37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 050
CONTENTS
Friday, April 27, 2001
1000
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-26. Second reading
|
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1010
1015
1020
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1025
1030
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1035
1040
1045
1050
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| DAY OF MOURNING
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1100
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| SUMMIT ON SPORT
|
| Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
| CANADA BOOK DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| BOMBARDIER
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1105
| NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| HEROISM
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMY DAY
|
| Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1110
| HEROISM
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| LITERACY
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| STOCK MARKET
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| DAY OF MOURNING
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| DAY OF MOURNING
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1115
| NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
|
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1120
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1125
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRADE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1130
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| INDUSTRY CANADA
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1135
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1140
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1145
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1150
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1155
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| FOREIGN AID
|
| Mr. John McCallum |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| Mr. James Moore |
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1200
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| TAX TREATIES
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1205
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| TERRY FOX DAY ACT
|
| Bill C-339. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
| PETITIONS
|
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1210
| Bill C-16
|
| Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-26. Second reading
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1235
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1240
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1245
1250
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1255
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Mr. James Moore |
1300
1305
| Mr. John Bryden |
1310
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
1315
1320
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-305. Second reading
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1340
1345
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1350
1355
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1400
1405
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1410
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 050
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 27, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the
concurrence of this House is desired.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs
Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act
in respect of tobacco, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak
in the House today to present Bill C-26. In fact my heart soars
with enthusiasm.
Bill C-26, the tobacco tax amendments act, 2001, implements the
tax elements of the government's comprehensive new tobacco
strategy which was announced on April 5 by the Ministers of
Finance and Health and the Solicitor General.
[Translation]
The new strategy is designed to improve the health of Canadians
by reducing tobacco consumption, particularly among young
Canadians. Briefly, it consists of increasing spending on
tobacco control programs, tobacco tax increases to discourage
smoking, and a new tobacco tax structure to reduce the incentive
to smuggle.
[English]
The package has received positive support from health groups,
such as the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke
Foundation of Canada and the Alberta Tobacco Reduction
Alliance.
My remarks today will focus on the new tax structure and tax
measures which are contained in amendments to the Customs Act,
the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act and the
Income Tax Act. Before I discuss the individual measures in the
bill, I would like to take a moment to put the legislation in
perspective.
All tobacco products manufactured and sold in Canada have
federal and provincial taxes and duties levied on them. Prior to
1994, tobacco products for export were sold on a tax free and
duty free basis.
In the early 1990s exports of Canadian cigarettes grew
substantially. There was strong evidence to suggest that most
Canadian tobacco products that were illegally exported on a tax
free and duty free basis to the United States were being smuggled
back into the country and sold illegally without the payment of
federal and provincial taxes. Two serious problems developed.
Organized criminal activities were increasing and the market in
Canada for fully tax paid tobacco products was being undermined
by the availability of illegal lower cost products. This
undermined the government's health objective of using higher
prices to reduce smoking.
This is why the government implemented the national action plan
to combat smuggling in 1994. That plan included increased
enforcement measures, a surtax on the profits of Canadian tobacco
manufacturers, a tax on certain exports of tobacco products and
reduced tobacco taxes.
[Translation]
It has proven to be very effective in reducing the level of
contraband activity and restoring the legitimate market for
tobacco sales. As a result, the government has been able to
increase excise taxes on tobacco products five times since 1994.
[English]
The measures in the bill before us today include a new tobacco
tax structure to further reduce the incentive to smuggle tobacco
products back into Canada and tobacco tax increases to advance
the government's health objectives.
As hon. members know, one of the government's national health
objectives is to reduce smoking. Our new tobacco strategy is
specifically designed to help reach this objective, particularly
reducing smoking by youth.
Allow me to quote from the Minister of Finance when the new
strategy was announced. He stated:
The Government's anti-tobacco strategy will help improve the
health of Canadians by discouraging smoking. By increasing taxes
sharply and introducing a new tax structure for tobacco, we are
taking important steps now and positioning ourselves to take
further steps as need be.
Canada needs this comprehensive strategy to deal with the broad
range of factors that contribute to smoking. The measures in the
bill are part of that strategy.
I will now discuss these measures in detail and begin with the
new tax structure.
[Translation]
As I mentioned, the new tobacco tax structure is designed to
reduce the incentive to smuggle Canadian-produced tobacco
products back into Canada from export markets, the main source
of contraband in the past.
1010
[English]
The key element of this new structure is the replacement of the
current tax on exports of tobacco products, effective April 6,
2001, with a new two tiered excise tax on exports of Canadian
manufactured tobacco products. Before discussing the measure
further, let me provide some background.
As we know, the Canadian smuggling problem of the early 1990s
was primarily caused by Canadian exports to the U.S. that were
illegally re-entered into Canada. In the 1994 national action
plan to combat smuggling, which I discussed earlier, the
government imposed an excise tax on Canadian tobacco products. To
ensure that Canadian tobacco manufacturers were not denied access
to legitimate export markets, several exemptions from the export
tax were allowed, including one for exports up to 3% of a
manufacturer's annual production. That was reduced to 2.5% of
production in April 1999.
Bill C-26 implements the budget 2000 proposal to further reduce
the exemption threshold under the tax on exports of tobacco
products before April 6, 2001, to 1.5% of a manufacturer's
production in the previous calendar year. This 1.5% threshold
represents the approximate level of exports required to meet the
legitimate demand for Canadian tobacco products abroad,
principally in the United States.
Under the new export tax structure, all exports of Canadian
tobacco products will be taxed, thereby reducing the incentive to
smuggle exported products back into Canada. This new tax will be
two tiered. For exports up to the 1.5% threshold, a tax will be
imposed at the rate of $10 per carton of cigarettes. To avoid
double taxation when these products enter legitimate foreign
markets, the tax will be refunded upon proof of payment of
foreign taxes.
[Translation]
Imposing a refundable tax on exports of tobacco products allows
for a seamless transfer of tax-paid products from Canada to other
countries. This reduces the threat of these products being
diverted and used for contraband, while allowing Canadian
exporters to meet legitimate demand for their products abroad.
[English]
Exports over the 1.5% threshold will be subject to both the
current excise duty on tobacco products and a new excise tax that
together amount to $22 per carton of cigarettes. Imposing a tax
at this rate will remove any incentive to illegally bring these
products back into Canada. Further, there will be no rebate on
this tax. This measure will reduce the potential for smuggling
and help set the stage for future tobacco tax increases.
Before moving on, I should mention that discussions are ongoing
between Canada and the United States to help achieve the
objectives of our tobacco products not being available tax free,
while avoiding double taxation of exported products and helping
reduce compliance burdens for U.S. importers.
The next element of the new tax structure concerns tobacco
products sold at duty free shops and as ships' stores.
[Translation]
As hon. members know, duty-free shops are located at border
crossings and international airports across the country. These
shops are authorized to sell certain goods, including tobacco
products, tax-free and duty-free, to people leaving Canada.
