TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 21, 1994
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5618
Bill C-45. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 5619
Bill C-262. Motions for introduction and first eading deemed adopted 5619
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 5619
Bill C-263. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 5619
Bill C-264. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 5619
Bill C-265. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 5620
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5620
Motion for concurrence in sixth report 5620
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5620
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 5621
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5622
Bill C-32. Motion for third reading. 5624
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5627
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5638
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5640
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5649
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 5653
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 5653
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5654
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5655
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 5656
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5656
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5656
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5657
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5657
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5657
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5658
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5658
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5658
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5658
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5659
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5659
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5660
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5661
Bill C-37. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 5664
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 186; Nays, 53 5665
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 5665
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 5665
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5667
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5671
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5674
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5677
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5678
Motion for concurrence in 32nd report 5682
Bill C-32. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 5682
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5683
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5688
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 5689
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 152; Nays, 23 5693
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 164; Nays, 35 5695
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 144; Nays, 37. 5696
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 36 5697
Bill C-34. Report stage (without amendment) 5698
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 5698
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 5701
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 5701
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 5702
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 119. 5702
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 95 5702
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 41; Nays, 76. 5703
motion for concurrence 5704
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 80; Nays, 39 5704
Bill C-33. Report stage (without amendments) 5704
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 5705
Division on motion deferred. 5712
Division on motion deferred 5713
Division on motion deferred 5713
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 38;Nays, 119 5713
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 37; Nays, 138 5714
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 37, Nays, 119 5714
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 126; Nays, 37 5715
5617
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 21, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present,
in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation
to the 35th annual meeting of the Canada-United States
Interparliamentary Group which was held in Santa Fe on May 19
to 23, 1994.
The agenda at these meetings is always extensive and wide
ranging. The meetings in this case were no exception and we
dealt with the economic issues as they relate to both countries,
the international concerns we both feel and transborder matters.
Other sessions dealt with a comparison between Canada's health
care system and what the Americans are trying to implement, as
well as the political situation in both countries.
The range and depth of the discussions that took place went a
long way in allowing the United States and Canadian
parliamentarians to better understand the issues that come
between both our countries. Whether the issue was softwood
lumber or durum wheat, which is so prevalent today, the
opportunity to put forward the Canadian position was afforded
to us. I was very proud of the delegation being able to put our
position forward in the strongest terms.
As a point of fact, one of the main issues discussed-the
minister of fisheries reported on it yesterday-was the lamprey
infestation in the Great Lakes. We all know that the lamprey
situation is reaching epidemic proportions. It is as a direct result
of these meetings held in the month of May that the increased
funding for lamprey control in the United States and Canada has
been increased. We should be able to bring this parasitic animal
under some control and guarantee the fisheries in both
countries.
In conclusion, the Canadian and American delegations agreed
to follow up on the durum wheat issue, cross-border matters and
other issues as they relate to Canada and I have the pleasure of
presenting this report to the House of Commons.
* * *
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
on forestry practices in Canada entitled ``Canada: A Model
Forest Nation in the Making''.
(1005 )
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members
of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for all their
hard work in the last three months in putting together a very
comprehensive report on the state of our forests.
Some 17 recommendations are made on how we can continue
to be a model forest nation and what we as a nation must do to
have sustainable forest practices in order to continue to lead the
world as a forestry nation.
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada
Petroleum Resources Act, without amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, in
my capacity as the Opposition critic for natural resources, I
attended the standing committee meetings along with my
colleagues from the ridings of Abitibi and
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies. After hearing from a number of
witnesses, we quickly realized that the problem raised in
committee was caused primarily by the bad publicity in Europe
about forestry products from British Columbia.
We were sensitive to the forestry sector's significant
contribution to Canada and to Quebec, to the problem of
marketing forestry products on the international scene, and to
the impor-
5618
tance of sustainable development as a touchstone to guide
action by all parties in the forestry sector.
The Bloc Quebecois has tabled a dissenting opinion for the
following reasons. First, because the federal government
intends to adopt a centralist approach in order to mediate a
problem concentrated in one province. Second, since the
Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes the provinces' jurisdiction
over the development, conservation and management of forestry
resources, any action by the federal government would require a
prior mandate from the provinces.
Bloc Quebecois MPs nevertheless consider that it is their
responsibility to promote the interests of Quebec and the
provinces in certain areas, particularly federal-provincial
agreements, the rights of aboriginal peoples, the national
certification process, and Canada's international forest strategy.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts. The committee held two meetings to examine
chapter 5 of the 1993 Annual Report of the Auditor General with
regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, specifically
the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program.
The committee is concerned that all government programs
include proper financial controls. It is also of the belief that full
scrutiny and approval, by Parliament, of the programs for which
it allocates funds, is a vital component of financial management
and control. In the case of the Northern Cod Adjustment and
Recovery Program, these needs were not met fully.
Now that the program has ended, the committee strongly
believes that some valuable lessons have been learned from it.
These lessons have considerable relevance for the development
and implementation of future programs, and ultimately for the
way in which Parliament conducts its affairs.
It is out of concern that the kinds of problems experienced by
NCARP be either averted or diminished in the future that the
committee makes its report and recommendations. Pursuant to
Standing Order 109, the committee asks that the government
table a comprehensive response to this report.
[English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled ``Towards
Zero Consumption, Generic Packaging of Tobacco Products''.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that
the government table a comprehensive response within 150
days.
(1010)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to inform the House that the Bloc Quebecois, the Official
Opposition, has tabled a dissenting minority report that the
Standing Committee on Health has agreed to attach to the
majority report tabled by my colleague from Burin-St.
George's.
It is important to recall that the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of implementing true measures
designed to protect public health and improve the health of
Quebecers and Canadians. We feel that the Standing Committee
on Health, despite its best efforts, does not have the tools
required to argue conclusively for plain packaging of tobacco
products.
While the federal health department's own study is ongoing
and will not be completed before the end of the year, introducing
plain tobacco packaging is not justified by any testimony that
was given before the Standing Committee on Health. What is
more, serious concerns were raised about violations of Canada's
international trade obligations under the free trade agreement
and NAFTA, about substantial losses of direct and indirect jobs
and finally about counterfeiting, smuggling and marketing.
The report presented by the members of the Bloc Quebecois
sets out our concerns over plain packaging of tobacco products
and the issues involved in a true public health policy. We are
favourable to any measure that is effective, efficient,
sustainable and consistent with the government's obligations
with respect to the industry, workers and domestic and
international trade. Neutral packaging simply does not meet
these requirements, as far as we can tell.
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, if there is unanimous consent, I would like to
spend a minute addressing this if I may.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have the
spokesman of the Reform Party speak with respect to this
committee report?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to lay upon the table the 6th
report of the standing committee on human resources,
concerning the date the committee's report on the review of
social
5619
security is to be tabled and a request for permission to travel. If
the House agrees, I intend to move that the 6th report be
concurred in later today.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal
Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the
Transfer of Offenders Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to
inform the House that the bill just introduced shall be subject to
the provisions of Standing Order 73(1).
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-262, an act to provide for the settlement of labour
disputes affecting the export of grain by arbitration and to
amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence
thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
introduce this bill which affects grain transportation labour
disputes. As all of us in this assembly know, these disputes have
cost farmers in western Canada millions of dollars and it is time
to do something about it.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the settlement of
labour disputes affecting the export of grain. It will do this by
providing a process for final offer selection arbitration to
prevent grain transportation strikes on the coast.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1015 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial
Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof
(exempted crown corporations).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to further the good
management of all government departments, agencies and
corporations, the bill I am proposing at this time seeks to
improve accountability by moving certain crown corporations
currently exempted from the provisions of the Financial
Administration Act into the accountability framework
suggested by the Auditor General.
Auditors General have on several occasions in their annual
reports made recommendations to introduce this change. Their
concern focuses on the fact that these exempt corporations do
not face as rigorous an examination as do all other government
departments, agencies and corporations.
In a country with the grave debt problems which we have, all
government bodies must have the greatest dedication to
accountability. We in this House must ensure that every dollar of
taxpayers' money is used carefully and judiciously and in the
manner of which all citizens of this country can approve.
This bill will remove concerns in this area by ensuring the
highest level of responsibility and embracing the principles of
good management. It will enhance the credibility of government
and the public image of these corporations.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-264, an act to amend the National
Anthem Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change in
the English version only the words ``thy sons'' to the words ``our
hearts'' in order to remove any sexist reference from our
national anthem and to change the word ``hearts'' to the word
``pride''.
In introducing this bill I would like to pay tribute to a group of
students at Westridge school in my constituency, in particular
Tim Wood and Aly-Khan Virani and their teacher Emily
Sutherland, who have worked very hard to document and help
change the unequal representation of females in the media and
elsewhere in Canadian society.
I congratulate these young students and their teacher on their
leadership in promoting equality for all Canadians including
girls and women in Canadian society.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that equality is reflected in
the wording of our national anthem as well.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
5620
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-265, an act to amend the Criminal
Code and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member
for Skeena for co-sponsoring the bill.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to
impose capital punishment for everyone found guilty of
committing first degree murder. Canadians have made it clear
that they would like to see some fundamental changes to our
criminal justice system and many people are calling for the
reinstatement of the death penalty.
(1020 )
I do not know whether capital punishment is a deterrent but I
do know that you cannot rehabilitate a violent murderer who has
no remorse.
Canadians do not want criminals who are guilty of first degree
murder back on their streets to kill again.
There is also a growing perception that our justice system is
not dealing adequately with youth crime and many Canadians
have called for stiffer penalties for young offenders. Currently
young offenders convicted of first degree murder are subject to a
maximum sentence of five years. The proposed changes to the
Young Offenders Act under Bill C-37 increase the maximum
sentence to ten years but still do not include a minimum
sentence.
This bill would amend the Young Offenders Act to impose a
minimum sentence of ten years on young offenders convicted of
first degree murder.
I believe that the introduction of this bill is one way this
fundamental issue of justice, of punishment that fits the crime,
will be debated in this House. Yesterday the Minister of Justice
made it clear that this government does not want to let the
Canadian people vote on capital punishment in a binding
national referendum at the next election.
I recommend that the government allow a free vote on this bill
and encourage all members to actively seek the views of their
constituents. This critical decision cannot be made merely along
party policy lines or by consulting their own conscience without
input from the people they purport to represent.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could ask the member who
wishes to change the seconder of his bill to get up and put it on
the record for the House.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, the seconder of my private member's
bill should be the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I also
would like to note a change. The hon. member who is seconding
my private members' bill is the hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent I move that the sixth
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development presented to the House earlier this day be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to rise and present to this House the message I have
received loudly from the people of the Waterloo region. They
have sent hundreds of postcards, attended large public meetings
and today petition this House for a moratorium on passenger rail
service cuts. These 4,228 people call upon this House to
preserve this vital link in our national transportation network.
I will be presenting thousands and thousands more petitions to
this House on this issue. The message is simple. We want VIA
Rail service in our community enhanced, not eroded.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, my
first petition reads as follows: Since the government is
interested in reducing violence in society, it is important that it
be concerned about violence in the media; the petitioners ask the
government to act accordingly.
[English]
The second petition is from petitioners who believe that abuse
of any kind does not contribute to the creation of a less violent
society and they ask government to examine the impact of
violence and abuse on society.
5621
(1025)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in the House today this petition, signed by a
number of taxpayers in Quebec, particularly on the South Shore
of the St Lawrence river.
The body of this petition asks the government of this country
to ensure that anti-strikebreaker legislation is passed as soon as
possible. The absence of such regulations gives rise to a
negotiating atmosphere that is tense and, in any case, unfair for
one of the parties involved in a dispute of this type. Quebec has
had such legislation since 1977, as has Ontario for some time.
Since that legislation was passed, the labour atmosphere and
especially the atmosphere surrounding negotiations have
improved considerably.
Anti-strikebreaker legislation means respect for the dignity
of workers.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have a number of petitions to present today,
all duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
The first one requests Parliament to not approve same sex
relationships.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
the next three petitions with 350 names from my riding of
Victoria-Haliburton in Ontario call on Parliament to ban the
sale and importation of killer cards into Canada.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition requesting Parliament to maintain the
present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade,
allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
esteemed colleague for Okanagan-Shuswap I have four
petitions to present today.
This first one asks that this House not recognize same sex
couples or make changes to the human rights code regarding the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the next two
petitions ask for the same protection in the Criminal Code for
unborn humans that is enjoyed by born humans.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the last petition asks
for the mandatory DNA analysis in the Criminal Code.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
under Standing Order 36, I want to present a petition from a
number of people in my riding calling on this House not to
amend the human rights code.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
Standing Order 36, I rise today to present three petitions calling
upon the federal government to revise the Young Offenders Act.
The petition is signed by approximately one thousand
residents in the Yellowhead riding and wants the Young
Offenders Act to ensure that those convicted under the act must
be subjected to punishment which fits the severity of the crime.
I strongly support the contents of this petition and the
petitioners' belief that a strong Young Offenders Act will result
in fewer incidents of criminal offences.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions.
In May the Toronto Archdiocese and Council of the Catholic
Women's League held its 73rd annual meeting and circulated a
petition which was signed by 458 persons. It has asked me to
present it here.
It prays that Parliament not amend the Human Rights Act or
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would
tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality, including amending the Human Rights Act to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from mid-Toronto signed by approximately
100 people which prays that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicides be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by people in the St. Catharines and Niagara
region which talks about the need for the protection of witnesses
and for further enforcement of the Criminal Code. These
petitioners ask that those people who are victimized by
criminals be protected specifically.
5622
They therefore pray that Parliament enact Bill C-206, which
is a bill I have put forward, at the earliest opportunity so as to
provide a statutory foundation for a national witness relocation
and protection program.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure this morning to present a petition pursuant to
Standing Order 36 which calls for the repealing of Bill C-91.
(1030 )
Bill C-91, the drug patent legislation was passed in the last
session. These petitioners feel that this bill was inappropriate
for two reasons: first, it is has driven up the cost of prescription
drugs to Canadians consumers, in some cases by over 100 per
cent; second, it has put in jeopardy the prescription drug
programs that some governments sponsor to assist citizens in
their respective provinces.
These petitioners come from many parts of Saskatchewan
including Saskatoon, Lanigan, Leroy, Watson, Winyard,
Kindersley, Kyle, Lucky Lake, White City, Herschel, Dinsmore,
Bursey and Rosetown.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
present two petitions on behalf of my constituents pursuant to
Standing Order 36. The petition is signed by hundreds of my
constituents of Kent, bringing the total over the last few months
to over 10,000 names.
The petitioners urge the government to support a domestic
ethanol industry in light of the fact that a $170 million plant for
Chatham is in jeopardy without federal involvement.
Legislative support of ethanol is Liberal policy. The petitioners
want it to become government policy.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
three petitions from residents of the Houston, B.C. area of my
constituency, petitioners which I personally support in the
strongest terms.
These petitioners are concerned about section 241 of the
Canada Criminal Code which states ``everyone who counsels a
person to commit suicide or aids and abets a person to
committee suicide whether suicide ensues or not is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment of a term not
exceeding 14 years''.
The petitioners therefore pray that Parliament not repeal or
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to
uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30,
1993 to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by a number of my constituents and duly
approved by the Clerk of Petitions.
The petitioners pray and request Parliament to not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition which is signed by hundreds of
residents of provinces across Canada which draws to the
attention of the House the fact that the current Criminal Code
denies people who are suffering from terminal or irreversible
and debilitating illness the right to choose freely and voluntarily
to end their lives with the assistance of a physician.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the
Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with
dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and
debilitating illness the right to the assistance of a physician in
ending their lives at the time of their choice subject to strict
safeguards to prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is
free, informed, competent and voluntary.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions
today signed by my constituents.
In the first petition the citizens express their disapproval to
the government regarding any privileges extended to same sex
relationships. In the second petition the citizens express their
sentiments and great concern with respect to the aiding or
abetting of suicide, active or passive euthanasia.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and request that
Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships and that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I have
three different petitions to present this morning.
The first petition calls on the government to retain existing
laws that prohibit the aiding and abetting of suicide and
euthanasia. Many of my constituents have signed these petitions
which state: ``Physician in Canada should be working to save
lives, not to end them''.
5623
(1035 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): The second petition
calls on the government not to amend the Human Rights Code or
any other legislation which would ``indicate societal approval of
same sex relationships or homosexuality''. They are
particularly concerned about the lack of definition of the phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): The last petition is
on protection for the unborn. The petitioners call on the House to
act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
I would like to add that I concur with all three petitions.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise pursuant to Standing
Order 36 on behalf of 84 constituents to present a petition
regarding doctor assisted suicide in Canada. The petitioners call
upon the government to maintain the provisions of the Criminal
Code which prohibit euthanasia in Canada.
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
present a petition on behalf of the people of southern Ontario
pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition brings the total
number of names over the past few months to over 10,000, an
incredible show of support for this program.
They urge the government to support a domestic ethanol
industry. Inasmuch as my constituents are the people who
manufacture the vehicles to use this fuel, I think it indicates the
broad base support for this program.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
on behalf of a number of Ontarians, some of whom are my
constituents. These petitioners pray that Parliament act to
extend protection to the unborn child on the same basis as there
is protection to born human beings.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 36 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 36-Mr. Mills (Red Deer):
With respect to the electoral observer's trip to South Africa on April 17, 1994
sponsored by the foreign affairs department, (a) who attended, (b) what was the
cost by person and (c) what was the total cost?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the list of participants to the Canadian electoral
observation mission to the South African elections is as follows:
Canadian electoral observation mission:
The Honourable Mrs. Christine Stewart, C.P., M.P., Secretary of
State (Latin America and Africa);
Mrs. Maud Debien, M.P.
Ms. Jean Augustine, M.P.
Mr. Réginald Bélair, M.P.
Mr. Ovid Jackson, M.P.
Mr. Peter Milliken, M.P.
Mr. Svend Robinson, M.P.
Mr. Robert McLaren
Mrs. Michèle Falardeau-Ramsey
Mrs. Martha Nelams
Mrs. Christine Murphy
Canadian specialists on South Africa accompanying the
mission:
Ms. Carolyn McMaster
Mr. Grant Hawes
Mr. Bryan Burton
Mr. Douglas Fraser
Mr. Michael Kaduck
The costs, which appear below, are still the budgeted costs. The
actual expenditures have yet to be calculated since expense
claims for all the participants have not yet been submitted and
audited. Our preliminary assessment is that the actual costs will
be for the most part below what was budgeted.
Parliamentarians (7 persons) $ 92,250
Experts for the observation (4 persons) $ 56,400
Experts on South Africa (5 persons) $ 77,300
Total budgeted costs for the Canadian electoral
observation mission to the South African elections $ 225,950
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 41 could be made an Order for Return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that
Question No. 41 be deemed to have been made an Order for
Return?
5624
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 41-Mr. Williams:
What are the names of the Canadian citizens and the specific criteria utilized to
select the participants as election observers for the South African election (a) in
the 75 member bilateral mission, (b) in the Commonwealth Observer Group and
(c) serving with Canadian and South African non-governmental organizations?
(Return tabled.)
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5624
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise
Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 contains the legislative
provisions to implement a number of excise and income tax
changes announced over the past four months. Most of these
proposals relate to the tobacco tax changes that were announced
by the Prime Minister on February 8, 1994, as part of the
national action plan on smuggling.
Other proposals concern the air transportation tax and the
goods and services tax and were announced in the federal budget
of February 22, 1994.
Hon. members are no doubt aware of the dramatic growth in
tobacco smuggling over the past few years and the profound
impact the trade in contraband tobacco products has had on
Canadian society. As contraband tobacco products began to
assume a rapidly increasingly share of the domestic tobacco
market, the government suffered a sharp decline in tobacco tax
revenues affecting its ability to deliver much needed programs.
Legitimate wholesalers and retailers also suffered a
substantial decline in their ongoing business interests as sales of
legal tax and duty paid tobacco products underwent a
precipitous decline.
Equally troubling and of great concern to all Canadians was
the climate of increased lawlessness as the organized criminal
network dominated the contraband tobacco trade and funnelled
its illegal profits into further criminal activity.
Finally, the availability of cheap contraband tobacco products
was undermining the government's health policy objectives of
reducing tobacco consumption, particularly among young
people.
Without strong balanced action from the government the level
of smuggling would have continued to increase and with the
resulting costs accruing to government business and citizens
alike. This concern was the basis for the national action plan on
smuggling announced by the Prime Minister on February 8,
1994.
(1040)
At the forefront of this plan, the government allocated
significant additional resources to both the RCMP and Canada
Customs to increase their enforcement efforts aimed at
disrupting the contraband trade in tobacco and other products.
To facilitate this increased enforcement and reduce the
demand for contraband tobacco products, the government also
undertook reductions in the rate of excise tax applicable to
tobacco products.
Some hon. members have questioned why the government
chose to proceed further to reduce tobacco taxes rather than rely
solely on increased enforcement measures. It should be
remembered that significant new and enhanced enforcement
measures were introduced in 1992 when the government of the
day announced tighter controls on the distribution and sale of
tax free tobacco products in Canada, significantly higher
penalties for persons caught smuggling, new proceeds of crime
provisions and the allocation of additional resources to RCMP
and Canada Customs to strengthen their enforcement efforts.
While these measures assisted the government in its fight
against tobacco smuggling, they were not sufficient to bring the
problem under control. The price differential between Canadian
tax paid tobacco products and contraband tobacco products was
such that the profits from smuggling far outweighed the
associated risks. As a result, smuggling continued to grow in
1992 and 1993, increasing its share of the Canadian tobacco
market from about 15 per cent in 1991 to an astounding 40 per
cent at the beginning of this year.
Given this climate of persistent and increased smuggling, the
government considered it essential to introduce a
comprehensive national action plan including not only new
enforcement initiatives but also a reduction in tobacco taxes. To
weaken demand for contraband tobacco products in all parts of
the country, the government undertook a national $5 reduction
in the rates of excise tax on tobacco products.
To allow greater tax reductions in areas where smuggling was
more deeply rooted, the government also offered to match
provincial tax reductions in excess of the $5 up to a maximum
total federal tax reduction of $10.
At the same time, the government was also concerned that
tobacco corporations not derive any benefit from the reduction
in tobacco taxes thus a new health promotion surtax was
imposed on corporate profits from tobacco manufacturing and
processing with the funds generated by the surtax being used to
5625
support the largest anti-smoking campaign in the history of
Canada.
Finally, to address the role played by export shipments in the
contraband tobacco trade, the government reimposed an excise
tax on exported tobacco products. The excise tax is designed to
ensure that exports of tobacco products will be subject to closer
control while also providing manufacturers with certain limited
exemptions in respect of legitimate export shipments intended
for bona fide consumption outside Canada.
Taken together, these measures form a comprehensive plan to
attack tobacco smuggling on all levels. Enforcement alone
could never solve the problem. The profits to be made from
smuggling and the savings to consumers purchasing contraband
products would remain.
By attacking the problem on all fronts, the government has
taken strong action toward eliminating tobacco smuggling as a
significant national problem. In addition to these changes, the
legislation also contains a number of related measures to ensure
the effectiveness of a national action plan on smuggling.
Full inventory rebates will be provided to all wholesalers and
retailers in respect of the national $5 tax reduction providing
complete reimbursement for tax paid inventories of cigarettes,
tobacco sticks and fine cut tobacco held as of midnight February
8, 1994.
The bill also authorizes the payment of partial inventory
rebates where federal excise taxes are further reduced to match
provincial tobacco tax reductions. Wholesalers and retailers can
apply for the additional rebate in respect of their inventories of
cigarettes in excess of a certain threshold amount held as of the
effective date of matching a federal excise tax reduction.
Some hon. members have asked why the government is not
providing wholesalers and retailers with complete coverage for
their inventories of tobacco products. I would point out that the
inventory rebate program represents a significant expenditure
on the part of the government and is just one component of the
total fiscal cost that will be borne by the government in
confronting the smuggling problem and restoring the legal tax
paid market for tobacco products.
(1045 )
The inventory rebate program is designed to provide
wholesalers and retailers with a significant measure of financial
compensation. It ensures that the tobacco tax reductions do not
have too large an impact on any one person.
Wholesalers and retailers have been major beneficiaries of
the government's national action plan on smuggling. They will
continue to benefit from the restoration of the legal tax paid
market. Before any amounts can be paid under the rebate system
however this legislation must receive royal assent. This is one of
the reasons we are attaching such a high priority to Bill C-32.
Finally, to assist federal enforcement agencies and provinces
to control the potential for interprovincial diversion of tobacco
products, Bill C-32 contains new liability and offence
provisions. An additional federal excise tax will be imposed on a
wholesaler or a retailer in respect of any sale of marked tobacco
products to a person in another province.
The legislation also makes it an offence subject to a fine for
any person who sells or offers for sale tobacco products marked
for consumption in one province to a consumer located in
another province. The basic design of these provisions is to
ensure that tobacco products marked for sale in a particular
province are restricted to personal consumption in that province
and are not diverted to another province.
While the collection of the additional federal excise tax can
be enforced immediately, the offences provision cannot come
into force until such time as this bill receives royal assent.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of the
provisions contained in Bill C-32. The proposed excise and
income tax changes are an integral part of the government's
action plan to combat smuggling. Together with increased
enforcement these measures will make a very significant
contribution to halting the contraband tobacco trade.
I urge all my colleagues to give speedy passage to this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-32 has now reached third reading. As my colleagues have
already mentioned, we are not in any hurry to see this bill
passed. At first glance, this bill seems to have been prepared in
order to allow the federal government to fight tobacco
smuggling and do what Quebec did a long time ago: reimburse
merchants with inventories of over 5,000 cartons of cigarettes
when the reduction of taxes was passed by the federal
government and certain provincial governments.
While we agree with this reimbursement and want merchants
to receive it as promptly as possible, there is no way we agree
that the government should take that opportunity to insert into
this bill two other measures that could be harmful to consumers.
These measures, which are usually in fine print so that people
pay no attention to them, are nonetheless of vital importance.
The second measure in this bill has to do with reducing the input
tax credit on the meals of executives and workers, who could
claim it on business meal expenses and business entertainment
5626
expenses. The credit was 80 per cent, and will now be reduced to
50 per cent.
What we have been calling for ever since we arrived in the
House is justice for all categories of employers and workers.
You will understand that, before making any pronouncements on
these measures, we would like to have received a report from the
finance committee that might have explained to us the detailed
repercussions of this one. Perhaps it is a good idea; perhaps we
should make some amendments to it; perhaps we would be
surprised at certain tax evasions that some large companies will
still be able to pull off by switching these expenses to other
budget items.
Why does the present Liberal government always seem to be
in a hurry to table bills without having the appropriate
committee reports? Even at that, there are not many bills, while
the number of problems to be solved is ever greater. Could there
be a lack of synchronization in this government, which always
seems to be governing by the seat of its pants?
(1050)
So I cannot come down on the side of this measure today. I
shall have to vote against it if the government refuses to give us
a detailed report from the Finance Committee on its
repercussions on all categories of employees and employers
who will be affected by it.
Lastly, as Official Opposition critic for transportation, I was
astounded to see a bill supposedly to reimburse taxes on
cigarettes end up by amending air transportation taxes. Now
then, for this particular measure, let me assure you that I do have
all the information necessary to know that I am against this
measure and I shall vote accordingly.
Firstly, I would like to point out to you that this is not the first
air fare increase by the federal government. It started off, under
the Conservatives, by increasing airport taxes. That $40 tax is
added to all tickets, which means considerable percentage
increases in some cases. Today, the federal government is at it
again, with a tax that runs counter to all the requests and
proposals made by the Association québécoise des transporteurs
aériens.
That association made extremely serious recommendations to
the present government, the first of which was to eliminate the
minimum charge of $10 and set a taxation percentage of between
0 and 9 per cent. That method would have been much fairer and
would have made it possible for higher taxes to be paid by
people who often travel for pleasure, while people in the regions
who travel because they have to would have paid less.
I am not a prophet, but I am going to try to look into the future
for you. The present government is so sure that the airlines will
accept this fare hike that in a few months it will also try to make
them lower their fares. The government thinks that the airlines
will not react and will absorb the increase. The government is
wrong. The airlines already have trouble surviving. Most of our
air carriers are running deficits. So, as a result of all this, the
price of tickets for travellers in outlying regions will go up once
again.
At first glance, the tax structure does not seem too worrisome.
At present, the flat rate tax is $10, plus 7 per cent of the price of
the ticket, to a maximum of $40. It is proposed that the flat rate
tax be reduced to $6, and the same level of 7 per cent of the price
of the ticket be maintained, up to a maximum of $50.
Government machinery costs the public a lot of money; to
come up with a proposal like that takes real brainstorming, as we
say where I come from. That I am sure of, since I have really
suffered through several months of acute meeting mania, and
particularly since the Association québécoise des transporteurs
aériens had made the government a proposal that was much
better thought-out and fairer to air transportation consumers in
the regions.
Even the government's objectives in changing the tax
structure have been laid out for us: firstly, to increase recovery
of the costs of air facilities and services provided by Transport
Canada and, secondly, to reduce the tax burden on short-haul
domestic flights to smaller communities.
I find the first objective laudable and even desirable. If we
want to reduce the deficit, we must do what it takes. We are told
that this measure will increase revenues by $21 million in the
first year and $14 million in subsequent years. If the government
had been open, it would have mentioned the first objective and
the desired results. It would not have tried to have us believe that
this new tax structure would reduce the burden on short-haul
domestic flights to smaller communities, because this
statement, in my opinion, is far from the truth.
If this measure had been taken before deregulation, we could
perhaps have believed in it; but not now.
The cost of transportation is now borne by people in outlying
regions. The price of tickets to these destinations has gone up
considerably in recent years.
(1055)
For example: airfare between Montreal and Rimouski is
currently $552 plus tax; Montreal-Saguenay, $466 plus tax;
Montreal-Baie Comeau, $562 plus tax. There is not a great deal
of traffic on these connections, and to turn a profit the airlines
are forced to raise prices. On the other hand the
Montreal-Toronto connection is heavily travelled, and the
airfare is about $400.
The new rate structure is based on price and does not take into
account the volume of traffic or the distances involved. The
government says there is a perfect relationship between price
and distance, which is not true. Price is a factor of both distance
and volume. The government's policy of encouraging low ticket
prices in the hope of increasing the number of airline passengers
to remote areas is wrong. It is actually encouraging the
heavily--
5627
travelled short corridors like Montreal-Toronto, which are
heavily used by business people, and chartered flights.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the government did not think to
establish a rate structure that would distinguish between the
domestic network and the external network. A vast majority of
people on domestic flights are travelling because they have to,
while those travelling outside the country are often doing so for
pleasure.
Here is a striking example that I am personally very well
acquainted with. As the member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans I travel regularly on Air
Canada's economy class between Quebec City and Ottawa. The
distance is approximately 916 ground kilometres return. The
ticket costs $547. Under the new rate structure the tax is $50
plus GST, or approximately $88 in taxes, not counting airport
taxes. I do not make these trips for fun but to carry out my duties
as a member of this House.
Let us now look at a charter flight to Paris during the summer.
Quebec City-Paris: about 6,000 ground kilometres, the ticket
costs $499, the tax under the new rate structure is $50 plus GST,
or approximately $85 in taxes. And I do not have to take that
flight, Mr. Speaker, it would be a pleasure trip.
You can see from this example that an overseas flight of
almost 6,000 kilometres costs me $2 less in taxes than a duty
flight between Quebec City and Ottawa, and the government
will tell us that the purpose of the new rate structure is to reduce
the tax burden on short hops to the smallest municipalities. It is
ludicrous! I would also like to point out that I cannot take a
chartered flight between Quebec City and Ottawa, or between
Ottawa and the regions. There are none.
The rate grid that has been put before us shows that the price
of all tickets costing more than $500 will automatically go up
with the new rates. This means that a number of transportation
services to remote areas will be negatively affected by the new
policy.
As I said at the start, Mr. Speaker, the government's number
two objective in coming up with this new rate structure has not
been achieved and is not transparent. On the contrary: the
government is going to make things worse.
During the election campaign, the Liberal Party made great
promises to the people. It was loud in its accusations that the
Conservative Party showed an egregious lack of transparency.
And yet today it is ready to make second-class citizens out of
the residents of outlying regions. It would have been possible
for the government to introduce a tax system capable of
reflecting the special and often difficult situation posed by the
problem of air transportation in remote regions. The
government itself says that carriers have expressed concern
about the excessive burden the air transportation tax imposes on
short hops. So what does the government do to respond to these
concerns? As we see: it wants to increase the regions' tax
burden. There is Liberal logic for you! It is unacceptable to try
to get us to endorse the bill as it stands.
(1100)
We recognize the urgency of passing the provisions dealing
with full rebates on cigarette inventories to reflect the national
$5 reduction in the federal excise tax, partial rebates on
inventories to reflect the corresponding reduced federal excise
tax and adjustments in the fines for possessing or selling
unstamped tobacco products.
On the other hand, we need more information about the
portion of the bill that deals with the Goods and Services Tax,
and we are entirely opposed to the new air transportation rate
structure. Could the bill not be divided in three, so that we could
make intelligent decisions? If the Liberal government rejects
my suggestion it cannot then turn around and accuse the Bloc
Quebecois of delaying rebate cheques to merchants who have
been entitled to them for a long time.
The Quebec government found a much fairer way of handling
this. It reimbursed all merchants, it did not try to make the small
retailers shoulder the cost. We are ready to go ahead rapidly with
passage of that portion of the bill, but we cannot give the
government a blank cheque either on items for which we lack
information or on a portion of the bill about which we have
reservations we would like to make clear to our hon. colleagues
from the other parties.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
on February 8 the government announced its national action
campaign to combat smuggling. At that time Bill C-11 was
introduced to address some of the enforcement measures and tax
changes which were implemented, using a number of ways and
means motions until Bill C-32 was introduced on May 27.
Members of the House may remember second reading debate
on Bill C-11 on February 22 of this year. Reformers used that
opportunity to consider and respond to all aspects of the action
plan to combat smuggling and to express our opposition to the
reduction in the tobacco tax. While our knowledge and
understanding of the government's tax changes have improved,
our opinion and opposition to the tax reduction on cigarettes and
tobacco products have not changed.
As a little aside here, it has been an eye opener for me as a new
parliamentarian to see the process the government uses in
implementing these changes. Behind closed doors it
implemented the ways and means motions and made these
changes. Then it was brought to Parliament and we debated it,
and it became official many months later. It was an interesting
exercise. It is interesting to see how government operates. When
it wants to
5628
act it can act very quickly. If it wants to drag its feet it can drag
them a long time.
Our concerns about the government's tax reduction on
cigarettes were confirmed when the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Health appeared before the Standing Committee
on Finance on June 7 and advised that the government's goal was
to reduce the demand for tobacco, the number one cause of
preventable death in Canada. I will repeat. The government said
that its aim or its goal was to reduce the demand for tobacco, the
number one cause of preventable death in Canada.
The parliamentary secretary went on to say the government
fully recognized that the action plan to combat smuggling and
the tax measures associated with it would pose health risks.
What a contradiction. On the one hand we have one of the
highest risk factors in the nation being acknowledged. On the
other hand the government introduces a bill which will be more
of a threat to the health of Canadians than probably any other
move it has made so far. How can the government continue to sit
there and defend this move? I find that unconscionable.
(1105)
Before we get into the reasons why we are opposed to the
reduction in the tobacco tax, I would like to outline the measures
announced by the government in Bill C-32 which Reformers
support. There are some good things. If the government had
listened to some of the amendments we proposed and some of
the changes we would like to have made, we could have accepted
this. However it was like a stone wall.
Reformers support the imposition of the new excise tax on
exported tobacco products. Senior officials with the department
informed us that before the tax changes were implemented
between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the total production of
tobacco manufacturers in Canada was exported. Between 30 per
cent and 40 per cent went outside the country, mainly to the
United States. Tobacco companies agree that only 3 per cent of
their exports were legally consumed and the rest was smuggled
back into Canada. If that were the problem why did we not try to
solve that problem before we took these measures?
It seems these figures show the extent of the smuggling
problem as it existed prior to February 8. It confirms that
Canadian tobacco manufacturers were benefiting directly from
the smuggling of tobacco back into Canada. Bill C-32 will
permit tobacco manufacturers to export 3 per cent of their
tobacco production tax exempt. Under the bill, 3 per cent will be
allowed and that is the same level as it was before.
The Canadian Cancer Society is concerned that a potential
loophole exists in the legislation. Section 7(1) states: ``The
export tax will not apply when the national tax of the country of
destination is paid''. In this legislation the government included
a loophole so that these companies would avoid paying the
Canadian export tax.
For example, in the United States the national tax is only
$2.40 U.S. per carton of 200 cigarettes. That is the tax going into
the United States. The Canadian Cancer Society says that by
paying this low federal tax in the U.S. the deterrence of the
export value is reduced. They do not have to pay the Canadian
export tax if they pay the American tax, and the American tax is
much lower than the Canadian tax. It is common sense. Will they
pay the Canadian tax? Of course not.
Reformers agree with the Canadian Cancer Society
recommendation that this clause should be amended so that the
export tax is reduced by the amount of foreign paid tax. The
government fails to acknowledge the fact that needs to be
amended or that loophole needs to be closed.
If the foreign tax paid is greater than $8 per 200 cigarettes
then there would be no export tax payable. As I just illustrated it
is only $2.40 in the United States where most of the tobacco is
exported. If this change were made to Bill C-32 in the United
States the industry would pay U.S. federal tax plus a partial
Canadian export tax, the total of which would equal $8 per
carton of 200 cigarettes. If that were done the loophole would be
closed.
Reformers tried to propose an amendment to close the
loophole but were told-again this is how government
works-by the legislative counsel of the House that this
amounted to a tax increase and that only the minister could move
such an amendment. We were prevented from moving that
amendment because it involved a tax increase. Reformers asked
the minister to make such amendment as soon as possible. We
ask that this be corrected and that it be done quickly.
The Reform Party also supports the health promotion surtax
which will increase by 40 per cent the taxes paid on profits made
by tobacco manufacturers. We support this surtax. We feel the
surtax on profits of the tobacco companies is an excellent
approach based on the principle that the tobacco companies
should assume more responsibility for the health problems
caused by their products. The surtax would do that. It is a surtax
on their profits.
(1110)
Unfortunately the tobacco companies have had a windfall of
profits as a result of the increased sales of tobacco products. It is
estimated that tobacco manufacturers will have earned enough
5629
in increased profits in six months to more than pay the full
three-year health promotion surtax obligation. That is
interesting.
Reformers are confused about the rationale used by the
government in only having the health promotion surtax apply
for three years. In six months they will have made enough
increase in their profits to pay it for three years. That surtax
comes off in three years. It is built right into the legislation. It
will only apply for a three-year term, while the tobacco tax
reduction will be in effect and still cause increased consumption
and increased health costs long after the surtax is taken off.
Reformers believe that the health promotion surtax should be
in effect until the tobacco taxes return to their pre-February 8,
1994 levels. That is how long the surtax should remain in effect.
That is common sense.
Reformers tried to propose an amendment to extend the health
promotion surtax from three to six years. However again we
have that problem. The legislative council advised us that the
expansion of a tax could only be made or moved by the minister.
The Reformers respectfully request the minister to do that as
soon as possible, to make that change and to close the loopholes.
Reformers also support the increase in fines for illegal
possession or sale of unstamped tobacco products: increase the
fines and solve the problem where it exists.
Reformers believe that increased enforcement combined with
the effective export tax should have been tried by the
government before it reduced the taxes on cigarettes and
tobacco products. If we knew there was a health risk here why
did we not try some other avenues first?
We could have put an export tax on those cigarettes. We could
have tried enforcement to see how effective it would have been.
We knew where the problem existed. We knew where the
smuggling was taking place. Reformers believe that if we had
tried these things we may not have put the health of Canadians at
such great risk.
The final part of Bill C-32 which the Reform Party supports is
the immediate payment of tax rebates owing to retailers and
distributors throughout Canada. Retailers and wholesalers are
owed an estimated $150 million in rebates of excise tax paid on
tobacco products held in inventory while the excise tax rates
were reduced. That is legitimate. We support the government in
that rebate.
The minister cannot issue the rebate cheques until Bill C-32
is passed. While we oppose the reduction in tobacco taxes
retailers are likely to get upset if we delay the bill, and rightfully
so, thereby delaying their rebate cheques even further. We do not
want to hold them up.
