Robert Goguen

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco). The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to create a new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and to provide minimum penalties for imprisonment for persons who are convicted for a second or subsequent time of this offence.

To help reduce the problem of trafficking in contraband tobacco, the government committed to establish mandatory jail time for repeat offenders of trafficking in contraband tobacco in its 2011 election platform. The bill would fulfill that commitment.

There are no offences in the Criminal Code dealing with contraband tobacco at the present time. While there exists an offence of selling contraband tobacco in the Excise Act, 2001, that offence exists in support of our fiscal policy in the area of tobacco. This government believes that something more is required to deal with the problem that has become trafficking in contraband tobacco.

The proposed bill prohibits the sale, offer for sale, transportation, delivery, distribution or possession for the purpose of sale of tobacco product or raw leaf tobacco that is not packaged, unless it is stamped. The terms “tobacco product”, “raw leaf product”, “packaged” and “stamped” have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Excise Act, 2001.

The penalty for a first offence is up to six months imprisonment on summary conviction and up to five years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment. Repeat offenders convicted of this new offence and where 10,000 cigarettes or more, or 10 kilograms or more of any tobacco product, or 10 kilograms or more of raw leaf tobacco is involved would be sentenced to a minimum of 90 days on a second conviction, a minimum of 180 days on a third conviction and a minimum of two years less a day on subsequent convictions.

In order to place this bill in context, it is important to describe the serious problem that has become the trafficking in contraband tobacco.

As members will recall, the contraband tobacco market first became a significant issue in Canada in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During that period, more and more legally manufactured Canadian cigarettes destined for the duty-free market began making their way back into the Canadian underground economy. The high retail price of legitimate cigarettes made smuggling them back across the border a lucrative illicit business.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Customs seized record quantities of contraband tobacco. The RCMP was also engaged in investigating this illegal activity at its source. These investigations eventually led to negotiated settlements involving several tobacco companies paying more than $1.5 billion in criminal fines and civil restitution.

However, the illicit tobacco market in Canada has rebounded in recent years and once again has become an acute problem.

Tobacco is not just a Canadian problem. The illicit trafficking of tobacco is a multi-billion dollar business worldwide today, fuelling organized crime and corruption and spurring addiction to a deadly product.

Last year smuggling experts, customs officials and diplomats of nearly 160 countries, including Canada, gathered in Geneva, Switzerland to finalize the development of what had eluded governments for decades, and that was an international instrument allowing for a global crackdown on the black market in tobacco.

Under the auspices of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a global treaty to curb tobacco use, delegates worked to complete protocol to stop cigarette smuggling.

Illicit tobacco feeds an underground economy that supports many of the most violent actors on the world stage. Organized crime syndicates and terrorist groups facilitate global distribution and use the profits to finance their activities.

Perhaps even more troubling is the impact that smuggling has on the public health crisis caused by tobacco. Worldwide, one out of 10 adults dies prematurely from tobacco-related diseases such as lung cancer, emphysema, cardiovascular disease and stroke. If the trend continues to hold, tobacco will kill about 500 million people.

By 2030, that figure will reach eight million deaths a year and with cigarettes being heavily marketed in poor countries, 80% of those deaths will be in the developing world. Over the 21st century, an estimated one billion people could die from tobacco use.

In Canada today, illegal tobacco activity is primarily connected to illegal manufacture and not to the diversion of legally manufactured products as it was in the past. I should point out also that it includes, to a lesser degree, the illegal importation of counterfeit cigarettes and other forms of illicit tobacco from overseas.

Organized crime plays a central role in the contraband tobacco trade in Canada and that means this illegal activity is linked with other kinds of crime. Most of the organized crime groups across the country involved in the illicit tobacco market are also active in other forms of criminality.

The problem is further complicated by the international aspect of the illicit tobacco trade. Transnational crime of the type found in contraband tobacco smuggling is considered a threat to public safety and national security and has a direct impact on individual Canadians, small businesses and the economy. It also has implications for relationships with our international partners, especially the United States.

On this issue, I would like to point out that Canada and the United States share a long history of law enforcement co-operation across the border. Recent and ongoing threat assessments have identified that organized crime is the most prevalent threat encountered at the shared border. This includes significant levels of contraband trafficking, ranging from illicit drugs and tobacco to firearms, notably handguns, and human smuggling. In this regard, Canada and the United States have explored the concept of integrated cross-border maritime law enforcement operations. Joint maritime law enforcement vessels, manned by specially trained and designated Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers, have been authorized to enforce the law on both sides of the international boundary line in the course of integrated cross-border operations.