[English]
Tobacco products supplied as ships' stores have traditionally
been provided for use by crew and passengers and are sold to
passengers through on board duty free shops on ships and aircraft
with international destinations. Under the new structure,
Canadian tobacco products delivered to duty free shops and as
ships' stores both at home and abroad will now be taxed at a rate
of $10 per carton of cigarettes. In addition, imported tobacco
products delivered to Canadian duty free shops will also be
taxed. However, this tax will be refunded on the first carton
sold to an individual who is not a resident of Canada. Both
measures take effect as of April 6, 2001.
Imposing a tax on tobacco products for sale in duty free shops
or as ships' stores is an integral part of the government's
strategy to reduce tobacco consumption. It demonstrates just how
serious the government is about this issue.
1015
Allowing Canadians who travel to continue to have access to low
cost, tax free tobacco through duty free shops would be
inconsistent with our strategy of raising tobacco taxes
domestically to achieve the government's health objective to
reduce smoking.
This measure would also reduce the risk that smugglers might
seek to access Canadian tobacco products in duty free markets as
other sources of untaxed, low cost tobacco products are
eliminated. We want all Canadian tobacco products to be taxed,
no matter where they are sold, to ensure that they are not
smuggled back into Canada.
Another measure in the bill would ensure that tax is paid on
tobacco products imported by returning residents. Currently
Canadian residents returning to Canada after an absence of more
than 48 hours may bring back one carton of cigarettes tax free
and duty free as part of a traveller's allowance. Effective
October 1, 2001, a new duty of $10 per carton of cigarettes would
be imposed on these products when they are imported by returning
residents.
To ensure that Canadian residents are not subject to double
taxation upon returning to Canada with Canadian tobacco products
on which tax has already been paid, neither this duty nor regular
excise duties and taxes would apply to tobacco products that bear
a Canadian stamp signifying that excise duties and taxes have
already been paid. Non-residents would not be affected by the
change to the traveller's exemption.
Tobacco tax increases are another key element of the
government's strategy to reduce tobacco consumption, particularly
among youth. Since the implementation of the national action
plan to combat smuggling in 1994, the federal government has
worked with the five provinces that implemented matching tobacco
tax reductions at that time, namely Ontario, Quebec, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, to assess the
feasibility of regular joint increases in tobacco taxes.
[Translation]
As of April 6, 2001, the federal government has raised tobacco
tax rates jointly with these five low tax provinces.
The combined federal-provincial tax increases are $4 per carton
of cigarettes sold in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova
Scotia, Ontario and Quebec.
[English]
Bill C-26 would implement the increases in federal excise tax
rates on tobacco products. These increases would restore federal
excise tax rates to a uniform level of $5.35 per carton on
cigarettes for sale in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. This
is equal to the federal tax rate that now applies in the
provinces and territories that did not reduce taxes jointly with
the federal government in 1994. After this tax increase only
Ontario and Quebec would have cigarette excise tax rates below
the national excise tax rate.
Taxes on fine cut tobacco and tobacco sticks would also be
increased in all provinces and territories. In addition, Bill
C-26 would eliminate the reduced rate of federal excise tax on
fine cut tobacco for sale in Ontario.
[Translation]
As I indicated earlier, this is the fifth increase in tobacco
taxes since 1994. In total, federal and provincial taxes on
cigarettes will have increased from $7.40 to $9.80 per carton in
these five provinces since 1994.
[English]
I am confident that a successful new tobacco tax structure would
enable the government to hike tobacco taxes even further in the
future. The bill would also increase the surtax on the profits
of tobacco manufacturers to 50% from the current rate of 40%
effective April 6, 2001.
To help ensure that these measures are effective, we are giving
more resources to federal departments and agencies so that they
could better monitor and assess the effectiveness of these
measures in reducing smuggling.
1020
These resources would be targeted specifically to the RCMP, the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Department of Justice and
the Solicitor General of Canada at a cost of $15 million in the
first year and $10 million each year after that.
In conclusion, all the proposals in the bill reaffirm the
government's commitment to reduce tobacco consumption in Canada
while maintaining vigilance in combating the level of contraband.
[Translation]
A new tobacco tax structure will help reduce the incentive to
smuggle Canadian produced tobacco products back into Canada and
the tobacco tax increases will help advance the government's
health objectives.
[English]
In addition, the tax measures would increase federal revenues
from tobacco products by $215 million per year. I believe that
this new strategy demonstrates the depth of the government's
commitment to reducing tobacco use.
We know the stakes are high in the campaign against tobacco use.
Through the tax measures contained in the bill, we now have the
means to conduct the campaign effectively. Tobacco taxation is
about health. Health is our priority, especially protecting the
health of our young people. These new measures reflect our
commitment to reduce smoking.
We have an endorsement from the Canadian Cancer Society. With
an endorsement like that, I believe the government is definitely
on the right track toward reducing smoking by Canadians,
particularly young Canadians. I encourage all members in the
House to give their full support to the bill.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to share
my time with the member for Elk Island.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the member to
share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-26. It
is high time it came about. However I think a little history is
warranted here.
Prior to 1994 tobacco consumption in Canada was plummeting as a
direct result of high taxes. We also know that the average age
young people begin to smoke is between 12 and 13. High tobacco
prices do discourage smoking. The price elasticity of demand
says that if the price is increased the demand will decrease
dramatically, which is particularly important with regard to our
youth.
In 1994, in response to cigarette smuggling, particularly in
eastern Ontario, the government committed what was probably the
most horrendous blunder in health care policy in the history of
the country. Almost nothing this government could ever have done
would have committed such a number of youth to smoke and have
such a devastating impact upon the health of Canadians, not only
in the short term but also in the long term.
What the government did in response to smuggling was drop the
taxes on tobacco significantly. What did that do? It increased
the consumption among youth and adults, as well as the number of
people smoking and the amount that they smoked. Why do we say
that? It is because something interesting happened. Tobacco
taxes were reduced in five provinces in central and eastern
Canada. The west and Newfoundland kept their prices relatively
the same.
We had an interesting laboratory, looking at central Canada
where the price was much lower, and the west and Newfoundland
where the price was much higher.
If we looked at any graph we would see that tobacco consumption
and tobacco profits after 1994 went up dramatically. Almost a
quarter of a million young people started to smoke. Tobacco
companies were popping champagne corks in their offices.
What the government should have done in order to deal with the
tobacco issue, which was a legitimate problem, was what it did
prior to 1993.
1025
In 1992 the same problem arose. At that time the government put
an excise tax on tobacco. That cut the legs out from under
tobacco smugglers. It eliminated the differential between Canada
and the United States. Within six weeks tobacco smuggling
dropped 75% without changing the price of cigarettes. After six
weeks the government of the day buckled under pressure from the
tobacco companies that threatened to leave, and it removed the
excise tax.
If the government had the backbone, it could have cut the legs
out from underneath tobacco smugglers while not compromising the
health of Canadians, particularly the youth. It could have done
that by keeping the taxes where they were and by adding the
excise tax.
It was the excise tax that would have prevented smuggling while
enabling to keep the taxes where they were. It would not have
committed a quarter of a million young people to smoking, 50% of
whom will die of tobacco related deaths, with 21% of them dying
of some form of cancer. It is a public tragedy and a public
health problem that we will see in the long term.