Reformers proposed at committee stage to have a separate bill
introduced dealing with the rebates so that it could be passed
quickly. This would allow retailers to get their money quickly. It
would allow Parliament the time necessary to debate the full
health costs. We would not have to rush the legislation through.
Implications resulting from the tax reduction on cigarettes and
tobacco products could be more thoroughly examined. The
finance committee refused to even consider our request.
Let us start to discuss the provisions of Bill C-32 which we
oppose. We are opposed to the tax reduction on cigarettes and
tobacco products because it will increase smoking particularly
among young people, the most vulnerable sector of our society.
As a result it will increase health costs. Increasing smoking will
increase health costs. It is a logical conclusion. That is what will
happen.
Reformers find it amazing that the government caved into the
criminal element of society so quickly. This sent the wrong
signal to those who chose to break the law. The Liberal
government said that if you defy the law it will change the law
rather than enforce it. That is the signal it sent out to the criminal
element and I cannot accept that.
(1115)
Reformers find it hard to believe the government did not take
a more reasonable approach and impose an effective export tax
and increase enforcement in the areas where the majority of the
smuggling was occurring. Even the commissioner of the RCMP
confirmed in February that 70 per cent of the contraband
tobacco was coming through the three Mohawk reserves
between Cornwall and Montreal. If that is where the problem
was, why not have the courage to enforce the laws of Canada?
What will we do now when the criminal element redirects its
smuggling to alcohol, drugs and guns? My understanding is that
they are already looking at this. They are looking at where else
they can turn to make some money.
When the government caved in and lowered tobacco taxes, all
MPs received representation from Canadian distillers that we
should also lower the taxes on alcohol and booze. That is the
logical thing. If we can reduce taxes in this area, let us reduce it
over here because the smuggling will now occur in a different
area. Are we going to treat that in the same way? Are we going to
reduce the taxes on that? Is that going to be our approach?
There are some segments of this society, law-abiding citizens
who very much wish that their taxes were reduced as quickly as
this government has chosen to reduce the taxes on tobacco. The
problem will still exist, but it will only be transferred to other
areas.
The further reduction of the excise tax on cigarettes
negotiated in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
and Prince Edward Island has now created an interprovincial
5630
smuggling problem. Now it is an east-west smuggling problem.
The problem has simply been transferred to a different area.
The government responded to this problem by implementing
excise tax and offence provisions to prevent interprovincial
smuggling. While Reformers support these provisions, we must
point out that these provisions would not have been necessary if
the government had tried to increase enforcement and a new
export tax on tobacco products in the first place rather than
reduce the tax on tobacco products. Now we have to deal with
the interprovincial smuggling.
Senior officials at finance say the four western provinces are
satisfied that their anti-smuggling campaign is working and that
their revenues are holding. They are not likely to reduce their
tobacco taxes. Therefore the government's attempt to stop
smuggling has created another smuggling problem as I have just
explained.
The action on smoking and health group appeared before the
Standing Committee on Finance. It told members of Parliament
how a 12-year old called a 1-800 mail order number advertised
by the fax network which goes right into private homes. The
12-year old ordered and received four cartons of cigarettes by
mail, no questions asked. That was across provincial
boundaries. That is how easy it is to contravene the regulations
this government has put into effect. A 12-year old can simply
order cigarettes by phone and get them by giving a credit card
number.
These volunteers asked the finance committee to make
improvements in the enforcement provisions and increase the
fines for this activity. The finance committee approved Bill
C-32 without discussion, without further change.
The main point I would like to make today is with regard to
the government's disregard for the health of Canadians,
particularly young people. When the government first
introduced its national action campaign to combat smuggling in
February, we asked the government to tell us what the increased
health care costs would be.
(1120 )
How many people will start smoking as a result of the tax
reduction? Because cigarettes cost less, how many people will
begin this habit that they will later find very difficult to break?
How many Canadians will become addicted? If this is a
temporary tax reduction, will we then have an addiction problem
to deal with later? How many people will get lung cancer,
emphysema, heart disease and strokes as a result of this plan?
How many people will suffer or die as a direct result of the
government's tax reduction? How much will this cost the
Canadian taxpayer? This tax reduction will end up costing us a
horrific amount of money.
The government has continued to push the implementation of
this bill despite not having the answers to these very important
questions. If we do not have the answers to these questions, how
can we continue with this bill?
While the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
has made it clear that the tax reduction would pose increased
health risks, these risks, the costs, the implications for
government and the human suffering have not been quantified.
Reformers find this appalling.
The Canadian Cancer Society asked the Standing Committee
on Finance to complete a thorough evaluation of the health care
costs and implications of smoking in Canada, because such an
evaluation had not been done since 1986. The finance committee
listened politely, but it completely ignored the dozens of
recommendations and passed the clause by clause reading of
Bill C-32.
Do you know how long it took the committee to pass all of
those clauses in Bill C-32? It took 15 seconds. After all the
representation we received and all the concerns that were
expressed in 15 seconds the committee said: ``Here they are, we
approve them all''. This clause by clause review of a 62 page bill
was done in 15 seconds. That is democracy.
Is it any wonder that Reformers are advocating and pushing
for a triple-E senate where legislation like this could be
reviewed seriously and thoughtfully and amended reasonably.
Amendments could be proposed and debated intelligently. Some
sober second thought could be given to some of the things the
government is doing. A triple-E senate would prevent some of
the serious mistakes we are making in pushing legislation
through so quickly.
I ask again: What will the increased health costs be? The
Canadian Cancer Society provided the Standing Committee on
Finance with some estimates prepared by Professor Robert
Allen from the department of economics at Harvard University.
Using Professor Allen's most conservative estimates, he
predicted that the national cigarette consumption would rise by
14 per cent among adults and it would rise by 35 per cent among
young people. Those are the most conservative estimates.
Thus the tax reductions implemented by the Liberals will
increase the total number of tobacco users in Canada by 840,000
and of these 175,000 will be teenagers. At this rate Professor
Allen predicted health costs would rise in the long term by $1.33
billion-one thousand, three hundred and thirty millions of
dollars-a horrific increase in costs. Those are conservative
estimates; it could be higher.
This government will not be in power any more when the
detrimental costs of the legislation it is implementing will have
to be paid by the people of Canada. The government will not
even be around to harvest its returns. As Professor Allen has said
these are the most conservative estimates. It could be much
higher. It could result in 1.89 million new smokers and if it was
that high 245,000 of those would be young people.
5631
(1125)
If that happens it would result in increased health spending of
an additional $3 billion every year. Still the government fails to
tell Canadians what the impact will be. It has hidden that. It
refuses to conduct its own evaluation of health costs and
implications. It does not even look at it. That is ignoring the
health of Canadians.
This is an example of a bill that has such serious health
implications and risks it should have been debated jointly by the
Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on
Finance. Both committees should have been involved. Only in
this way could Canadians' concerns about the health risks be
properly debated during committee stage.
Had this been done I believe many of the amendments
proposed by the Canadian Cancer Society and action on smoking
and health would have been made by the government rather than
Reformers just talking about them today in the House of
Commons. They would have had a chance to make the
amendments.
For a government that claims to be listening to the people it
does very little of it. Precious little listening is being done to the
concerns of Canadians through the Canadian Cancer Society and
action on smoking and health.
Another one of our major concerns is that the government has
not provided Canadians with a timetable showing when the
tobacco taxes will start going up again. Already the cost of
cigarettes in three border states is higher than in Canada. Across
the line you have to pay more for cigarettes than in Canada
because of the action this government has taken.
The government acknowledges the dramatic effect high taxes
have on tobacco consumption. It acknowledges that the health
promotion surtax will end in three years, but it has not told
Canadians what it plans to do at the end of three years. We
proposed an amendment but as I said, it is out of order because
the minister has to propose the amendment if it is a tax increase.
Will the government make a commitment to raise prices to
what they were prior to February 8, 1994 when the health
promotion surtax is removed at the end of three years? Will the
government make that commitment? Reformers proposed it but
legislative counsel advised us that only the minister can do that.
Reformers respectfully request the minister to introduce a new
bill to bring such an amendment into effect.
For the sake of the health of all Canadians, for the sake of all
of those young people who will take up smoking as a direct
result of the government's action, for those people, will the
government tell Canadians today that this is not a permanent tax
reduction? Will it come in with a plan to increase this again?
Will this government tell Canadians that their health is of more
concern than the interests of a few smugglers and a few tobacco
manufacturers? It is very important that the government send a
signal to Canadians that yes, it is concerned.
In closing, I have a list of recommendations for the
government in regard to the whole subject of cigarettes and
tobacco products.
First, we need an immediate evaluation of the health care
costs and implications, particularly for young people. This
government should begin to find out what is going to happen as a
result of its action.
Second, we need to extend the health promotion surtax
beyond three years. It should be in effect as long as tobacco
taxes remain as low as they are. That is common sense. There
should not be an end to one measure and a continuation of
another.
Third, we need to make tobacco companies fully accountable
for the increased health care costs. Accountability and
responsibility must be laid at the feet of those that are profiting
from the sale of this product.
(1130)
Fourth, we need a clear timetable to increase taxes on
cigarettes and tobacco products. That should be done. It should
begin now. There should be an amendment put in place to make
sure that these tobacco taxes are again increased. Co-operate
with the Americans. Consult and discuss with them how we can
jointly combat this problem.
Fifth, we need to close the loopholes in the export taxes. I
have illustrated already, and I will not belabour the point, but let
us close those loopholes. If the loophole is there, people will be
going through it and profiting from it.
Sixth, we need a better enforcement strategy to stop the
east-west smuggling problem. Mail order advertising has not
been stopped. I gave the example of a 12-year old who was able
to order cartons of cigarettes through the mail.
Seventh, the level of fines also needs to be increased to deter
people.
Eighth, we need to ban small packages of smokeless tobacco
products. I addressed this previously. I will not refer to it again
other than to say that it is on the record.
The hon. member opposite acknowledged that the amendment
I proposed should be implemented, but it was not done because
of a technicality. Snuff and chewing tobacco designed for sale to
young people should be discouraged.
5632
Ninth, health warnings on cigarette packages are being
obscured by manufacturers and government should put an
immediate end to this practice. An example of that was given in
committee, but the government has not addressed the problem.
Tenth, there is a need for a complete and total ban on tobacco
advertising.
From what my constituents are telling me and from what I
have been hearing from Canadians, it is clear that the
government has once again passed a law that clearly the
majority of Canadians do not support. The government
continues to push things through, to railroad them through the
House, when they are unacceptable to the majority of
Canadians.
Reformers believe that the health of Canadians should be the
government's first priority. The government has sacrificed the
health of Canadians by lowering taxes on cigarettes and
Canadians will have the opportunity some day to decide if it was
the wisest thing for the government to do. But it may be too late.
Nothing much has changed since we began debating this. The
government seems to have an agenda and no amount of common
sense will cause it to ever amend the bill. I find that very
regrettable. I hope government members are listening like they
claim they are.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, it seems
odd to be discussing a bill proposing a reduction in tobacco
taxes and to find in it a completely unrelated measure on air
transportation. The latter is certainly the measure we oppose the
most in this bill. I am going to the bill in perspective a bit and
speak about what led up to it, and then about what we support
and what we do not.
First of all, we have to remember that there was a serious
problem with cigarette smuggling, especially in Quebec but also
very serious in Ontario and getting worse in the other provinces.
It was a problem that was spreading from east to west. Of course
smuggling was not bad yet in the western provinces, or at any
rate had not assumed the same proportions.
To alleviate the problem, given that the situation had dragged
on for several years, it was almost impossible to come up with a
solution that did not involve reducing taxes, that is, using
price-related incentives to bring buyers back to the legal
market.
(1135)
The price of cigarettes had gone up considerably over the last
six or seven years and tobacco users were getting increasingly
annoyed by the increasing tax burden, especially in conjunction
with higher taxes of all kinds. Their annoyance pushed them
toward the black market, the underground economy, where they
bought with a clear conscience. It became a very common
practice.
Various measures were tried to correct the situation, but
nothing worked, for as we know there was very little real control
in the field, even with all the resources of the RCMP, the Sûreté
du Québec and everybody else. It would have been very difficult
to solve the problem, because it was so wide-spread. It took so
long to react that a contraband network had time to spring up,
take over the market and provide excellent service, up to and
including home deliveries.
That is why at the start of this session we strongly urged the
government to take action, to move rapidly after all the pressure
and especially after the ``MATRAC'' movement in Quebec,
where merchants themselves decided to defy the law. The
problem had clearly got out of hand and at that point the
government decided to act. So as far as reducing the tax as such
is concerned, there is no major problem.
There are plenty of people who would say we should be
cautious. We all know the negative effects of tobacco use, and it
is certainly not our intention to encourage consumption.
However, bringing people back to the legal market is one of our
concerns, as is encouraging people to respect the law and the
system that our society has set up.
Except that at the same time as these measures were
introduced, the government said it would be bringing in a battle
plan, a plan to encourage people not to consume tobacco
products. There is supposed to be a vast education campaign on
the harmful effects of tobacco use, focussing especially on
young people.
So one of the measures in the bill, a surtax on tobacco
manufacturing profits, is going to make the tobacco
manufacturers finance the plan themselves. But here a first
reservation must be voiced. The anti-smoking campaign is
supposed to last three years, while the surtax apparently will last
longer than that or be permanent.
So at the end of the three years, the revenue that is supposed to
go toward discouraging tobacco use will be clearly reduced
because the surtax will no longer be used for the campaign. It
should have been stipulated that the money be used for this
purpose. Besides, the surtax revenues are higher than the
amount required for the plan announced by the Minister of
Health, which involves spending $185 million over the next
three years, while it is projected that the surtax revenues will be
at least $210 million. So there is one thing to query, the fact that
this money will not be allocated directly when that was what we
were told would happen when the anti-smuggling campaign was
announced.
There are measures, there is the surtax, which is also designed
to penalize to a certain extent people who really collaborated
with the smugglers-to punish the producers, in fact, when we
know that they can easily get it back by raising the price to the
consumer. So this may simply raise prices again somewhat.
5633
Obviously there are people who think that lower prices will
stimulate consumption, except that you have to bear in mind that
the black-market price was extremely low, even ridiculously
low. So the data that should be considered, the prices that should
be compared, are the new price now with the black-market
price, and not the price now with the old price, since in any event
it may have been as little as one-third of the sales that were
made on the legal market, mainly in Quebec and Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, these are measures that do not strike us as so bad
overall, but the government has done something really crazy
with respect to inventories. All the little vendors who suffered
the harmful effects of smuggling over the past three or four
years, who already have had to shoulder significant losses in
most cases, will only get a partial rebate on the stocks they had
at the time the announcement was made or the tax reduced.
(1140)
Since those merchants paid the full amount of the tax, the
government should logically reimburse them in full.
The government has said it will refund only $5 a carton, while
in Quebec, for example, the reduced federal tax is equivalent to
$10 a carton; so this is only a 50 per cent rebate.
Why only $5? Why make those merchants, who have already
absorbed costs over the past few years, pay for a portion of the
anti-smuggling campaign? And these are small vendors,
convenience store owners, small shopkeepers, who are affected.
Some would be spared; the ones with at least 5,000 cartons in
stock would get a full rebate. Where is the logic in setting a limit
of 5,000 cartons?
I will give you an example. In my riding there is a wholesaler
with an inventory of 3,000 cartons. He paid $10 in tax on each of
them, but he will get back only $5. This is an instant $15,000
loss. People like hin do not make astronomical profits. And it is
a serious matter for him, $15,000. It may ultimately mean laying
someone off. It might be argued that the market is recovering
and this will enable them to get their money back, but that
certainly will not be true in the short term.
When departmental officials appeared before the committee,
they said that when the opposite occurred, when taxes were
increased, retailers then had an advantage, because they had
paid the old tax. So when they sold their products, they profited,
if you will, from the difference. It is true, but never had tax
increases been so drastic, and now the tax has been reduced.
We are strongly opposed to this. And for the same reasons as
those mentioned by the hon. member from the Reform Party who
spoke just before me-only the minister can table an
amendment involving a tax increase. We tried to make many
people aware of this point. Representatives of small businesses
tried to bring pressure to bear on the minister, but without
success.
This is very discouraging, and it is one reason why we cannot
support this entire component, because this measure alone will
be very harmful to small business.
I would now like to address another feature of the bill. One
might ask why a measure concerning air transportation was
included in a bill to reduce cigarette taxes.
When we take a closer look at this measure, the whys and
wherefores become a little clearer. They wanted to hide it, so
that no one would notice that it was going through. They knew
there was good support for reducing cigarette taxes, so they put
in a controversial measure involving air transportation that
affects primarily the regions and the remote areas. A good way
to avoid a more heated and more public debate on this particular
point was to bury it in a bill whose primary objective has nothing
to do with transportation.
The repercussions of this measure will be very serious in most
outlying regions, which are already hard hit by the deregulation
of air transportation. In the past few years, the price of tickets
has gone up considerably. It costs more to travel from some
regions in Quebec to Montreal than it does to travel from
Montreal to Paris. That situation runs counter to all logic. We
should help regions develop and take charge of their future.
While, on the one hand, we are trying to do that, on the other
hand, measures that will affect those regions are being imposed.
I live in one of those regions; I represent the riding of
Témiscamingue, which has Rouyn-Noranda as its major airport.
We are very much affected.
What is really going to happen with the structure? The former
tax structure had a flat rate tax, and then a graduated rate and a
$40 maximum. That means that when we bought a $500 air
ticket, we paid the maximum $40 tax.
(1145)
Now we are told that the flat rate is going to be a little lower
and is going to go up gradually, but that the maximum tax will
now be $50 on all regional flights. And those are not necessarily
long-haul flights. They are flights to the major urban centres.
The amount of the tax will increase, because it is not often that a
ticket costs less than $500, not often at all for a return ticket.
When you get into prices a little over $600, you reach the new
$60 maximum. All air tickets costing $450 or more will be
negatively affected; and that is true for all regions. I am not
talking about Quebec, or the Maritimes, or the west, as a region
in itself; I am talking about regions within Quebec, what we call
regions here. The same thing will be true in northern Ontario.
The ridings adjoining mine will be affected in the same way, and
I am sure that when some Liberal MPs hear from the people in
their ridings, they will see that this is certainly not a popular
measure. But, since it is going pretty well unnoticed, people will
not know exactly who to blame. Did the provincial government
5634
or the federal government increase this tax? It will be hard to
tell. People must be told.
The overall consequence of this restructuring of the tax on air
transportation will bring in extra revenues of $24 million this
year and $44 million next year. Mind you, the tax on short-haul
flights, from Ottawa to Toronto or from Montreal to Toronto, for
example, will go down. The tax on air tickets costing less than
$450 will go down.
The regional flights will bear the brunt of that $24 million or
$44 million and even more, since the tax on short-haul flights
will generate less revenue. What we are talking about here is the
80 per cent of flights that are short-haul flights which will
benefit, and the 20 per cent of flights that are regional flights
which will be penalized. It is the 20 per cent of flights to
outlying regions that will have to bear the brunt of the $24
million this year and $44 million next year. That is not
acceptable, not at all.
A one dollar increase in the price of an air ticket in a region
where the price is already exorbitant is completely
unacceptable. A $10 tax increase is even less acceptable; it
contradicts the logic of all those promises of more air
transportation tax relief for the regions, and it contradicts other
policies to support regional development and help the regions
take charge of their future.
What we have to understand here is that many of those flights
are used by people from federal or provincial government
departments, travelling to the major urban centres and thus
simply passing on higher expenses to the other level of
government or within their own government, while penalizing
consumers.
It would have been possible to look at international flights, as
was recommended to the Finance Committee by the
Baie-Comeau chamber of commerce, for example-which, by
the way, has worked closely with the chambers of commerce in
several regions of Quebec, including those in Val-d'Or and
Rouyn-Noranda in my region. Would it not be possible, without
necessarily losing any revenue, to look at taxation on those
flights?
Through the transport committee and the finance committee,
the government is being asked to look at why efforts at
deregulation and competition are not bringing prices down. The
frequency of flights has gone up in certain regions, but the cost
of tickets has gone up, while it was anticipated that it would go
down. Perhaps it would be appropriate to take a good hard look
at the situation and see what could be done to support regional
development.
Because of the fact that small merchants who had stocks of
cartons of cigarettes will not be reimbursed and because, in a
rather underhanded way, a tax is being introduced that will
penalize the regions, we cannot support this bill, even though we
find some aspects, such as reducing taxes to fight cigarette
smuggling, quite positive.
Overall, the fact that some measures, especially the measure
concerning transportation, are quite negative-although the
measure concerning small businesses is very negative as well-,
means that we shall vote against this bill.
(1150)
I hope however that some of our colleagues from the Liberal
Party-particularly those from northern Ontario-will wake up
and pressure their government into eventually restructuring air
transportation, allowing for regional development and giving
regional authorities a better opportunity to plan their economic
development than the present contradictory initiatives taken by
different departments. These initiatives have left the regions
extremely skeptical as to the federal government's capacity to
manage economic development in more remote areas.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak in favour of Bill C-32. Some of my colleagues today will
be expressing many of the negative aspects surrounding this bill
and a lot will be speaking against it.
This bill covers three areas, changes for meal allowance and
also the air transportation tax and the tobacco tax. This bill is the
last stage in the government action plan to combat smuggling.
The first stage was Bill C-11 which was mainly concerned with
enforcement. This bill brings into effect the proposed tax
changes.
With respect to the changes to the meal allowance, the eligible
business meals and entertainment expenses are reduced from 80
per cent to 50 per cent in accordance with the provisions
outlined in the budget. We supported these changes when the
budget came out on the basis that they amounted to business
subsidy.
While I recognize that these expenses are legitimate business
expenses for some, the reality of the tax break was that it was
being used to escape tax and subsidize the recreation activity of
business. In addition, some tax relief is still available, albeit at a
reduced rate. My colleagues and I are in favour of this aspect of
this bill.
With respect to the air transportation tax, this bill reduces the
tax burden on short haul, domestic and transporter flights by
decreasing the flat charge per ticket and increasing the
maximum fee. The flat fee is decreased to $6 and the maximum
is increased to $50. The changes will bring additional revenue to
the government of $24 million projected in 1994 and $41
million in 1995.
I support this change as it makes the air transportation tax
move toward a full cost recovery basis. I believe the majority of
my caucus colleagues also favour that.
5635
The most important issue is the tobacco tax. Although the
majority of our caucus is opposed to the reduction of the excise
tax on tobacco products, I disagree with it. Our caucus, though,
has some legitimate reasons for being opposed to the reduction.
It feels it will encourage more people to smoke, particularly
young people. Long term health costs for Canadians have not
been calculated. Aggressive enforcement should have been tried
first and the new export taxes on tobacco should have been tried
first.
I agree with all of those but nevertheless the government
failed to approach the problem with that attitude and now we are
left with this particular bill in its present form.
My riding is basically split 50:50 on this issue. Fifty per cent
are against this bill only because of the impact upon the increase
in health costs. Therefore I am looking at this issue not only as a
representative of Calgary Centre. I am looking at it as a
representative of all of Canada, from the country's point of
view.
(1155 )
In order to solve a problem we must first of all identify what
that problem is, decide on what courses of action are available
that will help solve that problem, pick the one that will solve the
problem the best and the fastest, implement the decision and
examine the results. If it is working, stick with it and if it is not
go back to some of the other options.
The main problem we are addressing today is one of organized
crime, the underground economy and in particular the problem
of cigarette smuggling into Canada. I sympathize with the Prime
Minister and the problem that he had with this issue in trying to
come up with a solution. It is not an easy one.
With his four point plan he looked at all the factors involved
and made a tough decision. It is one of the few he has made.
Although we are critical of him it is meant to be constructive and
in that area where I feel we can support him I would like to do
that.
This issue certainly has cost the government a lot of money
and has driven a lot of legal people into the illegal underground
economy. Because this addresses that and solves that problem I
feel it certainly deserves my support and so I will be talking
about that.
The truth of the matter is some people want to smoke. Some
people want to drink alcoholic beverages. All people need to eat.
Our health care costs are directly linked to our diet and our
exercise or lack thereof and not just to cigarettes and booze. To
specifically target one item, although undoubtedly a
killer-there is no question that one in three to one in four
people dies of cancer because of cigarette smoking-do these
same people who advocate raising a tax on cigarettes advocate
raising a tax on all food that is bad for us? No, they do not. They
allow us to have a choice as it should be with cigarettes and
booze.
No matter how high we drive sin taxes, no matter how much
we try to discourage the public from doing something through
legislation, through the Income Tax Act, if people want to do it
and if it is still legal they will do it.
I find it somewhat hypocritical that we say it is legal to smoke
and it is legal to drink after a certain age, but then we try to price
it out of the market because it is bad for our health. Either this
government wants to allow people to do freely what they like to
do or it does not, instead of trying to mix the two together.
With respect to the health issue, there have been many
concerns expressed by health organizations and individual
Canadians who believe that by reducing the cost of cigarettes
more people, especially young people, children, will begin to
smoke. In my opinion by raising the legal age to smoke,
eliminating kiddie packs, limiting vending machines to bars, the
government has taken a step in the right direction toward the
reduction of smoking in young people.
This fact combined with the increased fines for retailers who
sell to minors will help mitigate the problem. I also have a
further suggestion in this area and it was well received in the
finance committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Health. Patrol the high schools and when the police
catch the under age people smoking, they could issue them a
summons that also gets mailed to the home. The parents then
would be made aware of the fact that their children are smoking.
The summons would say basically the next time we catch your
child you will also get a summons but that one will cost you $50
and each and every time we catch your child smoking it will cost
you $50. This perhaps is a way of curtailing young people from
smoking.
That is a separate issue from what this bill is trying to resolve.
It is trying to resolve the issue of smuggling, not the issue of
encouraging young people to smoke.
The federal government is currently losing a guestimate of
$60 billion to $80 billion per year to the underground economy.
This loss of revenue has a direct negative effect on the ability of
small, law-abiding businesses to compete in the private sector.
In the end it is the Canadian taxpayers who pay for the loss of
revenue and the increased costs associated with the lucrative
practice of smuggling.
(1200)
I ask non-smoking Canadians who do not feel that the
problem of smuggling affects them to think again. The number
of people who have been charged by RCMP Customs and Excise
has increased from 414 in 1990 to 3,389 to date. The number of
seizures within this same time frame has increased from 303 in
1990 to 5,044 to date. Increased enforcement and prosecution
5636
combined with the loss of government revenues costs the
government over a billion dollars a year.
In the end it is every Canadian taxpayer, not just those who
drink and smoke, who ends up paying these costs in the form of
higher taxes.
The only way to truly eliminate the problem is to reduce the
profitability to smugglers, take the profit out of smuggling. In
order to do that we have to reduce the cost and the taxes. By
reducing the cost differential between smuggled and retailed
cigarettes, ordinary cigarette smokers will have less incentive to
seek out and purchase illegal cigarettes and, on a larger scale,
organized crime will be no longer able to profit from it.
Only when the profit is removed will smuggling be reduced.
Law enforcement alone without the removal of profit margin
will not be enough to solve this major problem.
We must not lose sight of the fact that this bill is primarily
targeted at the multi-billion dollar smuggling market. Federal
and provincial governments tax cigarettes and liquor not just to
reduce consumption but to generate extra revenue for other
programs. These so-called sin taxes combined with health
awareness campaigns will not eliminate in its entirety the use
and abuse of these substances.
If we go back to before this act, what were the facts? The facts
were that people were smoking and people were drinking,
except that the purchase of cigarettes went into an underground
economy. This is an attempt to bring it to the surface. It is up to
all Canadians to deal with this problem at home, in schools and
in their communities. If further measures are needed to be taken
by the government, then we should vigorously examine all of
our options. The bill addresses organized crime, the tobacco
companies and respect for the law.
The critics of the bill, including some of my caucus members,
have focused on health care costs, more young people smoking
and the loss of revenue at a time when government can least
afford it.
There are other means available to deter smokers without
relying on taxation only. For instance, we could have variable
insurance premiums for smokers and non-smokers. The same
with alcohol and non-alcohol drinkers, like we do with
automobiles. We do it somewhat with physicals but we could
even make it more onerous, more specific and more related to
being able to identify potential costs to health care by a person
who has certain habits, although they are legal, which may cost
the taxpayers more money. Therefore their premiums should be
higher.
Furthermore, the advertising and education programs about
the effects of smoking should be recognized as an influencing
factor, although not an end in itself. Despite the many lectures of
parents to their children, despite the many TV commercials,
despite the many educational programs that are out there for
children and people of all ages, people still smoke.
I personally would cancel the TV commercials because they
are ineffective. The young people of this society just laugh at
them. They think it is a joke. The government should
concentrate on a direct communications piece with each
taxpayer to create awareness of the dangers of smoking. That
money spent that way would be much more effective. It is a
direct message to families and to individuals, done in a
professional manner and intended to make people aware of the
problems of drinking and smoking. That message would be
received by everybody, not just on a hit or miss affair by
television where only the TV companies benefit with the extra
revenue for their commercials.
There are a few other things I would like to address on this
bill. There is an organization called action on smoking and
health. Where my colleagues have talked about the impact and
effects of this bill on more people smoking and the cost to health
care, I suggest they are co-mingling. To argue that lower priced
cigarettes will increase smoking, I do not buy that. As my
colleague said, 97 per cent of the cigarettes that were
manufactured and exported to the United States were coming
back into this country in the underground economy. Whatever
percentage that was of the manufactured cigarettes, that is
exactly the percentage of how much smoking will increase by
any survey that is released today or tomorrow or next year
because it is now out in the public, it is out on the surface and it
is out in the open.
(1205)
To use that statistic and say that cigarette smoking is
increasing because of the lower price is not entirely accurate. I
realize that people are smoking. I realize the lower the price is of
something then people can afford it and they will buy it but we
have to solve the underground economy problem. We have to
lower taxes. We have to encourage the government to recognize
the benefits of lower taxes.
As my colleague asked, if we lower taxes on cigarettes should
we lower it on alcohol? The answer is yes. Should we lower it on
jewellery and clothing imported from the United States? The
answer is yes. Should we lower overall taxes? Should we lower
the GST? The answer is yes. How do we pay for it all? We
eliminate the dumb wasteful spending of this government that
has increased spending by $3 billion this year.
It will not look at the programs of each of the ministries and
reduce spending. It will not go through it line by line. It gave a
billion dollars to companies that do not want it. It gives grants
and subsidies to people who abuse it, misuse it, and come out
with ridiculous reports. That is where we could save a lot. With
lower taxes and more money in the hands of ordinary Canadian
5637
taxpayers, it would then increase disposable income and the
economy would start to generate and work.
It is economy No. 1. I took it in university in 1968. I have not
forgotten it. It seems like the members in this House and the
ministers especially will not even go back to economy No. 1 and
implement some of the basics of that.
I got off on a slight tangent, let me get back on track.
This is also to show that the two issues are separate. If you
want to cure problems in health care then solve the health care
problems. If you want to cure the smuggling problem then we
have to support bills and issues and ways and means to do that. I
believe this does.
However, my colleagues are concerned about the health
aspect of smoking and interprovincial smuggling because now
that has created a problem. Some westerners are writing letters
and saying they feel like second class citizens because of what
Ontario and the eastern provinces have done by accepting the
lower tax. That is a provincial decision. If the western premiers
do not wish to do that that is their decision.
There is a group called action on smoking and health which
has made a representation to the finance minister. I would like to
touch on some of this and get it into the record because I believe
it is important.
Action on smoking and health is western Canada's leading
tobacco control agency. It is very concerned with the federal tax
differentials contained within Bill C-32. It fully supports the
recommendations of western finance ministers to restore a
uniform federal tax regime on tobacco products. It believes that
the proposed fines for interprovincial smuggling are inadequate
and need to be adjusted. I concur.
Based on its calculations, a proposed tax penalty of three
times the excise tax avoided barely accounts for the potential
profit margin earned by smugglers who ship Quebec and Ontario
cigarettes to western Canada.
While there is a $1,000 additional penalty in Bill C-32 for
smuggling violations, a Quebec smuggler would only have to
ship two cases of cigarettes to Alberta to cover this loss based on
current profit margin. It recommends a more meaningful
penalty similar to the new Alberta legislation, and once again
that great province is a leader, which provides for fines up to
$10,000 and a six month prison sentence for first time
violations.
That is called punishment. That is what our law should be
designed to do in the criminal justice system, not rehabilitation
all the time. Maybe the two combined, but punishment first.
In its presentation to the finance committee it also pointed out
that the current federal duty strip obstructs the health warning
on cigarette packages. If the Minister of Health does not get her
plain packaging on cigarettes then perhaps the recommendation
that duty strips be positioned horizontally along the package so
as not to interfere with the health warning might be a useful
recommendation.
(1210 )
I found a quotation in a book written by some intelligent
economists which reads: ``In summation, what we need is an
immediate tax cut for low and middle income groups in order to
increase demand and purchasing power''. That is the lesson of
economics that I wish to pass along to this government, the
vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, the
Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of
National Revenue and taxation. What this country needs is an
immediate tax cut for low and middle income groups in order to
increase demand and purchasing power. What we have in this
country is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
we certainly appreciated the hon. member's lesson in economics
as he calls it.
Coming from one of the ridings along the 49th parallel
between Canada and our good friends to the south, I can give a
bit of a history lesson on the smuggling of tobacco products,
what it meant to my constituency and the businesses and more so
the criminal element that it initiated that crept in.
I appreciated the hon. member's comments. I believe that the
majority if not all members in this House would indeed support
an action that would reduce or eliminate smoking by our youth
and indeed by every citizen in this country. I am sure that would
be the case.
Whether it is through reduced taxation to be competitive or
through smuggling those same tobacco and cigarette products
which are and have been available over the past number of years,
this whole scenario has created an opportunity for the criminal
element to make quick profits at the expense of not only
Canadian citizens but the revenue of government through
taxation and certainly certainly our youth.
It is not only the criminal element. Because of the wide
variation and differential between prices due to taxation, we
also saw tobacco products being brought across the border that
were very legal.
Would the hon. member agree that the actions taken by the
government in this bill to eliminate tobacco smuggling across
our borders was not only the correct option but the option that
has in fact worked as we have seen over the last two or three
months? Since that action was taken the criminal element has
been reduced at our border crossings and, as he has indicated,
5638
many arrests have been made. This action taken by the
government has indeed worked. I would like to hear his
comments.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to approach it in two
ways. When the Prime Minister addressed this problem early on
in the House when we first arrived here, veterans and rookies
alike, this started to develop into a bigger and bigger problem.
Our frustration was that the smuggling was occurring in two
major areas. We knew where they were. The problem was that
they were on reserve lands. The RCMP was reluctant to go on
those lands and make arrests. That led us to believe that this
government was shortsighted and lacked the political will to
enforce the laws of this country. Two sets of laws started to
appear, one for native Indians and their borders and one for the
rest of Canada. Therefore, we encouraged the government to
enforce the law.
I believe the Prime Minister heard that message and in
consultation with the head of the RCMP and the Solicitor
General he tried to solve the problem.
(1215)
The Prime Minister heard that message and in consultation
with the head of the RCMP and the Solicitor General he tried to
solve the problem. His final conclusion was a four-point plan to
resolve the issue, to build respect for the law and to prevent the
smuggling which is costing taxpayers a lot of money, smokers
and non-smokers alike.
I supported his four-point plan. I thought it was well thought
out. It was a tough decision. He made a political decision. He
made a reasoned decision in the best interests of solving the
problem. For that I commend him, for that I respect him and I
think he did the right thing. In answer to that, I do support what
he did.
As some of my colleagues have mentioned, other steps could
have been tried first. Having said that about the Prime Minister,
I feel it has worked.
Now that I took so long to answer that part of the question, I
forget the second part. I cannot answer it, I apologize.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
want to make a few comments about the process taking place
here today.
It makes it a bit awkward when we have an omnibus bill, one
that contains something about airport taxes, tobacco taxes and
other measures. It is difficult to support such a bill when it
contains something to which you are completely opposed. You
may support two of the three measures but have to vote against
the bill because of something in it that is unacceptable. I have an
objection to that kind of thing happening. The issues should be
separated out so we can discuss them and vote on them
separately.
There is a second thing I would like to comment on. My
colleague may wish to respond even though he does not have to.
We have the freedom to speak up in the House. We may not agree
with even our colleagues within the same party but the
government should encourage free discussion and debate.
Like my colleague said, we should identify the problem. We
should determine our options. We should decide what would be a
reasonable course of action to take and it should be debated. The
legislation that flows from the discussion should reflect the
feelings of every member in the House.
Very seldom do I hear people sitting on the backbenches of the
government expressing an opinion that is contrary to the
cabinet. That is a shame. It is unacceptable. In a free and
democratic society, we should be allowed to express dissent.
That is what should be happening. Debate should be taking
place.
I wonder why more people do not speak up and express their
concerns in regard to this. Surely members of the Reform Party
are not the only ones who are concerned about health. There
must be Liberals who also have those kinds of concerns.
My colleague has brought up some legitimate health concerns
other than tobacco. They could be debated. It might be a related
issue but we should be talking about it.
We need to have that kind of open discussion here. We have
begun the process. We have allowed for it. It has happened on
occasion but I would like to see more of it. If my hon. colleague
would like to comment on any of that, I would welcome him to
do so.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I feel like I have been put on the spot.
Our party believes we should be representing our constituencies
and by so doing, because we come from so many varied ridings,
both urban and rural, both sides of the mountains, both ends of
the country, Ontario to B.C., we will have differing opinions. We
will have different views on the same issue.
(1220 )
In trying to determine how to vote on a bill, on an issue, I
think it is important first of all to bounce ideas, the thrust of the
bill, against your party's principles and platform. The Liberals
do it with their red book. We had a blue book which we call now
the blue sheet. If it is consistent with that then there are no
doubts on which way to go.
Then other issues become involved and problems start to
surface, it becomes bigger, it becomes a multibillion dollar
problem if you include alcohol, hand guns and everything else
that gets smuggled into the country. Smuggling is a major
problem. I do not believe it is in any red book or blue book.
I believe it is the responsibility of MPs to look at the issue
from a Canadian perspective and make a decision in the best
interests of the country. Bounce the ideas off constituents so
they can have input. There are a lot of mechanisms and ways
5639
and means by which they can communicate with their MP. We
then have a balanced approach.
I am not so sure my colleague intended we should debate an
issue first and then draft the legislation or that legislation should
be drafted first and then we react to it. I prefer the latter.
However if there are amendments such as those we have tried to
make to this bill, they should be listened to instead of throwing
them out as this current government likes to do.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to discuss this bill at third reading. I want to
comment on a couple of remarks made by my colleagues across
the way regarding this issue.
Comments have been made that this problem somehow
started in October, some time shortly after we came to
government. Our response to the problem was bringing in this
legislation but we did not take into consideration the health
question.
I do not have to remind hon. members where I come from. In
my riding I represent a large number of tobacco producers but
also the largest native reserve in the country. I used the term
reserve in a somewhat limited way because I understand its
negative connotations.
I first came to the House of Commons some six years ago,
shortly after this problem started. In fact I have discussed it for a
number of years. The smoke huts on the Six Nations are a long
way from Akwesasne, a long way from where a lot of the
so-called smuggling takes place. This started some four or five
years ago. People started to use the tax system to their benefit.
This material did not just appear at one single point. It has
been coming across the Canadian border for a number of years at
a number of points in the east and in the west. It was always a
major problem and it has significantly increased over the last
two to three years.
Mr. Speaker, you come from an area where a lot of this
problem is taking place, therefore you can attest to the fact that
this has been going on in a serious manner for at least two to
three years.
When the government brought in this legislation it wanted to
also look at what many call the negative health effects of
smoking. It looked at this issue in a very serious way. It saw that
on every street corner in Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver and all
across the country young Canadians had access to cheap
cigarettes. That access was right on the corner at the school
yard. Quite frankly over the last couple of years the smuggling
networks got so sophisticated that it became a very good
distribution system that was cheap and easy. Young Canadians
had access to cigarettes and tobacco like they never had in the
past.
This legislation tried to cut off that access to young
Canadians. As a government, along with the provincial
governments, we tried to make sure that the penalties imposed
on the people who were selling tobacco to minors were greatly
increased so that the risk of them being caught was also greatly
increased.