The contraband tobacco market is driven largely by illegal operations in both Canada and the United States. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have the highest concentration of contraband tobacco manufacturing operations, the majority of the high-volume smuggling points and the largest number of consumers of contraband tobacco.

The 2012 Criminal Intelligence Service Canada National Threat Assessment on Organized and Serious Crime in Canada identified 58 organized crime groups that were involved in the contraband tobacco trade throughout Canada, 35 of which were currently operating in central Canada. These criminals networks reinvest profits from the manufacture and distribution of contraband tobacco into other forms of criminality, including trafficking of illicit drugs, firearms and human smuggling.

Furthermore, the RCMP reports that violence and intimidation tactics continue to be associated with the contraband tobacco trade. Since 2008 and up to May 2012, the RCMP has laid approximately 4,925 charges under the Excise Act, 2001, and disrupted approximately 66 organized crime groups involved in the contraband tobacco trade throughout Canada. During that time period, approximately 3.5 million cartons, unmarked bags of cigarettes, were seized nationally by the RCMP, along with numerous vehicles, vessels and properties.

It is clear that the illicit tobacco trade is dominated by criminal organizations motivated by the lure of significant profits and relatively low risks. Enforcement actions are therefore directed at increasing the risks associated with contraband tobacco activities: dismantling illegal manufacturing facilities; disrupting distribution supply lines; apprehending key figures; confiscating conveyances such as trucks and boats; and seizing the proceeds of crime. These actions have the dual goal of disrupting the illicit flow of tobacco and weakening the organized crime groups involved in the production, distribution, smuggling and trafficking of contraband tobacco.

Contraband tobacco remains a serious threat to our communities and if left unchecked, organized crime will continue to profit at the expense of the health and safety of Canadians. Overall, the proposals in Bill S-16 represent a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious contraband tobacco activities. The bill proposes minimum penalties only in cases where there are certain aggravating factors present, such as a conviction for a second or subsequent time.

The Government of Canada recognizes that contraband tobacco smuggling is a serious problem. Canadians want to be protected from offenders involved in these contraband tobacco smuggling operations, which threaten their safety and that of their families. They also want to be protected from the violence that is associated with contraband tobacco activities.

Protecting society from criminals is a responsibility the government takes seriously. Accordingly, this bill is part of the government's continued commitment to take steps to protect Canadians and make our streets and communities safer. Canadians want a justice system that has clear and strong law that denounces and punishes serious crimes, including illicit activities involving contraband tobacco. They want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes. This bill would do that.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there, but why should we talk about the United Nations.

Charity starts at the home. Here they are in Canada, on the reserves, asking for our help and the NDP is unable to lift a hand to feel their pain, to do what is right to right this inequity.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to sit in on the special committee for missing aboriginal women, where there is a legion of groups that have been consulted. Far many more of these groups are interested in what we are doing. They are backing that.

I am saddened by the fact that, as the Minister of Immigration has said, and he has been here for 16 years, never once has the NDP had the courage to do what is right for the people living on reserves who are being abused. It is time to move. It has been 25 years. If there is anything that is sad, it is the inability of the NDP members to understand their dilemma.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that 25 years of consultation is fairly sufficient. Setting aside the rhetoric from my hon. friend, we have listened and we are acting. We will not let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”.

This is a move forward. It is about equity. It is time to move. Twenty-five years is far too long.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill S-2. When the time comes to vote on the bill, I intend to vote in favour of it and I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

No one can dispute the fact that the bill is in the best interests of individuals living on reserves and that it creates a more fair and just Canada. Currently, very few laws exist to protect the matrimonial real property interests and rights of people who live on reserve.

Bill S-2 proposes to fill a gap in legislation that continues to affect the most vulnerable people in Canadian society, specifically women and children living in first nations communities. For most individuals, the problem begins with a relationship breakdown, or the death of a spouse or common-law partner. In many cases, this results in a woman, or her children, being kicked out of the family home and the law is powerless to help them. Many end up homeless, impoverished and isolated from their home communities.