The government also deprived the public coffers of nearly $5
billion worth of revenue. I can imagine what we could have done
with that money. We could have put it into health care, into
research and into prevention.
Our party supports the bill, but we want make sure that the
money coming from taxes would not be put into some big vat to be
used for special projects by the government. The money could be
used for prevention models. It could be used for a head start
program that focuses on strengthening the parent-child bond which
has proven to be of dramatic importance and very effective at
improving the health care of children and their families while
preventing a lot of social problems that occur later on. That is
what the government could and should be doing.
The government could also put money into increasing physical
activities among kids. Physical activity is at an all time low.
This would have a dramatic impact on the future health of
Canadians because when children become adults, if they were not
active as youth, there is less of a chance they will be active as
adults.
The minister responsible for sport is very interested in
physical activity and is working hard with our Olympic athletes.
Why does he not take the Olympic athletes to the schools as part
of a speaking program to teach children the importance of
physical activity? The athletes could be paid to do this and the
kids would be directly impacted by Canadian heroes, which would
push and encourage them to be physically active. It is a win-win
situation.
I hope the minister in charge of sport would consider this
proposal. It is an informal proposal but doable. The Olympic
athletes would get money. They would be getting paid to do a
good job and the children of our country would benefit. It would
have a long term and positive impact on the health of Canadians.
It is also important to look at what we could be doing in terms
of improving the health of our children, our youth, as well as
adults in the country. Looking at it from an international
perspective, smoking consumption is not a domestic problem but an
international problem. The World Health Organization has said
clearly that in many countries such as China and other nations it
will be a health care disaster with millions of people dying from
tobacco related diseases.
The public would be very interested to know that tobacco
companies actually sponsor dances in foreign countries and give
out free cigarettes to children. They give out free cigarettes
to children, not because they are good corporate citizens but
because they are attempting to cause children to become addicted
to cigarette smoking. Some of these tobacco companies are
pretending to be the paragons of virtue and good corporate
citizenry while going to other countries or nations, sponsoring
dances, providing free admission to children and giving them free
cigarettes. That is what is happening in the world today.
I encourage the government to pursue and fast track Bill C-26,
to make sure that the bill goes through, and to increase the
taxes to ensure that our children do not smoke. It should make
the price so high that it becomes even more difficult for youth
to smoke.
1030
Libertarians would suggest that what happens to people is their
business and that they should have freedom of choice. I agree.
However let us take into consideration that we are talking not
about people who are 25 or 30 years of age but about children who
are 12 and 13 years of age. That is when children start to
smoke. That is when they start to take up the weed.
On a slightly related issue, the issue of medicinal marijuana, I
applaud the government in this regard. It is high time. However
the government must make sure it is well regulated and not simply
a tool to legalize marijuana consumption.
What the minister can do, and I am speaking personally and not
on behalf of the party, is decriminalize the simple possession of
marijuana. If we decriminalize marijuana consumption there would
be a penalty or fine which could be used to fund youth prevention
programs. It would also save expensive court costs. It would
take people out of the courts and save legal fees and court time.
The courts would then have more time to go after people who
commit murder, rape and other heinous crimes. If we
decriminalize marijuana use, and the Canadian Police Association
supports this, we would have higher penalties, lower costs and a
revenue source we could funnel into prevention programs for kids.
My last pitch, once again, is for the head start program. If
the government is truly interested in preventing the social
problems that result from youth crime, if it wants to ensure kids
are more employable and less dependent on welfare or drugs, then
a head start program is the fastest, best and most effective way
of doing so. We could draw from the best of head start programs
around the world which focus on strengthening the parent-child
bond. This should start at the prenatal stage. If fewer parents
took drugs and alcohol during pregnancy we could reduce the
incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome, a tremendous problem in our
country. The programs would also ensure parents had the skills
to be good parents.
This can be done simply, effectively and for the most part with
existing resources. It can be done if the federal government
calls together its provincial counterparts for a conference on
the issue. The government needs a specific plan of action that
can enable the program to be a reality. The cost savings would
be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The lives saved would
be in the thousands.
We support Bill C-26 and hope it goes through quickly. We only
regret that the government in 1994 dropped the taxes to begin
with.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I will begin by accusing my colleagues in the House of the wrong
motive in agreeing to split my time with the member who just
spoke. I think they did so to avoid listening to me for 40
minutes. I could speak to the issue for at least 40 minutes and
now I will be limited to 20. That is really regrettable. However
I shall do as well as I can in the time allotted.
I cannot believe that as a member of the Canadian Alliance I am
standing in the House of Commons this day to speak in favour of
higher taxes. I cannot believe I am doing that, yet I must
support the bill because of its objectives. It bothers me to
speak of higher taxes because we are already taxed to death. We
are taxed at every turn. We even have taxes on taxes. The
government collects GST on excise and gasoline taxes.
The same is true for cigarettes. There are taxes on cigarettes
and then the 7% GST on top of that.
1035
I am, however, in favour of this tax. I cannot believe it and
yet I am. My apologies to friends, constituents and Canadians
who expect us in the Canadian Alliance to consistently oppose
higher taxes and the burden they create for our citizens and
young people. However this is an issue that we are appropriately
addressing. This is a health issue and our concern is to reduce
smoking, especially among young people.
I do not know if my colleagues have thought about it, but what
attracts young people to put a bunch of weeds wrapped in paper
into their mouth, light the end of it and suck on it? It is a
strange motivation and I have often wondered about it.
My colleagues will be disappointed in this, but when I remember
my own youth I must confess, with humble heart and bowed head,
that on an occasion or two, actually two, I succumbed to the
temptation.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Shame.
Mr. Ken Epp: It is shameful. I am embarrassed about it.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Did the hon. member inhale?
Mr. Ken Epp: I do not know if I inhaled. I do not think
I did, I was coughing so hard.
I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan. When I was in grade 8
our school was closed and we were bused into the big city. One day
while walking at noon I saw a pack of cigarettes on the sidewalk.
I kicked it, as young lads are prone to do. I could tell by the
pressure on it that it was not an empty box. I picked it up and
opened it and, lo and behold, there were still some cigarettes in
it. In retrospect I presume someone had decided to quit smoking
and had thrown away the cigarettes. I hope that was the case.
As an aside, I read somewhere that people who decide to quit
smoking and throw away an unfinished pack have much higher
success rates than those who say that they will finish their
current pack and then quit. I say that as an interesting
psychological side trip.
I picked up the pack of cigarettes and hid to make sure no one
could see me. I took one of the things, put it in my mouth and
lit the end of it. It was probably the most incredible thing I
had done in my life. I began hacking and coughing. It was the
most undesirable thing.
As a young fellow in grade 8, about 12 or 13 years old or maybe
14, I made a decision that day before I finished the first
cigarette. I decided I would not smoke. It occurred to me that
smoking was stupid. Why would a guy do it if it only caused him
to cough uncontrollably? Besides that, I was sure it would cost
money. It may amuse young people today to know that my allowance
then was 10 cents a week and I could scarcely afford it.
That was my first experience with smoking. The later one
occurred when I was in university, and it was also quite
incredible. I drove a truck, a big rig on the highway, for my
summer job. I enjoyed that job. I loved driving and I still do.