(1225 )
By doing that we addressed the concerns of Canadians toward
health and the easy access to cigarettes young Canadians were
getting. By bringing in this legislation we have proven we have
totally shut down the distribution system. We have made a
system whereby they do not have access to cigarettes.
I agree with the hon. member who spoke previously that this
has become a greater problem than just a tobacco problem, that
it has moved into other areas. You know, coming from the area,
Mr. Speaker, it has moved to alcohol, to guns.
If the hon. member would admit that a lot of what we have
done in this legislation, a lot of what we have committed to do in
other areas of enforcement, will take a big chunk out of the
underground economy also.
What we have tried to do in this legislation is twofold. We
have looked at the health of young Canadians. We have made
sure that access to tobacco for young Canadians is cut off. We
have addressed that health question. We have also made sure
that the smuggling situation which has ramifications far beyond
Canadians getting cheap cigarettes but has a lot to do with how
native Canadians view themselves.
As I have said in the House before, I have had a lot more
complaints from native Canadians, people of the Six Nations in
my riding, about the smuggling situation than I did from
non-natives. They recognized that the values being instilled by
the people running the smoke shops and running the smuggling
rings were not the values that their fathers and their forefathers
had tried to instil in them.
I want to say that I have had a large number of people within
the native community come to me and thank me for this bill and
thank the government for bringing in this legislation.
I wanted to address the issue that somehow we had all of a
sudden just reacted to the fact that we were not going to enforce
legislation on native reserves. I do not think that is true. To
suggest that smuggling was only taking place on Akwesasne is
to ignore the fact that cigarettes were coming through all kinds
of points across the country, including points in western Canada.
We have a very large open border. Unfortunately it is very
easy to drive truckloads of this stuff across at any given point.
We just do not have the sophistication or the numbers of people
to check every single truckload of stuff that comes across the
border. These smuggled cigarettes were coming in from every-
5640
where. To suggest that it was just a native problem is
misleading. It is suggesting something that is not the fact.
I will leave it at that. Mr. Speaker, I know that you have
worked very hard on this issue and I want to thank you for your
input. It was people who were dealing with it on the front lines,
like yourself, that helped shape this legislation and helped
create the solution to the problem that we solved.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the remarks that were made by my hon.
colleague across the floor.
I want to clarify something. We do not suggest that this has all
just begun. This problem has been building up. It would be
foolish to say it was only here since October 25. That is not what
we are saying. We are not saying that this plan will not combat
smuggling. Of course if you reduce the price and there is no
profit in it, there will not be any more smuggling. That is
common sense.
The hon. member made a statement that I would like him to
comment on. He said that the access to young Canadians is cut
off. I doubt whether that is so. I still see young people with
cigarettes in their mouths. I wonder how this plan is going to
effectively control the use of tobacco by young people. I do not
see anything here that is going to in any way guarantee that they
will not have free access to tobacco products and will not be
using them. If that access were limited we would not see many of
the young people at the present time smoking. I would like to
know what the hon. member sees as being positive in that
regard. I still do not see the problem of health being directly
addressed.
(1230)
What about the alcohol and guns that are now being
smuggled? What will the government do to address that
problem? The smuggling element is still there. They have
simply turned to another product to smuggle.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
questions. I will deal with the health question and with the
second question as well. I do not think, as is being espoused by
the Reform Party, that we have to militarize the Canada-U.S.
border and send tanks into Akwesasne to deal with the situation.
I do not think that is the solution.
I have always supported the idea that when we as a
government move into certain areas we consult with the local
communities involved. That is one thing we have done. We are
committed to consulting Canadians to try to resolve the problem
that way.
In terms of the health question access to illegal cigarettes was
far easier prior to the bill-before we dropped the taxes and
before we got rid of the smuggling-than it is today. Kids could
buy them in every school yard. Right now because of the
commitment of the government and the legislation the penalties
for those in corner stores who might consider doing it is a lot
greater. That is why the health question is addressed.
Young Canadians had access at any age. They did not have to
show an age or majority card to a smuggler to buy cigarettes.
They had that easy access in the school yard. They had it in every
city across the country. It was not just in Toronto. It was not just
in Montreal. It was also in downtown Calgary. Many parents
came to us from those areas and suggested that something
needed to be done. There was a problem. We took action on it
and we did something about it. It may not please everybody but
we saw a problem and we dealt with it.
In terms of dealing with the smuggling problem I agree, but
the guns and alcohol smuggling problem is not a problem
directly related to just reserves. It is a problem across the
country. We made commitments to deal with some of gun
control problems. The Minister of Justice said that we were
committed to putting more resources toward stopping the
smuggling of alcohol and guns. A lot of the problems in the
country in terms of gun control is the fact that many of these
guns are being used in crimes in major cities. They are not
bought legally but are smuggled across the border.
We have seen the problem. The government has committed
more resources, more time and more energy to resolving the
problem and bringing in solutions. That is the sensible approach
to dealing with the issue.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I have listened
to the debate and to the hon. member's comments. I would like
to make a short statement and ask him to respond to it. If
reducing or eliminating smuggling is simply the job of passing
laws and enforcing those laws, why was that not done to stop the
smuggling of cigarettes?
I asked the hon. justice minister during a meeting with him if
he would introduce stricter laws to prevent the smuggling of
guns into the country and how he was making out with the
cocaine and the drug problem. That is illegal in Canada as well.
Yet we can buy it anywhere in any of the major cities across the
country.
The smuggling problem is be eliminated by reducing taxes.
The children in the schools will now have the money to buy
cheaper cigarettes. We are creating an internal smuggling
problem. There will be people supplying cigarettes to kids in the
school yard.
(1235)
I would like him to comment on the principle that underlies
the whole area of smuggling and people seeking products that
the law has prohibited.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It is a
question that I continually asked the previous government.
Frankly it did not do a heck of a lot to solve it. However we have
taken the bull by the horns and are starting to address these
5641
issues. It is not simple. We cannot just bring in legislation and
all of a sudden think it will solve the problem.
As a government we have gone beyond the legislative
process. First and foremost we must work with Canadians on the
matter. We must work with local communities that are having
specific problems in terms of smuggling. We have increased the
enforcement aspect of it. We have put more police on it. We have
a large border. We have the largest undefended border in the
world. We have a particular problem in Canada to deal with. One
of the ways to deal with it is through enforcement.
Another way is to make sure that when laws are brought in and
criminals are convicted they get the punishment they deserve
and we do not bargain off their penalties for other things. That is
the commitment made by the government. We are not only
bringing in tougher laws. We will make sure the penalties for
people breaking those laws are in force, that they serve their
time and the penalties are not bargained off somehow.
That is not easy to do. Changes to our criminal justice system
cannot happen overnight. We are working on it. We will make
sure the criminals are told they should not be involved in this
type of activity.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address Bill
C-32.
The bill introduces amendments to the Excise Act, the Excise
Tax Act and the Income Tax Act for the purpose of combating
cigarette smuggling in Canada. The phrase combating cigarette
smuggling in Canada is a bit facetious. When we talk about
combating smuggling, an illegal act that involves breaking the
law, we would automatically assume we are talking about law
enforcement.
As we have clearly seen in this session of Parliament the
government opposite is not interested in talking about real law
enforcement. I would like to talk for 20 minutes on ways to
enforce the laws of the country, but unfortunately it would fall
on deaf ears on the other side of the House. Instead of talking
about law enforcement, which should have been the thrust of
combating the smuggling, I want to talk reluctantly about the
health crisis the bill will create.
As I look across the floor and hear the truce from this side of
the House it reminds me of a verse I learned in Sunday school. I
am not a biblical scholar, but it was something to the effect that
the devil shall flee from the truth. When I see the benches
opposite emptying as Reform Party members on this side speak
the truth about the bill, I am wondering whether my teacher did
not have some application in mind for today.
I am going to talk about the health consequences of the bill. I
would like to address my remarks to some specific areas of the
bill which I believe display the government's sheer callousness
when it concerns the health of Canadians. Specifically the bill
reduces federal tax on cigarettes. It makes cigarettes cheaper.
There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of right thinking
Canadians that lower prices on cigarettes creates more smokers.
That is undeniable no matter what the government opposite
says. In particular it encourages smoking.
(1240 )
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon.
member suggested our benches were empty on this side of the
House. He might look at his side of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I do not believe the
hon. member has a point of order. Certainly it might be a matter
of debate for another time and place.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to debate the truth
of how the country should be run with any member or members
opposite any time they want.
I believe the bill will create more smokers because of the
lower cost of cigarettes. In particular it will target and
encourage younger smokers, people who have never smoked
before, to begin to smoke because now the cost is so affordable.
All this will create a huge demand on the already strained health
care crisis in our country.
The government sought to battle smugglers at the expense of
the health of its citizens. There is no doubt about that in the bill.
It should have been looking at stricter ways to enforce the laws
against smuggling. That is where the answer lies. It is not in
trying to go into competition with the smugglers by selling
cheaper cigarettes than they can.
With the introduction of the bill the government simply
acquiesced to smugglers and is now trying to undercut their
pricing. This is a shameful way to deal with law breakers. The
government should be ashamed of itself. Without an attempt at
stricter enforcement the government has now entered into
competition with the smugglers. What a fine way to uphold the
criminal justice system in the country: go into competition with
smugglers.
I could give a few examples. If that is the way the government
is going to treat people who break the law, by going into
competition with them by offering a cheaper price, it could
really get carried away. I will not cite some of the instances we
talked about earlier.
No one disputes the fact we had a serious problem with
respect to contraband cigarettes. It was a big problem. In 1981, 1
in 176 packs of cigarettes were smuggled into Canada. By 1992
that number had risen to 1 in 6 packages. We had a problem.
5642
It is estimated that smuggling represented a yearly loss to
Canadian retailers of some $1.2 billion. The government should
have been looking into tougher laws and increased enforcement
of those laws rather than going into competition with the
smugglers. People looking at this action from afar would say
that the government was dealing with law breakers and would
expect that it would enforce the laws. However the government
lowered the price of cigarettes and went into competition with
them. Those people would have to scratch their heads and ask
what is going on down there.
The government talks about the cost of enforcing the law and
asks why the Reform Party is going off on tirades about
spending more money on law enforcement. As a matter of fact
the Reform Party has always advocated increased spending in
law enforcement areas. We have always advocated that and we
always will. The government would like to cut back and take a
more middle of the road approach or it is society's fault
approach to it. Canadians are demanding that we get tougher on
people who break the laws.
At present some provinces have chosen not to reduce any
provincial tax on cigarettes. What has happened? It has resulted
in the creation of smuggling within Canada. We have taken one
problem, smuggling between the U.S.A. and Canada, and have
created another. Now a package of cigarettes can be bought in
Ontario for about $2. They still cost $6 or $7 in B.C. This is sort
of free enterprise, but it is against the law and the government
created it with Bill C-32. The bill does nothing to stop
interprovincial cigarette smuggling.
(1245 )
It proposes that interprovincial smugglers will be susceptible
to a tax penalty of three times the excess tax avoided. This is
only a slap on the wrist. Interprovincial smugglers with this kind
of penalty are still making a fortune in what they are doing.
Such a penalty is of little significance to these people and
would impact little, if any, on the profit margins of smugglers
shipping cigarettes from Ontario or Quebec to western Canada. I
return to my previous point that the lack of resolve of this
government to enforce the laws of the land has led to a
government attempting to make its cigarette prices appear more
attractive than those of the smuggled cigarettes.
This strategy founded on the reduction of the tax on tobacco
will ultimately lead to an increase in the numbers of smokers in
Canada and a subsequent increase in the number of Canadians
hospitalized for smoking related illnesses.
Of particular concern to me are the number of adolescent
smokers who are going to be created as a result of the
implementation of the government strategy in this regard. Even
before the reduction of cigarette taxes, some studies have shown
that the number of teens taking up smoking is on the rise for a
number of reasons, peer pressure probably being one of the
biggest causes.
In 1991 statistics showed that 120,000 children and
adolescents began to smoke for the first time. With cigarettes
selling for $2 and some cents a package in the stores and being
available to adolescents, let us not be fooled about the corner
store penalties that this government is talking about.
If these adolescents want cigarettes, they will get them,
believe me. At $2 a package it makes it all the more attractive
for them to buy.
In 1994 the number of adolescents smoking for the first time
is going to rise dramatically. Despite the anti-smoking
advertising campaigns that the government has talked about,
this year the Minister of Health admitted in the House that the
government's anti-smoking advertisements targeted at
adolescents were not working.
Bill C-32 works in direct contradiction to the Tobacco Sales
to Young Persons Act which serves to protect the health of
young persons by restricting their access to tobacco in light of
the risks associated with the use of tobacco. What a contrast in
thought and deed.
On the one hand, the government is saying that it wants to
protect the health of young persons regarding the use of tobacco
and yet it lowers the price of cigarettes by taking the tax off and
making them around $2 a package. It is certainly a contrast.
With these new tax measures, young people will now have
greater access to tobacco products because of the cheaper price.
There is no doubt about that.
As well, in June 1993 the Department of Finance reported that
with respect to cigarettes teenagers are more sensitive to price
changes than adults. Further, in 1991 the Department of Health
began a program known as the national strategy to reduce
tobacco use.
This program started with the premise that tax on tobacco
products was a crucial element of reducing tobacco use. In other
words, the higher the price, the lower the use. It was a deterrent.
Here again, as we have seen the government's attitude toward
criminal justice and law enforcement, this government does not
know the meaning of deterrents. Why would it be likely to
understand the reasoning of this statement using tobacco tax as a
deterrent?
The Minister of Finance is moving a bill that would see the
reduction of taxes on cigarettes, a move that will dramatically
increase the number of teenage smokers in this country. This bill
promotes more smokers, particularly younger ones, and creates
substantial increases in health care costs for the future.
It is estimated that 38,000 Canadians die as a result of
smoking related diseases.
5643
(1250 )
To help offset the criticism of promoting tobacco by lowering
taxes the government has introduced this health promotion
surtax on tobacco manufacturers and it will raise about $185
million a year. It is supposed to go toward advertising to deter
adolescents from smoking. This is wonderful. It takes a billion
dollars off the cigarette taxes and encourages young people to
smoke because they are now more affordable and now it puts
$185 million back into combating the problem it is creating with
lowering the price of cigarettes.
Someone said in this House a few weeks ago that it is like
trying to bail out the Titanic with a teacup. This surtax will only
apply until 1997. What is it going to do then? Is it going to raise
the cigarette taxes back up and create the smuggling problem?
Through Bill C-32 the government promotes the use of highly
addictive substances and then as an afterthought creates a tiny
program to remove people's addiction to that substance.
It is interesting to note in the red book, the infamous red book,
in relation to health care the Liberals promised: ``Our approach
to problems in our country will be based on our values''. I
shudder to think that the values of the Liberals are demonstrated
in Bill C-32. If their values and their attitude toward health care
in this country are demonstrated in Bill C-32, this country is in
deep trouble. This is a sad commentary considering the
implication Bill C-32 will have on our already strained health
care system.
Even within my own riding there are examples of people
waiting months and years for needed operations. The health care
system has had cutbacks. What is going to happen with the
increase in tobacco related illnesses? It is going to swell the
lines of people waiting for health care and it is going to create an
even bigger backlog to our already strained health care system.
This will be the legacy of this government's action in
reducing tobacco taxes; the legacy of a health care system that is
going to be far worse than what we are experiencing currently.
This will be the legacy of Bill C-32 which this government is
trying to put through this House.
The government should have been looking for alternate ways
to curb the smuggling of cigarettes. We suggested, but obviously
the tobacco lobbyists got to the government first, why not a
higher export tax? Why not put on a $22 a carton export tax on
cigarettes and raise the price south of the border so they could
not be sold cheaper in Canada. No, the lobbyists for the tobacco
industry were at work and they got to the people in the
government who were making that decision.
An hon. member: At the very time the U.S. is trying to raise
taxes.
Mr. Harris: They could have got the $8 a carton. Big deal, $8
a carton. They take $20 off the price of a carton in Canada and
add $8 south of the border-such a deal, that really makes a huge
impact.
The U.S. was willing to co-operate with Canadians on this
one too but it ignored it. We know why it ignored it. I hope that
this new lobbying legislation is going to be effective because we
have just seen an example of what happens when lobbyists are
not controlled in this country. You can bet that the tobacco
lobbyists got to this government before it came up with Bill
C-32.
If it had imposed a larger export tax on cigarettes this would
have thwarted the ability of smugglers to buy the cigarettes at a
cheaper price south of the border, bring them back to Canada and
make a tonne of money on them. No, they would not do that.
They will not enforce the laws and they will not stand up to the
powerful lobbyists who support this party with their
influence-I was going to say money, but they would never
admit that.
Back in 1992 the government of the day did establish an
export tax but it was withdrawn a few months later because of
pressure brought to the previous government by the tobacco
lobbyists. I would like to meet some of these guys. They must be
awful big and walk with clubs because they have a lot of
influence on these people across here and they had a lot of
influence on the previous government. The magnitude of the
smuggling problem today I believe with a little more resolve the
government could have stood firm on such attacks. I welcome
the hon. member back to hear the truth.
(1255)
If the government had increased the export tax on cigarettes it
would have allowed us to maintain high taxes on tobacco
products, discouraging the increase in smoking and reducing the
possibility that our hospitals would become unworkable as those
with smoking related diseases clog the system.
In league with this strategy the government could also attempt
to convince the administration of the United States that higher
taxes are in the interest of Canadian and U.S. citizens when it
comes to tobacco products. Some of our contraband cigarettes
are American made. Higher U.S. taxes coupled with our own
export tax would present a significant deterrent to the smuggling
problem that confronted this government and which it failed
miserably on.
If this government is serious about its concerns over the
health care of Canadians it would not in any way be
implementing Bill C-32. It never would have come up with this.
That is evident because of the questioning we have had to the
health minister in the past who simply cannot give us any
answers about the future health care system. Why should we
expect that the government would be serious about health care
concerning Bill C-32?
5644
Studies have shown that lower prices mean more younger
smokers, more of the population affected by smoking related
diseases. It all adds up to increased health care costs which mean
increased taxes for Canadians in the future. It is the taxpayer of
this country who is going to have to pay for these increased
health care costs.
To a government that has said it would love to reduce taxes in
this country, if this is an example of it, again, this country is in a
lot of trouble and the Canadian taxpayer under this government
is going to see tax freedom day go from about June to three or
four weeks later by the time this government is through with its
term.
If this is how the government proposes to combat cigarette
smuggling, the Reform Party and I must defiantly oppose it.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I must say as respectfully as I can to the Chair that I
have never heard such nonsense.
It is absolutely shameful that a member would chose to make
statements such as the ones he has just made in opposition to
things that he knows or that he should know. He has indicated
today, as he said a few days ago in this House, that he was
advocating a military operation to patrol the border between
Canada and the United States and an invasion of Akwesasne, a
part of my riding.
Those were propositions that same member made last week. I
say to all other members of his party that when all of them
support the vote this member will take today, that is the
proposition they are following. That is exactly what they are
standing for like him.
I invite all of them who are reasonable-
Mr. Ramsay: Do not shout.
Mr. Boudria: The member may think I should shut up, but the
constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell where a lot of
this contraband is going on have asked me to be here. They
elected me.
No, I will not shut up, particularly on this issue while my
constituents are being shot at, while people like those I have just
heard are pontificating from afar. No, I will not shut up. I will
not stop defending the constituents of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I say to the member across, if he is advocating and it is the
Reform Party position that those who speak on behalf of their
constituents should shut up, I am glad to hear it on the record. It
will make for great stuff in the next election if that is the
position of the Reform Party.
I come back to the member's statement, he who is advocating
higher taxes. It is a radical position for the Reform Party, I must
say, but if he espouses that position I suppose it indicates that
there are free votes across the way. There will probably be a few
more who think otherwise. He said that some contraband
cigarettes were made in the United States. He also said that
increasing taxes in the United States at the same time as
increasing taxes in Canada would solve the problem.
(1300)
First, it takes two years to get a tax increase through the
United States Senate. I am sure the member knows that because
it was indicated last fall.
Second, does the member know that the cigarettes illegally
manufactured in the United States would not have been taxed to
start with because they were illegal? There was a 7 per cent and
growing penetration of counterfeit cigarettes. Those cigarettes
bore Canadian brand names and were made in warehouses, some
located in Canada, some in the United States, some in New York
state, some in southeast Asia and some in eastern Europe. If the
member paid any attention to what was said last week in this
House surely he would know that.
Does he not know that what he is saying today would not work
and that my constituents would have continued to be shot at by
thugs? Does he not care?
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, it appears the member opposite
wants to get into a shouting contest. I am for that if he wants to
do that. When I was talking about considering the military I was
talking about enforcing the law.
The member talks so piously about protecting his
constituents. That member's government has turned its back on
law enforcement. The RCMP clearly defined the areas of
smuggling to the government. Unfortunately those areas
happened to be primarily on reserve land on the border between
the U.S. and Canada, but this government has a hands off policy
for the reserves. If there is criminal activity anywhere in this
country it should be addressed to the full extent of the law.
Apparently this government has special areas where it does not
want to enforce the law. I wonder what the reason is for that.
The government says it does not have enough money to patrol
the areas of cigarette smuggling. That is the excuse it uses. It
says: ``You in the Reform Party are talking about spending
money for law enforcement''. We would be prepared to do that.
I suggested to the hon. member last week on the same subject
that if the government does not have enough money to put more
police officers in that area, then why not use the military? The
government is having a problem in defining the role for the
military. I was not talking about a military invasion. I was
talking about orderly patrol to stop smugglers from coming
across the border. There is a whole lot of difference between that
and sending in the tanks and the bazookas that the hon. member
is talking about. He tends to continue to blow things out of
proportion, but we can disseminate the verbiage coming from
the other side.
5645
I talked about higher export taxes on cigarettes. I support that.
I will stand by that proposition. I believe that instead of
lowering the taxes on cigarettes in Canada to combat smuggling
the government should have made the price of the product at the
source more expensive so there would not be such a huge profit
margin. I know the government could have received the
co-operation of the United States.
It all goes back to whether this government has any backbone
to enforce the laws that currently exist in Canada. The answer to
that is no. It has chosen a back door method which is going to
cause considerably more problems to Canada's health care
system, instead of standing up and enforcing the laws like it
should have. This government has no guts when it comes to
enforcing the law. We will not see it in the next four years no
matter what the justice minister says. This is evidence of what is
to come.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I too
am somewhat amazed that the Reform Party is supporting high
taxes.
Mr. Boudria: And military invasions of Indian reserves.
Mr. Speller: And military invasions, whatever. However, I
want to say to the hon. member who talks about enforcement of
laws, before he came out with his proposal I am wondering
whether or not he talked to the RCMP to see how feasible it was.
(1305 )
We did and the RCMP told us that this problem had grown so
far out of proportion and had become so big that a million people
could have been put out there to enforce it and the problem still
would not have been resolved.
In fact we had to go beyond that. We took the common sense
approach and attacked it from both ends. We said we were going
to have to do more enforcement. We were going to have to make
sure the penalties were increased. We were going to have to nip
it in the bud and make sure the incentive to smuggle was not
there. That is why we dropped the taxes.
In terms of lobbyists and the export tax I am surprised the
Reform Party would support an export tax. All an export tax
does is export Canadian jobs to the United States. That is very
clear and that is why the Tories in the last government got rid of
that export tax. They realized it would just export jobs to the
United States taken by itself.
The lobbyists he talks about who lobbied against it were the
Canadian farmers. They were the farmers. They were the people
of the soil who came to government through me and lobbied very
strongly against that aspect. They were the ones who lobbied
very strongly for this tax decrease. They won that battle, not
because they had high paid lobbyists on their behalf but because
they had members of Parliament who listened to their concerns.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will try to settle down a little bit
here. This member has such a nice tone to his voice I cannot see
any point in arguing with him.
I would like to point out that his statement about the cigarette
smuggling was so far out of proportion it was almost impossible
to control. I would like to humbly suggest that if this
government had reacted when cigarette smuggling was in its
infancy and the problem was much smaller, we would not have
had a problem that was so far out of proportion.
The present government will say it started in the previous
government. Undoubtedly it did and the previous government
failed to address it as well. But when this government took over
in October, the problem was not as large as it was later on in the
season. The government had the opportunity back then when it
first took over. It knew about the problem and could have done
something then. It did not and the problem grew. What does it
do? It goes into competition with the cigarette smugglers trying
to put them out of business. That is not the way to run a railroad
or a country.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to add a few words to this very important debate.
I am going to be speaking in opposition to the bill specifically
to that part which deals with the excise tax on cigarettes. This is
an omnibus bill. It includes quite a number of other issues most
of which make sense and if they were separated I would support.
I do have to acknowledge at the beginning of my dissertation
that the Liberal government of the day did not start this mess,
they inherited it. My objection is how they handled the mess
they inherited. We acknowledge the fact it was the Conservative
government that did not have the backbone to deal with the
problem when it was a small one so it became a big problem.
This extremely difficult problem was exacerbated by the fact
that day after day Bloc Quebecois members would stand in this
House and deride the government for doing nothing about this,
all the while raising the temperature of the whole debate. This
put it on the front pages of every newspaper and raised the ante,
forcing the government hand to react. It had to do something. On
balance the necessity to do something caused the government to
come up with half a loaf.
The Conservative government when confronted with this
dilemma said it would put an export tax on a carton of cigarettes,
thereby taking the profit out of smuggling. It put an export tax
on of about $8 a carton. Shortly after that the tobacco industry
told the government that if it did not remove the export tax the
industry would export itself south of the border. Canadian
producers would lose their jobs and Canadian manufacturing
workers would lose their jobs. The net result would be net, net,
net losses to Canada.
5646
(1310)
The Conservative government of the day said to the tobacco
industry: ``You have been pretty responsible in everything you
have done to date so we will take you at your word. We will
reduce the tax. We will take it off and we will expect you to be
self-policing''. What a brainwave that was. It showed once
again how brain dead the Conservatives were. The net result was
that tobacco smuggling took on unprecedented proportions as
the price of cigarettes went up.
There are products which have nothing to do with cigarettes
that we in Canada pay a particularly high price for. Milk, eggs,
cheese, butter, and chickens: All of these products are protected
by marketing boards. As a result, Canadians pay a higher price
than the Americans for these products. What do you suppose
would happen if we started selling chickens out of the back of a
truck in a shopping mall? Within about 30 seconds we would be
in the hoosegow.
What is the difference between selling chickens we are paying
too much for, or selling eggs we are paying too much for, or
cheese, or butter, and selling cigarettes? The difference is that
the cigarettes were coming through a reserve. There had been a
very tense and difficult time a few years earlier in that same
area. No one wanted to ruffle any feathers. Therefore the laws of
Canada were not enforced.
The situation is that a noxious product which is highly
addictive, and most addictive to young people, is made far more
affordable to the very people most susceptible to the noxious
aspects of the product.
There is a direct correlation between price and consumption.
It is called price elasticity. It is a fact of life in marketing that is
well known and well documented the world over: the lower the
price, the higher the consumption; the higher the price, the
lower the consumption. That is an irrefutable, indisputable fact.
What do we accomplish if we lower the price of this noxious
weed by half? We make it far more affordable, far more usable
by the very people we do not want to become addicted.
I would like to quote some information from the Canadian
Cancer Society. It has gleaned these statistics from Statistics
Canada. Speaking to the issue of tobacco taxes and
consumption: ``The retail price of tobacco increased
dramatically in the 1980s as federal and provincial governments
increased tobacco tax rates. This led to an unprecedented
decline in consumption, even factoring in contraband sales''.
As an indication of exactly what happened from about 1980 to
1992, in 1980 the per capita consumption of cigarettes in Canada
was 2,900 cigarettes. In 1992, as a direct result of increased cost
and even factoring in the sale of contraband cigarettes, the
consumption was down to 1,500 cigarettes per capita, almost
half. It was a reduction of almost 50 per cent.
(1315 )
What led to this? There were other things which we will get to
that led to this. The primary reason was because cigarettes were
pricing themselves out of the market as a direct result of the
taxes imposed by governments for the specific purpose of
reducing consumption. The decline was even more dramatic
among teenagers. Between 1979 and 1991 the percentage of
Canadians aged 15 to 19 who reported they were smokers
declined from 46.5 per cent to 22 per cent, more than a 50 per
cent reduction in the number of teenagers who smoked.
The federal government acknowledges the effect taxation can
have on smoking among youth. Then finance minister Michael
Wilson stated in his 1991 budget that studies show tobacco taxes
are particularly important in discouraging younger Canadians
from smoking. As a result of the tax increases included over
those years, it is estimated that there will be 100,000 fewer
teenaged smokers as a result.
We do not even know what the cumulative effect is of this
reduction of cigarette smoking at the teenage years, but just
imagine what it is later in life. Because it is a statistically proven
fact that where you have a home where both parents or one
parent smokes, the incidence of children smoking is
significantly higher. We have a cumulative effect of the
reduction of people smoking, particularly adults and teenagers.
Clearly tobacco tax increases in and of themselves are not the
only reason for the reduction in consumption. The ban on
tobacco advertising, improved health warnings on cigarette
packages, public education and the increased restriction of
smoking in workplaces and public places have all contributed to
the decline. The measures act synergistically, together.
If you remove the single most important impediment to
cigarette smoking, price, what does it do to all the rest of them?
Then you come in and say: ``My goodness, what are we going to
do? Let us go to plain packaging on cigarettes''.
Plain packaging on cigarettes is not going to hurt, it is going
to help in preventing cigarette companies being able to market
and merchandise their product. When you decrease the price that
much everything else that we do is just whistling in the wind. If
we as a nation have decided that to reduce smoking, particularly
among the young, is an important national objective, then we
must pursue that at all costs. Those tobacco farmers who are
impacted by that must accept the fact that the industry is
changing and that we will require fewer tobacco farmers in the
5647
future. To my knowledge, the industry was very much aware of
that and many tobacco farmers were converting to other crops.
Just because we have people in Canada manufacturing a
product which is known to cause almost 40,000 deaths per year
due to lung cancer, more than the combined deaths of AIDS,
traffic accidents, suicides and everything else put together, why
should we put the concerns of those farmers who know the
writing is on the wall ahead of the health of the country as a
whole?
The government is talking about imposing gun controls on the
nation, little realizing that every time someone puts a cigarette
in their mouth they are playing Russian roulette with their lives
and the lives of everyone around them through secondhand
noxious smoke. There is a hypocrisy here.
This essentially is a law and order issue. If we accept the
rationale that because we have lawlessness we must therefore
reduce the impediment for Canadians to obey the law, if it is
non-enforceable then change the law, then maybe we could
carry the same logic to removing speed limits. Then we would
not have anybody breaking the law by speeding.
(1320)
If the law is wrong, then it either should not have been written
in the first place or it needs to be changed so that Canadians do
not feel a sense of dislocation with the law makers who actually
promulgate the laws in the first place. If we as law makers
promulgate laws that will not be adhered to or are afraid to
enforce laws that are on the books, that brings the very notion of
law abiding citizens and the responsibility for obeying the law
into disrepute. One leads to another.
We wonder why we have lawlessness in our society. We
wonder why we have a rash of the perception and the reality of
lawlessness in our young people. If we as law makers do not set
the example by saying: ``Look, this is the law. We are all going
to obey it. It is the same law for everyone, no matter who you are
and where you live in the country'', why should anyone obey the
laws except those laws that they agree with?
As I bring this to a conclusion, I would like to make a couple
of suggestions. We in Canada might consider the experience of
Italy which had a problem similar to ours. If I may I will read
this: ``The Canadian government might be wise to copycat the
Italian example to deal with smuggling. In Italy to prevent
tobacco companies from selling cigarettes to the contraband
market the government threatened to suspend all legitimate
sales of the brand particular to that company until the illegal
tobacco products were no longer being sold to the contraband
market''.
That is coming down hard on those very tobacco producers
who said that they were going to be self-policing. We could do
the same thing and give them another nudge. This would
effectively deal with the contraband problem and would not in
any way conflict with the charter or with any of our trade
agreements.
The government is in a very difficult position on this bill,
between a rock and a hard place. It was confronted with the
problem of the lawlessness that was going on when it took
office. It was compounded by the antics of the Bloc in raising the
issue to a fever pitch and by the support of people in government
to those who are breaking the law by selling contraband
cigarettes or turning a blind eye.
It had to be dealt with before it got totally out of hand. To give
credit where credit is due, it did deal with it. Now the problem is
going to be what will this government do to pick up the pieces.
Will this government by the end of its mandate return tobacco
taxes to their original level whether as excise or however it does
it? Will this government when that time occurs ensure that those
who would sell contraband tobacco and break the laws of
Canada no matter where they live would be punished? When this
occasion arises with this product or with any other illegal
contraband product, will the government turn a blind eye? Will
it have an ostrich attitude and pretend the problem does not exist
until it becomes a problem that cannot be handled by enforcing
the law and therefore change the law in order to accommodate
lawlessness, the law breakers and the tobacco companies? That
is where the shame lies in this law.
(1325 )
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I
took interest in the hon. member's statements on this issue. I
thank the hon. member for his statements. They were very
interesting. I will make sure that my constituents, the farmers in
my area, hear those statements because I think it is important for
them to know where the Reform Party stands on this issue.
I am somewhat concerned about the fact that the Reform Party
is saying that this government should not listen to tobacco
farmers because they are producing a product that the Reform
Party does not like.
I will go back and give a little history on this. I know hon.
members across will be interested in this. These farmers got into
this a number of years ago actually because of the support of
government. The government encouraged them to go into these
lands and grow tobacco. Many of these farmers have been there
for generations. It is not easy just picking up and moving to
another commodity, moving into another group.
One may be able to do that in western Canada but their critic
for agriculture would realize that it takes a big cost just
changing from one commodity to another. We just cannot turn
tobacco farmers into another type of farmer. These farms are on
average about 85 acre farms. Yes, some of them have
diversified. Some of them have gone into ginseng, horticulture
crops and some other crops. In fact over the last 10 years we
have seen half of the farmers go, but a lot of them could not do
that. They ended up on unemployment lines or welfare because
there are not a lot of alternatives. One cannot turn an 85 acre
farm into
5648
just another thriving farm. The alternatives just are not there.
There are not a lot of other crops frankly that can grow in those
areas other than tobacco and certain crops. They were
encouraged to go into other crops. In fact those markets flooded.
There was not a lot of opportunity to sell the produce that they
had worked so hard for.
These families have been there, as I said, for generations and
do not know how to farm in a lot of other areas. It is not easy to
do it. Governments in the past have tried but frankly they have
failed in a lot of different areas. We have seen a lot of the
pressures that many families have. We have seen a very dramatic
increase in suicides in my area because the troubles have been
very difficult for tobacco farmers. We just cannot say that on
two points they can all of a sudden move into other areas
because the opportunities are not there.
We cannot say that governments should not listen seriously to
the concerns of these farmers because first and foremost the
government encouraged them to get in there and, second, they
are human beings and Canadians and people and they should be
listened to.
The hon. member talked about Italy. I know that came from
one of the anti-smoking groups. It put something like that out. It
is a little different here. The licences under which tobacco
companies manufacture are not Canadian. They are
international. They can easily take that Virginia flue cured
tobacco, grow that same tobacco in the United States and easily
export those manufactured cigarettes to Canada. There are no
trade rules in the world that a country could bring in to stop that.
It is a very, very easy process for them to take their business
south, leaving Canada. Who would lose? The thousands and
thousands of Canadian people who work in that industry and the
Canadian tobacco producers, the 1,200 families in those
communities, help support small town and rural southwestern
Ontario and in other parts of this country. It is not that easy to do
that. It is just not easy to say: ``Okay, there is a solution in Italy
and they solved it''. It is a lot more complex than the member
suggests.
(1330 )
There was a problem, it existed and I thank the hon. member
for outlining that but we had to do something about it. There was
not any easy solution. As the hon. member knows, sometimes
before you get elected when you run through campaigns you
have all the answers but when you get in here and you face the
realities of governing and you face the realities of trying to solve
some of these complex problems, trying to deal with the
complexities of this country and the different interests involved,
and at the same time trying to listen to Canadians and trying to
make sure that what you are doing represents their views, it is
not always easy.
We saw a problem. We wanted to make sure that smuggling
problem stopped, that the whole underground economy came
under control because we felt that was a serious problem and we
felt that the only way to do it was to bring in legislation like this
and to take a multi-faceted approach to the problem. There is
not one solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker, as you know,
coming from the area that you do. You have dealt with this
problem over the years. The problem did not start on October 26.
The problem was there for a number of years. We knew about it.
We worked on it and I thought we reacted pretty quickly toward
solving the problem.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
observations from across the aisle.
I do acknowledge how difficult it is for a farmer or for anyone
else for that matter when they see their livelihood changing in
front of their eyes and they have to retool their lives in order to
accommodate changing circumstances.
This does not happen exclusively in the agricultural industry.
It happens all across the nation. It has happened in Ontario
particularly over these last four or five years as all aspects of
Canadian manufacturing, particularly that in Ontario, have been
struggling to retool over these last few years. We find that as we
go down the path of life sometimes the road changes, the path
changes, and we have to change with it.
The hon. member mentioned that over 50 per cent of the
people previously engaged in farming, tobacco farming, are no
longer doing so because they recognize that this is an industry at
least in Canada that has a sunset. Smoking is less and less
socially acceptable and it will eventually be banned virtually
everywhere except outside because people who are the victims
of cigarette smoking, the unintended victims through second
hand smoke, will not tolerate it anymore. You cannot for
instance smoke in the precincts of Parliament Hill or any federal
government building.
The Alberta government has legislation before it today to ban
smoking in any public place, including the workplace. If you are
in California you can hardly even smoke outside which begs the
question why on earth are we so upset about the noxious fumes
from car exhaust when we are walking around inhaling them?
I recognize my hon. colleague's concern for his constituents
or any farmer, particularly the tobacco farmers who are living
with the imminent demise of their industry. Make no mistake, it
may not happen this year, it may not happen next year, but it will
happen. These people are going to have to convert their
livelihood. It is no longer socially acceptable in Canada to
smoke.
5649
If I were a banker I would not spend a whole lot of time
figuring out a loan to allow anybody to get into the tobacco
business even given this setback to the anti-smoking people in
Canada.
I do recognize how difficult it is for those who are faced with
the imminent change in their lives driven by this and it is a
generational thing.
To my hon. colleague, I am cognizant of the problems he
raises and I have sympathy for the people who must make those
life decisions as farmers. They are decisions they must face and
they must be prepared to make them.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, I stand before you in a very grave fashion to speak on
Bill C-32, the act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act
and the Income Tax Act.
(1335 )
This reduction in taxes to cigarettes is the single most
disastrous act of sabotage to the health of the Canadian people
which has ever been enacted by any government in the history of
this country. This is not an understatement. Smoking kills at
least 26,000 individuals per year.
The lowering of taxes committed thousands of youth in this
country to smoke per year, ones who would not normally do that,
and results in a dramatic increase in consumption.
I have some data that just came out from the Addiction
Research Foundation. There was, as has been said before, a long
term decline in tobacco use but this stopped in 1994. Smoking in
Ontario increased in the few short months that the tobacco taxes
have decreased from 22 per cent to 26 per cent.
Among women that increase is particularly dramatic. It has
gone from 19 per cent to 25 per cent in the last four months. A 10
per cent decrease in cost results in a 14 per cent increase in
consumption particularly among the youth and an 8 per cent
increase in consumption among the rest of the adult population.
Some say that this decline in tobacco taxes has resulted in at
least 800,000 new smokers in this country, of whom 175,000 are
youth. These numbers translate on a personal basis to disasters
that I cannot tell members enough about. They result in often
fatal diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease and a myriad of
other malignancies.
They result in lives lost and the untold pain and suffering by
people who are afflicted by these diseases and also to the
families and friends of the loved ones who unfortunately
succumb to these diseases.
To put it in more impersonal terms, the decrease in tobacco
consumption will cause a decrease in gross domestic product
and increase in medical costs. Nobody has ever been able to
show us the increase in costs that is going to result from the
decline in tobacco taxes.
I can tell members from working as a health care professional
that the cost to our system is in the billions of dollars. In 1982
the cost of tobacco consumption in this country was $7 billion,
or $2 billion more than the total expenditures on tobacco
including the taxes.