As difficult as these circumstances are for those who are directly impacted, the suffering extends even beyond them. Grandparents may be denied daily access to their grandchildren. Siblings and friends may be forced apart. As a result, the negative impacts of these events can often be felt through the entire community.

It is hard to believe that we as parliamentarians have allowed this inequity to endure for more than 25 years. It is in our power, and so it is our responsibility, to eliminate causes of inequity such as this one. Moving ahead with this legislation now before us is clearly in the best interests of all Canadians, most particularly those likely to be affected by this legislative gap.

Bill S-2 proposes to fill the gap with a two-part solution. One part establishes a legal authority that first nations can use to design, ratify and implement laws governing marital property interests and rights on their reserve lands. This means that first nations could develop their own laws to meet the community's cultural and social needs and that the courts could apply these laws. The second part of Bill S-2 is a set of provisional federal rules that would, once in force, provide protection for individuals living on reserves unless, or until, first nations have ratified their own laws in this area.

The proposed legislation and the issues it addresses are quite complex. There is little doubt that these complexities confounded previous attempts to enact legislation. However, if we remain focused on the crux of the matter, that the legislative gap hurts individual citizens and perpetuates injustice, the path forward becomes perfectly clear.

Bill S-2, like any legislation touching on complicated and emotional issues, has critics. However, what is often overlooked is that the legislation now before us is the product of a comprehensive and collaborative national consultation and engagement process.

Many critics deride the consultation effort as inadequate, but the truth is that two national aboriginal organizations helped stage more than 100 consultation sessions at 76 sites across the country. Hundreds of people actively participated in these sessions. Over $8 million was spent to facilitate the process. In addition, there was an extensive study of the previous version of Bill S-2, Bill S-4, when more than 30 witnesses appeared before the committee. Further, study by committee in the other place on Bill S-2 offered more opportunity for review and comment, as did the study by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in the House. In total, 93 witnesses have appeared before committee. There should be absolutely no doubt as to the amount of consultation that has taken place. The changes that were made to Bill S-4, and now to Bill S-2, demonstrate that the government has heard the comments and responded.

I want to spend some time today explaining the degree to which Bill S-2 responds to the views expressed. The consultation sessions shaped the original bill in several significant ways. For example, as a direct result of the consultations, the bill rejects the application or incorporation of provincial family law. Instead, Bill S-2 proposes to enable first nations to design and ratify their own laws related to marital real property and interests. These laws would reflect a first nation's particular traditions and culture and could be applied by the courts.

Bill S-2 also proposes an interim solution to help first nations develop laws in this area.

Despite the best efforts of many talented people, at the end of the process full consensus on a legislative solution could not be reached due to the complexity of the issue. For further clarity on this point, I call to members' attention the final report of the ministerial representative. This wide-ranging document of more than 500 pages is a comprehensive resource for anyone who wishes to fully understand the issues in play. Point 213 of the report reads as follows:

The inability of the parties to articulate a link between the matrimonial real property initiative and the larger policy development processes that AFN and NWAC respectively are interested in, and that they have mandates to pursue, ultimately constituted a barrier to consensus.

This sentence goes a long way toward explaining why the effort initiated in good faith by this government, and funded by more than $8 million in public funds, failed to produce a full consensus. The parties could not separate the need to eliminate specific causes of inequity from other policy development initiatives. In other words, instead of focusing on a specific problem that this legislation was intended to address, debate on the bill became a proxy for a much broader discussion whose scope goes beyond the intent of this bill.

Ultimately, the legislative gap continues to affect individuals living on reserves, as it has for more than 25 years. As many may recall, in the last Parliament a previous version of this bill was before us for consideration. At that time, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights conducted a thorough review of the bill and, as I have mentioned, heard from more than 30 witnesses, including representatives of national aboriginal organizations. First nations chiefs and other stakeholders were included. This review led to the adoption of 12 amendments to the bill in the other place. Unfortunately, the bill died on the order paper before it could be considered by this chamber.

Before introducing this bill in this new Parliament, three further improvements were made: the verification process was eliminated; a 12-month transition period was added; and the ratification threshold was lowered. I am convinced that all three of these measures strengthen the bill and that all three would facilitate the development of a first nations law in this area. They also respond directly to criticisms that the previous version was paternalistic and that the process for the ratification of a first nations law was too onerous.