I still have my class one licence, so if I lose my job here I can
go back to that if nothing else.
One of my fellow drivers challenged me. He will know who he is
if he finds out I am telling the story. We had stopped at a
coffee shop and he bought a cigar at the counter when we were
leaving. He said that I should buy one as well and, for some stupid
reason, I did.
While driving down the road I put the silly thing in my mouth
and drew in the smoke. I was silly to do that. To my knowledge
those are the only two occasions on which I succumbed to the
temptation.
I repeat, what is it that causes young people to decide to take
up smoking in view of what it does to their health?
1040
Many years ago I heard a motivational speaker address a crowd of
young people about smoking. He said one of his strongest
arguments against smoking was that no one he had met who had
smoked more than five years had ever suggested to him that he
start. Not one person who has smoked for five years or more
would recommend that someone else begin.
Now that I have said this on worldwide television, and I know
millions of Canadians are listening, I imagine I will begin to
get e-mails suggesting that I start and that it is wonderful.
People have told me they enjoy it and that is why they do it.
Okay, so be it. That is the reason they do it. However not even
those people have suggested I start in order to share their joy.
Because of its addictive nature I am very much opposed to
anything that would promote the taking up of this habit,
especially by young people. I have been told and have read that
once one begins smoking it is a lifelong habit. It is one of the
most difficult addictions to break.
I used to teach mathematics. How I wish we could use audio
visual aids in the House. I would love to have a prop with a
piece of paper just big enough for the cameras. I could show the
House an exercise I used to give my students when I taught
mathematics in high school and at a technical institute.
When we did exponential functions, when I taught finance and
when I taught students how to use electronic calculators or
computers, I made them do a calculation. I am describing it
without a visual aid, but it went something like this: 365 times
5 times (1 plus 10/100), to the power of 65 minus 20, minus 1,
all divided by 10/100.
My students evaluated it to see if they were using their
computers or calculators correctly. When I asked them if they
knew what they had computed they said they did not. It was a
random formula as far as they were concerned. I told them they
had computed the following: 5 is the cost of a pack of
cigarettes; 365 is the number of days in a year; the 10/100 is
10%, which is pretty high but there are times one can get it in
an RRSP; the minus one is just part of the formula; divide by
10/100, again that is 10%.
They had computed the costs of smoking for their lifetime from
age 20 to age 65. The formula told them how much they would have
in the bank at a 10% rate of interest if they started saving at
age 20 and retired at age 65. My students were amazed because
the sum was $1.3 million.
I then had them do another calculation which demonstrated that
such a strategy would ensure them an annual pension of $139,000
until age 95. That is a fantastic pension. It is even better
than the MP pension plan.
I told my students they had learned some math but that they also
had a choice to make. They could smoke and at age 65 live on
whatever meagre pension the government gives them, or they could
instead retire on $139,000 a year by putting that money into the
bank.
Smoking is wrong in terms of both its health effects and its
lack of consideration for fellow citizens.
1045
I happen to be on the non-smoking side of the issue. There is a
temptation for what I am about to say to come out wrong. I would
like my friends to know that I do not dislike people who smoke
but I do dislike their smoking. I would like to differentiate
that. I love people but if they would not smoke it would be that
much more pleasant.
Last Sunday I was out with my wife and some friends at a
restaurant. We asked for the non-smoking section and it was
given to us. That was nice but there were people smoking. The
smoke drifted across and we could smell it. We briefly talked
about it. It was too bad but we had to live with it. My advisers
told me not to say in my speech that having a non-smoking section
in a restaurant is like having a non-peeing section in a swimming
pool. I was advised not to say it, but it is a fact.
When I went to pay the bill the guy from the smoking section was
there in front of me. Did he put his cigarette out while we were
paying? No. He was right there and by the time we got home our
clothes reeked. I set them in another room because they stunk.
I ask members not to get this wrong. It shows a lack of respect
for other people when one insists on smoking in the presence of
non-smokers. Some people would say that I am moralizing and not
like me for it. I apologize but there are many people who feel
that way.
At the hotel where I am staying I always get a non-smoking room,
but in spite of the laundry process, the smell of cigarettes on
the pillow was not eradicated. I wake up the next day with a
headache because of the smell.
Even around the House of Commons we may wish to consider doing
something about smoking. Every member and visitor to this place
has to walk through a wall of smoke at the main entrances because
of all the people smoking. It is not pleasant. Could we arrange
for them to have a room somewhere, maybe with fans? They should
not have to go outside into the wicked Canadian winter. We
should show them some respect, but let us not allow them to smoke
at the main entrances to our buildings and force everyone,
smokers or not, to go through that wall of smoke.
I wish to come back to the health issue. I was forced in my
previous employment to share an office for a time with a smoker.
One can imagine what that was like. I suggested to him, as
kindly as I could, that it bothered me. This was before the days
of the non-smoking environment. I suggested to him that he could
go outside and smoke because it bothered me. He told me that it
did not bother me. I thought to myself how arrogant he was. He
arranged for our organization to buy an air purifier and he set
it beside him when he smoked. I had a headache pretty well every
day. It affects me adversely. There are many people who have
that allergy or that medical response to second hand smoke.
I had a dream where I died and went to heaven. When they asked
me why I was there I said it was because of second hand smoke in
my office. I told my office partner that the next day. He
laughed about it and thought it was very funny, but there is some
evidence that second hand smoke is a health hazard.
I remember teaching statistics in a math course. One of the
things that we did was to try to interpret statistical data. One
of the examples that we used was death by heart and lung disease.
It was interesting that the percentage of deaths caused by heart
and lung disease at that time, a number of years back, peaked
between the ages of 40 and 50 and then it dropped off. I asked
my students to interpret the statistical data. They concluded,
correctly, with the premise that if someone has a biological
predisposition to getting lung cancer or heart disease due to
smoking they would get it and die in their forties, most likely.
1050
How can we condone smoking when it literally puts at risk
thousands of people who die in their forties because of it?
Obviously we need to take some action. I thought of an example.
What would the Minister of Transport or the House of Commons do
if there were an airplane crash today in which 100 people died
and tomorrow there was another airplane crash of the same type?
I have a suspicion that on the second day all airplanes around
the world would be grounded voluntarily by the airlines and by
compulsion of governments. Yet every day in Canada 100 people
have a premature death due to smoking and we are doing absolutely
nothing about it.
Even this measure is tepid in comparison to what we should be
doing. This is an issue of great proportion and we should do
everything that we can to reduce smoking and to discourage young
people from taking up the habit.
I remember as a student going to the museum of science in
Portland, Oregon. I remember vividly seeing two lungs hooked up
in parallel to the same pipes and a pump that was providing an
increase and decrease in pressure. We know that it is
atmospheric pressure that allows us to breathe. When we drop the
diaphragm there is a space to be filled and it is the air
pressure around us that pulls the air into the lungs.
What was happening was a simulation of a person breathing. They
had two lungs from cadavers, actual human lungs. One was from a
healthy person who died in a car accident and the other was from
a person who died of emphysema or lung cancer. One was a
diseased lung and the other one was a normal lung.