A decrease in consumption would decrease revenues from
tobacco taxes, this is true, but it will greatly decrease the cost to
the taxpayers of this country by decreasing health costs and also
to avoid the loss in gross domestic product from job losses and a
decrease in losses from fires caused by smoking.
The original idea to decrease tobacco taxes came as a
response to the rampant tobacco smuggling that was occurring
between Canada and the United States. I sympathize with the
government completely on this issue.
This is occurring especially in central Canada, particularly in
the three native reserves, the Kahnawake, Kanesatake and
Akwesasne reserves that straddle the border. The decrease in
tobacco taxes was also strongly supported and promoted by none
other than the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association.
To give an idea of the scope of this problem, at the height of
tobacco smuggling there were 35 cartons of cigarettes smuggled
into the reserves per person per day, which is an incredible
problem.
The natives claim-I do not have any disagreement with this
whatsoever-that they have an inherent right to trade across
their border. I would not dispute this at all, certainly for their
own needs. However, when that trade involves the distribution
of a commodity to the rest of Canada which by-passes the laws,
results in smuggling and results in the death of Canadians all
over this country, native and non-native, I have a big problem
with that.
I have no sympathy at all for the people who are involved in it.
I believe that this criminal conduct should be dealt with with the
full force of the law as it must be dealt with in any part of this
country. There has been a great reluctance to deal with this issue
head on.
A fear of confrontation permeates the whole situation as much
of this activity is with organized crime. Illegal weapons are
rampant in the whole situation. I know that this is a dangerous
situation but it is also an illegal one. Like it or not, as a cancer in
our midst that needs to be eradicated on behalf of all
law-abiding citizens in this country, native and non-native
alike, we have to deal with this situation and deal with it now.
(1340 )
Now that we have defined the problem of rampant smuggling
of tobacco products into Canada from the United States, let us
look at some constructive solutions that would obviate the need
to lower tobacco taxes.
I believe the first and foremost solution which has been
proven to work is the export tax. I applaud the government in
5650
instituting its export tax. In February 1992 the then government
instituted a tobacco export tax of $8. In six weeks it reduced
smuggling by 70 per cent. However, under pressure from the
tobacco manufacturers, the government of the day caved in and
removed it. I applaud this government again for instituting this
tax.
I also applaud the investment in education but I would caution
this government to spend its money wisely. It is not worthwhile
investing money in 30 and 40-year olds who are addicted to
tobacco to stop smoking. I would start at the ages of 6, 7 and 8,
and please utilize your money carefully in that age group. It will
pay off in spades in the long run.
Also, if you are going to institute education in teenagers,
which must be done, do not tell them that they are going to get
lung cancer 20 years down the road, do not show them a bunch of
nerdy teenagers who look like they jumped out of a Rosedale
high school playing basketball and turning into cigarettes. Tell
them that it will affect their looks, address their vanity, address
narcissism, address them on a personal basis. That is the way to
address education in teenagers.
Getting back to the enforcement aspect, we must not accept a
double standard of law enforcement in Canada, one for natives
and one for non-natives. The problem of tobacco smuggling is
one that extends far beyond the immediate problem of cigarettes
but, as I said before, involves organized crime, the illegal
smuggling of drugs, weapons and liquor. It is something that
affects not only the reserves but also the rest of Canada. It is
everybody's responsibility. Also, it does not serve the
law-abiding citizens who live on the reserves. Nobody is
addressing that problem at all, nobody is speaking out for them.
It is an affront to the citizens of this country and the people on
the reserves this affects. We must provide our enforcement
officers with the equipment and training to deal with this
problem expeditiously, at any cost. Law is law, you either have it
or you do not.
I would also ensure that we have an increase in the penalties
for smuggling. Again, I applaud the government in its efforts
toward this end. I also urge the judiciary to enforce these laws
that have been brought in by the government to the fullest of its
abilities.
As I said before, I strongly implore the government to bring
the tobacco taxes back where they were prior to February 8. I
instituted private member's motion 295 that has been selected,
requesting that tobacco taxes be where they were and bring them
back to pre-February 8, 1994 levels.
It is interesting to reflect right now on what is happening in
the United States. It has instituted taxes and made changes to
make it such that tobacco and cigarettes in Canada are now
cheaper than in the United States, in Ontario and in Quebec.
I would ask everybody in this House to please reflect carefully
on this bill. I ask them to look at their children and look at their
grandchildren and think of the tens of thousands of children who
are going to be subjected to starting up smoking and who are
going to suffer the pain and death of them and their loved ones
by taking up this horrible habit.
This bill is reprehensible and we have alternative solutions.
We have alternative solutions to address the smuggling issue
that are effective, and so there is no need whatsoever for this
government to lower the taxes on tobacco.
Bring in these other issues, enforce them to the fullest ability
and do not drop the tobacco taxes.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, a
short intervention because I was not quite clear on something.
The hon. member came forward with some figures in terms of
sales of cigarettes. I think he suggested that smoking was up in
the past four months and I am wondering if that was based on
sales. It is hard to determine, especially in the smuggling area,
actually how many cigarettes people are smoking because they
were buying them illegally. We can determine what was being
sold either through the retail sector or we can just take a survey
and say: ``Are you smoking, did you smoke today, did you
smoke yesterday, did you smoke a year ago?''. That is important
because government figures show that production is down and
for the companies producing cigarettes the number of products
they are producing since this bill came into effect is down.
Government figures also suggest that it is down. People are not
buying as many cigarettes. The numbers are down.
(1345)
I wonder how that juxtaposes with what the hon. member said
about his figures saying more people are smoking. The figures
just do not show that.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his question. It brings up some good
points.
There are two things. First, consumption globally is up. I do
not know what statistics the hon. member is looking at but I
would be more than happy to speak with him privately to see
what he has. The figures I have show the exact opposite. Global
consumption is up, particularly in youth. Youth consumption is
up dramatically.
As I said before, in terms of youth smoking it is not plain
packaging that is the important issue. Cost is the single most
important determining factor in consumption in youth. It affects
how much they smoke and it affects even how many of them are
going to start to smoke.
Again, if it is cost we are looking at as the single most
important determining factor, it is unthinkable, reprehensible,
immoral and unjustifiable for the House to pass a bill that will
lower tobacco costs to children and commit tens of thousands of
5651
them to take up this habit which will ultimately result in a
decline in their age, an increase in their mortality and morbidity.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I have been
interested in listening to this debate. As the House has heard
there is actually a small debate even within the Reform caucus,
as I would suspect there might be within the Liberal caucus and
for that matter the BQ.
I find myself to be in a very ambivalent position on this one. It
is very difficult. I am looking forward to my colleague being
able to assist me with the concept. I suggest we ended up with
the taxes as a result of the fact that they were called sin taxes and
were on a commodity that people wanted to consume. Therefore
for the longest period of time consecutive governments saw it as
being a revenue source. After all that is what taxation is. They
kept on adding and adding taxes to this particular commodity.
As a result we ended up with the situation that we have all
acknowledged, the smuggling problem.
When the whole issue was being looked at we also discovered
the connection that my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
has so ably put forward. We discovered the connection between
price and the fact that if the price goes down, then we are
undoubtedly going to end up with higher consumption. It is only
a straight case of the law of supply and demand.
I have to respect my Reform Party colleague because after all
he is a medical practitioner and has seen the results of cancer
and other respiratory diseases with respect to this particular
product. Undoubtedly I have every respect in the world for the
emotion that he brings to this question.
Is it right, is it fair, is it proper to be trying to legislate
people's behaviour on the basis of taxation? Is taxation not
really a source of revenue and are we not mixing up principles
here in trying to legislate people's behaviour by increasing a
revenue source? It does not seem like quite a match there.
Perhaps my colleague could help me.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): I thank the hon.
member for his question. It brings up a very important
philosophical question that has been discussed at length
privately.
(1350 )
I do not believe Parliament should legislate the behaviour of
an adult population. However, we are dealing with legislation
that is going to affect children more than anyone else, children
who do not have the objectiveness and experience that adults
have.
Also, the product that we are talking about is something that is
going to affect them in a horrible, detrimental fashion, as my
hon. colleague just mentioned a few moments ago. It is going to
kill them. It is going to affect them in horrible ways, in diseases
and in morbidity.
Smoking tobacco, a deadly product, is exempt from that
because we are dealing with children, as I said before, who
cannot make necessarily an objective decision for themselves.
The cost is also another issue. We lose revenues by bringing the
tobacco costs down. However, on the other hand, the cost to
society globally is also very much increased in terms of health
costs, fires and loss to gross domestic product.
When people take up cigarette smoking it is not something
that only affects them individually. The consequences of their
behaviour is something that is borne out by all of us collectively
as a society. As a result of that I do think we have a say in the
matter as a society and as a House.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I am here
today to address Bill C-32, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act
and the Income Tax Act. I will concentrate on the section of Bill
C-32 proposing a reduction in tobacco taxes and outline my
reasons for opposing this legislation.
There are some other aspects of this bill which I can support
and which some Reformers certainly support, but my colleagues
have and will continue to touch on these areas and I will leave it
to them.
Late June of this year has been declared tax freedom day by
the Fraser Institute. From that day forward Canadians will be
working for themselves instead of for government. We can all
agree that the tax burden on Canadians is too high and I believe
that all Canadians are looking for tax relief. However, I question
whether Bill C-32 is the way to lower taxes for Canadians.
As a Reformer I want taxes reduced. I want taxes reduced for
all Canadians and not just for a select group which is what the
effect will be of this bill. I do not think you could find many
other pieces of legislation that propose tax reductions, possibly
none, that I as a Reformer would not support. However, Bill
C-32, in spite of calling for a reduction in taxes, has hit at the
very last place that taxes should be reduced.
I would like to talk about the problems with this legislation
and later I will talk about, in the Reform tradition, some possible
solutions that are better than this legislation.
This legislation has been introduced in an effort to control the
problem of smuggling, not with the intention of easing the tax
burden. The government refused to control the smuggling
problem, particularly in the areas of eastern Ontario and across
the U.S.-Quebec border on native reserves. My colleagues have
talked about the lack of action on the part of the government in
dealing with smuggling across the U.S.-Canada border in the
area of certain reserves.
5652
(1355 )
The criminal element of Canada has been allowed to get away
with its crime of smuggling because the government is afraid to
intervene in any meaningful way. This is wrong. Lowering
tobacco taxes may reduce smuggling from the United States and
may reduce the smuggling of cigarettes. Smugglers will just
turn their efforts to smuggling other commodities.
I would like the government to think about this. If smugglers
are limited by this change in smuggling cigarettes-it will
possibly have that effect-then what of smuggling liquor, a
similar commodity with a high sin tax? What about smuggling
narcotics, guns? What action will the government take next
when smuggling liquor becomes a major problem, when liquor
is being smuggled across the U.S.-Canada border? What action
will the government take?
I ask that question and I would certainly hope that members of
the governing party will think about it and will answer it for
themselves. If this legislation passes, we will certainly all be
having to answer this question and not too far down the road.
How are we going to deal with the problem of smuggling
alcohol? What of narcotics and guns?
We already know to some extent the attitude that the
government has in dealing with guns. It is not a healthy
approach. It is not the direct approach that we would all like but I
will talk about that briefly later when connecting it to this issue.
This legislation does not in any way solve the smuggling
problem nor does it set a precedent to deal with any future
problems should they arise. If it does set a precedent, then I am
more concerned than I am now. If the precedent the government
has set in dealing with future smuggling problems is to lower the
tax and do anything but deal with that problem head on, then it is
a bad precedent. That is another reason we oppose this
legislation. Once again, it is an example of government dodging
its responsibility.
Bill C-32 will encourage young people to smoke because it
makes tobacco products more affordable to them. This is
irrefutable and my colleagues and others have talked about this
already. It is very clear that the anti-smoking campaign aimed at
young smokers has not worked. It has been ineffective. Now that
cigarettes have become more affordable, many young people
will be taking up smoking.
I would like to relate an experience to the House. I was around
12 years old when my bother and I obtained cigarettes.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Benoit: I know it is a shame. We went out behind the calf
pens. We used to buy these Holstein calves and at chore time,
after feeding these calves and dealing with the cows, we would
go out there and sneak cigarettes.
I believe the only thing that stopped my brother and me from
smoking and from getting caught up in this terrible habit was the
cost factor. It was the cost factor that stopped my brother and me
from pursuing this terrible habit.
This legislation therefore will be totally ineffective and by
lowering the cost of cigarettes to everyone right across the
country it will increase the problem of young people smoking.
In a study examining the effects of the reduction of tobacco
taxes in Canada-
The Speaker: The hon. member will of course have the floor
when we resume debate on this bill. It being 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements
by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
5652
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, Edward George McCullough passed away peacefully
on June 17, 1994 at his Cannington Lake home with his wife
Madge by his side.
Ed was born in 1909 in Moose Jaw and grew up and farmed at
Ponteix where his parents homesteaded. He and Madge moved
to their farm in the Moose Mountains during the 1930s. He
farmed there for the rest of his life, enjoying in his words ``the
most beautiful spot in the world''.
He was keenly interested in politics and served as a CCF
member of Parliament for the Souris-Cannington constituency
during the 1940s and 1950s. He had a busy and fulfilling life. He
was involved in the co-operative movement, the wheat pool and
community affairs.
His family and friends were very important to him. He will be
remembered kindly by all who knew him. A great Canadian who
contributed greatly to his country, we remember Edward George
McCullough.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, June 24 is fast
approaching and I would like at this time to extend my best
wishes to all Quebecers on their national holiday.
5653
Over 700 events are scheduled this year for all regions of
Quebec. The theme of Quebec's national holiday is ``Quand 7
millions de gens'' which reflects the fact that this day is for all
Quebecers, regardless of their origin.
This theme is also indicative of Quebecers' collective ability
to take their future into their own hands.
It should also be noted that June 24 is celebrated by all of
Canada's francophones. This day provides them with an
opportunity to express their pride in their francophone roots and
to show their commitment to preserving their heritage.
May everyone enjoy themselves on June 24.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize an important group in our society, a group which often
gets overlooked: single parents. Each of us in this House
undoubtedly knows at least one single parent. Indeed, some of
us are single parents.
Of all the diverse households in Canada, single parents
represent 13 per cent of Canada's families. To me they are much
more than a simple number on a statistical chart. As parents they
play a crucial role in our society. As single parents their job of
raising children is made doubly hard. Not only must they nurture
and care for their children in an emotional sense, they must also
bear the responsibility of supporting their families financially.
Today I would like to recognize one particular single mother
who has accomplished both tasks. When my niece became a
single mother she decided she was going to take responsibility
for her child. As hard as it was, she found a job and is raising her
child to be a responsible young person, active in sports and
school. She receives moral support from her immediate and
extended family but still values her independence.
I would like to commend her and other single parents today.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, Laughing Does
Matter is an interest group of professionals and volunteers who
promote the benefits of laughter in all walks of life.
Thanks to the efforts of Irene Martin and the late Marjorie
Mann, June 21 has been declared Laughter Day in
Ottawa-Carleton. They are encouraging Parliament to
proclaim this date as National Laughter Day.
Laughter tends to bring us together as a community and as a
country. Laughter serves as a valuable coping mechanism and
has many physical, psychological and social benefits.
Sometimes Canadians need a shot in the arm to help them deal
with the realities and uncertainties of job loss, high
unemployment or just making ends meet. It is a well-known fact
in the health care field that laughter helps dissipate fears,
frustrations and anger. It helps people regain the health and
energy they need to keep on fighting.
I invite Canadians from coast to coast and my colleagues in
the House of Commons to join us in celebrating Laughter Day.
Let us all have a good laugh today.
* * *
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
am rising today in support of the bid by the 1999 Pan-American
Bid Committee in Winnipeg to host the 1999 Pan-American
Games.
Since Winnipeg was chosen as the Canadian bid city for the
1999 Pan-Am Games the government of Canada and its
partners, the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg,
have supported the bid both technically and financially. There
has been tremendous community support for the hard working
committee. This will ensure the setting of a standard of
excellence and a very high profile for the Pan-Am Games both
in Canada and abroad.
In this bid Winnipeg has also pledged to strive for new heights
of excellence in sports and culture while forging a new spirit of
international understanding helping to ensure a bright future for
the games.
I know all Canadians will join me in wishing the city of
Winnipeg every success in its bid for the 1999 Pan-Am Games.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill): Today is Aboriginal
Solidarity Day, a day when the First Nations of this land take
time to commemorate our past and history, our rich culture and
heritage.
We are the First Nations. We are many nations. We are a great
people. We are a great nation. Greatness is not measured by the
material wealth one has. Greatness is measured by how much
one gives and how much one shares. This has been demonstrated
by the First Nations to the rest of the world. We have been very
kind and generous. This has been our greatest strength.
We are not lazy people. By appreciating and understanding,
by supporting and recognizing the aboriginal people of this land
this country can be a united, stronger and better Canada.
Meegwetch.
5654
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, summer is now upon us. Thousands of students in need
of a job to pay for their education are frantically searching for
employment.
I am appealing today to all Quebec and Canadian
entrepreneurs who, as our economic leaders, have a social
responsibility to provide jobs to a young, hard-working labour
force eager to learn. Because they are motivated, student
workers can substitute for vacationing employees, lend a hand
to businesses and help them meet their everyday needs.
Young people are our future. When businesses adopt an
enlightened approach, it is easier for students to gain entry into
the labour force and as a result, all of society benefits.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, since the introduction of gun
control in 1978 the annual homicide rate in my home province of
Saskatchewan has averaged three per 100,000, the same as in
adjoining Montana where there are almost no firearms
restrictions. Economic and social conditions are parallel and so
are the murder rates.
On the other hand, since prohibition days New York state has
had the toughest North American gun laws outside of Mexico,
yet the murder rate there is five times higher than in Canada. I do
not know why, but I suspect the presence of organized crime,
widespread drug abuse, racial tension and grinding poverty just
might have something to do with it.
Instead of concentrating on the emotional rantings of the
Coalition for Gun Control, the Minister of Justice should inform
himself by comparing firearms legislation and crime statistics
in a wide variety of jurisdictions. Prejudice makes bad law.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, government
programs and policies should help preserve and strengthen
traditional families. Families are the basic unit of society. A
strong family life is important to instilling good moral values
and coping with the day to day pressures of living.
When I speak about traditional family values I do not
disparage the loving and often heroic efforts of single or
divorced parents. Nothing determines the shape of a child's life
more powerfully than his or her values, beliefs and sense of right
and wrong. It is the values parents teach their children that will
determine a child's fate and our country's future. Families are
the instrument through which values and traditions are passed
from generation to generation.
As we celebrate the International Year of the Family let us all
remember that it is up to each member of Parliament to fight for
measures that recognize, promote and protect this traditional
institution.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, from
June 13 through June 19 Hamilton was the proud host of the 23rd
International Children's Games.
Held for the first time outside of Europe, children from 26
countries experienced friendly competition in the spirit of
peace, unity and respect for all cultures. These games were the
perfect breeding ground for friendship, goodwill and tolerance.
The closing ceremony was quite a scene with hundreds of young
athletes swapping souvenirs and exchanging goodbyes despite
the language barriers.
(1410)
The organizers and volunteers in Hamilton brought prestige
and honour to the city. As the games chairman, Colin Millar, so
clearly put it: ``It has just been a tremendous success''.
The Hamilton community has shown its leadership in
organizing a colourful, exciting and memorable event. The
federal government of Canada has proven its commitment to the
Canadian youth, our future, by funding the 23rd International
Children's Games in Hamilton.
Congratulations to all the organizers and participants for a job
well done.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, there is a literacy
program for homeless young people in my riding of Rosedale
which has been providing second chances to some of those who
are left behind in our society. Beat the Street is a Frontier
College program that is giving individuals the skills and
self-confidence to get off the street and into school or the job
market.
Beat the Street was founded in 1985 by two former street
youths who recognized that literacy skills were absolutely
essential to get young people off the street. By providing a
supportive learning environment where students could find their
own goals, the program's tutors are making a difference in the
lives of hundreds of Canada's youth.
5655
Beat the Street is now internationally recognized and is the
model for two similar programs now operating in Winnipeg and
Regina.
Workers and students from Beat the Street were in Ottawa
recently to meet with the Prime Minister and individual MPs and
Senators. I know all those who spent time with the students were
very impressed with their ideas and thoughtfulness.
On behalf of all members of Parliament I salute Beat the
Street for all its efforts. I call on the government to support it
and all other youth literacy programs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, on July 1, we
will be celebrating Canada's 127th birthday as a political entity.
The Fathers of Confederation have given us a country that the
United Nations have recently described as ranking first in the
world in terms of human development.
Nations world-wide are filled with admiration for Canada, a
country that distinguishes itself from others by its linguistic,
cultural and regional diversity as well as its wealth of natural
resources. I am proud to be living in such a dynamic and tolerant
society. It is our duty to us all to remain true to our history and
work together to find the compromises that will enable us to
build our common future in the respect of our differences.
Long live Canada!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced
that Canada is lifting its 16-year policy banning government aid
to Cuba. I want to congratulate the government on this important
step and urge it to recognize the grave humanitarian needs of the
Cuban people particularly in the areas of fuel, power, transport,
food and medical goods.
Canada must strongly call for the lifting of the cruel, illegal
and inhumane embargo by the United States, an embargo
vigorously condemned by the United Nations. Canada should
also urge President Clinton to invite President Fidel Castro to
the upcoming hemispheric summit later this year.
Finally let me take this opportunity to congratulate the many
Canadians who demonstrated their solidarity with the people of
Cuba at this difficult time. They have supported caravans of
humanitarian aid through Friendshipments.
The strength and courage of the Cuban people will see them
through this difficult time.
Venceremos.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois was pleased to hear that the government had decided
to allow CIDA to restore assistance to the people of Cuba. This
decision reflects the will of Quebecers and Canadians to help
Cubans and shows once again that they are prepared to give
generously to the poorest of countries where help is urgently
needed.
Non-governmental and humanitarian relief organizations,
which must be commended for their excellent work, will have
access to CIDA funds to carry out projects to help Cubans
affected by food shortage among other things. The Cuban
government must however be reminded of our commitment to
human rights and democracy, which forms the very basis of our
identity on the international scene, as a gesture of solidarity
with those who suffer and fight for their democratic rights.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, this
Liberal government will be seen as the government that presided
over the death of the CBC if it fails to act quickly and decisively.
(1415 )
The CBC had a heart attack years ago but somebody forgot to
tell the government. Continuing to fund the CBC as it is now is
like embalming a corpse: you add juice to it but you know it is
not going to get any better. What is needed is radical surgery. We
need to repair its faltering heart and infuse it with a healthy,
vigorous new life.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has stated publicly that he
is in favour of partial privatization of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. When will he act on this
commitment?
Start the process now. The CBC will not recover right away
but when it does it will be leaner and more competitive. It will
not do all the things it used to do, but if we are decisive now the
CBC will survive in some form.
The Liberal government can continue to embalm the corpse or
it can privatize the CBC. What will it be?
5656
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
comment on the legislation introduced this morning by the
solicitor general to amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act.
The bill contains amendments to improve public safety. It
deals in part with a subject of concern to all Canadians: high risk
sexual offence. While violent crime in all its forms is
intolerable, sexual offences against children are of particular
concern. They must be dealt with firmly and effectively. The bill
provides the tools to deal more effectively with sexual offenders
who victimize children.
Measures introduced today would make it easier to keep these
offenders in prison until the end of their sentence. Together with
better rehabilitation programs the bill will improve the handling
and management of sexual offenders. I look forward to seeing
these changes implemented as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have become more conscious of their responsibility
to protect our environment. For my constituents this includes a
safe and proper destruction of PCBs.
Currently this is an important issue in the city of London in
the county of Middlesex. Full meaningful public involvement is
a must in resolving this serious issue. No community must be
forced to host a destruction facility against its will.
I commend the government's efforts to make pollution
prevention a national goal. I urge the government to improve
upon the imperfect plan we have inherited by developing a
national program for the destruction of all PCBs in Canada.
_____________________________________________
5656
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, when the Liberal Party was in opposition, it denounced
the GST and promised to abolish it once in office. Indeed, the
red book included the commitment to replace this tax. Now the
report of the Liberals on the finance committee which was made
public yesterday shows that the government has decided not
only to maintain the GST but to hide it, and confirmed its
intention to apply it to other goods and services, thus taxing
consumers more.
After promising during the election campaign to abolish the
GST and repeating on May 2 that he would kill this tax, how can
the Prime Minister have the nerve today to maintain the GST by
hiding it and moreover how can he consider extending it to
medicine, health care and food?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the commitments we made in the red book remain our
commitments as a government. We asked a committee of the
House of Commons with representatives from the three parties
to try to come up with a unanimous proposal for us and they
could not agree. The Liberal members on the committee
considered four or five different proposals for us; they chose one
which is not at all binding on the government. But I would like to
thank all members who worked on that committee because their
work will help us see the issue a little more clearly.
In any case, I repeat that our commitment remains clear, and I
would like to let the Leader of the Opposition know that on April
10, 1990, he voted for the GST and when he resigned on May 22
that year, he assured everyone in the Conservative Party that he
would continue to defend the policies which he had the privilege
to work on with them.
We received the committee report, but we say that the GST
must be replaced by another tax, and we clearly showed in the
red book the conditions which must be met to satisfy us.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's answer and
he suggests that his government might dissociate itself from the
conclusions reached by the members of the Liberal Party on the
committee. I will point out that the only members on that
committee who proposed maintaining the GST, hiding it and
extending it to other sectors such as medicine, for example, are
Liberals.
So I ask the Prime Minister if it is true that he does not intend
to apply the GST to medicine, health care and food. If that is not
his intention, he is in the House today. He should tell us, in front
of all of Canada.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are committed to consulting the provinces and trying to
harmonize taxes with them. I see that the Leader of the
Opposition wants me to give him a final answer without
consulting anyone at the provincial level. He should make up his
mind. Either he wants us to do in all circumstances, as was the
case last week, when we were asked to impose a solution
concerning interprovincial trade on all provinces and we said,
``No, we are taking the time to consult on taxes. We want to
harmonize the tax system''. I myself talked about it with the
Premiers last
5657
December. Everyone wants harmonization. We are unable to
give a final answer. If we did, we would not be a good federal
government that likes to consult the provinces.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it is laughable to hear this government which
continually repudiates the will of the provinces tell us today that
it wants to hide behind them to do something awful, to tax
medicine, health care and food.
I ask the Prime Minister if he realizes that a hidden GST
extended to medicine, food and health care can only result in a
greater tax burden for low- and middle-income families and for
the elderly. How can the Prime Minister today support the idea
of taxing such essential goods? What has happened to Liberal
convictions?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we were very clear in the red book. We said that the system was
not functioning well. We forgot to mention in the red book that
the Leader of the Opposition voted for the GST. We also forgot
to mention in the red book that he promised very solemnly to the
Tory Party at that time that he would defend the GST when he
got out.
I just want to say that we will consult with the provinces. The
Minister of Finance will have his budget next February. We have
a lot of time. We will not get excited. We will take all the time to
consult with the provinces to find a good solution.
I am still amazed that the Leader of the Opposition is always
trying to get at me because I am too nice with the provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
even the Conservatives did not dare to tax food, health care or
medicine.
Mr. Bouchard: That is true, not even the Conservatives!
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal report on the GST
proposes merging all provincial and federal consumption taxes
into a single Canada-wide GST applied on a single tax base and
managed by the federal government. Several provincial
Premiers have already indicated that this centralizing proposal
is totally unacceptable.
Given the rejection expressed by several provinces, including
Ontario and Manitoba, does the Prime Minister not realize that
his government's plan to integrate provincial sales taxes into the
new hidden GST in an underhanded way is going to fail?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have not made any proposal to the provinces yet. So it is a
little premature for the hon. member to conclude that they will
reject our proposals. We had a committee which considered
several proposals over a six-month period.
(1425)
At least on the Liberal side, they had the wisdom to offer us
four or five options, unlike Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party
members who took the easy way out by washing their hands of
the whole thing. After asking us for so long to establish
committees before making decision, when we gave them that
chance, they ran away because they were afraid of taking
responsibilities.
We, however, are not afraid of doing our job. We will meet
with provincial governments and make them proposals that we
hope they will find helpful, that will eliminate duplication-one
of the Bloc Quebecois's favourite words. We will try to simplify
the system and trust that eventually good judgment and common
sense will prevail on this side and in the provinces, but certainly
not in the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois's solution is simple: the Prime Minister
should keep his word and abolish the GST.
Given the general indignation of the people, who feel
deceived by the Liberal government, and the flat rejection by
several provinces of this centralizing takeover, does the Prime
Minister still intend to negotiate with the provinces on the basis
of the Liberal report of the Standing Committee on Finance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are going to study this report and see with the provinces how
we could proceed to find a better solution for all Canadians.
We intend to be very honest with the people and with them,
unlike the hon. member for Gaspé who, on June 9, asked the
Speaker of the House to help them hide their true political option
by asking the Speaker to the use of the word ``separatist'' in this
House, which is the true option of the members. They are
ashamed of their choice.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The stock market index is down by 2 per cent as of noon today.
At two o'clock the bank rate was raised to over 7 per cent and the
long term bond rate is now almost 3 percentage points above that
assumed in the budget documents.
5658
This implies that lenders and investors continue to lose
confidence in the government's ability to meet its deficit cutting
projections.
Does the Prime Minister now not agree with his finance
minister that further spending reductions beyond those
contained in the budget are necessary to meet the government's
deficit reduction targets?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there is no disagreement between the Minister of Finance and
me.
The Minister of Finance was so prudent in his projections that
he predicted 3 per cent growth and apparently we will have much
more than that. The Minister of National Revenue is telling us
that the revenues coming into the coffers are better than
predicted.
Of course we have to pay more for interest rates. That is a fact.
I recognize that. I hope the people of Quebec, when they have
occasion to vote in the next few months in the election, will
recognize that these people in front of us and the Parti
Quebecois are trying to destroy the country. There is a price to
pay for that.
If Mr. Johnston were to win the election, interest rates would
go down. If Mr. Parizeau were to win the election, unfortunately
we would have to pay a bigger price for the irresponsibility of
the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the money markets say there are two sources of uncertainty with
respect to Canada. One is of course the constitutional question,
but the other is the overspending and deficit of the government,
the one that the government can do something about.
An interest rate on government bonds of 2 per cent above the
rate assumed in the budget implies a deficit increase of $3.4
billion in the first year and $5 billion in the second year
according to the government's own projections. There is nothing
wrong with changing a battle plan that is not working. Will the
Prime Minister now order a mini budget containing deeper
spending cuts and that it be brought down before the fiscal
situation gets worse?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this party has clearly made a commitment to the Canadian
people that we will try to reduce the deficit in relation to the
GNP to 3 per cent by the end of the third year. We are reviewing
that on a constant basis. We will do what is needed to achieve
this goal.
This is not the time to panic. We have more people working in
Canada, there is revenue coming in and growth will be higher.
We have a problem with the level of interest rates, but as I said in
two, three or four months from now the problem will be easily
solved if the people of Quebec decide not to vote for the Parti
Quebecois.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
defending the status quo, whether it is federalism or the fiscal
situation, will not reduce the deficit. If the government intends
to meet its deficit targets it has one of two choices. Either it cuts
spending more deeply or it increases revenue through tax
increases.
I ask the Prime Minister if he is clearly prepared to make
additional spending reductions to control the deficit and does
this mean that the government is considering additional tax
increases as the only other way of meeting those targets?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we said that we will do everything that is needed to meet our
goal of 3 per cent of GDP by the end of the third year.
At this moment I will not take the advice of the leader of the
Reform Party to start talking about the Constitution. It is not the
way to bring stability to the land. What will resolve the problem
in this country is for people to realize that we live in a very good
country and that we can be prosperous. We are still the envy of
the world. A month ago the United Nations said that Canada was
number one. Why is the hon. member complaining?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, in its
report, the Liberal majority on the finance committee
recommended full integration of provincial sales taxes with the
Liberals' hidden GST, in order to have just one national tax from
coast to coast. This proposal would oblige the provinces to
comply with federal legislation that would determine
administrative procedures and the range of goods subject to
GST.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does he
support the approach recommended by the report, which bodes
ill for the autonomy of the provinces since fiscal policy would,
from now on, be dictated by Ottawa, thus relegating the
provinces and Quebec, at best, to the role of branch manager for
the federal government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, from what we have
heard publicly from the vast majority of Quebecers, including
consumers and the business community, it is clear that they want
a harmonized tax. For instance, the Metropolitan Montreal
Chamber of Commerce and also the Quebec Chamber of
Commerce have already come out in favour of the harmonized
tax, as has the Conseil du patronat. My question is this: Why is
the Bloc
5659
Quebecois so hostile to the interests of Quebecers and the
business community?
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, would the
Minister of Finance agree that the Liberals' hidden GST would
oblige Quebec to relinquish control over the $5.7 billion it raises
in retail sales tax and that consequently, this is a direct attack on
the fiscal autonomy of the provinces, as was stated by the
Quebec Minister of Finance?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to
quote what was said by a Quebecer who testified when the hon.
member was sitting on the committee: ``The GST should be
harmonized with provincial sales tax. The Association
manufacturière du Québec is ready to work with the finance
committee to identify the potential measures which could lead
to greater harmonization. Once those measures are identified,
we will be willing to make the necessary representations to the
Government of Quebec''. This was said by Richard Le Hir,
ex-president of the association and now PQ MNA for Iberville.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Deputy Prime
Minister confirmed that her government would kill the GST and
that the Prime Minister would live up to this promise. On
October 18, 1993 the Deputy Prime Minister in a CBC town hall
stated that if the GST was not abolished under a Liberal
government she would resign.
If during the next year Canadians deem that the national value
added tax, that very awful tax, the new GST, is just the son of the
old GST under a new name and therefore not really abolished,
will she still agree to resign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we will use all the means necessary to keep the Deputy Prime
Minister in the House of Commons. Otherwise the spirit of this
House would disappear.
I am very surprised to have a question from a party that some
months before the election was strongly opposed to the GST and
then made a fabulous flip-flop before the campaign to support
it. Don't complain. We won't satisfy you, we won't keep it.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I will
complain. I want to know if the Deputy Prime Minister would
resign. Why does the Prime Minister stand up on her behalf? She
should answer the question.
Mr. Speaker, listen to these quick quotes: ``I would abolish the
GST'', the finance minister, 1990. ``I hate it and I will kill it'',
the Prime Minister, 1994. ``The tax should hit the whole works,
from food to pharmaceuticals'', the Minister for International
Trade, 1989.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that Canadians will be
that gullible as to believe this new GST really kills and abolishes
the old GST? If she would not mind, would she answer the first
question as well?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I can answer one question.
When I made the statement on the CBC that I would resign if
ever we did not live up to our promises, I made that statement in
the full confidence that there is one person in this House who
will not go back on his word and that is the Prime Minister of
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The United Nations
Security Council is meeting again today to discuss France's
proposal for military intervention in Rwanda.
Through this initiative, France hopes to stop the massacre this
week, before the arrival of additional UN peacekeepers. In fact,
Canada is preparing to send more soldiers to Rwanda.
Since the situation in Rwanda continues to deteriorate, can the
minister tell us when the Canadian contingent of 350 soldiers
will be in Rwanda? Also, does the government intend to move
quickly to increase its humanitarian assistance efforts in
Rwanda?
(1440)
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that Cabinet this morning
consented to a request from the Secretary General of the United
Nations to send a communications unit of 350 Canadian soldiers
to join a United Nations peacekeeping force in Rwanda as
quickly as possible.
Obviously, we hope the Secretary General will be able to put
together a fairly large force of 3,000, 4,000 or even 5,000 troops
in order to restore peace in Rwanda. I can also assure the
member that Canada, which has already provided over $4
million in humanitarian assistance, is poised, along with other
countries, to increase its humanitarian assistance to Rwanda as
quickly as possible after a ceasefire takes hold.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary question. Before the Canadian peacekeeping
contingent and humanitarian assistance get to Rwanda, can the
minister tell us
5660
whether Canada supports the French proposal, currently being
debated by the UN Security Council, to send a military strike
force to Rwanda?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's position on this issue is well known. We
believe that we must participate as part of the United Nations
peacekeeping forces. Consequently, we are more inclined to
answer the United Nations' call for peacekeepers than to
participate in a military operation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the Standing
Committee on Health advised the health minister to wait for
studies before she proceeded on plain packaging of cigarettes.
Her reaction? A marketing study to design the plain package.
Can the health minister explain to all Canadians what a
$300,000 plain package will look like? After all, plain is plain.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question because I think it is very
important that Canadians realize just what a groundbreaking
exercise we have entered in our study of plain packaging.
The in-depth market research project which I asked my
department to commission has appointed an independent panel
of experts who will look into the effects of packaging on tobacco
sales, especially tobacco sales to young people. They will then
design a plain package, looking at many issues in terms of
looking at the contraband problem, ensuring that the package is
not easily reproduced or copied. The same panel will then test
market the product to see just how effective this will be.
It is very sad to see a group of people who joke and who laugh
when thousands of Canadians every year, 40,000, die as a direct
result of smoking. We are committed to doing everything that
we can to ensure that as many people as possible do not take up
the habit, especially our young people.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Nice plain answer.
New statistics show that for the first time in 30 years tobacco
use is on the rise in Ontario. Among women aged 18 and older
smoking soared to 25 per cent this year from 19 per cent in 1993.
Will the health minister admit that her all embracing
anti-smoking campaign is an abysmal failure?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
are extremely concerned with the trend of increased smoking
especially where it concerns young women. The trends have
been predicted and we have been seeing them coming.
(1445 )
We are extremely worried about it. One of the research
projects that I am commissioning, not the one we have spoken to
previously, is to look at why young women are taking up
smoking at such an alarming rate and why women seem to be the
ones now smoking more and more. I think it is very important
that we look at what is out there making these women take up
this terrible habit which will cost our health system millions and
millions of dollars and will cost the lives of many people.
Someone I know very well has just been diagnosed with
cancer of the lungs. It is extremely sad when a woman in her
very productive years suddenly is diagnosed with cancer of the
lungs. This is a woman who smoked for many years.
I would like to ensure that no more young women start
smoking so that they do not have to face what this person is
facing today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. members will recall that because of the opposition
expressed by several provinces, Ottawa was forced to cancel at
the last minute a federal-provincial meeting on social program
reform which had been scheduled for April 18 last.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is preparing
to meet one-on-one this week with his provincial counterparts
to outline the major components of his social program reform
package before convening at their express request a
federal-provincial meeting.
Can the minister tell us if the package he will be presenting to
the provinces still recommends that unemployment insurance
and social assistance programs be merged with a view to
establishing a guaranteed minimum income program?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my seat waiting
expectantly for the hon. member to congratulate this
government for once again undertaking a major new initiative
with the provinces of consultation and co-operation. I know it
was an oversight on her part so I am sure she will want to correct
that on her second question.
5661
I can simply say to the hon. member that I do not know where
she got that idea. If that is the position of the Bloc Quebecois I
am sure most Canadians would not want to consider it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, after
congratulating the minister for finally agreeing to meet with the
provinces, I would like to ask him, in light of all the leaks that
have occurred and that have been reported in the newspapers,
whether or not he agrees with his Quebec counterpart that an
approach involving the merger of unemployment insurance and
social assistance programs would be doomed to fail since,
according to Quebec's employment minister, ``we are talking
about two different clienteles which cannot easily be
integrated''.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, once again I provide a word of
some caution. The hon. member and other members of the
House should not take too seriously what they see as being leaks
in the press. As valuable a service as the media provides, it is not
always totally accurate as to the intentions of the government.
I can say to the hon. member that one of the reasons we are
holding discussions with various provincial ministers is to hear
about their proposals and their ideas. I have not had the
opportunity to read the comments of my Quebec counterpart,
but I would certainly be interested in listening to whatever he
has to say.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
For the past several years, Vancouver Community College has
been one of the largest and most successful providers of
language instruction for newcomers to Canada and an
exceptional resource in my community offering new immigrants
language training, free counselling and the use of its audio and
computer labs.
Could the minister explain why the contract with the
Vancouver Community College has not been renewed?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question and also for the concerns that she has demonstrated on
this whole issue.
December last, given the tight fiscal framework that we have
to operate in, organizations delivering settlement and language
training to immigrants were advised that only mandatory
benefits such as CPP and UI would be able to be recovered.