Bill S-2 would finally fill this gap with a balanced and effective solution. It would authorize first nations to establish laws in this area based on their unique cultures and traditions, and after a 12-month transition period, Bill S-2 would establish a provisional federal regime to protect individuals living on first nations reserves that have no such laws in place. However, even after the provisional rules were in effect, first nations could still, at any time, develop and ratify their own laws. At the end of the day, it is Parliament's responsibility to make decisions about legislation that affects Canadians and, in particular, to ensure we protect our vulnerable citizens. That is why Bill S-2 is before us today.

I believe that Bill S-2 would effectively balance the rights of individual citizens and the collective interests of first nations. It would eliminate inequity that continues to affect some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens. I urge all members of this House to set aside unfounded criticism and to endorse this legislation without delay.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition misled Canadians when he stated that he stripped his official languages critic of his responsibilities the minute he heard of his outstanding tax debt.

We know that this member's tax woes go back a decade. This was all laid out in public record, so the Leader of the Opposition cannot deny knowing of it. The leader of the NDP should explain to Canadians why the member was selected as a candidate for the NDP, why he was picked as a critic and more importantly, why he continues to sit as a member of the caucus of the NDP.

The NDP has kept this hidden from Canadians for years. The NDP allows the member to continue to sitting. This underlines a complete disrespect for Canadian taxpayers by the NDP.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-444, an act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer).

The bill is basically identical to the previous bill, Bill C-576, which died on the order paper when the last Parliament ended.

Bill C-444 was reported without amendment from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on April 24, 2013.

The bill deals with the existing offence of personating a peace officer or public officer. Specifically it would make it an aggravating factor on sentencing if the offence of personating a peace officer or public officer was committed for the purpose of facilitating another offence.

Prior to 2009, pretending to be a peace officer or public officer was a straightforward summary conviction offence. At that time it carried a maximum of six months in prison, a maximum fine of $5,000 or both.

In 2009, this government hybridized the offence and increased the penalty to a maximum of five years when prosecuted on indictment, in former Bill S-4, also known as the identity theft bill. That legislation came into force on January 8, 2010.

The maximum sentence of five years reflects the fact that the offence only requires that a person pretend to be a peace officer or public officer. It does not require that they have a specific malicious purpose for doing so or that they accomplish something malicious by doing so.

Some people may impersonate the police for the thrill of feeling powerful or for other relatively minor objectives, such as obtaining information or gaining access to a place. Simply pretending to be a peace officer or public officer so that others may believe that person is in fact one, without any other motive, is enough to result in a conviction. Such cases may still be dealt with by way of summary conviction proceedings, based on the Crown prosecutor's assessment of all the relevant circumstances.

However, the five-year maximum penalty enacted in 2010 ensures that law enforcement and Crown prosecutors have the tools to appropriately address serious incidents of this behaviour, preserving public confidence in our peace officers and public officers.

Police personation can be closely associated with other offences. It can, in fact, be used as a tool to make the commission of other offences easier. Because we live in a society where most citizens are trusting of the police, members of the public may acquiesce to the authority of someone they believe to be a police officer or a public officer. The exploitation of citizens' trust in the police demonstrated by this kind of situation is the most troubling form of offence. It is especially deserving of condemnation by sentencing courts, as well as by Parliament.

This is precisely the situation that Bill C-444 targets. Bill C-444 would make it a mandatory aggravating factor on sentencing for the crime of personating a peace officer or public officer if the offence was committed for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence. It is frightening even to imagine how people could be influenced to comply with directions or the assertion of authority by someone they believed to be a police officer.

We are taught from our earliest interactions with our parents and teachers that police officers are safe persons we can rely on, especially in difficult or dangerous situations. It is thus not surprising that the vast majority of Canadians instinctively respect police officers' authority and follow their instructions, as we rightfully believe they are acting to keep us safe.

When criminals take advantage of this trust to defraud us or worse, that bond is jeopardized. This not only causes a great deal of anguish for individual survivors of these offences but also acts to make it more difficult for police officers or public officers to do their jobs effectively and keep our communities safe. Fortunately this is a rare occurrence, but its extreme seriousness can justify express condemnation in the Criminal Code.

It is also important to recall that in determining a fit sentence, the court must in all cases take into account all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code describes a number of aggravating factors that apply to all offences. These include, for instance, evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. However in addition to these factors that are specifically listed, the sentencing court always retains discretion to determine if additional circumstances revealed by the evidence are aggravating or mitigating factors that should affect the sentence.