As the pressure went up and down the normal lung expanded and
contracted to allow the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide to
give a healthy life. The other lung barely moved. It was
atrophied. It was all solid because of the effects of smoking.
This had quite an impact on me. It happened a little less than
40 years ago and I still remember it. The impact that it had was
amazing.
Should we do something about it? I absolutely and profoundly
say yes. Am I in favour of tax increases? No, I am not. I am
in favour of the bill only because of the impact that it could
have and hopefully would have. I hope the government in
increasing those taxes would also have the fortitude to enforce
the rules and to make sure that we do not have an increase in the
smuggling of cigarettes in addition to the supply that would keep
coming in.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot may have a
few minutes to begin his speech.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
always sad to be cut off after a few minutes, because the case
to be made on tobacco taxes and smoking in general is a very
serious one. The time at our disposal here is so important that
cutting my speech in two might have a negative effect on the
message. Nevertheless, in the five minutes remaining to me
before oral question period. I will try to introduce my message.
As hon. members are aware, Bill C-26 consists essentially in
raising the taxes on tobacco as an anti-smoking measure.
1055
Right off, I will say that my party, the Bloc Quebecois, will
support the bill because we care about people's health and
about the fight that has gone on for many years against what I
would call a plague, a major social problem, a problem creating
considerable cost for the health care sector. It is a problem
that also results every year in Canada in deaths that would not
occur had people not taken up this bad habit.
Some 29% of people smoke. This is fewer people than in the
past but it is still too many. It is still too many because
tobacco kills and before it kills it makes people sick.
These people impose considerable costs on the health care
system.
People get emphysema, caused primarily by smoking. Smoking is
also the cause of heart disease, and in particular, myocardial
infarction, of lung cancer, and of strokes, some of which are
linked to smoking.
Every year, there are over 40,000 deaths related to the use of
tobacco. Why are there so many deaths? Why does tobacco kill?
It kills because it is a really poisonous mix of highly toxic
chemicals.
As for tar, do people know that the tar found in a cigarette
includes over 4,000 chemicals? Tar alone, which is but one of
hundreds of components found in tobacco and a product of the
combustion of tobacco, contains 4,000 toxic products.
Nicotine is the worst of the poisons found in cigarettes. Why?
Because, depending on a cigarette's nicotine content, it is the
nicotine that creates a dependency, an addiction similar to
cocaine and even heroin addiction. Some studies even suggest
that nicotine makes it just as hard to stop smoking as to stop
using hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
All sorts of junk is found in cigarettes. I could talk about it
at length, because I smoked for many years. I stopped eight
years ago. At the time, I did not have this information. It is
thanks to awareness, information and advertising campaigns on
the ills of tobacco that I became aware of the makeup of this
poison.
Mr. Speaker, I can see that you are getting anxious. I will
resume my speech after oral question period.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have 35 minutes to complete
his remarks after oral question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
DAY OF MOURNING
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, April 28, marks the 10th annual National Day of Mourning.
We observe this day to honour those who have been killed or
injured in the workplace. It is because of these tragic deaths
that I rise today to remind my colleagues that making a greater
commitment to workplace safety benefits all Canadians.
The National Day of Mourning takes on even more meaning when we
look at the alarming statistics. An average of three Canadians
are killed every working day and one is injured every nine
seconds. This accounts for nearly 800 deaths and some 800,000
injuries every year.
Although the number of workplace accidents has been reduced over
the past 10 years, this day serves as an important reminder that
we must prevent these accidents from ever happening.
We pay tribute to those we remember today by putting forth our
best efforts to strive for safer and healthier workplaces through
continued education, awareness and co-operation.
I ask members of the House to take time tomorrow to remember the
workers who lost their lives or who were injured on the job over
the last year. We extend our deepest sympathies to the families
and friends of those workers.
* * *
1100
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, three years ago this week the Liberal government turned
its back on thousands of Canadians who were poisoned by blood
tainted with hepatitis C. On April 28, 1998, the Liberals voted
no to a motion which would have extended financial compensation
to victims poisoned beyond the years of 1986 and 1990.
Thousands of victims were let down by the federal government.
Among those who did qualify for compensation, many have yet to
see a dime. Joey Haché was one of those individuals. Joey was
in the gallery that fateful day three years ago and he is here
again today to register his protest. Days after that vote Joey
was advised that he qualified for that compensation. Three years
later Joey is one of thousands who have received nothing.
Joey is asking “Where is the compensation that was promised?”
and thousands of other hepatitis C victims still want to know
“What about us?”
* * *
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week walks were held across Canada, including Hamilton and
Burlington, as fundraisers for the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
MS is a disease that affects approximately 50,000 Canadians or 1
in 750. Since 1991 the 5 kilometre, 10 kilometre and 15
kilometre walks have grown to include more than 65,000
participants in the 120 communities across Canada. More than $25
million for MS research and services has been raised.
I was pleased to participate in the walk and share the
enthusiasm of the day. In the spirit of Volunteer Week and the
United Nations Year of the Volunteer, we also recognize all those
who organized these events and wish to congratulate them on a job
well done.
* * *
SUMMIT ON SPORT
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that today is the
start of the National Summit on Sport here in Ottawa, which is
being chaired by the Prime Minister of Canada.
The Summit on Sport is the culmination of consultations held
across Canada since June 2000 by the hon. Secretary of State for
Amateur Sport. The process has included six regional conferences
and six round tables.
The summit will bring together 350 delegates representing the
leaders of the Canadian sport community. They will be discussing
major issues, such as participation, excellence and developing our
resources.
I invite members to join me in recognizing the importance of
such a summit in Canada and to participate in the ongoing
discussions being held this weekend.
* * *
CANADA BOOK DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians across the country celebrated Canada Book Day
on April 23.
To mark the day I had the pleasure of hosting my own annual
Canada Book Day event on April 17 in my riding. I invited people
to come and enjoy the literary richness of our city. My
constituents had the pleasure of meeting the following renowned
Canadian and local authors: Judy Fong Bates, Martyn Burke,
George Elliott Clarke, Victor Coleman, Joe Fiorito, Greg Gatenby,
Katherine Govier, Cynthia Holtz, Janice Kulyk and Susan Swan,
along with Canadian publisher Kim McArthur.
Founded in 1976, the Writers' Trust of Canada has endeavoured to
advance and nurture Canadian writers and Canadian literature.
This day provides us with the opportunity to celebrate the
important role of literature in Canada's past, present and
future.
This day also recognizes Canadian books and the people who write
them and encourages Canadians from all walks of life to buy
Canadian books.
* * *
HOCKEY
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute today to the
outstanding coach and AAA midget team from the Beardy's and
Okemasis Indian Band in my Saskatoon—Wanuskewin constituency.
The Beardy's Blackhawks proved that they are the best in our
part of the country in the western regional finals and are
representing us this week in Prince George at the AAA Midget
Canada Cup. They have used their speed, strength and
determination to be victorious thus far.
We wish the very best to coach Dale Grayson and the whole team
of the Beardy's-Okemasis Blackhawks. We commend the Beardy's and
Okemasis Indian Band for sponsoring and supporting such an
outstanding hockey team.