(1450 )
As a result of these new guidelines the Vancouver college
refused to enter into negotiations despite the fact that eight other
major colleges in British Columbia providing the same services
have entered into a successful agreement.
The cost for the fringe benefits that the Vancouver college
would like us to reimburse amounts to almost $2 million
province-wide which is equated to almost 500 immigrants being
taught English or French as a second language. That is a
considerable size.
Notwithstanding that, on Monday I made it very clear that I
am prepared to enter into negotiations with all those service
providers to search for maximum flexibility so that we can
deliver the services to the people who need them, newcomers
and immigrants, and that the service providers can also pay
those individuals who work for them a fair and decent salary.
I believe that is a fair compromise and I would hope that the
Vancouver college would join the eight other colleges in British
Columbia providing necessary service to immigrants.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
Early today the Solicitor General released his legislative
proposals to keep child sex offenders in custody until the end of
their sentences. I applaud that.
Unfortunately these proposals do not go nearly far enough.
For example, a convicted serial rapist like Larry Fisher could
still complete his sentence and be eligible for release even
though experts say it is likely he will reoffend.
Can the Solicitor General please explain how his proposed
amendments to the parole act will protect society from a person
like Larry Fisher?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate my hon. friend's support for these proposals which I
understood he expressed outside the House. I hope he will
continue that support.
With respect to Larry Fisher, this individual completed the
sentence imposed by the court and therefore we would need a
different kind of legislation to deal with that kind of situation. It
is something that is being looked into by a federal-provincial
task force.
Once the task force reports in a few months the Minister of
Justice and I will develop proposals to deal with this kind of
situation. It is troubling and we do not intend to ignore the need
to take action about it.
5662
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I agree it
is troubling and Larry Fisher is not an isolated case.
For example, there are convicted paedophiles in our prisons
who the experts say can never be healed. Mr. Galienne is one of
the examples of this type of prisoner. He is due to be released in
October. The Solicitor General's proposals will have zero
influence on Galienne's case.
Regardless of all the ridiculous remarks it is very important
that the safety of Canadians is considered. Will the Solicitor
General admit that the proposals he has brought forward will not
affect people like Galienne one bit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the proposals that I tabled today are designed to deal with people
before the end of their sentence primarily and the situation
which he has raised has already been recognized by the Minister
of Justice and me.
We intend to have measures to deal with that in light of
federal-provincial task force reports because we believe to deal
with the situation effectively we need to have the involvement
and co-operation of the provinces.
I look forward to the hon. member's support for our further
proposals, just as he is supporting the proposals we tabled today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister of indian affairs. After having
made the acquisition of land located south of highway 344 a
priority for the federal negotiator, lawyer Michel Robert, the
government continues to put off fulfilling its commitments to
the so-called ``forgotten of Oka''.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs confirm whether Public
Works and Government Services Canada has indeed set a
deadline in connection with the purchase of properties
belonging to ``the forgotten of Oka'' as the minister had
promised?
(1455)
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, this question was of concern to the
hon. member yesterday. He did not get a chance to ask it, but we
discussed the problem.
I met with the delegation from 344 outside the House of
Commons with members from the Bloc. They are satisfied that
the obligation went through committee, through cabinet and our
negotiator is mandated to commence negotiations on the basis of
willing seller, willing buyer.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): I have a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister recognize that it
is high time to do justice to these people who are exasperated,
and rightly so, by four years of government carelessness and
promise that formal negotiations in relation to the purchase of
their properties will start no later than July 1?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that this
government inherited from a former government which that
leader was in.
We went into the province of Quebec and after asking the
province of Quebec for contribution, we received none. That is
$7 million of federal money in the province of Quebec to solve a
problem that we did not even create.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In the Young Offenders Act there is a preamble which has a
list of things that is a guide for its operation. Some of these are
that young people must be held accountable, society must be
protected, young persons need guidance and assistance, a focus
on offenders needs. The minister has now admitted the preamble
is not sufficient.
Why is the term victims not mentioned in the preamble of the
current act when victims' concerns should also be a guiding
factor in the operation of the Young Offenders Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the Young
Offenders Act speaks at length and in more than one place about
the protection of the public, the protection of society.
The amendments that we introduced two weeks ago in Bill
C-37 strengthened the Young Offenders Act in a variety of
ways, among others by making it plain that from now on after
the enactment of Bill C-37 victim impact statements can be
received at the time of the sentencing of young offenders.
This government believes that with those changes and with
other changes we proposed in Bill C-37, we have strengthened
the Young Offenders Act so that it is very much operating in the
interest of Canadians.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, on a supplementary, will the minister take action and
change his policy to spell out in the Young Offenders Act
preamble that where the rights and needs of the victims conflict
or need to be balanced with those of the young offender, the
5663
concerns of the victim will be paramount and be clearly written
as a principle in law?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, in the view of this
government the amendments that we proposed in Bill C-37 will
strengthen the Young Offenders Act and, as amended, it will
serve as a workable and ideal juvenile justice system for
Canada.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
the Minister responsible for Infrastructure.
The overview of the Canada-Ontario infrastructure
agreement states that the program is intended to accelerate
economic recovery by creating short and long term employment
through investment in local communities.
How many short term jobs have been created to date? How
many projects have been approved to date? How many long term
jobs does he anticipate from these projects?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, as
this House nears summer recess I am happy to bring more good
news.
On the national infrastructure program, we have reached the
$2.3 billion mark and by the end of this month we will have
reached the half-way point of the $6 billion program that we
initiated just some seven and one half months ago.
I was asked about jobs. To date we have created over 36,000
jobs, over 2,300 of those being long term. We are well on the
path toward the 90,000 jobs that I have announced to this House
before that we would be creating in this program.
This program is hoping to attract new investment into our
community.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in this House, the Minister of Indian Affairs recognized the
problem of band councils overestimating Native populations.
These figures are then used to set the amount of federal
subsidies. According to
La Presse, this overestimation may cost
over $1.2 billion in expenditures for non-existent Natives.
My question to the minister is this: Given the drastic state of
the federal government's finances, does the Minister of Indian
Affairs undertake today to ensure that Statistics Canada census
takers will have access to aboriginal lands so that these
populations can be counted accurately?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand where my
friend is coming from. The census is taken by Census Canada in
what is called census week in June. This is part of the problem
with the Indian register. It is an ongoing register.
We do make comparisons and I want to assure the hon.
member that we will be working with Census Canada. The
comparison between Census Canada and the register was done. I
have it here for 1986 if the member wants to see it.
The most recent one will be completed in August. I will be
prepared to share the results with my friend. It is a public
document.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last week six American
fishing vessels accompanied by a 150-foot American coast
guard cutter conducted a black cod fishery while 15 miles south
of the Canada-U.S. border between Alaska and British
Columbia.
Was the minister aware of this incursion into Canadian
territory? If so, why did he do nothing?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Indeed we are
aware of the American vessels in the area of AB line and the
Dixon Entrance.
The member knows it is not unusual over the years that both
Canadian and American vessels are in this disputed zone and
that each nation conducts its fishery and enforces its own fishery
in this disputed zone.
The question is being asked in a manner that would suggest
that somehow there is something unusual or something that is
precedent setting. It misleads the House and I know that is not
the member's intention. His usual practice is to inform the
House. I inform him that we are monitoring the situation very
closely as usual.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon.
members the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Dr. Mate
Granic, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Croatia.
5664
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I have a question of privilege,
and two points of order, one of them from this side.
The hon. member for Gaspé on a question of privilege. This is
about something that happened during Question Period.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief even though this is the end of the parliamentary session and I am a young member.
Earlier, in response to my second question, the Prime Minister
distorted my words. The Prime Minister was referring to a
question I had raised regarding sovereignists and the definition
of ``separatist''. I had reminded-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): -that hurts the ears of the hon.
members opposite.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, it is certainly a point of
debate but I do not think it is a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Laurentides on a point of order.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I want to
bring to your attention the words and attitude of the
vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations during the June 15 sitting. We parliamentarians find
it very disturbing to work with a vice-chairman who is
constantly cutting us off and is biased against what we say. I also
think it is very disrespectful to talk about absent members and
call them by their personal names.
I therefore table the ``blues'' of this committee and ask you to
read them attentively and take the necessary actions.
The Speaker: That also is a point of debate.
[English]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you
would ask the House for unanimous consent, when taking the
vote on second reading of Bill C-37, to dispense with the ringing
of the bells since the majority of the members are here.
The Speaker: The House has heard the proposal for
unanimous consent to dispense with the ringing of the bells. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
_____________________________________________
5664
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the
Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: It being three o'clock p.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion at second reading
of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the
Criminal Code.
Call in the members.
Mrs Ablonczy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
believe there was a request for unanimous consent to hold the
vote without the ringing of the bells. There was a loud denial for
that unanimous consent. I am puzzled why the vote is
proceeding.
The Deputy Speaker: I say to the hon. member for Calgary
North that I asked exactly the same question. I am told that when
a situation like this arises the bells will ring for up to 15 minutes
and if during that time the whips of the government party and the
Official Opposition get together we would not have to ring the
bells for 15 minutes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
5665
(Division No. 66)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young -186
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-53
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(1515)
[Translation]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
[English]
Mr. Vanclief: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was
unavoidably detained in the lobby for a moment and not here at
the beginning of the vote. If I had been here I would have voted
in favour of the legislation.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, regrettably I was not near and
I would like to record my vote as a yes.
Mr. Malhi: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House at the start of
the vote. Had I been present I would have voted with the
government.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-32, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the
Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.
5666
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vegreville has 10
minutes remaining.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, before the
break I was debating Bill C-32 and I was talking about the fact
that this bill will encourage young people to smoke by making
tobacco products more affordable to them.
I discussed my own experience in that regard, but I will also
quote Professor Robert C. Allen, a visiting professor from
Harvard University. It was noted how the decrease in tobacco
taxes will directly impact on increasing the number of people,
including young people, who take up smoking. He stated that
tobacco consumption would increase by 14 per cent. Teens,
being about two and a half times as price sensitive on this issue,
would increase their consumption of cigarettes by about 35 per
cent. All of this is because of the reduction in tobacco taxes.
Even the money being used from the surtax will do little to
discourage 175,000 young people from smoking. The use of
tobacco and the hazards of second hand smoke are well known
and documented.
(1520)
One main concern I have, like many of my constituents, is the
effect this legislation will have on our health care system.
Another major consideration is the toll the legislation will have
on human lives as increased consumption leads to further health
complications.
I am not going to talk at any length about the personal
tragedies caused by increased disease due to smoking. We all
understand that so I will not discuss it today. However I would
like to talk about the less direct human toll which will be
brought about as a result of this tax.
Reformers support decreasing overall taxes, but we have to
question whether this bill will do that at all. Does this bill
decrease tax? I say it does not. A select group may be paying
lower taxes to start off with, but all Canadian taxpayers will end
up paying more money in the future because of the increased
health care costs associated with smoking. It will require
increased taxes to pay this additional cost brought about by
increased smoking and the increased health hazards that result.
Professor Robert C. Allen notes that further proposed
reductions in tobacco taxation will have a devastating impact on
the health of Canadians since they will significantly expand
tobacco consumption. He also states that lowering cigarette
taxes would lead to large increases in cigarette consumption
with significantly higher levels of death from tobacco related
diseases. Professor Allen is backing up what I said and what
many have said before me. Therefore the health expenditure
would rise sharply and tax receipts would drop.
Have the long term costs of our health care system been
considered properly by the government in this legislation? I say
the answer is no.
Extra costs to health care resulting from increased smoking
and related disease have not been properly considered, as I
discussed earlier and reductions in the much needed health
services, including elective surgery, will be put under further
stress as a result of this further spending on this group who need
additional services because of smoking related health problems.
I am saying that because of these increased smoking related
health problems and costs there will be less money available for
elective surgery. I am sure all of us know already the problems
that we have in receiving elective surgery on time. This will
further complicate that problem.
Even if the government does down the road, as I hope it will,
decide to bring increased efficiency into our health care system,
thus reducing the cost of delivering our system as it is today, we
also need to bring the cost of health care to a reasonable level.
We must, in any way we can, reduce unnecessary disease such as
that brought about by cigarette smoking.
The next point I would like to discuss is the timing of reducing
tobacco taxes. I think it is impeccably bad. I believe I will put
this point off until a little bit later and if I do not have time to
come back to the point I am sure my colleagues will question me
on the issue of timing.
For the past four months my constituents have told me, in no
uncertain terms, that they do not support the government in
reducing this tobacco tax. This Liberal government told us
during the campaign and has told us since that it is determined to
listen to the will of Canadians. The Liberals said they would be
more democratic, they would be more responsive to the wishes
of Canadians. We have heard that again and again. The action
the government has taken on this issue indicates that it is just
talk. It is just hot air. The government is not willing to listen to
Canadians. I have heard from MPs across the country that their
constituents do not support the government on this issue of
lowering tobacco taxes. The government may pay lip service to
consulting with Canadians, but once again the action does not
match the lip service.
(1525)
I would like to present what has become a Reform tradition;
that is, when Reformers criticize the views or legislation
presented before the House, they present constructive
alternatives. Today I will do that in regard to the tobacco tax
issue.
It is important to examine whether there are other ways to
combat this problem of smuggling other than reduction of
tobacco taxes. Unfortunately Bill C-32 is just another example
of the government avoiding the real problem and refusing to
face it head on.
Real solutions can come only if the problem has been clearly
identified and then dealt with in a straightforward manner. I
believe that by caving in on the issue of cigarette smuggling and
the problem it has caused and will continue to cause, the
5667
government has taken the easy way out. The government did not
have any difficulty identifying the fact that smuggling was the
problem, and I give it credit for that. It seems to have difficulty
coming up with a common sense solution.
A more rigorous attempt at enforcing our laws should have
been the first action undertaken by the government. Smuggling
is a crime and those involved must be dealt with accordingly.
Criminals should be treated like criminals regardless of race,
colour, gender, religion or geographic location. If rigorous law
enforcement meant going on the reserves where over 70 per cent
of the smuggling took place, according to RCMP figures, this
action should have been taken.
Was the government so intimidated by past events such as the
Oka crisis-I admit a very scary, undesirable situation-that it
backed down on enforcing the law? It is a question I would like
the members opposite to ask and answer of themselves. If this is
true it sets a very dangerous precedent on how we deal with
crime. We have seen a similar process of dealing with crime in
regard to the Young Offenders Act and gun control.
On the Young Offenders Act, was direct straightforward open
action taken to help solve the problem? From the legislation we
have just seen presented to the House, direct action was not
taken.
On gun control, the Minister of Justice has shown again and
again that the approach he will take is not the direct common
sense approach, but rather is a roundabout approach, that of
restricting guns and the use of guns, to no avail. No direct action
is taken which really deals with the problem.
A further effect of this legislation is that it creates inequity
from province to province. The prices for tobacco are now vastly
different from province to province. I recognize there are other
tax provisions that combat interprovincial smuggling. What if it
gets out of hand, as did the cross-border smuggling between
Canada and the U.S.?
I believe that will happen, and I have heard members of the
House comment, hopefully in jest, that they should take a box of
cigarettes back to Alberta or Saskatchewan or B.C. with them
because there is good money to be made in smuggling between
the provinces now. It is absurd way to deal with the problem.
What happened to the direct common sense approach?
(1530 )
My home province of Alberta has never before experienced a
smuggling problem, at least until now, but I do believe that is
what will happen with this bill. Reducing the tobacco taxes in
some provinces but not in others will lead to smuggling between
provinces at an ever increasing rate. It certainly will lead to
substantial smuggling into Alberta.
In defending Bill C-32 this morning the hon. Secretary of
State for International Financial Institutions stated that the
smuggling problem was undermining the government's health
plan. Let us look at the logic of that statement. Let us follow the
path of logic through.
Smuggling led to a lower price per package of cigarettes and
therefore people were buying more. Because people were
buying more, this increased the costs incurred by Canadian
health care because of the health risks associated with smoking.
What was the government's solution? It lowered the tax on
cigarettes.
This resulted in a lower price for cigarettes making them more
affordable for everyone, not just those who were buying
smuggled cigarettes. Does any member in this House buy that as
a path of logic? I think not. This further undermines the
government's own health plan in Canada. The government has
legalized the demise of its own health plan. Nothing is
accomplished by this legislation.
In conclusion, this keep the peace style of government has not
worked in the past and will not work in the future. It is time for
the government to stop shirking its responsibility in dealing
with this problem and to show some leadership. That is what
Canadians want. If the government is not prepared to do that
then I want to assure members in this House that Reformers
certainly are prepared to do so and we will if government does
not.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, in
listening to the debate and some of the concerns which have
been expressed, I am now aware that there are at least three
states which have higher taxes on cigarettes than the
neighbouring provinces in Canada.
Could the member comment a little bit on the taxes in the
United States, the direction they are heading and whether we
could co-operate with them in that respect. It is a key issue. I do
not know if we can solve this problem by ourselves. We are
looking at it in this light and is something which needs to be
discussed. We need to co-operate with the authorities and attack
the problem in this way.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I do agree the timing of this bill
could not be worse. Just to back this up I would like to read a
very short piece from yesterday's Financial Post. The title is:
``The Sky is the Limit for Tobacco Tax in the U.S.''. The article
lays out very briefly that in the U.S. some experts believe that
tobacco taxes will increase substantially and they will be used to
fund the new health care plan which is being talked about in the
U.S.
I will read this very short article: ``Canada may have learned a
lesson about the dangers of overtaxing cigarettes, but it has not
filtered through to the U.S.''. No pun intended. ``As Congress
and the White House crank up the campaign for a national
health care program, tobacco taxes have emerged as everyone's
favourite way to pay for it. The only dispute is over how high to
raise them. Sam Gibbons, who took over as chairman of the
5668
House Ways and Means committee when Dan Rostenkowski was
hit with 17 corruption counts, has proposed a 45 cent U.S.
increase, raising the total price to $1.69 U.S. a pack. President
Bill Clinton suggested 75 cents U.S. while Senator Edward
Kennedy, who chairs the Senate Labour and Human Resources
Committee, wants a $1.50 U.S. increase per pack of cigarettes''.
(1535)
There it is. At a time when we are reducing our price per
package of cigarettes the Americans are talking about
increasing the cost and the sky is the limit, as the article said.
This article was in the Washington Notebook column by Kelly
McParland. It is a very interesting little section and I encourage
members to read it.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to my colleague's presentation.
My question is with respect to the statistics on the increase in
cigarette smoking due to the reduction in the price which in turn
was due to the reduction in the taxes. There are some who hold
that this merely reflects the increase in the number of people
who are now buying cigarettes legally who before were buying
them on the black market.
Does the member have any statistics on that and if so, how
were they derived?
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the exact statistics have escaped
me. I did read statistics and they were presented in the House
earlier. There is no doubt that statistics have shown very clearly
that the consumption of cigarettes has increased due to this
reduction in cost which was brought about by the lowering of the
tax on cigarettes. I cannot quote the exact figure but I am sure
one of my hon. colleagues will use it in a presentation later.
However, there is no doubt about the impact.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I heard some
comment about division in various caucuses on this bill. I
wonder if there was a vote taken in this caucus and one member
voted against the caucus. Can the hon. member comment about
what would happen to that member? Also, if there were
dissenting votes from the other side and a vote came of dissent,
what would happen to members if they voted against their
caucus on such an issue?
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member knows
there was a vote cast against caucus. That is not unusual in our
caucus. Members are free to vote and are expected to vote for
what their constituents want. That happens commonly. It is
extremely common to have people voting differently on various
pieces of legislation. It is probably as common in other caucuses
as it is in ours.
Of course in our caucus we do propose free votes when it
comes to voting in the House on certain issues. Certainly we
propose always and it is the requirement and responsibility of all
members of the Reform caucus to vote according to their
constituents wishes. Even if the caucus takes a position and
members have gone to their constituents through formal
mechanisms and not just talking about them and have clearly
ascertained that their constituents want them to vote a different
way than caucus votes in general, then it is the obligation and
not just the right of that member to vote in that way.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, this bill is
very interesting as has been discussed previously. It actually
combines or marries three different things the House has been
working on.
(1540 )
As a new parliamentarian I find an omnibus bill, which is the
description of this kind of bill, to be quite interesting. It begs the
question does the government really expect there to be some
debate, some pros and some cons? This bill covers the area of a
second section of tobacco taxes. It also covers the Air
Transportation Act and the reduction of the GST for business
meal exemption.
How does the government actually expect a party or even an
individual member to be able to intelligently vote yea or nay
when such totally unrelated fragments are pulled together in one
bill? Or does the government actually have the idea that because
it has 177 members it is going to get its own way anyway? Has
the government pulled it all into one bill with the expectation
that the people in its caucus, once the Prime Minister or the
Deputy Prime Minister has risen to lead the way, will follow like
sheep? It really begs the question as to why these would have
been put together in one bill.
I intend to spend most of my time speaking on the air
transportation tax changes, but I would like to address the issue
of tobacco taxes. The majority of our caucus is opposed to the
reduction of the excise tax on tobacco products. The majority
believes it encourages more people, particularly young people,
to smoke.
Having been in the field of sales and marketing for an
extended period of my life, I appreciate there is always the law
of supply and demand that is intervened with by the actual price
point of a given commodity. If the situation is that prices for
cigarettes are going to be lowered, it goes without saying that
consumption will undoubtedly increase. Furthermore, my
understanding is that studies have shown that young people are
most sensitive to this price point.
The second factor is that the long term health costs for
Canadians have not been calculated. With the tremendous
amount of legislation which is currently coming before the
House, this statement could be applied to probably the vast
5669
majority of the legislation. In fact, there is no costing before the
legislation comes before the House.
What will the cost be to the Canadian people? This is a very
real part of the reason that when the federal, provincial and
municipal debts are combined, we in Canada are in debt at a rate
of over $1 trillion. It is because governments simply do not do
the costing.
What will the health care costs be for Canada and for
Canadians if there is an increase in consumption?
There has been a lot of debate today about the issue of more
aggressive enforcement. Looking at the situation as it was prior
to the decision of the government to lower the taxes, it is clear
that the government was shying away from certain areas of our
country and not addressing the issue.
If the government was attempting to address the issue, how
hard did it try particularly when one area of our country was
identified as having a 70 per cent hold? Of all of the product
coming into Canada, 70 per cent was coming in through one very
small geographic area, yet the government would not address
the smuggling in that area.
Another reason the majority of our caucus is opposed to the
reduction of the excise tax is it is believed there should have
been new export taxes on tobacco products. I believe it was
during the debate on Bill C-11 when I brought to this House two
clearly marked Export A cigarette packages.
(1545 )
Both packages had been purchased in Manitoba. One package
had been purchased immediately prior to the imminent
imposition of the export tax. It was identified as having been
made in Canada. It was the green package with white lettering
that said ``Export A'' and ``made in Canada'' and very proud of
the whole issue. That was fine. The second package was
purchased a week later from the same illegal vendor. It was
clearly marked as having been manufactured in Winston Salem
under licence by RJR MacDonald.
The point of export taxes with respect to this product is that
they will not work. Clearly that particular company's product
was going through Buffalo and back into Canada. It had decided
that if there was to be an export tax put on it would simply go to a
licensing arrangement whereby it would have its product
manufactured in Winston Salem and still be in the marketplace.
I seriously question whether export taxes or even the imposition
of export taxes as they presently sit really make any difference.
The final point is that constituents in the west are opposed to
the tax reduction. Some feel they are being treated as second
class citizens because their provinces oppose the reduction of
taxes. Obviously what we have done is change the situation so
that instead of north-south smuggling now we have east-west
smuggling.
It begs the question that I raised earlier when the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca was speaking. Does it really make
sense? Is it really proper if we walk away from principles when
it comes to laws, if we walk away from the foundation stone of
how laws are brought in, the background to the laws? Is that
really right and proper?
In other words taxes on cigarettes have basically happened.
Over a period of time they simply have happened in exactly the
same way as taxes on alcohol and other commodities people
want and will pay for. Successively over the last 25 or perhaps
even 50 years governments have said that people want or are
addicted to cigarettes, that people want or demand their alcohol
or whatever the case may be, and that therefore they are a source
of taxation.
Over a period of many years-some 25, 30 or 50 years-taxes
have happened. They have been added on and on until we
suddenly reached the point with a slightly higher degree of
sophistication of taking a look and saying that prices were so
high on this particular commodity we had dampened
enthusiasm, particularly of young people, for the product. Now
we get into the whole issue we described earlier: If we reduce
taxes will we actually end up increasing consumption?
The following question must be raised: If we are enacting
good law and if as a member of Parliament I am expected to vote
on various laws, am I actually voting on a matter of principle or
a matter of expediency? To this extent, as I have expressed in a
previous intervention, I find myself somewhat ambivalent about
this specific question, fully recognizing that we have two
doctors in our caucus who are very emotionally attached to the
particular issue and the reality that if we end up lowering taxes
we end up increasing consumption, particularly among young
people, and recognizing that these people are faced with the
reality that this is what will end up happening.
On the other side of the coin what about the principle that is
involved? By saying that the taxes should stay up are we actually
attempting to legislate behaviour or influence behaviour in a
way that is not correct and not based on the basis of principle?
(1550)
As I mentioned our data indicates that 40 per cent of total
production of Canadian companies was being exported before
the changes. Only 3 per cent was being consumed abroad. This
shows the extent of the smuggling and this law allows an
exemption for the 3 per cent.
The question I have is about the moral responsibility of
tobacco companies. I am not speaking about tobacco farmers
here because I recognize they are people who planted a crop in
the ground, who have equipment and who have capital invested
in various aspects of their business of growing tobacco. They are
5670
caught in a real bind on the particular issue. However I would
like to talk particularly about the multinational companies and
again reflect on what I was speaking about a few moments ago.
These companies suspected an export tax was coming. With
abject cynicism they turned around and took a package-and
until one looked at it very closely one would not realize it-that
had been manufactured in the U.S. I submit for the consideration
of the House that it had been manufactured in the U.S. with the
full knowledge of people in the tobacco companies that the
package would end up being smuggled back into Canada. It
would not only be smuggled back into Canada but smuggled in a
way that was dangerous to life and limb.
I appreciated the interjection of the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell this morning. If his constituents
were literally being shot at as a result of the smuggling effort, if
there was absolute lawlessness as a result of the smuggling
effort, I can appreciate the emotion the member brought to the
debate this morning. How much culpability or how much
responsibility should there be on behalf of international
corporations? I suggest a tremendous amount.
The measure to ensure that unmarked tobacco products sold
on reserves in Ontario and Nova Scotia are taxed at the same rate
as marked products is a very touchy issue. I acknowledge that.
When a commodity will be consumed by people, no matter what
their distinction may be, when we have a two-tier tax system
and when we have this situation, the difficulty is that it feeds the
whole issue of illegal activity. That is really unfortunate.
We also recognize that until the particular legislation is
passed and enacted wholesalers and retailers will have difficulty
in looking for $150 million in tobacco taxes that have previously
been extracted in inventories when the changes were announced.
We look forward to the legislation being able to go forward. It is
just unfortunate that it was not prepared at the time Bill C-11
was before the House. It would have saved the whole problem.
The difficulty is that the government bunched together the
tobacco tax question with the other two questions: the air
transportation tax and the GST rebate.
We are looking at the fact that there will be a health promotion
surtax, an increase of 40 per cent on taxes paid on the profits of
tobacco manufacturers. Surely we recognize in the same way as
price is a factor in the consumption of tobacco products that
advertising must be both a positive and negative factor with
respect to the consumption of tobacco products.
(1555 )
The main topic I would like to address is that of the air
transportation tax. There has been very little discussion about it
as I have listened to the debate today. Perhaps I could give a
little background and description about the air transportation
tax.
Currently there is a flat fee of $10 plus 7 per cent to a
maximum of $40 on all airline tickets purchased in Canada.
These fees are part of the Excise Tax Act even though they
appear to be closer in function to user fees than actual taxes.
This is the positive part. All revenues from the tax are directed
toward the Department of Transport which routes the funds to
the aviation component of its expenditures.
The reason I pause to mention that I consider this to be
positive is that frequently taxes extracted from businesses and
individuals do not ever end up where they are supposed to go.
They just end up in consolidated revenue. I encourage the
government to take a look at this as a model. There is also a new
model within the Department of Canadian Heritage under
National Parks. The specific revenues it is taking in for
campgrounds, for pools and for specific functions are paying for
the functions from which the funds were originally extracted.
Surely that is the way it should be.
Going back to the air transportation tax, it makes up most of
the funding for aviation services provided to all Canadian
airports whether public or private. These services include air
traffic controllers, aviation control for takeoff and landing, and
air navigation costs. It is important to note that the current
revenues from this tax of nearly $600 million do not cover the
full government cost of aviation which runs at about $870
million.
Whether we are talking about airlines, aeroplane fees or the
cost of running airports; whether we are talking about VIA rail
and the cost of running trains down the track; or whether we are
talking about transportation such as trucking where there are
diesel fees and taxes on the fuel actually going into the trucks,
historically in Canada we have shied away from making sure the
revenue derived from the users of a particular transportation
system ends up benefiting that transportation system.
The trucks pay the diesel road tax. Interestingly, CP rail also
pays for its diesel locomotives which, the last time I looked, are
not using our highways. The CP Rail corporation has to pay for
the maintenance of its track, its roadbed and all other
infrastructure with respect to locomotives in spite of the fact
that a component of the fuel tax pays for roads for its
competitors, truckers. It is a bit of an anachronism and probably
points out as well as anything the component I am speaking
about, that users should pay for the service they are receiving.
The air transportation tax will reduce the tax burden on short
haul domestic and transborder flights by decreasing the flat
charge per ticket and increasing the maximum fee. Living in
Cranbrook I can appreciate many people take a look at whether
they want to be going back and forth to Calgary by aeroplane or
by road. Coming back to the factor we were just talking about,
the costs of gasoline, fuel taxes, road maintenance and upkeep
plus the time, I believe this will ultimately be of benefit. It will
get more people off the road, through Kootenay National Park
5671
and through the Crowsnest. Probably this will be duplicated in
many areas throughout Canada.
The flat fee is decreased to $6 and the maximum increased to
$50.
(1600 )
The changes will bring in an additional $24 million in 1994
and $41 million in 1995. While this is an improvement for the
reason that I just set out where one has short haul being more
competitive price wise because the taxes on the short haul are
going down, on the other side of the coin I submit to the
government the fact that the changes are only going to be $24
million and $41 million still leaves a significant shortfall in the
concept of user pay.
I believe this levy should not be part of our complicated tax
system. It is beneficial that the funds do not go into general
revenue and that they are spent specifically on aviation. I would
encourage the government as it goes through more bills and
motions and as it takes a look at the practices within the
Department of Transport to take a look at the concept of
changing the user fee to full cost recovery basis.
I would suggest that in addition to air transportation tax, there
are probably other areas in the cost of running airport terminals
and being able to provide services to private pilots. We would be
able to take a look at moving forward and getting closer to a user
pay principle.
The final section of this act has to do with GST changes for
meal allowance. Having been a commercial traveller for a
number of years, I recognize the chagrin that was faced by the
small commercial traveller who suddenly was faced with the
cost of being able to expense his meals and being able to get, for
example, shop owners and people he was selling to out of their
place of business into a neutral location and being able to talk to
them. This was a tax increase to someone who earns their
income by travelling, by working and selling with people.
The Reform Party supported the changes when the budget
came out on the basis that they amounted to a business subsidy.
While we recognize that these expenses are legitimate business
expenses for some, the reality is in the overall picture there was
a tax break for a select few.
As I just indicated with a tremendous amount of sympathy, to
the people who are commercial travellers and business people
who use the business expense deduction for meals, it was
exceptionally unfortunate for them that they ended up caught in
the squeeze between these two factors. However, overall we
support that.
On balance and in summary, I consider it exceptionally
unfortunate that the government has chosen to cluster these
three totally different and unrelated parts of our taxation system
together. It is really unfortunate and I hope that in future the
government will look with more favour to in this case bringing
forward three separate bills so that we can vote on them
separately.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question. I was going to ask it a little later, however I appreciate
the opportunity.
I would like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken to
elaborate on how, had he been in government, rather than
putting this bill forth as an omnibus bill, he would have broken it
down.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the outset, the
difficulty is that when one combines the issue of tobacco taxes
with airport tax, air transportation taxes and GST changes for
meal allowance, it clearly is unworkable.
The simple answer would be to have brought them forward as
three totally separate bills so that they could have been handled
and discussed with more intelligence.
(1605 )
The other factor I question is why the government would have
chosen to pull C-32 with the tobacco taxes together with these at
this time and why it would not have brought it forward at the
same time when Bill C-11 was brought forward. Again, as
memory serves, from Bill C-11 there were some aspects that
were totally supportable but on the other side of the coin there
were some serious problems and there was a balance. Had we the
opportunity for the section on tobacco taxes of Bill C-32 being
combined with Bill C-11, I believe this House would have been
able to have much more intelligent deliberation.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks. One area
he could perhaps provide a bit more insight into is the moral
responsibility of the tobacco companies and of the international
companies that are going to reap the rewards of an increased
level of smoking in our population.
I wonder if he has given any thought to how perhaps we could
make the tobacco companies more accountable for the huge
increases in our health care costs that are bound to come
somewhere down the road so that they could pay their fair share
since they are the ones reaping the rewards caused by this
lowering of tobacco costs with the increase in the smoking
population.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, in this instance we have spoken
about the connection or the user pay principle. I am wondering if
there is not something that we could be taking a look at with
respect to a direct connection between their cost of doing
business. In the same way that we have no deposit, no return, in
other words a deposit system on bottles, cans or glasses, in the
same way that we have been talking about user pay for air
transportation tax, I am wondering if we could not be seriously
taking a look at the connection between the taxes that we should
5672
be levying on tobacco and see them as a specific piece of
revenue that would be going toward health care costs.
Additionally, one of the interesting things coming out around
the world in all commodities, for example the forest product
companies in Canada, is that there has been a glare of light in
some of their practices that historically have been unacceptable
and have actually been poor for our ecology. In the same way
that there has been this glare of light suddenly these companies
have taken on the responsibility of responsible sustainable
forest practices. They are very proud to be able to show people
in their communities and to put on demonstrations of how they
are being responsible at this point.
In addition to the actual financial suasion of a tax connection,
such as I have just spoken about together with the moral suasion,
that is, making them have more of a feeling and an
acknowledgement of responsibility for what their product is
doing within our community, that is part of the answer.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, I have a brief comment. I could speak to illicit some
comment here as a proponent of the bill. Does my hon. colleague
here really believe that our borders are such that we can keep a
profitable small package such as cigarettes out of circulation?
Further to that, without dropping taxes, would we not be using
our policing resources to maintain an artificially high price in
order to sustain smuggler profits?
(1610 )
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, that is part of the question that I
posed at the outset and why I have clearly stated that I have no
position, that I am ambivalent. There is a principle involved, the
secondary principle that I did not speak to earlier which is the
fact that we effectively were rewarding people for being
involved. I am talking about ordinary citizens who were going
out and purchasing the illegal cigarettes. We actually rewarded
those people by taking taxes off. It seems to me that the principle
is all wrong.
Principle is one thing, but when I speak to doctors, nurses and
medical practitioners and they tell me of the difficulties that this
is going to create by not lowering the taxes I fully recognize that
there is a physical reality here. I stand to be convinced but
nonetheless I am taking a look at the fact that again we have
combined the tobacco taxes with the air tax, with the GST rebate
and we will be voting as best we can on what is a poorly cobbled
piece of legislation.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if
there would be unanimous consent to revert to the presentation
of reports by committees. I have a report from the procedure and
House affairs committee concerning the membership in
committees. I consulted earlier and there would be consent to
proceed with that now.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, is that the procedure and
House affairs report that we are looking at here? Is that the only
one?
Mr. Milliken: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Calgary North.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, before
I begin my discussion of Bill C-32 I would like to comment on
the operation of our democratic system, the authority of
Parliament to fully discuss legislation and the way that this bill
is being moved so quickly through the House.
The first reading of Bill C-32 occurred on May 27, a short
time ago. As everyone in this House knows, this is a very
complex bill of 62 pages, filled with highly technical
information.
The government should show respect for the role of
opposition parties to study, analyse and prepare constructive
criticism on such bills by allowing sufficient time for
comprehensive review.
This is particularly true when a great deal of new legislation,
again much of it very lengthy and complex, is being introduced
all at the same time toward the end of this session. I believe it
does a disservice to our country, to this House and the members'
roles in it to be dealing so quickly with some very important
legislation and this is one example of that.
By pushing debate ahead so quickly on this and other last
minute legislation the government is disrepecting the spirit and
purpose of our democratic institutions. Canadians deserve
better than this. Canadians do not want to sacrifice principles,
respect for democratic process and due process for the sake of
expediency.
Unfortunately this expediency has a severe cost in the case of
Bill C-32. While Reform supports certain elements of this bill,
such as some of the anti-smuggling initiatives, the air
transportation tax changes and the meal allowance changes,
there is much that is questionable about Bill C-32. It is a flawed
piece of
5673
legislation because it deals with the health of Canadians and in
the view of many caves into the pressure of the tobacco lobby,
discriminates against western provinces and can well contribute
to interprovincial smuggling. These elements make it a bad bill,
pure and simple.
The first issue which I would like to speak to is the
government's unfortunate provision in this bill which removes
one deterrent to the threat to the health of Canadians. This is the
lowering of the tax on tobacco products. Nothing is more
important to Canadians than their health and the health of their
loved ones. This concern of Canadians is an especially strong
case for young people when it applies to our future generations.
(1615)
Unfortunately it is this age group that tobacco manufacturers
have been targeting for many years with their advertising
campaigns. The government, however, seems to have lost the
will to combat this problem directly. It decided to lower tobacco
taxes without making a proper evaluation of the impact of its
actions on health care costs and on possible increased addiction
among the nation's young.
As we were reminded last week by the hon. Reform member
for Yorkton-Melville, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Health clearly stated in one of her speeches that the
government fully recognizes that the action plan to combat
smuggling and the tax measures associated with it would pose
health risks. How can the government pursue such measures in
good conscience when it knows that one serious result of this
legislation before us today may lead to greater addiction and
result in heart disease, cancer, and death?
Where is the logic here? Where are our priorities? How are we
to believe the government's professed statements about concern
for the health of Canadians, indeed statements made today in
this House by the Minister of Health showing great concern and
great sympathy for a very unfortunate case?. These actions do
not square with that professed concern.
I do not doubt that there are some in our country, mainly the
tobacco lobby, who are pleased with this legislation but it should
not be the concern of this House to cater to special interests,
especially interests which put their own profit margins over the
health concerns of the nation. This House is here to provide good
government to all Canadians and this is the goal of the Reform
Party.
Even if we were to consider the idea of tobacco tax reductions
as legitimate, this bill does not even handle the tax decrease
fairly. The provinces of western Canada which wanted no part of
the tax decrease and desperately needed the revenues, mostly to
pay for health costs, a good portion of which are incurred by
smoking, have been bullied by this government. They have been
given no choice. They have lost a great deal of revenue and
received no compensation whatever. This is clearly
discriminatory in our federal system.
Worse still, western provinces which never had a tobacco
smuggling problem before now are having to cope with a large
inflow of cigarettes from the eastern provinces that have lower
tobacco taxes than they do. This is unfair and it must stop.
We recognize that you cannot beat a plan with no plan so the
Reform Party would like to suggest an alternative route to the
hasty and misguided path upon which the government has now
embarked.
We recommend a plan for restoring tobacco taxes to previous
levels should be considered. It is true that tax levels need to be
lowered in this country but lowering them in this one instance in
this one narrow area without regard for all the consequences is
not the proper way to go. The government may complain that
increased taxes will again lead to increased smuggling.
However that is not wholly true.
As has been mentioned in this House before the majority of
cigarettes being smuggled into Canada, in the region of about 70
per cent, were coming from reserves located on Ontario and
Quebec borders with New York State. However, due to a U.S.
court decision on Monday New York will now be limiting the
supply of duty free cigarettes to these reserves based on a per
person quota. All cigarettes in excess of this quota will be fully
taxed. This means that cigarettes coming through those reserves
will already cost about 35 cents more per pack than those legally
purchased in Canada.
