area, is in my riding in Quebec. It is one of the largest protected marshlands in the whole country.

Since the government got its majority, the organization in charge of this protected area, the Corporation PARC Bas-Saint-Laurent has had to wait nine months every year for its tiny envelope of funding to be renewed, funding that was cut by 56% last year. Local partners now have to cover the cost of 90% of the resources the organization needs just to keep trails open and maintain the park. That is the true impact of the Conservatives' cuts and their attitude toward parks in our regions.

Creating parks is all well and good, but we have to wonder whether that comes with legitimate protection and the resources to maintain a protected area.

We will support the Senate bill before us, but we are actually quite concerned. The federal government keeps talking about low impact, but it will not tell us what that really means. What is the standard? What qualifies as low impact? They will not tell us. The government's lack of transparency here is par for the course, particularly when it comes to environmental issues.

How can my colleague be okay with creating parks—our Conservative friends even included it in their 2012 speech—when the facts show that parks are getting fewer and fewer resources and less and less protection? There are more parks, but they are receiving less protection and not enough resources for maintenance.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather disarming to see my colleague take the time to explain at length how unacceptable it is to be accused of not supporting women's rights because we disagree with the approach to this bill and the lack of resources to go with it. It is a bit like the regiments needing tanks and the government buying them minivans instead. We would vote against that because we would be buying minivans for soldiers who need tanks. The Conservatives would tell us that we are against the army. This tactic has gone so far and it is so low that I am sure that historians will look back on this in 10 or 15 years and remark how harmful this was to democratic debate.

I would like my young colleague to elaborate because he is a fine example of the future of democracy and parliamentary work in this country.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in 2010 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation launched its strategic plan, “2015: Everyone, Every way”. It was announced that the corporation would be making a strong comeback in remote areas. In fact, the CBC just eliminated a third of technician positions in Matane, Rimouski and Sept-Îles. Employees fear that these stations will become empty shells at the mercy of the corporate head office. There is good reason to fear a decline in the production of local and regional content.

The government must stop abandoning the regions. Can it commit to stop making budget cuts to the CBC, which have a disproportionate impact on regional stations?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to a rather pleasant subject. It is not as hard or unsettling as many of the other things we talk about. We can actually enjoy talking about it. It does a lot of good.

Today we are talking about Senate Bill S-209, introduced by Senator Bob Runciman, who was appointed to the Senate as a Conservative on January 29, 2010.

I would say to the members opposite that it is very good of us to consider supporting a bill introduced by a Conservative senator, especially these days.

I find supporting a bill from a Conservative senator a bit hard to swallow, but there is something that makes it a bit easier. It was something the senator said recently. In iPolitics, Mr. Runciman said just two days ago that referring former Senator Duffy's expense claims to the RCMP was the right thing to do. Not bad for a Conservative appointee to the upper chamber. This makes supporting his bill a bit easier to swallow.

We are talking about Bill S-209. The bill summary indicates that the enactment amends the Criminal Code by expanding the list of permitted sports under the prize fighting provisions.

Let us take two minutes to look at the current wording of subsection 83.(1) of the Criminal Code on prize fights, in order to understand what it was and why it is being amended:

83. (1) Every one who

(a) engages as a principal in a prize fight,

(b) advises, encourages or promotes a prize fight, or

(c) is present at a prize fight as an aid, second, surgeon, umpire, backer or reporter,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Not only is prize fighting prohibited, but anyone who encourages it or provides help to a prize fighter is committing a criminal offence, as things stand now.

The second subsection provides the definition of prize fight:

83.(2) In this section, “prize fight” means an encounter or fight with fists or hands between two persons who have met for that purpose by previous arrangement made by or for them, but a boxing contest between amateur sportsmen, where the contestants wear boxing gloves of not less than one hundred and forty grams each in mass, or any boxing contest held with the permission or under the authority of an athletic board or commission or similar body established by or under the authority of the legislature of a province for the control of sport within the province, shall be deemed not to be a prize fight.

The definition was really rather broad.

Clearly, this bill marks a significant departure from what we had before, that is, prize fights with absolutely no regulations governing them. When I was a kid, this is what we called street fights. Two people agreed to meet at a certain location with witnesses who quite often made bets. The two people would fight with their bare hands. That is prohibited. However, by definition, a boxing match with boxing gloves of a certain weight is allowed, whether it is an amateur or professional fight.

Boxing was once very important to me, but as we know, times change. My grandfather was a trainer at one of the major boxing gyms in Montreal. One of my childhood heroes was Gaétan Hart, who was a Canadian champion. He fought three world championship fights. He was tireless. In an NFB documentary about him, he said the most fascinating thing. He said he would climb into the ring saying, “you will not get my steak.” You would have to have experienced some tough times or come from a poor family, or at least have had a rough couple of weeks, months or years in your life, to understand Gaétan Hart's state of mind as he entered the ring saying that.