* * *
[Translation]
BOMBARDIER
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past
April 16 we learned some good economic news.
Bombardier Inc. announced that it will be hiring one thousand
people in the Montreal region in order to fill an order for 50
seater regional jets.
These one thousand new jobs in Dorval will be in addition to the
1,700 projected for Mirabel, where the 70 and 86 seater commuter
planes will be (constructed).
Bombardier estimates the value of the 75 orders at $2.35 billion
Canadian. They raise the total orders for regional jets to 551.
This local company has an impressive record. In 2001,
Bombardier Aeronautics has signed agreements on a total of 96
jet orders.
* * *
1105
NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every year in
Canada there are more than 800,000 work related accidents. More
than 750 of these will be fatal. That is the sad record of the
working conditions of Quebecers and Canadians.
Tomorrow, April 28, will be the tenth anniversary of the
National Day of Mourning. This is a very significant event, for
it affords us an opportunity to stop for a moment and reflect on
the importance of occupational health and safety.
Unfortunately, the Canadian government is not much concerned
about the misfortunes of those who have suffered work related
accidents and their families. Take, for example, the matter of
pregnant or breast-feeding workers. Despite the Bloc Quebecois
demands for these women to be afforded true protection in the
workplace, the federal government has turned its back on them.
Speaking for myself and for my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois,
I would like to send a word of encouragement to the victims of
work related accidents, and their family members. Our thoughts
are with you all.
* * *
NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people of
Canada no doubt noticed that our flag is at half mast today.
The reason for this is the National Day of Mourning, held to
remember the people who have been injured or killed on the job.
The aim of this day is to have us reflect on the importance of
occupational health and safety. The figures are staggering. In
Canada, some 800,000 accidents occur on the job every year, over
750 of which result in the death of the victim. This means that
three workers are killed every working day.
Steps taken by the government resulted in an 11% reduction in
the number of industrial accidents between 1993 and 1997. But
one accident is one too many.
I would assure those who have lost a loved one in an industrial
accident and those who suffer because of such accidents of our
profound regret and of our conviction that such misfortunes must
be avoided.
* * *
[English]
HEROISM
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today an American doctor, Ronald
Shemenski, owes his life to Canada's finest northern frontier
aviators.
In failing health, the doctor was plucked from the sardonic,
cruelly mocking face of an Antarctic locked in winter's icy grip.
Defying nature's harshest elements, his saviours, three
Canadians in a Canadian Twin Otter craft winged nearly from
earth's other pole in a bold mission of determined rescue.
Captain Sean Loutitt, flight officer Mark Cary, engineer Peter
Brown and northern renowned Kenn Borek Air are to be
congratulated.
This event marks another annal in Canada's proud tradition of
excellence of men, of craft, of indomitable spirit to rescue
where others draw faint, another footnote in Canada's illustrious
Hall of Aviation honours and a first rate job by all.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMY DAY
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow is International Astronomy Day. It will be an
opportunity for all Canadians, young and not so young, to
develop an interest in this exciting science.
Stars have an importance for all of us. For some, they point
the way to the future or to the past. For others, they explain
our time. And for others still, they represent a mystery, the
stuff of dreams.
Whatever the stars mean to you, I suggest you go as far as your
curiosity will take you. Many activities are being organized in
celebration of this pleasant day, including at museums and
astronomy clubs.
Be on the lookout for what is happening in your community and
take up the invitation science is extending. You will discover
a new hobby for sure and even a new passion, perhaps.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
the press conference held at the end of the summit of the
Americas, the Prime Minister of Canada remained true to himself
when he made another unbelievable statement in responding to
those who were opposed to the free trade of the Americas. He
told these people that the best way to oppose free trade was “to
run for office”.
That was his message to the tens of thousands of young people,
women and citizens who marched in the streets of Quebec City to
express their will to be respected in the negotiations of
agreements that directly affect them.
With answers like that, it is no wonder that politicians
generate distrust, and anger the public.
How can the Prime Minister, who wants to leave his mark as a
champion of democracy, have the nerve to tell people to get
elected to be heard, when members of this House were excluded
from the negotiating process that preceded the Quebec City
summit?
With such a champion, Canadian democracy has a long way to go.
* * *
1110
[English]
HEROISM
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
too wish to extend congratulations on behalf of all Canadians to
Peter Brown, Mark Cary and Sean Loutitt. These three brave
pilots were successful in their heroic attempts this week to
rescue an ailing American doctor from a research centre at the
South Pole.
Using expertise and skills developed during their training with
Kenn Borek Air Ltd. of Calgary, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cary and Mr.
Loutitt became Canadian pioneers in their Twin Otter aircraft as
they undertook an 8,000 kilometre flight from the southern tip of
Chile to the South Pole.
Landing on a runway of solid ice during Antarctica's period of 24
hour darkness and minus 50° temperatures, these three Canadians
were able to translate skills learned in their work in Canada's
far north to bring the American doctor home for desperately
needed medical attention. A flight to the South Pole at this
time of year, under these extreme conditions, had never before
been undertaken.
Once again the world has seen a demonstration of Canadian
ingenuity, expertise and determination. I ask all hon. members
of the House and all Canadians to join me in offering our
congratulations, our thanks and our best wishes to these brave
pilots.
* * *
LITERACY
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
January Speech from the Throne the government committed to
improving Canadians' literacy skills and to reinforcing life long
learning. This is a cornerstone of our skills and learning
agenda.
That is why I welcome the government's announcement that Alberta
Senator Joyce Fairbairn is being reappointed as the special
adviser for literacy to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
This decision coincides with the government preparing to invite
provincial and territorial governments, as well as the private
and voluntary sectors, to launch a new national literacy
initiative. There will be a series of round table discussions
with representatives from business, labour and academic
communities on issues relating to literacy and skills
development.
Raising literacy levels is critical to our future economic
growth. The government's commitment to literacy is evidence of
our commitment to a better quality of life for all Canadians.
* * *
STOCK MARKET
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with our stock markets so volatile
these days, here are 10 new definitions for stock market
terminology.
Momentum investing: the fine art of buying high and selling
low.
Value investing: the art of buying low and selling even lower.
Broker: poorer than you were in 1999.
P/E ratio: the percentage of investors wetting their pants as
this market keeps crashing.
Standard and Poor: your life in a nutshell.
Bull market: a random market movement causing an investor to
mistake himself for a financial genius.
Bear market: a 6 month to 18 month period when the kids get no
allowance, the wife gets no jewellery and the husband sleeps on
the couch.
Stock split: your ex-wife and her lawyer split all your assets
equally.
Profit: a religious guy who talks to God.
A 64 cent penny stock: what it now costs a loonie to buy.
* * *
DAY OF MOURNING
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, every
year across Canada workers are killed on the job and many more
are injured or disabled.
People living in ridings such as the South Shore where much of
the workforce is dependent on primary industries such as
forestry, fishing, agriculture and the offshore are too often
faced with the news of another worker being killed or injured on
the job.
April 28 is the Day of Mourning for persons killed or injured in
the workplace. All Canadians should recognize this important
date and work toward zero deaths or injuries in the workplace.