(1620)
Furthermore, if the proposed American health tax on
cigarettes is added later this year as anticipated, Canadian
cigarettes will be cheaper by around $1.50 a pack than their U.S.
equivalent. This opens the door for the return to previous
taxation levels with no increased risk of smuggling.
The Reform Party would therefore ask the government to act
on this development as soon as the House resumes sitting in the
fall. If the government still finds that there is a smuggling
problem then it should consider the reinstatement of an export
tax on those cigarettes sold to neighbouring jurisdictions which
are above and beyond our historic levels of cigarette exports,
which are about 3 per cent of Canadian cigarette production.
The Reform Party also suggests that the health promotion
surtax imposed earlier this year on the profits of cigarette
manufacturers be extended from three years to six years.
I would ask the government to introduce a complete ban on all
advertising for tobacco products. It is high time that government
put the health concerns of Canadians first on its list of priorities.
The more time we lose, the more health care resources and lives
of our citizens are going to be lost. Now is the time for more
considered action.
5674
The Reform Party believes that this is an important debate of
concern to all Canadians and we believe that the government
should now re-examine this matter of lowering tobacco taxes. A
vote against this bill now could be a vote for a better approach to
this problem in the future and indeed a vote for a better future for
the health of our Canadian citizens.
I would urge members of this House to vote to suspend the
implementation of Bill C-32 at this time so that with the
resuming of sittings in the fall we can all work together to get it
right.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
once again I listened to my colleague's comments with great
interest. I noted that she is advocating the re-examination of this
legislation in order to take another fresh look at just where the
country is going with this reduction in cigarette taxation.
Could she give us some indication of what she would come up
with for a better enforcement strategy. If we are not going to
have the reduction in the cigarette taxes and the reduction in the
cost of cigarettes in order to combat the cigarette smuggling,
what other avenue is open and what would she advocate? Would
it be in the form of a higher export tax? Would it be in more
money spent on law enforcement? Would it be more patrols of
our borders? Would it be those types of things? I just wonder
what she would advocate.
Mrs. Ablonczy: I thank my colleague for his question. It is
clear that we need to examine this matter of putting some
inhibitions on the use of cigarettes by citizens in our country.
There are a number of ways that this can be done, some of which
I mentioned when I spoke earlier in the debate. I think this
matter of an export tax would take a lot of the economic
incentive out of smuggling activity. That is a very important
consideration.
I think there can be better enforcement through higher
penalties for this type of activity. There has to be a cost benefit
analysis for people engaged in cigarette smuggling. If the costs
start to outweigh the benefits then we will find fewer people
finding it attractive to engage in cigarette smuggling.
(1625 )
We also need to start educating citizens about the cost to them
of the use of cigarettes. A lot of us as citizens are under the
impression that somehow things are free, particularly health
care costs associated with the use of cigarettes and that this is
paid for by government or by the health care system. In fact,
these costs are paid by Canadians who work very, very hard for
their money and who then turn it over to government to
administer programs that protect us from the consequences of
certain actions.
Canadians need to have some cost benefit analysis for
themselves as well, realizing that the buck does not stop
anywhere but with us and it does not come from anyone but us.
Then I believe our choices will be a little more realistic when it
comes to cost benefit.
When we talk about diminishing the use of cigarettes,
diminishing the demand for smuggled cigarettes there are all of
these aspects of enforcement and deterrence that are tied in
together. That is why I recommended to the House a need to just
back up a little bit and re-examine what we are doing here. I
think we moved ahead too quickly when this legislation was first
considered, promised and introduced. I think it can work better
if we bring the pieces together in a more thoughtful manner. I
think giving it a few more months and re-examining and
redrafting some of its provisions would serve our country better
than the bill before us.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the comments of my colleague
from Calgary North. I have two comments I would like her to
respond to.
She related in her speech the importance she places on this
issue. Knowing her personally I know she would not make those
statements lightly. I wonder what her reflections are with regard
to how serious the government is taking Bill C-32. I know my
eyesight is failing me, but I do not even see a minister in the
House during the debate of this very important issue.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I must interrupt the
member. I appreciate that he has not been here as long as some of
us. It is quite contrary to our rules to make notice of the fact that
a member or minister is or is not in the House because of the fact
that he or she might be away for a very good reason.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps just a clarification.
Even when there are no ministers in the House you are not
allowed to make note of it? I am not speaking of anybody
specifically. I see a parliamentary secretary has arrived and I
appreciate that.
I will get on to my second comment. I was quite interested to
hear my colleague from Calgary North speak about cigarette and
tobacco advertising. She made the statement that it should be
banned. This is quite a serious statement. I am sure she has some
very concrete reasons for suggesting that. I would be quite
curious to find out what rationale the hon. member has for
suggesting that cigarette advertising should be banned in
Canada.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, we learn so much every day
from the Chair and we appreciate that.
My colleague asked me to comment on two things. One was
how seriously I think the government is taking this matter of
health hazards associated with these attempts to diminish
cigarette smuggling. I think the government is serious about the
problem. There has been an attempt to address it vigorously. The
only problem is that I do not believe this way of addressing it is
the most effective. I do not think it was well thought through. I
do think the costs of this particular approach outweigh the
benefits and that there can be some changes to the legislation
which will make it much more effective in addressing the
problem.
5675
All of us in this House including those on the government side
are concerned that we not have a problem of cigarette smuggling
in the country. We know the disruption and the social cost but we
have to make sure that what happens to stamp out one fire does
not start a bunch of others.
(1630)
The second thing mentioned by my colleague was banning
cigarette advertising. This has not been talked about too much in
the House. I guess my comments to start us thinking about
advertising are these.
The goal of advertising is to create a need, to create a desire.
In simple terms, why are we allowing an activity that creates a
need and a desire in our citizens to use a product that is very
harmful to them personally, has an enormous social cost and an
enormous economic cost?
We need to sit down and do a cost benefit analysis on that.
Yes, it does create some jobs and that is good, but at what cost? It
seems to me that when we are so eager to legislate, to make
moves to change social policies and social structures, this is an
area that we really have not considered as seriously as we could.
I would suggest that it would certainly be an appropriate use
of the legislative powers of the House to diminish activities that
create a need and a desire for a very harmful product for
Canadians and for Canadian youth.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before we continue, it is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, human
rights; the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
trade; and the hon. member for Richelieu, mass layoffs.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
able to stand in the House today and state that I support this bill.
If I were able to put on simply a politician's hat, there would be
enough in this bill for me to support. As my colleague from
Kootenay East said, this is one of those difficult bills as it has
more than one unrelated issue in it.
The omnibus bill is a problem. I presume that they are all
lumped together because of the excise tax component to them.
However I would like to express my objection to an omnibus bill
as an issue here and having said that, branch off into the areas of
this bill that I do agree with.
I agree with a manufacturers' surtax. The $185 million can be
used to prevent smoking but of course that $185 million must be
used effectively. As far as I can determine it is only in effect for
three years. I wonder what will happen after the three years are
up?
I also agree with the excise tax on exports of tobacco. That
makes sense to me. I believe that to have tobacco going across
the U.S. border and coming back makes no sense at all. The
government made a good attempt to try to treat fairly those retail
and wholesale outlets with inventory on hand when the changes
were announced. It was a reflection that this bill might have
some effect on the businesses that dealt with tobacco products.
I have occasion to also agree with the airline tax changes and
philosophically agree with the fact that there will be GST
changes on businesses when people entertain at restaurants.
Those are the portions of the bill with which I agree.
However, I pause to think about the portions of the bill that I
believe are the most important. Those of course are the portions
that relate to smoking and to cigarettes.
(1635 )
I would like to express what expertise I have on this subject. I
reflect back to my university days when in my medical training
we spent two years of our lives in what we call basic sciences,
studying books. We learned about anatomy, we learned about
physiology, we learned about biochemistry, we learned about
pharmacology.
The very first opportunity we had to deal with patients
directly I was assigned an elderly patient, a fellow who had
fought in the war. He was hospitalized in a veterans' hospital in
Edmonton where I trained. He had a smoking related disease. He
had emphysema.
I was particularly interested and keen to look after this man so
well. He was my very first patient. I had responsibility for him.
He was aged. He was in his mid-sixties. He had problems that
related specifically to the fact that all his life he had smoked and
he had emphysema. His chest was barrel shaped. He had
difficulty breathing. He lay in the bed unable to get up. He was
on medication that would hopefully prevent infection which
often affects somebody with that disease.
I spent many hours with him. I spoke with him at length about
his life, his family and his history. I spoke with him about his
hopes, dreams and desires when he was a young person. I spoke
with him in fact about when he started smoking and why he
started smoking. Over a span of about six weeks I felt that I
became his friend and his confidant. In fact he and I had many
good hours together.
5676
As he slipped quietly and slowly into a state where he was no
longer able to communicate, I remember very clearly his last
words to me before he passed on. He called me doctor even
though I was not at that point in time a full-fledged doctor. He
said to me: ``Doctor Hill, I beg you to tell the young people not
to smoke. I beg you to tell them not to start''.
I have never forgotten that man. I have never forgotten the
anguish in his heart when he died of this problem relating
directly to tobacco.
One of the things we did as medical students was participate
in autopsies. One of our pathology experts was a somewhat
ghoulish individual in fact. I felt that his way of dealing with
material that was so special was quite interesting. He had a lung.
It was a lung he had taken from a specimen that had smoked. He
had a lung from an individual who had not smoked. With great
delight he used to come into the anatomy lab for the young
students and say: ``I'd like to show you young students what it
means to smoke''. He took the lung from the person who had
smoked and it was black as coal. It looked like somebody had
sprayed it with spray paint. He would take that lung and squash
it between his hands. After he squashed it he would let go of it
and it would stay squashed.
Then he would show us the nice pink lung, the dried up lung
from someone who had not smoked. This lung was not black as
coal but was pink and supple. He would compress that lung and
when he let go it would expand immediately back. It was in fact
very much like a piece of foam rubber. He would shake his
finger at us individually and say: ``Don't you ever smoke. You
are going to carry the medical message to the country. Don't you
ever smoke''.
I reflect back on my first hospital duties and the medical staff
in the hospital where I first practised. I looked around the table
at my confreres and over 50 per cent of the doctors in that room
smoked. I graduated back in the late 1960s. I practised medicine
from 1970 until coming to the House.
(1640)
I have noticed a significant change in the medical profession
over those 25 years of practice. At the end of those 25 years-I
hope not the ultimate end, I hope to be able to return to that
practice if we can get some sanity back into the House of
Commons-there was but one of the medical staff smoking.
The medical profession has learned over the last 25 years
what a serious problem smoking is. It is a serious enough
problem that I became a confirmed anti-smoking medical
doctor. I lectured my patients about smoking. I begged my
patients to quit smoking. I gave them nicotine gum to have them
stop smoking. I tried hypnosis to get them to stop smoking. I
sent them to acupuncturists hoping they would quit smoking. I
gave them a medication called Inderal which we thought maybe
would help.
I would like to say that you can usually tell how successful the
medical profession is on an issue by how many different forms
of treatment they have. If you are successful in the medical
treatment there is one treatment. I gave you the list of the things
that I tried to do as a medical practitioner to stop people from
smoking. It is very difficult, very unsuccessful. I have to stand
here and say that my success rate in my practice of medicine was
singularly poor. I am embarrassed to admit that but it is true.
Smoking is highly addictive. It is much harder to quit once
you start, and in my view all the efforts of the medical
community should be directed toward youth to prevent them
starting.
I believe the main problems with this bill are just those issues.
All efforts are not being directed toward our youth.
I have youth in my family. I have given them every
opportunity to be educated on this issue. I had a foster native son
who chose to smoke and one of my natural sons also chose to
smoke. Of course I asked them why. The answers they gave me
were in both instances peer pressure and rebellion. If dad told
me not to do it I probably should do it, an if my buddies told me
to do it for sure it was going to be good. My firm hope is that
those two sons of mine who chose to smoke will change their
minds.
There are four main factors in starting to smoke. The price of
the product is number one and this bill does have an impact on
the price. Promotion of the product is number two and that is
something that we can do something about. The product itself
and the place in which you live are other factors in this issue.
Societal factors are a big deal.
I believe that we should have freedom in this country. I
believe we should have freedom to do many things that are
harmful for us. It is extremely difficult to legislate people into
doing what is good for them. I believe we should have freedom
to eat junk food even though junk food ultimately may not be
good for us. I believe we should have freedom to drink water, or
juice, or alcohol even though one of those products ultimately
may not be good for us. I believe we should have freedom to run
home from the office for exercise or ride in a vehicle with no
exercise.
I believe we should have the freedom to smoke if we choose to
smoke but I do not believe that we should make it easy to start. I
do not believe that we should encourage our youth to start. I
certainly hope that this House will do none of those things.
(1645)
I tried to look with as much favour as I could on the
government's strategy here because this was not just a smoking
issue. I tried to ask what is the all-embracing, anti-smoking
strategy of our health minister. I have not really been able to pin
5677
the health minister down on this issue, but there have been some
pieces that have dribbled out in terms of that strategy.
The minister has said that the $185 million that will be taken
in the manufacturers' surtax will be used in large measure for
advertising to prevent smoking. I said before that the money
must be used effectively and I have yet to see an advertising
campaign that would prevent teens from starting. It certainly
will have no effect on adults who have already started.
I also heard the minister talk about plain packaging. Plain
packaging has had a significant amount of input and feedback in
our committees and a significant amount of witnesses on both
sides of the issue. If plain packaging will make a difference to
prevent youth from smoking I will support it and support it
strongly.
I simply ask that before plain packaging is embarked upon, an
expensive proposition, a job dislocation proposition, that we
have proof it will work. In my view that proof is not so far away.
There is a study at the University of Toronto looking at this
specifically. I thought we would have a good study from our
Department of Health. I am not sure of that anymore, but I hope
that study will also prove that plain packaging of cigarettes
would be efficacious.
The health minister has said eventually we will raise taxes. I
hope that eventually is not so far down the road that eventually
will never happen.
The other point that I wanted to bring up on this debate was
the issue of the freedom in this House. There are actually more
medical doctors in Parliament today than I believe have ever
been in Parliament before. Three of them sit on the government
side. I have listened to the three of them speak about their view
on this bill as it relates to health. We are going to have
individuals on this side of the House voting against my personal
position on this bill. I have to oppose it for health reasons. I
believe there will be members of my caucus who will stand up
and say they disagree with me, they agree with the government.
However, I will watch with profound interest what my medical
colleagues do with this bill on this issue.
I reflect upon two members in the last Parliament who voted
against their government on a specific piece of legislation. I
watched what happened to them. I watched them removed from
their caucus. One of those individuals is in this House today. I
say to the medical individuals on the government side that if you
vote for this bill you are voting against everything that your
medical profession taught you. You are voting against the
Hippocratic Oath.
I will watch with great interest, if they do vote against the
government on this bill, exactly what happens to them in their
caucus. If they get booted out of their caucus for voting for the
health of Canadians our government is down the tubes. I will
state that as strongly as I can state it.
There is one thing that tobacco companies have done in terms
of the advertising of their product. They have a mobile billboard
that they are using now. The race cars that race on the tracks of
this country are now advertising tobacco. I hate to say this
because I am a race car driver, but the tobacco companies have
found a way around the advertising ban.
As much as I hate to say this to Jacques Villeneuve who drives
a car with logos all over it, this should not continue. The racing
car fraternity will choke as I say this-millions of dollars being
put toward the activity that I enjoy a tremendous amount-there
should not be the allowance of cultural events sponsored by the
tobacco companies. There should not be mobile billboards on
the tracks of this country to attract our youth to smoking.
(1650)
I am going to use an illusion that comes from the race car
world. When you are driving a car very fast you know that you
are running into a wall of air. The car shakes and shudders, but if
you can get right behind another car and draft that car you can go
faster. The turbulence decreases, you can go faster than you
could by yourself. Interestingly enough, you can push the car
ahead of you faster. Drafting actually makes both vehicles go
faster. It has something to do with the turbulence behind the
vehicle that you are pushing.
I look upon this government as the car in the lead. I look upon
this party as the drafting car, pushing the government faster than
it would otherwise move. I challenge this government to keep us
in the draft, continue with legislation like this and there could be
a passing manoeuvre coming up.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
think the illustration that has just been used is an excellent
illustration of what has been happening in this House. It is not
just with regard to this piece of legislation, but the Young
Offenders Act and some of the other things that have been
happening are good examples of how an opposition that is strong
and prods the government can have quite an influence in some
positive directions that government can take.
That goes along with what this government is advocating,
does it not? Is not this government saying it is listening, it wants
that co-operation to take place, it is looking for input?
I hope it is listening because we are trying to make a point. We
have been addressing this for quite some time and the health
concerns are not going to go away. We have heard some of the
statistics that have been quoted and some of the results of this
legislation already coming forward on how smoking seems to be
on the increase. It is a legitimate concern that we have.
5678
Coming back to the remarks that were made, I am not an
expert in this area, someone who is in medicine of course would
be. There are some people who will absolutely never smoke. No
matter what advertising might take place, they would not be
lured into that habit. There are others who will probably smoke
no matter what contrary advertising took place. No matter what
the government did to try to discourage that, they would still
smoke.
There is a group on the edge. They can be influenced one way
or the other. I would like the member to maybe comment in this
regard about the vulnerable sector of our society that will be
influenced by the price. Would that not be a factor that the
government should consider?
Some will say they are not going to start smoking just because
the price has been lowered. That may be true, there may be an
element out there. Some will smoke no matter what the price is.
That could be true. I am wondering if there is not an element in
between there, a vulnerable element that would be influenced by
price. I do not know if the member has any research or any
opinion on that.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I happen to have some
research and data on that issue. I think we should maybe join up
in Question Period. We could have a very similar process as I see
across the way.
Smoking increase is the first in 30 years, and this actually
came across the wire this morning from Toronto on CP. For the
first time in 30 years tobacco use is on the rise in Ontario and
women account for most of the new smokers.
(1655 )
Among those women age 18 and older smoking soared to 25
per cent this year from 19 per cent in 1993. These particular data
suggest that the availability of cheaper cigarettes has halted the
decline. In Canada that decline in smoking has been going on for
30 years and has perhaps reversed the trend. The fellow who
conducted the research at the foundation said the greater
increase for women is consistent with the fact that women's
lower incomes make them more price sensitive than men and
more likely to react to the tax cuts.
One of the tragedies in medicine is that women have
overtaken men in terms of cigarette smoking, and cancer of the
lungs in women has now overtaken the other horrible cancer in
women, breast cancer, as one of the major causes of female
death. Preventable illness-there is nothing in medicine more
satisfying than preventing disease.
These data are the first data we have had made available to us.
It has not been very long since these proposals have been on the
books. Surely 30 years of decline in smoking with a sudden
spike tells us something. This spike has nothing whatever to do
with legal or illegal cigarettes. It is simply a spike, an
indication. As we get more indications I think the government
will backtrack on this bill. Why backtrack on it when we can
prevent it right now?
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate my hon. colleague for the wonderful speech he
made. I listened to the graphic details of what happens to our
organs when we smoke and he talked about lungs that seemed to
be rather unpleasant to see.
Then he went on to talk about the fact that it was against the
Hippocratic Oath of doctors to vote in favour of this bill and he
expected any doctor in the Liberal government would oppose
this bill.
At the same time the Minister of Health acquiesced while her
government introduced this legislation and dropped the excise
tax on cigarettes.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he feels the
position of the Minister of Health should be and whether the
minister should resign when her government has introduced this
type of measure which will increase smoking. We have all
agreed that it is going to increase smoking. We have started to
see the effects of it already in the statistics.
The health minister by her position is dedicated to protecting,
enhancing and improving the life of Canadians.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he feels her
position should be and whether the minister should resign based
on what the government is trying to do.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not think the
health minister should resign on this issue. The minister has
enough trouble without worrying about resigning on this issue.
Traditionally the health minister on an issue like this would be
the strongest and most vocal supporter of the health of
Canadians. I did watch with interest to see whether that took
place. I am dismayed to report to this House that I do not believe
it did take place. There seems to me to be at least four
individuals who should vote against this bill.
I would strongly state that the Minister of Health should stand
in this House and state her opposition to anything that would do
what this bill will do and that is increase cigarette smoking in
our youth. I state that strongly.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
on February 8 this government announced its national action
campaign to combat smuggling. Bill C-11 was introduced to
address some of the enforcement measures and tax changes were
implemented using a number of ways and means motions until
Bill C-32 was introduced on May 27. As has already been
outlined, there are a number of positives mixed up in the bill
with the obvious negative of lowering cigarette taxes and
thereby lowering the price of cigarettes to smokers.
5679
(1700)
On February 10, I wrote a column on this very issue for
newspapers back home. It was printed in all the local papers. I
think it is of interest and I would like to quote from my column
and read it into the record:
The Prime Minister says there is a breakdown in respect for the law in Canada
and this will no longer be tolerated. His House leader states that smuggling is a
crime and we must restore law and order. Brave words, hopefully to be followed
by strong action undertaken with a resolute strength of will.
The government unveiled its national action plan to combat smuggling, the
objective being to eliminate cigarette smuggling in Canada. Like most
government plans, it is a mixture of good and bad. Its plan to step up enforcement
by police forces and customs officers is certainly commendable as is the
implementation of an $8 per carton export tax.
Stepping up the anti-smoking education campaign is also a positive move.
However the government's announced reduction in taxes on legal cigarettes sold
in Canada must surely be a disastrous error. Make no mistake, the federal
government struck this deal primarily for the benefit of one province.
Quebec has been clamouring for action on this for weeks. Almost
immediately after the Prime Minister's announcement, Quebec indicated its
willingness to participate fully in the tax reduction scheme. As a result, the price
of a carton of cigarettes in Quebec will fall from $47 to less than $23 when
federal and provincial taxes are removed, along with relevant GST and sales
taxes. What is the fallout from this?
Criminals have been sent the message that we cannot protect our borders or
enforce our laws, particularly on the Akwasasne Indian reserve through which
an estimated 70 per cent of contraband tobacco is funnelled. We will instead
lower the price of legal cigarettes and compete for their customers.
Provinces other than Quebec will be forced to match the tax reductions. If
not, an international smuggling problem will simply become an interprovincial
one. Every province will face a resultant drop in tax revenue at the very time
they are all struggling to balance income with expenditures.
Price is a deterrent. Cheaper cigarettes will act as an incentive for Canadians
to start or to continue smoking, especially our youth. The end result will
undoubtedly be higher health costs for all Canadians in the future.
For years, our policy has been to attempt to offset the costs attributable to
smoking by levying higher tobacco taxes. Now suddenly with one stroke of the
pen, this government has reversed that policy. This new policy of reducing
domestic taxes in lieu of initiating a higher export tax will primarily benefit the
tobacco industry by maintaining or increasing current cigarette consumption
levels.
If past performance is any indication this government, just like its
predecessor, will lack the political will to follow though with its announced
crackdown on smugglers. In my opinion what is needed is a comprehensive plan
which would include strict enforcement of our laws. If the present police and
customs forces are inadequate as the past record of seizure of only an estimated
1 per cent of illegal cigarettes would seem to indicate, then those forces should
be augmented.
If necessary, our armed forces should be called upon to assist with this
mission. Perhaps a little trip down the St. Lawrence might make a good
shakedown cruise for our new frigates. It is time for politicians to make some
tough decisions and give the police a mandate to enforce our laws.
That was my column on February 10. What has changed since
February 10? I note not a lot.
I would like to change the focus of the debate a little at this
point and talk about cigarettes from a personal perspective. I
have been a smoker for approximately 25 years.
(1705 )
Mr. Young: Shame.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Shame. That is
right.
When it comes to quitting smoking, I am a professional
quitter. I have quit hundreds of times. However, I can attest to
just how powerful a hold cigarettes have on an individual.
Make no mistake, nicotine is a highly addictive drug. We have
all heard that it is perhaps even more addictive than the drug
heroin. I started smoking when I was 16 years old and as one of
my colleagues remarked earlier, being raised on a farm I started
smoking out behind the barn at a very early age. Why the barn
did not burn down I have no idea.
At that time cigarettes were 35 cents a pack. I can remember
very clearly when they were raised to 50 cents, then 75 cents,
finally climbing to $1. Of course with each price increase a few
more people would quit smoking. That is the reality of it.
I can remember my father for one stating that when cigarettes
got to be $1 a pack that was it, he was going to quit smoking. It
certainly was a deterrent for young people and although that was
many years ago I was a young person at that time. It was hard to
come up with 35 cents some days.
Last night on my way home I stopped at a corner store to
purchase a package of cigarettes. Three dollars and thirty cents
is how much it costs to buy them by the pack. I heard an hon.
member earlier state that they are down around $2 a pack if you
buy them by the carton.
The very thing we spoke out about in February when the
government announced this legislation and their intentions are
actually coming about, the lower cost of cigarettes in central
Canada. With the resultant lower cost we are starting to see an
increase in consumption, especially among young people who
would not be able to afford cigarettes in many cases at $7 a pack
or thereabouts where it was a while back.
I ask the government, what message does this send to
teenagers. That it is this frivolous with their health? The
government cares this little about the health of teenagers that it
lowers the cost of cigarettes like this. Tobacco is a drug
addiction. I would equate it to alcohol. Once you become an
alcoholic everyone
5680
recognizes that you are an alcoholic for life. It does not matter if
you have not had a drink for 20 years, you are still an alcoholic.
Past alcoholics who are successful are people who recognize
that fact and never take that first drink. I can certainly attest to
the fact it is very similar once you take that first cigarette. It
does not take long for nicotine to take hold of your life again.
Probably since the lowering of the tax and consequently the
cost of cigarettes, in the neighbourhood of hundreds or perhaps
even thousands of young people have begun to smoke. Certainly
a lot of young people who perhaps would seriously have
considered giving up the cigarettes are continuing to smoke.
As I outlined in my column, the international smuggling
problem has become an interprovincial one. Westerners, the
people I represent, feel very disenfranchised by this. They feel
they are second class citizens when they know what the price of
cigarettes is in central Canada and it is still over $6 a pack back
home.
Polls are indicating, as some of our hon. members have
indicated, that the use of cigarettes is going up for the first time
in recent history. Common sense would seem to dictate that hon.
members opposite should vote against this, but common sense
seems to be sadly lacking on the other side of the House on this
issue.
(1710)
In conclusion, I would like to sum up by making three points.
My colleagues have addressed the majority of their concerns
with this legislation.
Nicotine is a powerful drug. It is well if we all remember that,
especially when it gets a hold on our youth, when the youth take
to smoking.
There is ample evidence to note that smoking is dangerous to
a person's health. I know that used to be disputed for many
years. Certainly when I first started smoking it was not as well
known as it is now just what are the inherent dangers of cigarette
consumption. We are just beginning to learn about the real
danger of second hand smoke to our children, to our spouses, to
people around us in the workplace.
I find it somewhat ironic that the government would initiate
lowering the cost of cigarettes at the same time as municipalities
across the country are having smoke free zones, smoke free
buildings. Yet the government through this lowering of the cost
of tobacco is actually encouraging people to either begin to
smoke or to continue smoking.
We note that the government has no real handle on what the
cost to future taxpayers is going to be in health care. It is very
relevant to remember that it is future taxpayers who are going to
pay this. Just like the deficit and the debt, we are passing on this
cost to our children.
Miss Grey: Pass the buck.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): That is right, pass
the buck.
Miss Grey: Pass the butt.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Or pass the butt.
The third point I want to come back to is that price is a
deterrent. I can attest to that, as I said earlier. Any young person
who smokes today would also be witness to that fact. There is a
big difference at $2 or $3 a pack than if it is $7 or $8 a pack of
cigarettes in how much they will smoke or whether they will
even continue smoking.
I am very pleased to be able to rise today and voice my
opposition to Bill C-32, not because, as other speakers have said
that it does not have some good built into it but that strictly on
health reasons alone I feel that in all good conscience, if we care
about future generations, if we care about the young in Canada,
we should vote against this bill.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker,
one of the reasons I enjoy going home from Ottawa is not simply
because the humidity is much less, although it is partly that.
There is a lot of space, that is true. But there is also a lot of
common sense out there.
One of the things that Cariboo-Chilcotin people are often
criticized for is perhaps their lack of subtlety. There may be
some subtlety in this bill that I find distressing.
If I remember correctly the reason we came at this is because
of a problem with smuggling. We have heard hon. members talk
about the consequences of this problem on the lives of
community members where this smuggling was taking place,
the hardships that people endured with smuggling taking place
in their driveways, of not being able to deal with the threats that
were involved, of the police being overwhelmed. There is no
denying the government was confronted with an enormous
problem.
The difficulty that I have and the subtlety that I am speaking
to is that the problem has been taken from the streets of these
communities and passed in general to the young people across
the nation. The problem is such that the lives and the of these
people are going to be affected at a time when the federal and
provincial governments are facing enormous problems with the
country's medical plan. In a sense, we are placing extra burdens
on the medical profession and the hospitals in caring for people
in the long term.
(1715)
This kind of subtlety, this kind of passing the buck, or the butt
as we have mentioned this afternoon, raises an extremely
important moral issue. It does deal with the original problem but
it makes the problem move from that area of the country and
generalizes it across the country. It increases the difficulties for
5681
many people and increases the costs for a long, long time to
come.
My hon. colleague has spoken so well of the difficulties of
smoking in his own life. How would he encourage the
government to deal with the smuggling which was the original
problem the government faced?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly thank my hon. colleague for his comments and his
question.
As he so ably put it, the government was faced with a
horrendous problem, the smuggling problem in Canada. As I
said in my column, 70 per cent of it had been identified as
coming through the native reserves in central Canada. What I
advocated then and what I still advocate is we have to get tough
with law breakers no matter who they are and no matter where
they are in our country.
I felt then as I do now that a dual approach is needed of raising
the export tax enough to take away the incentive as well as
clamping down on smugglers wherever they may be, even if it
were to cause bloodshed. If we have laws on our books but are
not prepared to enforce them, then what good are they?
This government developed a national strategy with this
legislation to address primarily a central Canada problem.
Certainly we did not see the same problem in western Canada. If
it had been there those governments would have reduced their
cigarette taxes as well and they have not, except by a minimal
amount.
We have to get tough with the smugglers instead of sending
them a clear message that we will compete with them for their
own customers by lowering the costs. If we follow this train of
thought through where does it lead? Other things are smuggled
into the country. Are we going to address them in the same
manner? That is ridiculous.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, once again speaking as someone who might be a
proponent of the bill, my hon. colleague who has been a smoker
for 25 years, does he believe that Canadian smokers will only
smoke Canadian cigarettes if there is a large price differential?
Does my colleague not have concerns about other damage to
society which might occur if the ill-gotten gains of cigarette
smuggling were to find their natural investment path in other
criminal activity?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
speaking as an experienced smoker, I can tell my hon. colleague
that Canadian cigarettes are the best cigarettes in the world. I
have travelled in Europe and I have travelled quite extensively
in the United States. I must say their cigarettes and tobacco
simply do not stack up. I am quite prepared to state that yes,
Canadian smokers would be prepared to pay more for Canadian
tobacco. That is a great indication of what a terrific job
Canadian farmers do in growing quality products.
(1720 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
the member on his fine speech. He mentioned the problems he
has had in wrestling with smoking for 25 years.
We have been talking about reducing the price of cigarettes
making them affordable for young people. More and more
young people, especially young ladies, are starting to smoke.
We heard the medical opinion from my colleague from Macleod
who told us how dangerous it is, how it ruins one's health, ruins
one's lungs.
My hon. colleague personally knows how difficult it is to stop
smoking. I think he said he has tried at least a thousand times, so
he is a professional stop smoking person. I would therefore ask,
is it far more important that we put the emphasis on making sure
people do not start smoking rather than allowing them to start,
thinking we will to convince them to quit later on by raising the
taxes through the roof? Surely it would be much better to focus
on not allowing these children to start smoking.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
agree the emphasis has to be placed on trying to educate the
young people. With my three young children at home I certainly
have endeavoured to do that. I have tried to tell them to do as I
say and not as I do, obviously.
Although I have smoked on and off for 25 years, I did quit for
four and a half years at one point, quite an accomplishment I felt
at the time. However, along came the 1988 election and by the
time I had gone through the election I was smoking again. It
might say something for the profession I am currently in.
As to what we can do to encourage young people, I think it is
incumbent on every one who has children or young people
around them-if you are a coach of a team, if you have young
nieces, nephews, grandchildren, whatever-to certainly
encourage them not to smoke and to warn them about the
dangers of smoking. That is something each and every one of us
can do.
I do not believe, as someone else said earlier, that plain
packaging or government advertising programs which spend
millions of dollars will be that effective. I have talked to a
number of young people. When they see these frightening ads on
television that try to portray the danger of cigarettes, they do not
relate to them. Peer pressure is much greater and it will not be
offset by that advertising.
Personal contact from people they know and trust, their
family and friends, would be much more successful in
preventing them from starting to smoke or convincing them to
stop if they do start.
5682
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
you might find there is unanimous consent to revert to
presentation of reports by committees to table the report from
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which
I attempted to do earlier.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
presentation by committees?
Mr. Hermanson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just
to clarify it is the one report the hon. member is bringing
forward.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5682
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 32nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of committees.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
this report in a couple of moments. To save reading at the table, I
should say that the report changes the associate members of the
Standing Committee on Industry by adding three names.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker,
that the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be
concurred in.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent from the
House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1725 )
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this
day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
5682
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-32, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the
Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 has
been introduced by the government to make some changes to the
way we tax cigarettes.
Remember that what caused this bill to be tabled in the House
was the smuggling problem we had along our border with the
United States. I think back and say that a nation is not a nation if
it cannot defend its borders and if it cannot enforce its laws.
It is from that beginning that we are debating a bill which is
going to dramatically reduce the taxation of cigarettes and
tobacco and will cause young people to start smoking. These
young people in essence are going to put their lives on the line.
They may die an early and difficult death in order for this
government to defend its borders and enforce its laws. That is
quite a tragedy we are putting on the shoulders of some of our
young people.
We have watched while the federal government has frittered
away its authority to protect its borders. In January and February
the government took questions every day in this House from
members regarding what it would do while millions of dollars
worth of cigarettes were being smuggled across the border.
Unfortunately the government members sat there, took the
questions and basically did nothing.
The RCMP would not enforce the laws of the land. Smugglers,
criminals, were able to cross over with impugnity bringing
cigarettes illegally into this country. The irony and the insult is
that the cigarettes being brought into Canada were being
exported by this country. They would go through a security
check, come back on a tax free basis and compete with cigarettes
being sold in the stores. Yet the government did nothing
whatsoever about it.
The whole problem arose because this country has a very high
tax on cigarettes, which is great because we do not want to
encourage people to smoke. We exported the cigarettes tax free
and they went into the various native reserves along the border
between Canada and the United States. They would come back
into Canada on a tax free basis. An illegal distribution system
developed over a period of years while the government sat by
and did nothing to protect its borders. It did nothing to enforce
5683
the laws and the criminal element raked billions of dollars away
from the legitimate businesses of this country.
Who knows where that money is today, but we do know that
some of it bought guns. Every night we would see on television
boats and skidoos crossing the St. Lawrence River between the
United States and Canada. We would hear the crackle of gunfire.
Yet this government stood back and did nothing whatsoever to
enforce its sovereignty and enforce the laws to ensure that this
country protected its citizens from the illegal cigarettes being
brought into Canada. The government was elected to uphold
democracy in this society and it refused to do its job. Now we
have another bill before us, Bill C-33. When I talk about the
supremacy of its laws I was rather taken aback to read one
particular clause in Bill C-33 regarding land claims agreements:
In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a final agreement or
transboundary agreement that is in effect and any federal or territorial law,
including this Act, the agreement prevails to the extent of conflict or
inconsistency.
This says that the government has given way and is no longer
saying that the laws of this land will have supremacy over Bill
C-33. Bill C-32 is another example where the government will
not enforce the laws of this country.
The government introduced a law to reduce the duty on
cigarettes. It raised the age from 16 to 18 and turned many
thousands of young Canadians into criminals instantly. One day
they were allowed to buy cigarettes perfectly legally and the
following day they could no longer buy cigarettes. Once they
were hooked and able to buy cigarettes the government changed
the law and said: ``That is going to be illegal. You can no longer
buy cigarettes if you are under the age of 18''.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5683
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately
initiate the the privatization of all or part of the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise and lead off the
debate on Motion 278 which urges the immediate, partial or
complete privatization of the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation.
On May 4, 1994 the minister said there are some aspects of the
CBC operations that could be privatized.
When we look at the question of the future of the Canadian
broadcasting system emotions often run high. I hope that the
debate today is rational, thought provoking and well
intentioned.
Certainly I recognize how difficult this issue is to raise on the
floor of this House. There has been a nervousness exhibited by
the industry that tells me how very sensitive it has become.
[Translation]
The CBC is made up of five totally distinct organizations:
English radio, French radio, English television, French
television and Newsworld. My speech today is especially and
exclusively concerned with the television organizations.
[English]
We are often told that the attitudes of Reformers toward the
free market and private enterprise are simply knee-jerk
reactions to the deficit and debt situation that Canada faces. As
well we often hear that the Reform Party is anti-culture.
However, such allegations are quite simply false and do not
benefit nor elevate the debate.
In the recent past whenever the subject of the CBC arose and
its performance was put into question the charges of anti-CBC
and thereby anti-culture emerged. This is a classic case of
denial by those who call themselves supporters of the CBC,
absolutely unwilling to accept any criticism of the mother court.
We must recognize and acknowledge at the outset of this
debate that the CBC has problems and that these problems must
be remedied. The CBC has existed in one form or another for a
very long time. It has a distinguished history. Before I make my
proposal on the matter of privatization I think it necessary to
provide an historical backdrop by exploring the when, how, why
and what regarding the evolution of the CBC. Having
appreciated some of its history we will be in a better position to
understand the CBC in its present circumstances to determine if
it is accomplishing what it set out to do.
Ultimately, and this will come as no surprise to anyone, I do
not believe that the CBC is able to fulfil its mandate any longer.
What I hope to accomplish here is to set the process in motion
that will assist the CBC in working through these very troubled
times.
In the 1920s the Canadian National Railway developed a radio
network of stations in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Moncton and
Vancouver. Its schedule included concerts, comic opera, school
broadcasts and historical dramas. In 1929 the Aird commission
recommended to Mackenzie King's government that public
ownership of broadcasting was necessary to protect Canada
against American cultural penetration. The Aird commission
recommended the creation of a national broadcasting company
with the status and duties of a public utility and a source of
public funds to develop a service capable of fostering a national
spirit and interpreting national citizenship.
5684
(1735)
It specifically called for the elimination of the private stations
albeit with compensation. Because of the economic crisis of the
times, remembering the Aird report was calling for the further
allocation of federal funds in the 1930s when federal coffers
were not filled to overflowing, the consideration of the Aird
report was delayed. This enabled some of the more powerful
private stations and their principal lobbying agency, the
Canadian Association of Broadcasters, to launch a campaign
against it.
The basic principles of the report were defended by the
Canadian Radio League, known as CRL, an informal voluntary
organization set up in Ottawa in 1930. It prepared pamphlets
stating the case for public ownership. The CRL recruited other
voluntary organizations as well as representatives from
business, banking, trade unions, the farming community and
educational institutions and sent a formal delegation to meet the
minister of marine.
The new elected Conservative government of R. B. Bennett,
after defeating Mackenzie King's Liberals, responded to the
appeals of the CRL by passing the Canadian Radio Broadcasting
Act n 1932. It established a publicly owned Canadian Radio
Broadcasting Commission, known as the CRBC, with a mandate
to provide programs and extend coverage to all settled parts of
the country. The CRBC took over the radio facilities of the CNR
and began to broadcast in English and French.
Researchers who studied the CRBC say that it suffered from
underfunding, an uncertain mandate and inappropriate
administrative arrangements.
During his second term King was persuaded to replace the
CRBC with a stronger public agency rather than abandon
broadcasting to the private sector. In response to these pressures
a new Canadian Broadcasting Act was introduced in 1936
creating the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CBC. It
was given a better organizational structure, more assured
funding through the use of a licence fee and decreased
vulnerability to political pressure.
Successive Canadian parliaments have decided that
broadcasting should be an instrument of national purpose. For
this they set up a publicly owned system within which private
and commercial broadcasting have always had a place. The clear
intent was then and still is today to give the dominant role to the
public service, yet the pressures of the private broadcasters are
now stronger than ever and there is still no settlement of the
conflict between service and profit as the guiding motive of
broadcasting.