He was an inspiration to me. My sons' inspiration is Georges St-Pierre, who is a mixed martial artist. This shows how times and customs change, and it illustrates how combative sports have evolved.

Bill S-209 will allow us to reflect the current reality of combat sports, especially mixed martial arts, by including fights in which combatants use their feet as well as their fists and hands. This will also bring legislation up to date with what is really happening today, that is the organization of fights where boxing gloves are not used, but that are very well supervised. They are no longer street fights.

The NDP will support these changes. I will share our most important arguments with the House, and comment on them.

Mixed martial arts are already legal in Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Russia, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Ireland, Poland, the United States, Brazil, Japan, the United Kingdom and other countries; this is not a complete list. Many modern legislatures have already made changes to reflect this reality.

Athletes who practice this sport are subject to regular medical assessments, just like boxers. Modern medical practices now apply to this sport. The difference is that street fights were not supervised previously.

The incidence of head injuries is lower than in boxing, and is comparable to other contact sports, such as hockey. I believe that this is the most solid and clear argument.

There are fewer knockouts in mixed martial arts contests than in boxing matches or hockey games. In a number of sports, concussions were not considered to have long-term effects. In the past few years, we have learned how harmful they can be in the medium to long term. Previously, young men were told to pick themselves up and get back on the rink or in the ring.

Even the rules for amateur boxing are being questioned as a direct result of the situation we are discussing. Some people believed that young people were better protected because boxing helmets and gloves were heavier. However, over time, we have come to realize that the weight of the helmet increases the harm caused by a blow to the head. That is surprising.

When people engage in a sport without protection—such as a helmet or gloves—and when there are clear regulations and doctors and coaches are present, the result is surprising. It is sometimes hard to watch, because you can see blood coming out of someone's nose. It is startling to see. However, these people receive fewer injuries and concussions than people who play sports such as hockey or boxing, two more popular sports. Those are some of the NDP's main arguments.

Another point that will surely please my colleagues opposite—I think this will get some applause—is that Canada is a growing market and this generates significant economic spinoffs for the country. This is yet another example of how the NDP supports economic and market development.

I will wait for the applause. I guess I will have to wait for another day. I do not think a single member opposite is listening to my speech in French, since they do not have their earpieces in to listen to the translation. They do not care about my speech at all.

Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia all have legislation that legalizes mixed martial arts at the provincial level. It is important to note that the provinces are responsible for regulating these sports. They are already updating their regulations to allow for mixed martial arts.

In Quebec, the Fédération québécoise de boxe mixte ou d'arts martiaux mixte amateur has sanctioned more than 324 competitions. More than 3,405 mixed martial arts fights have taken place without any serious injury or accident. We are talking about more than 3,000 fights under the regulatory regime of Quebec alone. Not a single serious accident has occurred. If we looked at the same number of boxing matches, the results would be far different and much more worrisome.

The NDP believes that we need a clear, updated federal legal framework for mixed martial arts so that the provinces can enforce their own regulations for the sport and ensure that participants are safe and secure.

That is the NDP's position.

Dr. Teresa DeFreitas, a sports medicine consultant, says that banning a sport is not the way to go, and she thinks that if we are well represented with safety regulations and with medical presence we can—

[Tourism Industry, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, international tourism increased again by 4% in 2012.

Meanwhile, Canada slipped from 7th to 18th place as an international destination. The industry is worried about the future. The major international events network, MIEN, has called on the federal government to implement structural measures to stop this downward slide.

MIEN is asking for increased funding for the Canadian Tourism Commission and the creation of a program to support major international events.

Will the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism finally implement solutions to provide more stable and sustainable funding for our tourism industry?

[Municipality of Mont-Carmel, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Mont-Carmel is a model of innovation and determination.

Tomorrow it will receive the title of most resilient municipality of 2013-14. Mont-Carmel will host the eighth annual day of rural resilience and pride. A delegation from Les Méchins, the village that won the title last year, will hand over this symbol of rural pride to the mayor, Denis Lévesque.

Elected officials from eastern Quebec, including the reeve of the Kamouraska RCM, Yvon Soucy, will also be there. The Kamouraska chapter of Solidarité rurale will lead discussions on taking pride in living in a rural area, and there will be a tribute to community builders such as Jean-Claude Plourde and Benjamin Drapeau.

The regional economies are bearing the brunt of the often half-baked service cuts in the current austerity budget. It is the resilience of hundreds of municipalities such as Saint-Pamphile, Mont-Carmel, Saint-Cyprien and Percé that keeps people in those municipalities and helps them to enjoy an exceptional quality of life there.

This is a major source of inspiration for me as I help work toward the goal of having an NDP government in 2015. An NDP government would stop doing away with public services in the regions and start working with the regions on creating a better future.