We should not forget the fact that too often in the primary
industries those accidents involve youth. Farm accidents, for
instance, often involve children under 10. A farm is not only a
workplace, it is a home.
I know of far too many people who have been killed or injured on
the job. I ask all parliamentarians to recognize the importance
of April 28 as a day to remember and to hopefully work toward
reducing all accidents in the workplace.
* * *
DAY OF MOURNING
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, April 28, marks the 10th year Canada officially
commemorates workers who have been injured or died on the job.
The National Day of Mourning was the result of a private
member's bill, Bill C-223, in the name of Rod Murphy, the former
MP for my riding of Churchill, and was passed by parliament in
1991.
Three Canadian workers are killed every working day. Over
800,000 injuries occur every year. The pain and suffering caused
by occupational accidents and hazards in the workplace affect
everyone.
1115
On April 28 we remember: the grocery store clerk who cannot
carry her baby because of repetitive strain injury; a 19 year old
blinded from a mix of chemical compounds he knew nothing about;
the friends and family of the 14 year old construction worker
killed in Alberta; and the father of three killed in a smelter
explosion in Flin Flon whose co-workers are still recovering from
seeing him burn.
Today for the first time parliament will hold a moment of
silence to renew our commitment to not only mourn for the dead
but to fight for the living.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all parties for agreeing
to join together as a parliament in a remembrance today.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
The Speaker: Order, please. It was agreed that this House would
observe one minute of silence to commemorate the National Day of
Mourning and honour the memory of workers killed or injured at
work.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the job news in Canada this week is not that great. JDS Uniphase
just cut 2,500 jobs. Bell Canada proposes to lay off 1,800
workers. Cisco Systems will chop 250 jobs. This morning we
learned that TD Waterhouse will cut 800 employees. These are
thousands of hardworking, taxpaying citizens who will be looking
for work.
How can the minister say with that record that all the
fundamentals are in order?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that whenever any job is lost in
Canada it is of great concern to the government in terms of the
families involved.
At the same time, I think we need to recognize that we are going
through a situation where there is extreme volatility. There has
been a slow down in the United States and we are all aware of the
situation in Japan. Those things will have an effect in Canada.
It is important, when we look at the job numbers, that we
understand, for instance, that in the last eight months Canada
has had twice the amount of job creation as the United States,
which means that we are coming through this well. That does not
mean that we are not very concerned about any job loss.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we
just learned that the help wanted index in the United States has
reached a record low.
The labour market south of the border is experiencing very
serious problems. Economists tell us that the same situation
could occur in Canada.
Will the minister leave the rhetoric aside and tell Canadians
what the government will do to improve the situation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
situation is very clear.
But it must be said that the current growth figure in the United
States is much higher than what economists expected.
We can definitely see the light at the end of the tunnel, but
this is not to say that there is not a slowdown in the United
States that is affecting us.
This is why our efforts to reduce taxes for instance are worth
mentioning. Our figures in relation to debt reduction are very
impressive.
Again, the job creation rate in Canada is twice that of the
United States.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is all well and good for the minister to talk about
how well Canada is doing in relation to other countries. However,
I just mentioned that almost 5,500 jobs are being lost. These
are high paying jobs that taxpayers had before the government
messed up our economy.
The IMF's own chief economist warned yesterday that the U.S. and
Canada must act more responsibly with their economies or risk a
recession. Those are very plain words. Will the government take
the first step toward responsibility and bring in a new budget?
1120
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly do not know where the hon. member is getting
his information. The chief economist of the IMF has said that
Canada's tax cuts were fortuitous and very well timed. The chief
economist also said that the policy actions taken by the
government are exactly what were required. The chief economist
also pointed out that the amount of stimulus in our economy is
virtually double that of any other major economy.
What economists around the world are saying is that the policy
actions that have been taken by the government are exactly the
actions that were required.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
our economic growth is continuing slowly, while the American
growth rate is about three times as high as ours. Our dollar is
languishing around 65 cents and eroding the assets of every
Canadian. Why? It is because our tax rates are still too high
and there is no legislated plan for debt reduction.
Will the Minister of Finance respond to these concerns and table
some concrete plans to address these issues?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very difficult to understand the Alice in
Wonderland from which the Alliance members happen to come. The
fact is that their numbers are wrong. Our growth rates compare
very favourably with those in the United States.
I will go back. I raised this the other day in terms of
legislated debt paydown. The problem with it is that as soon as
governments get into trouble they amend it. They welsh on the
deal. If the member wants an example all he has to do is go back
and take a look at what the Leader of the Opposition did when he
was the treasurer of Alberta. Six months after he brought in
legislated paydown he welshed on the deal.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister keeps saying that our fundamentals are all
right. If that is true, then why are we losing jobs? This is
actually happening. My colleague just mentioned that. Why is
the rate of growth of our economy less than the Americans by
one-third? This is true. I do not think the minister should be
denying that.
Our growth rate is increasing but at a very slow rate. The
Americans' growth rate is increasing at a higher rate. Why is
that? It is because of a lack of a tax plan that would give
aggressive tax rate cuts to our citizens. When will he do it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very hard to deal with a firm that spends most of
its research money on spies and not doing basic economic
research. The fact is that he is wrong in terms of growth. If
he looks at the job creation rates, last month our job creation
numbers were substantially higher than any economist expected
across North America.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1999, the
Bloc Quebecois filed a complaint with the commissioner of
official languages regarding the place of French in amateur
sport.
Of the 16 recommendations made by the commissioner, 9 were to
be implemented before April 1 of this year and three others
when the report was tabled. It is now April 27 and nothing has
been done.
I ask the head trainer for official languages what action he
intends to take vis-à-vis his colleague at amateur sport so that
the commissioner's recommendations are acted upon and so that
French speaking athletes do not have to leave their mother
tongue at the door in order to make it to the podium.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, we are glad that the Bloc Quebecois wants to
see its athletes on the podium because, until last week, it did
not even want to talk about athletes from everywhere in Canada.
Second, we have a very specific policy on official languages.
If a national sports organization does not meet the rules on
recognizing both official languages, it will not receive any
funding from the Government of Canada.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
official languages commissioner's report concluded that French
speaking athletes are governed by a system which, most of the
time, operates exclusively in English, to the detriment of their
development as athletes.
On this first day of the national summit on sport, will the new
official languages standard bearer—not the Minister of Canadian
Heritage—tell us what he intends to do to end the discriminatory
and unequal treatment to which French speaking athletes are
subject?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today, Quebec's minister responsible for sport is
saying that governments should not play politics with sport.
We do not want to play politics with sport. That is why today,
tomorrow and Sunday we will be trying to reach a consensus with
all Canada's athletes. It is a given that athletes must be able
to train in their own language, in French, throughout Canada,
and that is Canada's policy.
1125
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government's inaction over the years in connection with the
official languages issue in amateur sport has had a negative
effect on the efficiency and performance of francophone
athletes. They are being discriminated against on the basis of
language, not performance.
Now that the summit on sport is over, what concrete actions do
the minister responsible for official languages and the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport intend to take to eliminate
the obstacles faced by francophone athletes within the Canadian
sports system?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, just for once I would like to see the Bloc Quebecois
capable of setting petty politics aside in order to work along
with all of Canada's athletes who have come to establish a
consensus for sports on behalf of all the athletes of Canada.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can there
be any consensus when the phrase “Building Canada” is already
there? Forget this policy.