What appeared to be the same questions of policy are thought
and rethought: Does Canadian broadcasting meet Canadian
needs? Are we prepared to pay for a system to meet them? Can
Canadian broadcasters provide increasing quantities of
American mass entertainment without surrendering totally to
the siren's call of a commercial ethos? What public controls
should there be, if any? How should they be exercised and by
whom?
What is quite interesting to note is these questions were being
asked in the early 1930s as policy makers were addressing the
need for a national broadcaster. These are the same questions
that we as parliamentarians have to ask ourselves today as we
consider the future of the CBC. We do the CBC and Canadians a
great disservice if we fail to answer these difficult questions.
In fact it is extremely important to continue asking these
specific questions as our economic, cultural and technological
environment continues to change so rapidly. The expectations of
our constituents are changing both in response to and in
anticipation of these changes.
Remember the CRBC was underfunded. It had an uncertain
mandate, one it could not fulfil. It suffered from inappropriate
administrative arrangements. It was in response to those
problems that Mackenzie King decided to address the problems
of the CRBC. He ultimately decided with the best of intentions
toward the health of Canadian broadcasting to strengthen the
CRBC. He did that by creating the CBC.
When King decided to create the CBC he entertained
arguments from all sectors before coming to a decision. In fact
there were a good number of representations made by
individuals and groups which were in favour of keeping
broadcasting in the private sector.
The problems that plagued the CRBC are the same problems
that plague the CBC today as I have mentioned: funding,
mandate and administration. Exploring these problems should
demonstrate conclusively that the CBC must change.
(1740 )
Before I do that, I want to first discuss a problem that affects
today's debate. It affects the CBC. It affects us as
parliamentarians and ultimately it affects the Canadian
taxpayer.
Quite simply the problem is the lack of access to information
about the CBC. The Liberal government and the CBC both
espoused an interest in hearing constructive criticism on how
the CBC can better fulfil its mandate. I do sincerely
acknowledge that.
5685
Yet neither the government nor the CBC has been very
accommodating in supplying the public with the information
necessary to make constructive suggestions. The CBC receives
$1.091 billion. It was requested to appear before the committee
for a full discussion on the estimates so that the committee could
report to the House as it is permitted pursuant to the standing
orders.
Unfortunately the CBC and the government decided that the
single largest funded organization in the Department of
Canadian Heritage, the CBC, which receives one third of the
budget of the portfolio would not appear in time for the
committee to make a report on this year's estimates.
The CBC's lack of timely appearance before the committee on
the estimates is just one example that highlights perhaps the
temerity of the Prime Minister and his government to take fiscal
action and demonstrate perhaps a lack of sincerity by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage who states that parliamentarians
will have a large contribution to make in the future of the CBC.
How can the government continue to express this openness to
the Canadian taxpayer by such actions? I ask these questions.
In 1991, the Tories introduced a new broadcasting act. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage seems content to extol the virtues
of this act without meeting its compliance requirements. For
example, on April 6, 1994, I sent a letter to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, a letter to which he has yet to reply.
The letter reminded the minister of his obligation under
section 54 of the act. Let me share with this House that
obligation. The CBC is required to provide every year for the
minister a copy of the corporate plan of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. As well, the CBC must also provide a
summary of this plan under section 55(4) of the Broadcasting
Act.
The minister must submit the summary to the House. Since
the Broadcasting Act has been enforced since 1991, no summary
has been tabled in the House of Commons. This is in direct
violation of the act. Today however, curiously the summaries for
these years 1991 to 1994 did appear at the standing committee.
How can we as parliamentarians participate in the debate
when the government withholds information? Unfortunately
this is not the only example we have of finding the CBC in a
closet environment. In early May my office contacted the CBC
seeking budgetary information on the CBC sponsored national
journalism symposium.
The CBC would not provide the information. Therefore on
May 24 I wrote to the minister requesting the information. The
questions were simple. How much money was spent on the
symposium? The CBC brought people from all over the world at
taxpayer expense to this conference, a conference which was not
even open to the public.
How much was spent on travel for the symposium? The
symposium was held for the first time last year and even last
year's figures are being withheld. As well, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage has admitted that the federal government
commissioned a study from the Nordicity group to explore
alternative means by which the CBC could generate revenue.
When my office approached Nordicity and the government for
a copy of this report, neither would produce it. What is this
government hiding?
Despite the fact that there is a great deal of information that
we cannot access, there is enough information in the public
domain to adequately demonstrate that the CBC is facing a
crisis. When I say that I am not fearmongering. I am simply
stating the obvious. As a nation, we are not poor. We are just
broke. We are $519 billion in debt.
Public television is facing a reality jolt. Canadians are being
asked to make priority choices. The primary services competing
with public television include education, health and welfare. I
believe that we can keep the necessities that both serve the
public interest and ensure the survival of the company.
Consumers are faced with a multiplicity of channels today.
Most areas that receive cable already have some 50 channels and
just two weeks ago the CRTC issued licences to 10 more
channels. As technology continues to develop at this rate, there
will no longer be a need for the CRTC to issue licences.
The reality of a much heralded 500 channel universe is with
us. Regardless of whether there will be 100 channels or 500
channels there is going to be in the very near future
extraordinary competition to maintain market share. There
seems to be a consensus in the history that one of the best ways
for a broadcaster to survive in the market would be to specialize.
The CBC will have to dare to spend more time doing less but
better and make itself unique.
(1745)
The CBC has hit the wall. It is continuing to lose its audience
support at least in its English television market. One needs only
to look at how much ground it has lost in its news broadcasting
in the last five years to prove this.
In 1993-94 the CBC actually fell dramatically from its
previous year. We saw another television station, the CTV, jump
dramatically. Also employees within that environment are
becoming increasingly nervous. In the last few months in order
to replace people who have quit the corporation the CBC English
television network has witnessed a new president, several new
vice-presidents, and the resignation of the chairman of the
board of the CBC.
5686
The sad truth is that the CBC is undergoing a profound
transformation but in an unsatisfactory, unsystematic and ad hoc
manner directed by those who have magnificently proven how
little they deserve the confidence of the viewing public or the
employees of the corporation.
I would like to reiterate some of the problems that face the
CBC, all of which are interrelated. We have tough economic
times with competing priorities for government funds. CBC
appropriations are not likely to be increased. Technological
convergence has caused great competition throughout all the
industry, but it is contributing to decreased audience support not
only for the CBC but for others.
The CBC has been forced to seek out greater advertising
revenues to make up for its budgetary shortfalls. This has
resulted in the perception that the CBC is airing too much
American material and that Canadian content is being
sacrificed. I have also mentioned the criticism about the CBC
withholding information from the public. Surveys show that
there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of people who
believe that the CBC assists in maintaining distinctive Canadian
culture.
In the light of these problems what should we do,
acknowledging that I am not the definitive catalyst to resolving
these problems but only a foot soldier attempting to clear a path
for more open debate? As mentioned it is my understanding that
the Minister of Canadian Heritage has commissioned a study to
seek out alternative means of funding for the CBC. He has also
stated publicly that he is in favour of partially privatizing the
CBC.
Now that the CBC needs a new chairman, the minister has an
opportunity to do two things. He can make good on the promise
the Prime Minister made to give the standing committee more
power by asking the committee to provide him with a list of
three names for his consideration and appointment to the chair
of the board of directors of the CBC.
The CBC already procures more than 50 per cent of its
Canadian drama from independent producers, up from
essentially zero a decade ago. A policy to increase external
drama purchases further would provide additional stimulus to
the development of the competitive independent production
industry and I suspect lead to lower production costs. As well,
an idea to save money would be to encourage more co-operation
between CBC's English language and French language network
services. The exchange of programs should be actively pursued
and some programs jointly produced or procured.
Further to this we should do three things. First, the Canadian
public needs more access to information about the CBC. The
arm's length principle is often trotted out as an excuse to keep
information from the public. Providing such information does
not violate the cultural integrity of this crown corporation, and
it should not be exempt from the Access to Information Act.
Second, all financial information should be readily available
to the public just as it is for any other government department.
The auditor general should be required to regularly perform
audits within the CBC based on general accounting principles.
As well the AG should regularly perform forensic audits which
should also be made public because presently this crown
corporation under part X of the Financial Administration Act is
exempt from regular forensic audits.
Third and most important, it is not my job to develop the plan
by which the CBC will reorganize itself. That is the job of the
experts within the CBC and those financial advisers with the
capabilities to assist them. Quite bluntly, and this is the core of
my message, I believe the government should now direct the
CBC as it directed Petro-Canada to prepare an initial public
offering on the basis of complete or partial privatization of the
CBC by the end of 1995. If the minister believes in partial
privatization as he has stated then he can do no less.
The timing for this share issue is critical. Employees in the
CBC must sense that something is wrong. Talented individuals
are defecting. They are bailing out. Ill-planned, unexpected
budget cuts and juggling schedules have resulted in the loss of
talent as well as lost corporate support. Something surely is
rotten.
What seems clear is that in an increasingly multichannel
environment the current mandate of the CBC to provide a wide
range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains is
too broad. Therefore the mandate of the CBC also needs to be
revisited and made dramatically more specific so that the CBC
is able to specialize as it downsizes and privatizes.
(1750)
[Translation]
It cannot do everything it did, but if we make the difficult
decisions now, it will survive in some form that can last for
years.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, in the next few
minutes, I would like to comment on the motion presented by the
Reform member for Calgary Southeast. It is Motion No. 278,
which advocates the partial or total privatization of the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
First of all, I want to say that my colleague, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, is not considering any privatization of the
CBC. This corporation was created in 1936 by the Liberal
government of the day especially to give Canadians control over
broadcasting in Canada.
5687
Even today, the CBC remains the cornerstone of Canadian
broadcasting policy. The present Liberal government also
considers this national public broadcaster to be essential.
The CBC has followed the evolution of our country over the
decades and today its importance justifies its continuing to
receive public funding. After all, it is thanks to the CBC that
Canadians get to know one another better and stay in touch
locally, regionally, nationally and with the whole world.
[English]
The previous government had an addiction to privatization. It
even had in hand a resolution passed by its party membership
calling for the complete privatization of the CBC, but it too
recognized that this was not a viable option. It was also the
Mulroney government that took a scalpel to the corporation and
forced some very painful surgery. In an interview given shortly
after his appointment the Minister of Canadian Heritage
described such treatment as de facto privatization.
Our new government made a clear commitment prior to the
October election. We committed to stop forcing the CBC into
anorexic behaviour in recognition of the vital role it plays as a
national cultural institution. We also committed to finding the
right means of providing the corporation with stable, multiyear
funding.
Just three months after the election, on February 3, the
government made its first stride toward meeting our
commitment. At that time the Minister of Canadian Heritage
announced a strategy for the CBC designed to give the
corporation the capacity to plan for the future with confidence
and to be the distinct Canadian voice we need as we continue to
forge our national identity.
The first step in this strategy was the Prime Minister's
announcement of a new president for the CBC. With the
appointment of Anthony Manera, the CBC can continue to
benefit from the talents of an individual with a distinguished
career both within the corporation and beyond. I beg to differ
with the hon. member. I understand Mr. Manera has appeared
twice before the committee and has been very forthcoming.
Mr. Manera's commitment to the ideals of public
broadcasting and his intimate understanding of the challenges
facing the corporation were among the attributes which earned
him the reins of our most important cultural institution.
While the previous government's commitments are still filed
under fiction our government has taken decisive action to
achieve our commitment to stable, multiyear funding.
(1755)
The government has already announced that it does not intend
to impose new cuts on the CBC over the next five years. It is
prepared to reprofile the cuts announced in April 1993 so that
they can be more easily digested by the CBC. In effect this
reprofiling represents an investment of $100 million from the
consolidated revenue fund as the program cuts will start to be
implemented in 1996-97 rather than 1995-96.
In addition to this reprieve the government has also
recognized that the corporation needs more businesslike
flexibility. This is being provided through the CBC's new power
to borrow up to $25 million under highly specified
circumstances and with the case by case approval of the Minister
of Finance.
Most recently the minister announced his intention to consult
with his colleagues, the new CBC president, and other players in
the industry to identify other revenue generating mechanisms
for the CBC which could lead to a reduction in the corporation's
dependence on commercial advertising revenues. The minister
also confirmed recently that the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage of the House would undertake the review.
These commitments are consistent with the government's
desire to give the corporation some flexibility in terms of its
strategic orientation.
[Translation]
This government believes that instead of taking financial
resources from public broadcasting for the benefit of private
broadcasting, as the Reform Party's privatization proposal
suggests, we must try to find ways to do the opposite.
With the advent of many television services, all private, the
government must mobilize resources for the public sector and
for the production and dissemination of Canadian programs. In
this multi-channel world, the government must ensure the
survival of the distinctive Canadian voice which the CBC
represents.
That said, this government believes that the goal of
redistributing resources for the benefit of the national public
broadcaster can only be achieved through a public process in
which parliamentarians, the general public and all concerned
can participate.
[English]
The government is mindful of the concern felt by all
Canadians about the economic situation we are currently facing.
Our strategy for the CBC is based on a shared approach. We have
granted the CBC important tools designed to restore financial
stability and provide the corporation with a clear planning
horizon. At the same time we have made clear to the CBC that
our financial flexibility is severely limited and that we have
expectations on how the CBC will manage its affairs.
Specifically the minister has notified the new president that
the CBC would be expected to eliminate its structural shortfall
and to absorb other costs, inflationary or otherwise, which may
be required to carry out its operations. The government has
asked that the CBC's development of a new corporate plan
5688
remain faithful to the objective of maintaining its regional
presence and existing radio services.
These restrictions were deemed necessary in light of the
unique and highly prized reputation of CBC radio services and
the corporation's ability to serve national and regional
audiences. We recognize the CBC is being asked to scale many
challenges. We expect the corporation will have to adapt aspects
of its operations. Over the course of the next several months the
CBC will be on the receiving end of many suggestions about
what kind of changes Canadians would be prepared to see
undertaken.
Nevertheless the uncertainty which has prevented the
corporation from planning beyond the current fiscal year has
been eliminated. It is now possible for the corporation to take
long term decisions and make multiyear commitments or
investments aimed at improving the efficiency of the
corporation.
(1800 )
The most important result of these efficiencies is that they
will allow the CBC to maximize its investment in the kind of
quality Canadian programming we expect and need from CBC.
It may be interesting to note that while technology has changed
the issues and principles related to public broadcasting
remained largely unchanged since the genesis of the CBC and its
mandate.
The royal commission on radio broadcasting examined the
possibility of establishing a Canadian public broadcasting
corporation for radio in 1929. This commission, the Aird
commission, stressed that a public broadcasting system should
provide national coverage and varied programming which
would be informative, educational and entertaining.
These principles have been echoed repeatedly in the
parliamentary committee hearings, task forces and royal
commissions dealing with broadcasting in 1951, 1957, 1963 and
1986 and they remain as relevant today as they were 60 years
ago.
[Translation]
The Canadian broadcasting system is definitely characterized
by a fair sharing of-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. parliamentary
secretary's time has expired. The hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata has the floor.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, although the Bloc Quebecois may disagree
emphatically with the way certain situations are dealt with at the
CBC, it does not support the motion presented by the Reform
Party member for Calgary-Southeast to privatize the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation, a name that is indeed more in tune
with the cultural profile of this Crown corporation.
According to the Bloc Quebecois, our public radio and
television network should be preserved, but the government
should oblige the corporation to deal with its problems. We are
primarily concerned about the challenge to the corporation in
section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, especially in paragraphs (l)
and (m) and in a number of subparagraphs which read as
follows: ``The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should
provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens
and entertains''. The programming should reflect Canada and its
regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the
special needs of those regions.
The programming should be in English and in French,
reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official
language community, including the particular needs and
circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities.
Finally, the programming should contribute to shared national
consciousness and identity.
But what is national identity and how should this mandate be
interpreted? In Canada, the national identity is Canadian. So
what is Canada? What is Canada about? How is it constituted? In
addition to its aboriginal peoples, Canada has two founding
peoples. There is more than one national identity in Canada and
hence a problem for the CBC. Furthermore, the concept of
Canadian identity does not include the Quebec identity. In fact,
its purpose is to assimilate or even deny it. Canadian identity has
the effect of acculturating Quebecers.
Quebec's march towards sovereignty started in 1960 with
Jean Lesage. It seems to me that if the CBC had fulfilled its
mandate while remaining neutral and objective, if it had tried to
inform and enlighten, the rest of Canada would not ask what
does Quebec want. We have said many times that we want to
control the economic, social, political and cultural levers that
are essential to our development as a nation.
Despite the reassurances of CBC president Anthony Manera
that the mandate to contribute to a national identity will not
interfere with the mandate to provide objective information and
reflect the various views held in Canada, we are inclined to be
sceptical. In fact, the most senior politicians in this country put a
very different spin on this mandate and tend to cloud the issue.
To the Prime Minister of Canada, this mandate means, and I
will quote what he said in this House on June 16: ``The law says,
in defining the mandate of the CBC, that it must inform people
on the advantages Canada represents. This is the reason for the
creation of the corporation. Objectivity is all we ask for''.
5689
(1805)
As if objectivity only meant showing the advantages.
To the Deputy Prime Minister, the corporation's mandate to
contribute to national identity means, according to what she said
on CBC radio on June 17, that the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation has a responsibility to acknowledge that one of its
responsibilities is to promote Canadian unity.
As for Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, we know now that his
political assistants regularly called the CBC to order it to
promote Canadian unity, especially, it seems, during the
Charlottetown episode.
At that time, CBC management had issued instructions
reminding its journalists of current policy on the coverage of the
constitutional debate. A document, and I quote: ``also contains
details concerning analysts and commentators''. According to
management, any guests who had publicly taken a position on
the question at issue were to be clearly identified as such. The
document went on to say: ``If a political expert is an active
sovereigntist, he must not be introduced simply as a professor of
political science. If a commentator is a known supporter of
unilingualism, this should be included in the introduction.
Furthermore, one should point out, as appropriate, whether an
editorial writer or columnist has taken a definite stand on the
issues to be discussed.
As for the separatist witch hunt within the CBC, this goes
back a long time.
In 1969, then president George Davidson was literally
besieged by federal politicians who criticized the corporation's
coverage that was biased towards the separatists.
Tensions had risen to such a degree that when the Parti
Quebecois was elected in 1976, the CRTC held public hearings
on the subject, and its report made it clear that CBC reporting
had observed the standards of professional reporting. However,
many federal politicians, especially Quebec Liberals, argued
that these journalists were not doing their job since the
corporation had a mandate to promote national unity.
Former president Al Johnson said, and I am quoting Wayne
Skene in his Fade to Black: a requiem for the CBC, referring to
interference from federal Liberal members: ``They made my life
hell''.
Meanwhile, considering the position taken by government
members and their interpretation of the corporation's mandate,
there is no indication it will be any different during the next
provincial election and an eventual referendum, except for the
assurances given by the president of the CBC. We will take him
at his word, until further notice.
Before the advent of television, Quebecers listened to the
radio. They listened to radio serials and to the daily news
programs throughout the war. Not long after television
appeared, Quebec was coming out of the so-called Dark Ages.
Father Legault and his Compagnons de Saint-Laurent, the
TNM, the Rideau-Vert and a number of celebrities who came
over from France had made Quebecers develop an appetite for
culture. The corporation was to continue this work, and the
development of Quebec's cultural potential during the past
thirty years was possible largely to the existence of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation.
We remember travel documentaries with commentary by
André Laurendeau, important political broadcasts with Judith
Jasmin, ``Point de mire'' with René Lévesque, ``Le 60'' with
Pierre Nadeau, ``Noir sur Blanc'' with Denise Bombardier, big
variety shows, tv dramas which introduced us to a host of
authors and which were also an opportunity for Quebecers to
make a living by writing; tv series, either historical or
contemporary, with rural or urban settings, concerts of every
description, the ``Soirée du hockey'', and many more.
There is one particular sector I know very well, in which the
corporation performed superbly, and I am referring to television
programming for children, which has left several generations
with some unforgettable memories. Remember ``Pépinot et
Capucine'', ``M. Surprise'', ``Grugeot et Délicat'', ``Marie
Quat'poches'', ``la Souris verte'' and ``Bobino''!
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel I must mention one area where the
corporation showed poor judgment, and I am referring to its
decision to close television stations in eastern Quebec. I hope
that as the corporation considers ways to deal with its problems,
it will find a way to give eastern Quebec its voice again and thus
improve the way it fulfils one of its mandates which is, and I
quote: ``to reflect Canada and its regions to national and
regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those
regions''.
(1810 )
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed
a pleasure to rise in this House in support of my colleague's
private members' motion 278 which calls for the federal
government to immediately initiate the privatization of all or
part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The topic of privatizing the CBC comes at a very interesting
time. During debate on Bill C-17, the ominbus bill on budget
implementation, it was no surprise that members of the
government opposite were staunchly defending the CBC. They
claimed the CBC is the vehicle for protecting Canadian tradition
and heritage with its programming.
However, today I would be very interested to hear what these
same members of the Liberal Party would say. Several weeks
ago CBC television announced it was changing its
programming. It is now going to make a grab for ratings and
revenue with a fall schedule that has more U.S. drama and fewer
Canadian entertainment programs in prime time.
5690
It would appear that CBC television is moving away from
being the voice which preserves Canadian culture. It would
appear the CBC television is moving away from programming
which is chock full of Canadian heritage.
It would appear the arguments used by numerous Liberals
during the Bill C-17 debate now have a somewhat hollow ring to
them. The fiscal and economic realities of the day demand that
the CBC make these changes. I submit that for the CBC to
become truly viable and competitive it should move toward
privatization.
It is quite interesting to note how times have changed. In the
words of CBC vice president, Jim Byrd, it would be nice if we
could stick our heads in the sand and say let us not worry about
revenue. Mr. Byrd realizes that the CBC cannot proceed this way
as he explained why the corporation is moving toward more U.S.
programming. Not long ago this type of head in the sand
thinking was indeed the norm for CBC. Given the debate on Bill
C-17 it would appear that line of thinking was prevalent among
some members of this House.
Unfortunately Canadian taxpayers can no longer afford to
foot the $1 billion plus bill it costs to run the CBC every year.
The taxpayer thinks in terms of dollars and cents. The taxpayer
cannot understand why he or she must pay for something they
generally seem not to want.
If one looks at the ratings of the CBC it becomes apparent that
the CBC is not a very high priority for Canadians. In the
interests of clarity I will outline 10 reasons why the CBC should
move toward privatization.
The taxpayer of this country would seem to demand it
according to the ratings and the fiscal realities that face the
government demand it as well.
First, only 15 per cent of television viewers watched the
CBC's English network for some part of the day in the 1990-91
season. The trend continued into the 1992-93 season when only
13.5 per cent of the viewing audience were tuning in to CBC
television.
Reason number two is the declining audience viewing CBC
during prime time which is between 7 and 11 p.m. In 1990-91
only 15.8 per cent of viewers were watching the CBC during
prime time hours, which is any network's bread and butter. Two
years later only 13.6 per cent were watching.
The third reason the CBC should be privatized lies within the
programming. Huge sums of money are being squandered. A
case in point is the marginal French service being offered by
CBC radio stations in many parts of the country. CBUF-FM, the
CBC's French language FM radio station in Vancouver, has a
staff of 25 and an annual budget of $2.2 million. Its average
audience in any given quarter hour over its entire broadcast area
is 100 people. This is according to the Bureau of Broadcast
Measurement. It is quite obvious that this is not an optimum use
of taxpayers' money.
(1815)
The fourth reason, and it is similar to the previous one, can be
seen in Edmonton's French language station, CHFA, which has a
staff of 32 and an annual budget of $2.4 million. Again,
according to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, the station
is lucky if it tops 600 listeners.
The fifth reason is that overall funding is increasing for the
CBC while the number of people tuning in is decreasing.
According to the CBC's 1993 financial statement, over $941
million was spent on CBC television. One year earlier $913
million was spent. What is the justification for spending $28
million more on CBC television when fewer people are
watching?
The sixth reason is that overall funding for CBC radio
services went up from $293 million in 1992 to over $307 million
in 1993 but listnership is declining. In 1991, 12.6 per cent of the
listening audience had their dial tuned into CBC English radio.
One year later only 11.7 per cent were listening.
A similar pattern occurs when we consider CBC French radio.
In the spring of 1990, 9.1 per cent were tuned in compared to
only 8.7 per cent in the fall of 1992. What is the justification for
funding increases?
Reason number seven is the poor performance of CBC
English television during the supper hour from 6 to 7 p.m. The
regional CBC television stations cannot compete with their
private counterparts during the all-important news hour.
In Edmonton the CBC news hauled in a paltry 8 per cent of
viewers during the supper hour in 1992. In 1993 viewership
dropped to 5 per cent. The same can be said on almost all
regional CBC networks. In Regina the CBC was watched by 25
per cent of the viewers during the news hour in 1992. That
number was cut by over half with only 12 per cent watching in
1993. The trend seems to be nationwide, fewer people watching,
yet it takes more and more money to run the CBC.
Reason number eight is something called debt. Recent
estimates put the CBC at a shortfall of $180 million over the
next four years. The CBC has a $45 million deficit on its
operating budget on revenues of over $1 billion.
Reason number nine deals with the CBC's power to borrow
money. Why is the federal government allowing the CBC to
borrow money in the first place? Would it not be more
financially sound to privatize, at the very least, portions of its
operations, thereby realizing substantial savings? The savings
could then be applied to finance new cost effective ventures.
Last but not least, the tenth reason for privatizing the CBC is
the very nature of its existence. The CBC is changing its
mandate. No longer will CBC television be the vehicle for
Canadian culture and heritage. It is moving to more U.S. content
in order to boost its ratings. Taxpayer dollars are no longer
required to support the old mandate of protecting and promoting
Canadian culture.
5691
For the CBC to have the incentive to go after advertising
dollars and increase its ratings, it certainly should move toward
privatization. Privatization would ensure a viable CBC that
should make money rather than fritter it away.
In the last 10 years about 2,000 jobs have been cut at the CBC
in an effort to downsize and streamline the crown corporation.
Despite drastic cuts to the staff budget, CBC's deficit continues
to climb. There is no incentive at the management level to
ensure a bottom line.
The federal government took another step toward killing the
CBC's profit motive by giving it the authority to borrow another
$25 million. As long as this type of practice continues the CBC
will remain an indebted corporation, and that is unacceptable to
Canadian taxpayers. It is time for a major overhaul of ``mother
corporation''.
(1820)
[Translation]
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin my speech on this motion by reading an excerpt
from my party's official pre-election program ``Creating
Opportunities'', commonly referred to as the red book.
``Canadian culture embraces our shared perceptions and
beliefs, common experiences and values, and diverse linguistic
and cultural identities: everything that makes us uniquely
Canadian. Culture is the very essence of national identity, the
bedrock of national sovereignty and national pride. It gives
meaning to the lives of every Canadian and enriches the country
socially, politically and economically''.
At a time when globalization and the information and
communications revolution are erasing national borders,
Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural
development.
Since its creation in 1936, the CBC has been and continues to
be an essential mechanism for defending our national cultural
sovereignty.
The motion now before the House deals with the possibility of
privatizing all or part of the CBC. Let me just take a few minutes
to remind the House of the services provided by the CBC and the
raison d'être of Crown corporations. The Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation was created on November 2, 1936
pursuant to an act of Parliament. It reports annually to
Parliament on its activities through the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. Its provides comprehensive national broadcasting
services in both official languages, that is French and English, in
addition to running the Northern Service and Radio Canada
International, a shortwave service for listeners abroad.
The CBC is governed by the Broadcasting Act and is regulated
by the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission.
[English]
The CBC has a permanent staff level of approximately 9,100
people. Seventy-five per cent of these employees are involved
in program production and distribution, with the remainder
providing administrative and support services. Apart from its
own employees, each year the CBC provides work to about
25,000 Canadian artists, writers and performers such as
musicians, soloists, members of groups or orchestras, singers,
graphic artists, authors, critics, dancers, actors and actresses, to
name a few.
It is the largest single employer of Canadian artists and has
provided a training ground for many of our finest Canadian
stars. Anne Murray, receiving one of her numerous and well
deserved awards recently, thanked the CBC for giving her the
chance so many years ago to launch her career.
The CBC has helped to develop and establish a wealth of
Canadian stars whose unique ability to express their vision of
Canada and what it is to be Canadian has helped us to know
ourselves and each other. Without the CBC, Canadians would
not have had the opportunity to share and appreciate the rich
cultural diversity of our English, French, aboriginal and ethnic
communities.
Talent development remains a key objective for the CBC.
Variety specials with Canadian music stars and new Canadian
artists as guests, the broadcasting of the Genie, Gemini and Juno
awards programs are important tools through which our artists
reach their public and gain national and international exposure.
The need for talent development is critical today, and of
course more remains to be done. In an era in which new
technology further fragments audiences and globalization
diminishes national boundaries, the CBC's role in ensuring that
there is a service to which Canadians can turn to see our images,
hear our stories and be inspired by our artists is now more vital
than ever.
The CBC is the principal instrument of the government's
cultural policy. In 1994-95 its parliamentary appropriation is
approximately $1 billion, representing 62 per cent of all federal
appropriations to cultural agencies in the portfolio of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage. In addition the corporation
expects to raise some $396 million this fiscal year, mostly from
television advertising, bringing its total resources to $1.4
billion.
5692
(1825)
With this funding the CBC offers and extensive array of
separate services:
English and French television networks;
English and French AM mono and FM stereo radio networks,
free of commercial advertising;
CBC North which covers more than four million square
kilometres encompassing the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and
Arctic Quebec by providing radio and television programs in
English, French and eight native languages, also provides
specialized training services for native broadcasters and
journalists;
Newsworld, 24-hour national satellite to cable English
language news and information service funded entirely by cable
subscription and commercial advertising revenues but achieves
its quality level by making extensive re-use of news and current
affairs programming that is drawing on public funding;
Radio Canada International, a shortwave radio service which
broadcasts in seven languages, provides material specifically
targeted for Canadians abroad, consisting of the most popular
domestic CBC programs, and plays an important role in
promoting Canadian artists abroad, is managed by the CBC and
financed by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Both the English and French television networks have reached
a remarkable 88 per cent Canadian content level in prime time.
The television networks provide a balanced mix of news, current
affairs, dramas, arts, science, music, variety, sports and
children's programs.
Including the non-prime time schedule, about 69 per cent of
CBC television broadcast by the English and French networks is
Canadian produced though not necessarily all by the CBC.
The corporation is an important outlet for the work of
Canada's independent production community. In fact, about 48
per cent of Canadian entertainment programs shown in prime
time are produced either entirely by independent producers or in
conjunction with outside producers or agencies.
While AM radio covers music and entertainment, its
programming is primarily informational. FM stereo produces a
wide variety of music, drama, arts and literary programs. All
four radio networks offer Canadians commercial free,
intelligent, appealing, and unique Canadian programming for
which they have achieved a devoted following.
About 99 per cent of English and French speaking Canadians
have access to CBC television. Almost 94 per cent of English
and French speaking Canadians have access to CBC AM mono
radio in their respective languages and 70 per cent of
anglophones and 76 per cent of francophones have access to
CBC FM stereo in their respective languages.
The ability to reach so much of our population comprised of
two official language communities, scattered over a huge
amount of rugged terrain and no less than six different time
zones is a major technological challenge for the corporation.
Like the railroad, the CBC links Canadians every single day
of the year in my riding with aboriginal peoples in the north,
farmers on the prairies, fishermen on the east and west coasts,
and everyone in between.
The CBC is also a proud ambassador abroad. In addition to the
important role played by Radio Canada International, it
maintains formal and informal contact with at least 10
international broadcasting unions and associations. It also
encourages program exchanges and participates in more than 50
radio and television festivals around the world through which
our artists and programming are promoted.
[Translation]
Of course, the CBC's mission is to carry out the official
purposes set forth in the Broadcasting Act and it has the duty to
conduct its activities in accordance with sound business
practices. I fully agree with hon. opposition members in this
House who think that we are going through a difficult economic
period and that we should scrutinize every dollar of taxpayers'
money that we spend. Nevertheless, advocating the total
privatization of the CBC suggests that section 3 of the
Broadcasting Act could be satisfied by the private sector or that
we are prepared to forget about meeting the objectives stated
there. Neither of these assertions is correct. Providing
authentically Canadian broadcasting services of good quality to
the whole country has never been and undoubtedly never will be
something that the private sector could do profitably.
(1830)
The efforts made to build our country never met the criteria of
strict profitability. Nevertheless, we have built a remarkable
country of which my constituents and I are immensely proud and
the CBC has helped to shape it.
My colleague has already told you about the significant
support measures that the government has offered the CBC.
Nevertheless, given the serious financial difficulties before the
government in the coming days, the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation is fully aware that it might have to change some
aspects of its activities. If the CBC, in assessing how to face
future difficulties, concludes that it could better serve the
Canadian public by privatizing some particular aspects of its
activities, the Minister of Canadian Heritage will let the CBC
make that decision, as he said.
5693
[English]
In conclusion, the committee of which I have the pleasure to
be the chairman, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,
will be developing in conjunction with the CBC some of these
ideas and sharing them with Parliament at a later date.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the item is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5693
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the
House that an agreement has been reached, pursuant to Standing
Order 78(2), with regard to an allocation of time to the report
stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-34. Therefore, I
move:
That, in relation to Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for First
Nations in the Yukon Territory, not more than one hour shall be allotted to the
consideration of the report stage of the said bill, and not more than one hour
shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill
and, at the expiry of each of the said hours, any proceedings before the House
shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every
question necessary for the disposal of the report stage or the third reading stage,
as the case may be, of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without
further debate or amendment.
(1835 )
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is it
appropriate or permissible for the government to bring in
closure before the bill is even debated?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. House leader for the Reform
Party has asked a question to which the answer appears to be yes.
Standing Order 78(2) which the member will have on his desk
makes it very clear that in a situation such as outlined, the
motion can be moved.
For example, it was a minister of the crown who moved it.
More important, it is the majority of the representatives of
several parties who have come to an agreement in respect of the
proposed allotment of time and so on, it seems to me, down the
line. I believe that this motion is a sharper one.
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 67)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Paré
5694
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -152
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Gouk
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Penson
Ramsay
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Strahl
Thompson-23
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(1845)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the
House that an agreement has been reached pursuant to Standing
Order 78(2) with regard to an allocation of time for the report
stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-33.
Therefore I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-33, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid land
claims agreements entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, the
government of the Yukon Territory and certain first nations in the Yukon Territory, to
provide for approving, giving effect to and declaring valid other land claims
agreements entered into after this act comes into force, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, not more than one hour shall be allotted to the consideration
of the report stage of the said bill and not more than one hour shall be allotted to the
consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill and, at the expiry of each of the
said hours, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the
purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the
report stage or the third reading stage, as the case may be, of the bill shall be put
forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I
was engaged in committee. The government has throughout this
session of Parliament stressed the importance of committee
work. I also find it very important to be here for a vote, although
the loyal and Official Opposition and also the government have
decided that they would take this away from me, my privilege to
vote on this issue.
The Deputy Speaker: The point the member was making was
a question for debate. On a point of order, the hon. member for
Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, mine is truly a point
of order.
Standing Order 78 says explicitly that there is agreement
among the representatives of all parties.
(1850 )
I submit that this action is not correct because we are still a
party notwithstanding what is thought here and therefore this
motion is not appropriate.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is quite right in
referring to Standing Order 78(1). That is where all the parties
agree, as he has just indicated. What he will have to look at is
Standing Order 78(2)(a) where it is a majority of the parties that
have agreed.
I thank the member for raising the point because it gives me
an opportunity to say that this motion has also been considered
carefully. It is a valid motion under Standing Order 78(2).
Accordingly the members will vote on that motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
5695
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the
government have to give a reason to limit debate for an hour or
can it just do it?
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. That is a
point of information.
(1855)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 68)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -164
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-35
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(1900 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Ringma: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the
record, had I been here in time, I would very much have voted
for the nay side.
* * *
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the
House that an agreement has been reached pursuant to Standing
Order 78(2) with regard to an allocation of time to the third
reading stage of Bill C-32.
Therefore I move:
That in relation to Bill C-32, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and
the Income Tax Act, not more than one further hour shall be allotted to the
consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill and, at the expiry of that hour,
any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of
this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the third reading
5696
stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 69)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -144
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-37
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(1910)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the
House that an agreement has been reached pursuant to Standing
Order 78(2)
5697
with regard to the allocation of time to third reading stage of Bill
C-35. Therefore I move:
That in relation to Bill C-35, an act to establish the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration and to make consequential amendments to other acts, not more
than one hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the
said bill, and at the expiry of that hour, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question
necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put
forthwith and successfully without further debate or amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion.
(1915)
[Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 70)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -146
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Strahl
Thompson-36
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
5698
(1920)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
(1925)
[English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, an act
respecting self-government for First Nations in the Yukon
Territory, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Mr. Hermanson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
There has been quite a change in the scenery over the last hour
with four closure motions being passed. It lends some doubt as
to what the intention of the government is in the order of bills we
have brought forward. I wonder if the government would bring
forward some type of statement as to the bills it plans to bring
forward and the order in which it intends to consider them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I might ask the
assistance of the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member
we will be calling this evening Bill C-34 for report stage, then
Bill C-33 for report stage, one hour on each. Then we will
proceed I believe with Bill C-32 unless discussions between the
parties result in some other arrangement. I believe that will be
the order for this evening which should take us to ten o'clock.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, in light of the events and an
hon. member calls it a disaster, I would move that this House do
now adjourn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Members cannot move
adjournment on a point of order, but only in fact when they
rightfully have the floor on debate.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There are three
amendment motions listed in the
Notice Paper regarding the
report stage of Bill C-34, an Act respecting self-government for
first nations in the Yukon Territory.
[English]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon separately.
[Translation]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon separately.
[English]
Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted upon separately.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-34, in Clause 5, be amended, by striking out lines 40 to 45 on page 3
and lines 1 to 4, on page 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I can propose the
motion for adjournment, the hon. member will have to submit
the motion in writing to the chair and include a seconder of the
motion.
(1930)
The motion for adjournment is ruled out of order. The hon.
member for Athabasca, in moving the motion for adjournment,
cannot move an amendment to his own motion which would
have the effect of superseding his motion if passed.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my
disappointment and concern over the process that just took
place. How can we expect to believe the provisions of the bill if
the drafter of the bill and the supporters of the bill would put us
through a process of not allowing us to debate the amendments
and bills fully and properly?
(1935)
The amendments we are putting forth would have had some
impact on our decision whether or not to support the bill at third
reading. Having been through a process which I believe is a real
abuse of the parliamentary process, I do not hold out real hope
for the success of the agreements these bills bring into effect.
Even more so, it goes to emphasize the serious concerns we
are raising in the amendments we are bringing forward. The first
amendment to clause 5(2) has the effect of removing from the
agreement those 10 First Nations that have not yet signed final
agreements.
Those 10 First Nations would be the Carcross-Tagish First
Nation, the Dawson First Nation, the Kluane First Nation, the
Kwanlin Dun First Nation, the Liard First Nation, the Little
Salmon-Carmacks First Nation, the Ross River Dena Council,
the Selkirk First Nation, the Ta'an Kwach'an Council, and the
White River First Nation.
Those First Nations, as well as the four First Nations covered
by this agreement, should have genuine concern with the
process. We are abolishing the designation of an aboriginal band
in this piece of legislation and replacing it with an organization
called a first nation.
Under the Indian Act and under present legislation the rights
of aboriginal peoples are protected as Indian bands. Until the
5699
bill becomes legislation and has royal assent the 10 First
Nations are in limbo. They have lost their rights as aboriginal
bands and have not yet attained rights as First Nations. If I were
a member of one of these bands I would be certainly concerned
with situation. The whole process calls into question what we
are trying to achieve.
If I were a member of one of those First Nations I would have
seriously considered the situation before being willing to sell
my rights as an aboriginal person for the few dollars being
provided here. Certainly there are legal questions and legal
concerns about where this process leaves the aboriginal rights
afforded to aboriginals through the treaty process, through the
Indian Act and legislation that has gone before.