It is already the case in our law that a sentencing judge can take into account the aggravating nature of this form of police personation. What Bill C-444 would do is essentially codify this practice in the context of the criminal law.

Bill C-444 merits support because it addresses a truly horrific form of criminality which has so many negative consequences on the public at large, on the ability of the police to carry out their functions, and especially on any individuals whose trust in public institutions and authorities was used against them to facilitate their victimization. There have been a number of incidents of this form of conduct reported in the papers in the last few years. Just this past April it appeared that at least two more incidents of personating peace officers have occurred.

In Calgary there are recent media reports that a man driving a silver sedan with unauthorized red and blue lights pulled over two vehicles, scaring the innocent drivers. Fortunately, the victims realized that something was not right about the impostor and got in contact with the real authorities to report the situation. Luckily, nobody was harmed. However, this act has surely shaken Canadians' trust and their belief in who is or is not a police officer.

On the east coast, the Halifax Chronicle Herald reported criminals had been personating local police officers via telephone in order to fraudulently solicit donations for a bogus charity. The scam artists claimed that they were police officers fundraising to help combat youth suicide. This disgraceful conduct not only preys on generous citizens, but also makes it more difficult for real officers to give back to their communities through legitimate fundraising activities, which is a long-standing tradition in police services across our country.

Of course, there was the tragic case in the sponsoring member's riding, which saw a devastating abduction and sexual assault of a teenage girl near Penhold, Alberta. This incident clearly influenced the proponent's decision to bring this legislation forward.

During the most recent committee study of the bill, members heard the courageous testimony of the survivor of that offence as well as that of her mother. I applaud the immense strength of that young woman's courage to travel to Ottawa and assist the committee by sharing her story with members of Parliament as well as with all Canadians. She rightly explained to the committee that there should never be shame or stigma in reporting or speaking out against sexual violence.

By passing this legislation we would send a clear message that the courts must give serious weight during sentencing to the enduring harm that is caused when criminals personate police officers or public officers for the purpose of committing other criminal acts, including sexual assault and kidnapping.

All Canadians should be concerned about these cases and should be encouraged to take the appropriate steps to avoid being duped by this very deceptive form of criminality. In particular, citizens should continue to trust the police but they should also recognize that criminals are not above exploiting their trust.

It is a difficult balance to achieve. The exercise of a bit of caution is a good thing. It is reasonable to ask to see the badges of individuals who appears to be police officers, especially if being requested to go with them or to allow them to enter the premises, or if they appear to be soliciting donations. This kind of verification process must be done respectfully and cautiously. If an impostor flees when asked for identification, immediately call 911, report the incident and attempt to provide an accurate description of the person and any associated vehicle while the encounter is still fresh in memory.

We as parliamentarians can help educate and inform Canadians about these risks, which many may be unaware of. In terms of Bill C-444, we can also vote to support this legislation and express our unified condemnation of those who would use our best natures as citizens against us.

I hope all members will join me in supporting this worthwhile legislation.

[Members of the New Democratic Party, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government has cut taxes for all Canadians more than 150 times since 2006. They have saved an average of $3,200.

Canadians are proud of that record, and they expect each and every one of us to pay our fair share. Our government has taken strong action to crack down on tax evasion.

Unfortunately, paying their fair share does not seem to be a priority for opposition members. Canadians were shocked to learn that more than two members of the NDP owe tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes. They are also furious that the NDP knew about the problem and hid the information from honest taxpayers.

How can they want to impose new taxes on Canadians without first setting a good example by paying their own taxes?

Taxpayers in my riding are disappointed in the NDP's attitude and want them to hear this message: pay your taxes.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his great work on the justice committee.

Since the hon. member was in the RCMP for many years, I am wondering if he could share his experience as an RCMP officer on how strengthening the provisions of the bill would help in the field. We know that the officers end up dealing with these individuals day in and day out.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought forward at the request of the provinces and territories because they have concerns for the safety of the public.

As to the costs, transfers to the provinces are at an all-time high. I believe it was $64 billion last year. There is a cost to protecting the public, and certainly in this case the provinces and territories have sought to get additional protection. It is, of course, within their purview to want to protect their public, as do we.