Through a simple amendment to the legislation before us in
the bill those First Nations could lose their aboriginal rights and
they could be extinguished in that process. Not only do I believe
these things, but I have been contacted by a number of First
Nations groups that also have the problem. Even a number of the
groups that have yet to sign on with final agreements covered
under the umbrella agreement have those concerns, particularly
the extinguishment of the right of the tax exempt status. That
should be of great concern.
Further to that the 10 nations that have not signed on will not
come before Parliament to be examined, to be evaluated and to
be discussed. Where does it leave us as members of Parliament
when we abdicate our responsibility as a Parliament to examine
legislation before it and delegate that authority to the governor
in council?
(1940)
If there is nothing different in the next 10 agreements why are
they not signed on as final agreements at this point? If there are
different provisions in the 10 agreements why should not
Parliament have a chance to examine these differences, to
debate them and to discuss them? If we as parliamentarians do
not need to examine the 10 future agreements why are we going
through the somewhat convoluted process of examining the four
that are there?
There are some very serious questions to be answered. I hoped
we could have had support for this amendment as well as the
other two amendments that we proposed. Clearly that is not to
be. We are not to have serious discussion and serious debate on
the issues. That saddens me truly for Canada's parliamentary
process, for Canada's people, and for Canada's aboriginal
people. It is a sad day for the process.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
It is a pleasure to be able to finally speak to the issue. There is
such concern from the party for aboriginal people what can I
say? It is from the same party that thinks we are giving away
large tracts of land to the aboriginal people and that we are
giving away large amounts of money to the aboriginal people.
All of a sudden there is all this concern for the poor aboriginal
people. We have to be consistent when we are talking about
whether we are supporting aboriginal people or whether we are
against the process they are trying to go through.
Before I comment on the amendment I received a letter
attached to the Toronto Sun about the member from the Reform
Party apologizing for depicting us as spoiled or denying
depicting us as spoiled. The letter quite clearly follows the lines
of the attitude of the Reform Party. It says: ``Hey, Jack, if it is
any consolation we also think our natives are a bunch of lazy,
drunken layabouts who have been fleecing we hardworking fed
up taxpayers for too long. Cut all the federal money they get and
make them, the whole lot of them, work for their keep. Let's see
if they can make it on their own, but I doubt it''.
This letter shows the ignorance of some Canadian people.
Who do they think the land came from? Whose land does this
person think it is? That letter is ridiculous. It basically follows
the lines of the remarks made in the House by a member of the
Reform Party.
The Reform's amendment would delete subclauses 5(2) and
(3). Subclause 5(1) brings into effect the self-government
agreements of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the
First Nation of Nacho Hyak Dun, the Teslin Tlingit Council, and
the Vuntut Gwitch'in First Nation on the day this act comes into
force. That is subclause (1).
Subclause (2), which they would delete, provides that the
remaining 10 First Nations self-government agreements may be
brought into effect by order in council.
Subclause (3), another one they would delete, ensures that the
effective date of a self-government agreement will be published
in the Canada Gazette.
(1945 )
The Reform's amendment would delete subclauses (2) and (3)
of clause 5 so that each of the remaining 10 First Nations
self-government agreements would have to be brought into
effect by other acts of Parliament. The proposed amendment
would also move the requirement by the minister to publish the
effective date of these self-government agreements.
Motion No. 1 is unacceptable because, one, the process of
bringing the subsequent 10 self government agreements into
effect should be the same as the process used to bring the land
claims agreement into effect. This clause mirrors a clause in Bill
C-33. The amendment would create inconsistent processes and
5700
would defeat the intention in the land claims agreement to allow
for orders in council to bring future agreements into effect.
Two, clause 5 does not prevent Parliament from reviewing
any future agreements.
Three, this bill establishes the parameters of the subsequent
10 self-government agreements. These parameters cannot be
exceeded in the negotiation of the subsequent 10
self-government agreements.
For all the reasons I just cited, the government finds Motion
no. 1 unacceptable.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, Motion No. 1 talks about deleting clause 5 of Bill
C-34. This provision in the bill speaks volumes about the
Liberal government commitment to governing with integrity.
We have seen that again in spades tonight.
I quote from its famous red ink book: ``People are irritated
with governments that do not consult them or disregard their
views or that try to conduct key parts of the public business
behind closed doors. Open government will be the watchword of
the Liberal program''.
This is not my main beef. My main beef is that this bill
displays a serious lack of parliamentary accountability and
scrutiny. It is a blank cheque for the government through order
in council to make or ratify all future agreements in Yukon.
In our view, Parliament has a responsibility to the people of
Canada to carefully consider and pass judgment on any initiative
within its legislative agenda, but particularly in matters as
important as aboriginal self-government. Self-government is a
critical policy initiative which deserves the highest level of care
that Parliament can muster. As I noted earlier, this would be
evident to any impartial observer.
The legislative journey of Bill C-34 appears to involve undue
haste for even a conventional piece of legislation. However, this
bill is anything but conventional. It is extraordinary because in
it Parliament delegates its fundamental responsibilities to the
executive and bureaucratic branches of government. This
delegation takes place in the context of critically important
questions of what place will our aboriginal nations take within
our federal state.
Parliament is being asked to breach its constitutional role in
and responsibility to enact legislation in the public forum of
Parliament. What is being sought is approval for a process
legislatively to which the Government of Canada and its
bureaucrats in negotiation with First Nations developed
fundamental legislation in private. Thus, what Parliament is
being asked to do and do extraordinarily quickly is engage in
radical constitutional irresponsibility.
With respect to the 10 bands which have not yet entered into
self-government and have not negotiated final agreements and
transboundary agreements, let us remember that these
agreements are integral parts of this legislative package.
Parliament is being asked to approve legislation it has not seen
and will never see. Not only do these agreements I just
mentioned have the status of legislation, but according to the act
they enjoy paramountcy over the self-government act. Even the
existing agreements which are part of this package can in the
future be amended in very fundamental ways.
(1950 )
Truly astonishing, anti-democratic and totally
unconventional, the legislation provides that the
self-government agreement and amendments thereto may go
beyond the subject areas dealt with by the act. These agreements
can be brought into effect upon the coming into force of the act.
This gives the self-government agreement some legislative
status. As long as there is no conflict between Bill C-34 and the
provisions in the self-government agreement, these provisions
are valid.
Moreover, they can be brought into force without the scrutiny
and indeed even the knowledge of Parliament as law by the
governor in council making orders and regulations to implement
self-government.
This time allocation has placed me in a situation where I have
a lot of information I cannot get.
I want to speak to Motion No. 2.
Existing clause 9, the delegation provision is such that a First
Nation can delegate its law-making power-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I do not want to
add to the confusion. Quite to the contrary. While members still
want to speak to Motion No. 1, we must continue that debate as I
understand it. Unless the member has other remarks he wants to
make to Motion No. 1, I will seek if other members in fact want
to speak to this motion.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, assuming I have more time on
Motion No. 1, I will carry on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If the member is going to
continue to speak to Motion No. 1 certainly he has the floor, but
if he is going to go to any other motion I would have to ask him
to give the floor to some other member who might want to speak
to Motion No. 1.
Mr. Duncan: Just for clarification, am I not restricted to 10
minutes on Motion No. 1?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Correct.
Mr. Duncan: These agreements, most of which have not been
negotiated and therefore are unavailable for Parliament's
scrutiny and which may be amended in any event even if
existing prevail over the provisions of Bill C-34, have not been
negotiated, go beyond the act and its provisions may be enacted
by
5701
law by the governor in council. There is nothing in Bill C-34
which precludes this sort of amendment.
In our view the combined effects of all this is that the
legislation has invested parliamentary powers in the First
Nations, bureaucrats and the executive branch of government.
Surely this is an improper delegation of legislative powers, what
the Supreme Court in re Grey, 1918, 57SCR. 157, 165, 171 and
176 referred to as an unlawful and therefore invalid abdication,
abandonment or surrender of Parliament's power.
The Constitution of Canada contemplates that legislation be
enacted by representative houses of assembly, not by
bureaucrats negotiating with First Nations and not even elected
members of government executing their executive and
administrative functions.
Accordingly, I am concerned that what Parliament is engaged
in here is an abuse of power which undermines the integrity of
the parliamentary process. Minimally we collectively need
more time to think through the consequences of what we are
doing. After all we are not faced with a national emergency that
requires the best possible but nevertheless instant response of
Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
(1955 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(2025 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order made
earlier this day in accordance with Standing Order 78(2), it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put all questions
necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the
House. Accordingly the motion to adjourn the debate has lapsed.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8) a recorded division on the motions stands
deferred.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-34, in Clause 9, be amended, by striking out lines 23 and 24, on
page 5, and substituting the following:
``to any other first nation to the extent that the delegation is''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8) a recorded division on the motions stands
deferred.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-34 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 7, the following
new Clause:
``
11.1 The
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms shall apply to the
governing bodies of first nations named in Schedule II in respect of matters within
the authority of those governing bodies''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
5702
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8) a recorded division on the motions stands
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 71)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-41
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young -119
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(2035 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1
negatived.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like the record to show that I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been here on time, I would have voted with my party.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 2.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 72)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
5703
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-41
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Caron
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Goodale
Guarnieri
Hopkins
Ianno
Irwin
Landry
Langlois
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
McGuire
McLaughlin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young -95
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(2040)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 2
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 73)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-41
NAYS
Members
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Bachand
Baker
Berger
Boudria
Brien
Bélair
Caccia
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Goodale
Guarnieri
Hopkins
Ianno
Irwin
Landry
Langlois
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
McGuire
McLaughlin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
5704
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Young -76
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(2045)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 3
negatived.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 74)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Bachand
Baker
Berger
Boudria
Brien
Bélair
Caccia
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Collins
Daviault
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Goodale
Guarnieri
Hopkins
Ianno
Irwin
Landry
Langlois
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Riis
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young -80
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson-39
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(2050)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, an act
to approve, give effect to and declare valid land claims
agreements entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right
of Canada, the Government of the Yukon Territory and certain
first nations in the Yukon Territory, to provide for approving,
giving effect to and declaring valid other land claims
agreements entered into after this act comes into force, and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
5705
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to share with
the House a ruling by the Speaker on Bill C-33.
There are three motions in amendment on the Notice Paper
for the report stage of Bill C-33, an act to approve, give effect to
and declare valid land claims agreements entered into between
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, the Government of
the Yukon Territory and certain first nations in the Yukon
Territory, to provide for approving, giving effect to and
declaring valid other land claims agreements entered into after
this act comes into force, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon separately. Motion
No. 3 will be debated and voted upon separately.
I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, Motion No. 1 deals with
the provision for future Yukon land claim agreements to be
ratified by order in council and not by Parliament.
Of course it is common for legislation to delegate to the
governor in council the responsibility to implement broad
legislative principles to provide the details so to speak. We have
no problem with that.
Parliament should be concerned with broad matters of social
policy and not the minutiae of implementation. The normal rule
relating to the promulgation of regulations and other forms of
subordinate legislation are very telling. Subordinate legislation
is invalid unless it is specifically authorized by the act.
Regulations which go beyond the scope of a provision are
invalid, what the legal system calls ultra vires.
The basic ideas is that Parliament, not government, makes law
and policy. Subordinate bodies may be delegated the task of
implementing this law and with it the underlying social policy
objectives sought to be accomplished by Parliament.
Bills C-33 and C-34 through the clever expediency of
providing for final and transboundary agreements skirt around
the convention and good sense of the ordinary rules of
delegation to subordinate bodies. These agreements, most of
which have not been negotiated and therefore are unavailable
for parliamentary scrutiny and which may be amended in any
event, even if existing, prevail over the provisions of Bills C-33
and C-34.
Moreover, land claim agreements and most of these have not
been negotiated, can go beyond the act and its provisions may be
enacted as law by the governor in council.
(2055 )
The result is that without Parliament's involvement, laws of
great import may be formulated. For example, an agreement
could provide or be amended to provide a limitation of liability
for a First Nation or one of its citizens for any misconduct,
default of debt, even breach of fiduciary obligation or fraud.
If this type of provision is not presently permitted, this can be
altered through the amendment of the relevant agreement. There
is nothing in these bills that precludes this sort of amendment.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have a chance to speak to this
bill as well as the motion. I would like to start off by
acknowledging the presence in the gallery of people from the
Council for Yukon Indians who are eagerly awaiting the passage
of these bills.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the
presentation to the aboriginal affairs standing committee from
Miss Judy Gingell, the chair of the Council for Yukon Indians,
with regard to the agreements that we are debating here today:
``These agreements manifest a vision of our elders. Our elders
maintained that our homelands must be protected in a manner
that allows the sharing and natural resources with other
Canadians. Our elders have instilled in us a great respect for
other cultures and other people. Their visions of justice and
fairness form the basis of our agreements''.
We are debating these couple of motions with regard to
amendments to Bill C-33. This has to do with the land claims.
When we were trying to deal with the issue of land claims, this
has taken some 21 years to date to come to this state.
It started by being a vision, a dream. It started by being
something that people wanted to talk about but did not really
have any understanding of what it would all lead to. Twenty-one
years later this is what it is coming to.
I am very honoured to have taken a part in helping that dream
come true. As well, I am sure that thanks and appreciation go to
all the negotiators over the years on the government side and on
the CYI side, and of course all the Yukon Indian people as well
as the non-Indians whose hopes and trust are placed in the
success of these agreements.
5706
As we have found out in the last few days, these two bills have
the support of all the Yukoners. We had the Yukon territorial
government, the Council for Yukon Indians, the member of
Parliament for Yukon and others all supporting these two bills.
In supporting this bill, we are making the dreams of Yukoners
come true. In light of the local support, the position of the
Reform Party which has opposed these bills from the outset can
only be characterized as decidedly undemocratic.
The Reform Party which professes to uphold and respect the
wishes and the will of the people has shown profound disrespect
and contempt for the people of Yukon. The Reform's effort to
thwart this bill and the will of the people from the Yukon
through this process has been appalling.
What is most disturbing about the position of the Reform
Party in all this in my view is it does not really even care what
happens in the Yukon. It is more concerned about the potential
land claims agreements in British Columbia.
By imposing its fears and concerns about land claims in B.C.
and Yukon, it forced Yukoners and especially Yukon Indian
people to unnecessary stress and indignities.
(2100 )
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It seemed to me
that this was a treatise about the Yukon self-government bill not
about how dreadful the Reform Party is. We were asked to keep
these discussions specifically to the amendment. I would ask the
hon. member to withdraw that and address-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I believe that is not a
point of order but a matter of debate. The hon. parliamentary
secretary.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, rather than lecturing Yukoners,
members of the Reform Party should be humbly taking lessons
from them. Through compromise and consensus Yukoners of all
origins have built a foundation for their future together. This is
not social and government engineering, as the member of the
Reform Party has called it, it is nation building.
On February 14, 1973, Chief Elijah Smith and all Yukon First
Nations chiefs presented a petition to Canada to negotiate a
comprehensive claim settlement agreement. The petition was
entitled: ``Together Today For Our Children Tomorrow''. On
that same day Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau accepted
the Yukon Indian request to commence negotiations.
Our present Prime Minister was the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development at that time. As the chair of the
Council for Yukon Indians pointed out last week in a
presentation to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development, it is entirely appropriate that the
Prime Minister conclude the circle of negotiations of our final
self-government agreements. Tomorrow is here.
The Reform's amendment would delete clause 5 from Bill
C-33. Subclause (1) of clause 5 allows final land claim
agreements and transboundary agreements concluded in the
future to be given effect by order in council. Subclause (2) of
clause 5 requires that such an order in council be tabled in the
House of Commons within 30 sitting days after the order is
made. The Reform's amendment to delete clause 5 would mean
that 10 remaining First Nations final agreements and future
transboundary agreements would have to be brought into effect
by other acts of Parliament.
Motion No. 1 is unacceptable because first, the four final
agreements being given effect by this bill require this bill to
provide that future agreements may be given effect by order in
council. Deleting clause 5 would make the legislation
inconsistent with the four agreements the bill is bringing into
effect. Second, clause 5 does not prevent Parliament from
reviewing any further agreements. Third, deleting clause 5
would require consequential amendments to other clauses of
this bill, for example clauses 14 and 15.
For all of the above reasons, the government finds Motion No.
1 unacceptable.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, before I
focus on the mechanics of the motion as such, I too would like to
extend greetings, both personally and on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois to the people in the gallery from the Yukon who, as
we know, have waited 21 years to see their dream finally become
a reality. Let me also say that they have persevered peacefully
for 21 years. Even though the negotiation process can at times be
rough, they never took up arms but focused on the task at hand.
As a result, as I mentioned, their dream is about to become a
reality in a few hours' time.
The 21-year-period is worthy of mention, as I pointed out in
my speech on second reading. For Yukon natives, it is extremely
important to consider the views of their elders.
(2105)
During the course of the testimony by Yukon natives, we were
told that previous generations of elders had expressed concern
about whether these negotiations would ever come to fruition. I
think that these elders would be very satisfied today, as will the
children of those seated in the gallery who will finally be able to
claim ownership once and for all to land that has been theirs
forever.
As for the crux of the motion before us, obviously if we were
to delete clause 5 of the bill, we would automatically be calling
into question clause 4 which basically describes the four nations
with whom land claim agreements have already been reached.
Therefore, if we delete clause 5 and prohibit the Governor in
Council from concluding a similar agreement with the ten other
first nations, we would be left with a kind of parliamentary
vacuum and there would be no known way of resolving the
5707
claims pending with other first nations. On that subject,
negotiations are progressing well. The feeling is that an
agreement will be reached within a year or two with five nations.
It would be encouraging for them to know that, as soon as their
final agreement is reached, they come under the act that is
before us and the Governor in Council simply brings them under
the provisions of this act.
As for dispelling fears, I think it is something that must be
demystified. The four land claim agreements before us which
the act will give effect to today for the most part contain the
same provisions. This was also the case with Bill C-34: you
could open agreements with different nations to any particular
page and find just about the same text. I asked the Indian affairs
department officials who came to reassure us about the various
clauses: can a first nation avoid the final umbrella agreement?
And they said no. In other words, the ten nations still in the
negotiating process will have to follow the exact same line
already agreed to by the other four.
Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Motion No. 1.
I am also concerned about the manner in which this entire debate
has progressed. We have two bills before the House and we have
been debating now for almost a week. A refusal to allow the
Governor in Council the power to implement these agreements
would implicitly mean that any such agreement would have to
be brought before the House in the form of a bill, and at the
speed we are going in passing these two bills, you can imagine
what it would be like to have ten more before us over the next
several years. I think it would take months to get these bills
through the House, given the amount of time which the Reform
Party has taken blocking the two bills now before us.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will reject Motion
No. 1.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address the House concerning
amendments to Bill C-33, but first I want to say one thing. The
ghosts of the champions of democracy that have passed on from
this House will be moving very slowly with their heads bowed
tonight. Because of this government this respected House of
democracy has become a House of shame. This government has
prostituted the principles of democracy. It has prostituted the
fundamental values of democracy and it has prostituted
everything sacred about democracy.
Members of the party at this end have sold their souls for 30
pieces of silver and they will find their potter's field before their
term is over. It is a shame what has happened in this Chamber
tonight. Those who value the fundamental richness of
democracy will indeed be hanging their heads in shame tonight.
(2110)
In relation to Bill C-33, I would like to focus on one of the
amendments put forward by my party. It deals with clause 5, the
first amendment. The existence of clause 5 in this bill is a
contradiction to the election promise of openness and
transparency the government made. It takes away the
democratic values and rights of this House to debate bills, to
debate legislation which affects Canadians. This government
has squashed that value.
We in the Reform Party have come to this House as the
servants of the people of Canada. We have been entrusted to
speak for the good of Canada, to question moves like this one
tonight, to question the government's determination to ram
through legislation that generations of Canadians will be paying
for over and over again. The very thought that this government
would ram through legislation that would take away the public
debate-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I have followed the
debate attentively. I have been known in another light to have
somewhat of a peripheral vision, but I have never been able to
master hearing two or more people speak at any one time. I
would like to share in hearing interventions by members on both
sides of the House. I would ask the hon. member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley to continue, please.
Mr. Harris: As I was saying, this government has the
audacity tonight to ram through a bill which will take away the
debating privileges of this House on legislation that will be in
the interests of all Canadians. It will not be debated in this
House because this government has brought in closure on the
further debate on Bill C-33.
I consider it only appropriate for the good of all Canadians,
for the good of Canada, and for the good of the reputation of this
House, that our amendment to clause 5 be adopted.
We are officials elected to represent the views of our
constituents indeed, the views of all Canadians. This
government would think otherwise. Government members
would self-serve their private agendas, but this part of the
House and this party speaks for the Canadian people, not for the
special interest groups that supply support for the party.
The constituents, the taxpayers of this country, pay our
salaries. They expect us to look after the best interests of Canada
and Canadians, especially when it comes to the appropriation of
land under public domain. They have paid for federal territorial
and aboriginal negotiators who have drafted these land claim
settlements. With clause 5 this government is telling the
taxpayers that future settlements will not even come before this
House
5708
for scrutiny by their elected representatives. Shame on this
government.
With clause 5 the negotiators are no longer accountable. They
are no longer accountable to the taxpayers since their
settlements will simply be rubber stamped in cabinet. No
debate, just a rubber stamp. That is something government
members are very familiar with as they sat on this side of the
House and accused the previous government of rubber stamping
legislation. They learned very well from the Tories as they were
sitting over here. Their apprenticeship is now complete and they
are doing exactly the same thing they railed upon in this House
in the last Parliament.
(2115)
An hon. member: The Tories never did it with no debate.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, in not allowing their elected
representatives to speak on their behalf, the taxpayer has no say
in the distribution of lands to the remaining 10 bands in the
Yukon. This is not acceptable to the people of Canada. This is
not acceptable to the values of democracy that were present in
this House until this government got on that side of the House.
I repeat again, our amendment to clause 5 will preserve the
values of democracy. It will give security to the Canadian
people, security to know that bills will not be rammed through
Parliament in the back rooms of this place.
I say it again. Shame on this government, shame on the way it
has desecrated the democratic principles of this House. I hope
they all sleep well tonight.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I had not initially intended to speak on this bill tonight
but after hearing some of what I heard moments ago, I now feel
that I must.
An hon. member: You do not understand democracy.
Mr. Boudria: The member across says I do not understand
democracy. Maybe that is so. Maybe he is much more
knowledgeable in such things than I. For 18 years I have had the
opportunity of serving those who have elected me at the
municipal, provincial and federal levels of government. But
perhaps the member across has learned a lot more in the time he
has been here. Perhaps that is so. I will defer of course to that
wisdom, the kind of wisdom we have just heard in the speech he
delivered to this House. I will let my colleagues decide on just
how much wisdom was heard in the previous 10 minutes.
The member across has just said with this Bill C-33 that
democracy is stifled by the government, or something to that
effect. I am not going to refer to people who are presently here in
Ottawa because I cannot refer to anyone who would be in the
gallery. That would be improper. I want the people who are here
in Ottawa to know that I feel that the 21 years they have waited is
more than long enough.
For members who say this bill was not debated sufficiently,
last week we had an all night debate in committee, 16 hours
straight of debating this bill in committee. Prior to that we had a
second reading debate on this bill. Then we had an additional
four hours of debate by the committee dealing with it and now
another hour at report stage to be followed tomorrow by another
hour at third reading.
Perhaps members think that individual bills should all be
dealt with with more than 22 hours of debating time each. That is
their privilege. That is more than an hour for every year that the
people who are here in Ottawa have waited for this bill, not those
in the gallery because I cannot refer to the gallery, but if I could I
would.
I was at the committee last week for a good part of the time. I
took three or four hours off and then came back. I saw people
like the hon. member for Yukon who stayed there all night. The
hon. member who is the chairman of the committee stayed their
all night to defend the interests of constituents.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(2120)
Mr. Boudria: I tip my hat to both of them and to the others
who were there to stand by their constituents in obviously very
difficult times. I make no apology tonight for people who have
waited 21 years. I do not believe they should have waited
another three months beyond the parliamentary recess and into
the fall because that was the position the Reform Party was
taking.
Reform Party members thought the bill should be dragged
into the fall before being debated at third reading. They have
every right to want to delay whatever they want to delay, but I
also have every right to disagree with them, particularly after a
bill has been debated in the House at second reading, for 20
hours in committee, for 2 hours at report stage, and then at third
reading. That is more than long enough for the people in
question to endure.
Finally, members across the way have said that they are the
true defenders of democracy or some such nonsense. I wonder
under whose definition that is. Is it under the definition of the
people who have waited for 21 years, who are in Ottawa but not
in the gallery, whom I cannot refer to but I would if I could? No,
not according to them.
Let us apply another test. Three parties in the House tonight,
the Liberal Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic
Party, voted to end this debate. They as one party representing
approximately one-quarter of the membership of the House say
their view of democracy as explained by their number
supersedes the wish of every one of us including people who
have waited for 21 years.
5709
That is a test of democracy. Could it be that democracy if one
is a Reformer means that which one can agree with as opposed to
that which is good or that which is approved by the majority of
the people? Could it be that is their definition of democracy?
Perhaps it is.
I am proud we have taken plenty of time to debate the bill at
all stages. All members were given an opportunity to debate the
bill, including an opportunity to sit all night on a parliamentary
committee. Some members did it. They put forward the
propositions they felt were important.
I was at the committee for part of the time and I saw motions
for adjournment. Does that sound familiar? We heard one of
those tonight, except it cut into the time of the people proposing
it. We shant mention that. That happened at the parliamentary
committee. We had a dilatory motion. The last vote of the
committee was if shall the bill be reported to the House. It
carried unanimously at committee. I challenge anyone to read
the proceedings of the committee.
When the chair asked ``shall I report the bill to the House'' the
vote was yes. Let us hold that thought for a minute. When the
bill returned to the House a few hours later who said the bill was
not receivable by the House? It was the same people who gave
unanimous consent to table it three hours before.
I am no expert in parliamentary procedure but surely there is
something wrong with people who give unanimous consent to
report a bill to the House and then say three hours later that the
bill should not have been reported. That effort in itself proved to
me that it was not the intention of the party to debate the bill
further. They did not want the House to receive the report. How
could those members say they want to debate it some more?
Tonight, when we tried to debate these bills in addition to what
we had debated them previously, what did they propose? They
proposed adjournment to subtract time from the debating time
they already had. This is sheer and utter nonsense on the part of
the Reform Party. All members of Parliament know it, all
Canadians know it, the people of the Yukon and the people who
have waited 21 years know it especially.
(2125)
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, it is
very interesting that the just made speech across the way is very
typical of Liberal damage control. If you have a problem point
your finger, accuse someone else and say it is all their fault. Are
the people of Canada fooled by this? No, sir.
I would like to address the people of Canada on this motion. I
take the word of my colleague a while ago. The word is shame. It
is a terrible shame. The people are not going to be fooled by this.
Closure is a shame. It is a travesty of democracy. You know it
and you are going to pay for it.
The biggest shame however is figuring out what the
motivation is. What has been the motivation across the way to
dampen debate, to cut out debate, to stifle it? Could it possibly
be that we do not want to hear any countervailing arguments?
Could it be even that you want you want to catch your plane?
Could it be that the Bloc Quebecois joined in because they want
to catch their plane home? Or could it be that there was a little
deal struck here? If so, more shame.
This is the first time that I have personally had to undergo this
sort of a travesty. I will not forget it ever and I assure you that the
voters of Canada will not forget it either.
I say to the hon. member for Nunatsiaq who mentioned his
dream that I sincerely hope, sir, that this will culminate in a
dream for your people and a dream come true for the people of
the Yukon. I hope, because of the ill-consideration of all of the
facets of this, that it will not turn a dream into a nightmare.
I would like to underline a few principles that the Reform
Party applies to native issues. The first is equality not among
just natives but equality among all Canadians. The second is
self-reliance. In this we mean elimination of the department of
Indian affairs. The third would be the right to
self-determination, the freedom to choose not to have the
federal government or band councils impose lifestyle.
The fourth would be self-sufficiency, native self-government
fashioned after municipal government models with input from
all other Canadians. The fifth would be treaty negotiations, fair
resolution of all past, present and future native and non-native
obligations involving input from all Canadians. Finally, we
believe in settling land claims through a fair negotiation
involving all Canadians and not just orders in council.
This bill addresses some basic problems concerning the role
of the House of Commons. It has always been my belief as a
non-politician, perhaps as a naive Canadian, that this House is
here to represent the interests of all Canadians. Obviously that
means all Canadians without regard to race, religion or ethnic
background. I sometimes believe this to be true particularly if I
talk person to person with members of this House, even across
the way. There are other times however when party machinery
gets into gear and I doubt very much at that time that the
common wheel of all of Canada is the objective. The handling of
Bills C-33 and C-34 certainly raises such doubts. If there was
any doubt before tonight that doubt is out the window now.
(2130)
The original purpose is no doubt well-intentioned but its
execution here in Parliament raises very fundamental questions
about the operation of the House. What is the hurry? We have to
ask that in the case of these two bills. What is the hurry?
5710
We have legislation here of the greatest importance that, as we
have heard, has been worked on for over 20 years, legislation
that will have a profound influence on the future of Canada,
legislation so voluminous that it has to be measured in inches
and weighed in pounds and the government says: ``Okay, look at
it quickly, now get on with it''.
The situation was well described when we heard about this for
the first time by my colleague from North Island-Powell River
when he said:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the introduction of Bills C-33 and C-34 which
would ratify land claims and self-government agreements in the Yukon. Last
week we were told the government wished to have these bills introduced later in
June with the understanding that MPs would have time to prepare properly.
These bills represent the culmination of 21 years of mostly behind closed
doors work without the involvement of federal parliamentarians. Today, 24 hours
after tabling, Parliament is being asked to debate these bills at second reading.
This is an obvious abuse of power. The Liberal red ink book speaks of the
integrity of Parliament. Surely assimilating over nine inches of text overnight
with a rushed departmental briefing the next morning does not speak well of the
integrity of Parliament or the interest of all Canadians. This action is a travesty
of Parliament.
Since then, because of the limited time for debate and in
reaction to the government's desire to get the bills passed, the
Reform Party has had to drag out discussions of the bill in
committee. Here we are back in the House. We were hoping to
forestall any precipitate decision on the bills but obviously that
is out the window as well.
We have an obligation to the Canadian public, not just us but
all Canadians, to let the public know what is going on.
Remarkably, the same hasty panic occurred in the House a
year ago when a similar bill zipped through the House in a single
day. That was Bill C-133 which created Nunavut. Bill C-133
dealt with one-fifth of the Canadian land mass. In effect it
created a new province, therefore affecting the Constitution of
the country. It allocated $580 million to 17,000 Inuit. Bill C-133
was rushed through the House in one single day on June 4, 1993.
The opposition agreed with the bill. What deal was made? In
spite of the enormous implications of that bill the Canadian
public did not react. Why did it not react? Timing and
orchestration. Rush a bill through. Restrict debate and nobody is
the wiser. What was going on there and what is going on here?
What on earth is the hurry?
I can only identify two people who spoke out against Bill
C-133. One was the Reform member for Beaver River; the other
was Pat Nowlan, the then member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. I
would like to quote from of Mr. Nowlan's remarks, he being an
independent Conservative. After he gave a little plaudit, Mr.
Nowlan went on to say:
I speak almost with a forked tongue. That gets into the substance of the
agreement I am glad to say is here today. It has to be put on the record that I am
totally against the process. To have had the minister of Indian affairs speak for 18
minutes as he did in introducing this bill at second reading does not even begin to
equal the 15 or 16 years it took to get the agreement. The member for
Comox-Alberni said 20 or 25 years-If there was ever an example of a dead
Parliament doing dangerous things, this bill sadly is it. This bill should not have
been brought in in the closing days of Parliament, the last weekend before we rise.
Whether we come back, we do not know.
(2135)
He was prescient, was he not? Look at the similarity of that
situation one year ago today to what we have here in this House
tonight. I go on to quote, time coming up.
With all the good things the minister of Indian affairs and other speakers have
said about it, this bill has the potential of nation building, of bringing the Inuit
into the federation on some of the major points of the agreement.
That was his cry of shame, that the thing was not properly
debated and considered.
In summary, we have had a shame before this House this
evening. I hope the people of Canada will lock it away and
remember it.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I rise with a certain amount of
sadness. I thought I would hear something more profound, more
healing tonight.
Nine months ago when we arrived I was given the red book. I
come from a steel town with not a lot of aboriginal people.
Within the red book there was a map, a direction. Part of that
map involved exactly what we are doing tonight.
I went to the Yukon. I went north three times. I met with the
Yukon people. I met women who talked about Bill C-31 status
with tears in their eyes. I met elders who thought that they would
never have any honour given back to them. Poverty, you have no
idea of the poverty or the housing.
When the white man came to Canada-and the aboriginal
people use that term not in a derogatory way; they mean
non-aboriginal people-we came with a certain amount of
avarice. We came here for our property which they were holding
temporarily for us for 10,000 years.
We went there and we said we would do the honourable thing.
We hired the best negotiators. I wish I had them today. If you
look at the 11 treaties, what do they have? A suit of clothes for
the head man, a suit of clothes for the chief, a medal which
tarnishes, a few acres for each family of five, $8, $9 or $10 a
year. We would take the equivalent of half of provinces. There
was one thing honoured in those treaties-
5711
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I believe there is a
well established practice in this House that we refer to one
another by ridings or portfolios, as the case may be. Obviously,
it is no great news when I tell you that this debate is one of great
importance and which brings great conviction from both sides of
the House, from both sides of the debate. I would hope that we
could be able to follow that debate and be able to all share and
hear whatever interventions might be made by whatever
members from whichever side of the House.
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Speaker, after that meeting with the
aboriginal people I took the time to meet with the mayors. They
said they want this legislation. I met with their legislative
people, all of them. They not only want it, they have passed the
mirror legislation already. I met with the mining association.
They want it. I did not meet anybody up there who really did not
want it. I said: ``This should be easy legislation. When I get back
to Ottawa I am going to have difficulty on other legislation.
Reform Party members say they will listen to the people. This is
in their platform. I heard it for eight months during the
campaign. This should be easy to get through the House of
Commons''.
(2140)
Mr. Anderson: Boy, were you shocked.
Mr. Irwin: I was shocked. I was surprised. I am facing an
agenda of the Reform Party.
An hon. member: Put it to a referendum.
Mr. Irwin: Stay quiet and you will learn something.
Somewhere in this city is a lady called Judy Gingell. Somewhere
in this city she is sitting close to tears because she has been
working on this matter for 21 years. She did not come on the
scene eight months ago with this agenda.
Then we started hearing the agenda of the Reform Party. I
must apologize to the Reform Party because last week I said on
the first sentence of any substance I heard that it was 56 words
and there were 8 derogatory words about aboriginal people. I
apologize. It was 56 words and there were 9 derogatory
statements. This is the sentence and these are the words talking
about aboriginal people: misappropriation, fraudulent,
mismanagement, authorized purposes, interference, fear,
intimidation, assault and forcibly. They were in one sentence.
That is the agenda.
I have a direct quote on April 25 from a member of the Reform
Party: ``I will not accept the popular myth''-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: Listen to your own words. No wonder members of
the Reform Party are groaning. They cannot stand to listen to
their own words: ``I will not accept the popular myth spread by
certain self-serving interests that the encroachment of European
settlers constituted an injustice against aboriginal people here or
anywhere else in Canada''. That was said by the member for
Athabasca on April 25 in the House.
I wish the Reform Party would read the recent report of the
Canadian Human Rights Commission in which it says that the
plight of native Canadians is by far the most serious human
rights problem in Canada. It continues that the failure-and I
see it here tonight with the Reform Party-to achieve a more
global solution can only continue to tarnish Canada's reputation
and accomplishments.
Last week I was sitting here with some Liberals and I heard a
Reform member say: ``Indians are lazy. They live in south sea
islands and periodically''-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: The husbands sat around and burned their wives
on their arms. That is not acceptable in this country.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
words that were attributed to an hon. member were not accurate
and I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw them
immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret that is not a point
of order, although I know an issue of great sensitivity has been
dealt with at another time in the House, something that all
members may want to keep in mind through these deliberations.
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Speaker, it is not only what they said after
being admonished in every newspaper I saw on my way to B.C.,
from here to Victoria. Yesterday or the day before that hon.
member said he was quite proud of those words, even after that.
If I never stand another night in the House, tonight is a proud
night for me, to be among Liberals and Canadians from across
Canada in all parties who want to do the right and honourable
thing for some people in Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: If you do not want to listen, you do not want to
listen. Leave or stop shouting. We want to do the honourable
thing along with the member for Yukon, a member I am very
proud to sit in the House with, notwithstanding that she is sitting
in that section.
(2145)
She is a woman of passion, of caring, of knowledge and it is
too bad the Reform does not periodically stop staring at us and
turn around. It might learn something.
These people in Yukon have been living there for 10,000 years
and negotiating for 21 years with various governments. Tonight
they are going to get justice and I am going to be proud to stand
for that justice.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
5712
[Translation]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pride that I rise tonight to speak to bills C-33 and C-34. I
would like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for allowing me this
opportunity to express my support for the first nations of the
Yukon and for justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples.
[English]
In the short time I have there were several things said tonight
that I would like to take this opportunity to correct. One was
from my good friend across the way who spoke about the
negotiations being 21 years which indeed they were.
I would say that the people of Yukon and the Yukon Indian
people have been waiting 92 years because it was in 1902 that
Chief Jim Boss first raised the issue of land claims in Yukon. I
say if not after 92 years, then when? Now is the time for the
justice that the minister spoke of earlier.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. McLaughlin: The member for the Reform Party said this
was done behind closed doors. I say to this House that these were
the most open closed doors I have ever seen in the 15 years I
have been in the Yukon.
There have been many consultations throughout Yukon. The
previous government leader of Yukon in giving evidence before
the committee mentioned that in the previous government they
had done 100 public consultations. The current government
leader of Yukon and his government have also done numerous
consultations around Yukon in the communities and with
various organizations including the Chamber of Commerce and
the outfitters and so on.
The Council for Yukon Indians has done extensive
consultations with aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in
Yukon.
For many of us in Yukon, and for myself not originally
coming from Yukon, it has been a very educative process over
the last 15 years to watch the development of this issue. What we
see tonight with the co-operation of at least three political
parties in this House is expressing real democracy for justice,
for a historical obligation, long overdue.
I congratulate the minister on his remarks and on his
perseverance on this issue. We are showing through these two
pieces of legislation an opportunity for Canadians to come
together to resolve historical obligations, to fight for real
equality of every citizen.
As a Yukoner, not as a member of Parliament, I say that these
pieces of legislation bring real equality to every person living in
the Yukon and serves as a model for the rest of Canada.
In conclusion, I would like to say there has been much
discussion about what we are giving to aboriginal people. This is
a fundamental misunderstanding of what this legislation is
about and the history of Canada.
As a European politician some time ago said, the land was
stolen fair and square.
(2150 )
This is an attempt to redress a wrong to a people. I would also
like to correct one other statement that was made. It was that
Yukon First Nations peoples have been in that region for 10,000
years. Anthropological evidence will indicate it has been at least
20,000 years.
Surely it is time the people of Canada and this Parliament say
it is time for Yukoners, it is time for Yukon First Nations to have
what is their right, to have what is their responsibility and for us
to stand proudly tonight to support that justice and to see that
justice is done.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to an order made
earlier today, in accordance with Standing Order 78(2) it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put all questions necessary
to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
5713
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(1)(8), a recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 75)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-38
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Berger
Bertrand
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
McCormick
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Young -119
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
5714
(2200 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1
negatived.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not
able to be here for the beginning of the vote. Had I been here, I
would have voted with the government.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to
register my vote with the Liberals.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was not here
for the vote but I would have voted with the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 2.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 76)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-37
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bertrand
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Maloney
McCormick
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -138
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(2205)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 2
negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 77)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
5715
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-37
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bertrand
Blaikie
Bodnar
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Vanclief
Volpe
Whelan
Wood
Young -119
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(2210)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 3
negatived.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(2215 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 78)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bertrand
Blaikie
Bodnar
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Daviault
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
5716
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Rideout
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
Steckle
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -126
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Thompson
Williams-37
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bouchard
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Crête
Finestone
Gauthier (Roberval)
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lincoln
Zed
(2220 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.