Instead of making use of the national summit on sport as a
propaganda tool focussing on Canadian unity, will the minister
ensure that the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport reviews the
summit discussion document and immediately implements the
recommendations of the commissioner of official languages?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if I understand him correctly, the hon. member is
saying that the jurisdiction of Quebec is not being respected.
The Government of Quebec was invited to take part at all levels.
It was invited to the regional summit, and refused. It was
invited to work on the action plan, and refused. Only this week
did it agree to participate.
We are pleased. We want to have recommendations and we want to
work together.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Ontario premier has sent shock waves clear across the country
with his blatant bidding on behalf of health privatizers. User
fees, no problem; private hospitals, no problem; means testing,
no problem, according to Mike Harris.
Well there is a huge problem. Canadians want this government to
meet that problem head on by using the only language that Mike
Harris really understands, withholding public funds for violators
of the Canada Health Act. Will the government give that
assurance today, no ifs, ands or buts?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has already given that assurance by its
actions. It has taken action to withhold funds under the Canada
Health Act when it has been proven that the Canada Health Act has
not been lived up to. The government will continue to carry on
its responsibilities. The hon. member should recognize it has
been doing so and it will continue to do so.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, here we
go again: tough talk by the feds but not matched by tough
action.
Federal lack of leadership on health reform, massive funding
cuts and endless tolerance for Canada Health Act violations are
what have made our health care system vulnerable to Mike Harris
and his privatizing parasites. For good reason, the Canada
Health Act gives the federal government clout to withhold public
funds from violators. Will the government once and for all use
the clout and cut the cash?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has been doing that. For example, in the
case of the province of Alberta, where there were complaints and
where after investigation they were proven to be warranted, the
government acted and it will act.
I ask the hon. member to have the decency to recognize those
facts and, while she is doing that, not say things that undermine
her former colleague, Roy Romanow, before he has barely begun his
inquiry.
* * *
TRADE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The minister knows that lumber mills across Canada face
crippling countervailing duties that could be made retroactive to
last Monday. The minister keeps boasting about his talks with
Bob Zoellick, Bob Zoellick who is taking Canada to the cleaners.
What about talks with Canadians?
The minister refuses to draw together representatives in the
Canadian industry to work out a common Canadian position.
1130
Will the Minister for International Trade convene a meeting with
the Canadian softwood lumber industry by next Wednesday to set a
common Canadian position on the countervail issue—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has been very active on
that file. We have been providing leadership for our industry
and provinces in Washington. We have been in consultations with
the department of commerce expressing very clearly the view of
our country on that front.
Indeed we are in touch with the stakeholders all the time. Three
weeks ago we raised the idea of having a stakeholder meeting. At
that time they told us that they thought it was premature and
that they preferred some further discussions among themselves. We
are ready to have that meeting as soon as the industry is ready.
It could be next week or the week after.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister of trade on April 9 in a news conference said there
was no urgency in the softwood lumber industry because nothing
would happen until August.
My understanding is that the countervail duties can be applied
as of last Monday, not next August, and every load of lumber that
leaves Canada right now is vulnerable to a retroactive duty for
countervail and anti-dumping.
One of us is right and one of us is wrong. Could the minister
correct that and say who is right? Are the duties applicable as
of last Monday or next August?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this case is a very complex one. Indeed
the commerce department can make a preliminary determination as
of the end of June or the beginning of July. When it is a very
simple case it takes two months.
Normally with a case as complex as this one, the indication we
have is that the determination should not be made before the end
of August. However the law in the United States allows them to
do it retroactively but that is done very rarely. Canada would
absolutely insist that it not be done in this case as it is done
so very rarely.
* * *
INDUSTRY CANADA
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about the
audit of the access.ca program. This is a serious matter. This
is the second damaging audit in less than a year of the
information highway branch. Both revealed shoddy management and
a wilful disregard for government procurement regulations.
I am asking the minister the question again today. How could
the minister tolerate this flagrant abuse of the government rules
and procurement procedures? How could he let them get away with
bypassing the process?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was no process that was
bypassed. It is the same audit that we looked at.
Let me point this out for the member. He knows very well from
committee that access.ca first of all is a program that benefits
Canadians, especially Canadians in remote areas. It has made our
country stand a cut above the rest.
When these audits came forward a way back, the department took
immediate action to address them, and the hon. member knows that.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary ignores the fact that the
audit found that procurement procedures were being bypassed. That
is very clear in the audit.
What is really troubling is that despite the process of
bypassing rules to fast track the project, access.ca is six
months behind schedule and may never be fully implemented.
Maybe the government could tell us what is the future for this
troubled project? Is it going a head? Will it continue to be
located in P.E.I.? What companies have been asked to deliver the
project?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me stress again that
nothing was bypassed. Every opportunity was taken to make sure
things were done and done properly.
The member is failing to understand, and I say it again, that
this program has made Canada stand a cut above the rest with our
connecting Canadians program permitting people in remote parts of
our country to have access, not just to other Canadians but to
the entire world.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of National Defence said that the pollution at the
Bagotville military base was not in danger of migrating off the
DND property.
That statement contradicts the documents of his own department,
which indicate that there is a risk of migration toward the
municipal drinking water wells.
The minister has had 24 hours to review the issue. Will he
confirm his department's reports or will he continue to deny
the facts?
1135
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no inconsistency, and I certainly confirm
what I said yesterday.
People will raise the possibilities if things go to an extreme
extent but we will not allow them to go that extreme. In fact
we have already taken action to remedy this matter. The nitrates
in the groundwater will have biodegraded to safe levels before
they reach the outer boundaries of the DND property.
We are acting in a responsible fashion. We are doing it in
accordance with Environment Canada and it approves of what we
are doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope
these measures are not about delivering bottled water.
Yesterday, the Quebec minister of the environment wrote to the
Minister of National Defence to ask him what the Canadian
government intends to do to avoid a repeat of the situation at
Shannon.
Will the minister tell the residents of La Baie what concrete
measures he will take to prevent the municipal drinking water
wells from being contaminated?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the municipality and
provincial officials on this matter. They have not indicated a
concern in terms of how we are handling it. They know we are
handling it in a responsible fashion.
We have changed the kind of products that are used in the
de-icing on the runway so that they are environmentally friendly
products. No longer are these kinds of pollutants a factor in
the new way we operate. As I said, we are taking action to make
sure that they do not have any effect on the surrounding
community.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, twice now we have asked the industry minister if Mr.
Jonas Prince ever received any direct or indirect funding from
his department, from the Business Development Bank or from the
Export Development Corporation.
He took the question on notice almost a month ago. Since he has
had a month to think about it, he must now be ready to answer our
question. Did Mr. Prince or his companies get any help from
Industry Canada or from the agencies it oversees?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first point out to the
hon. member that the BDC and the EDC operate at arm's length from
the federal government. As such I am not privy and nobody is
privy to this confidential information that cannot be provided
according to subsection 37(1) of the BDC.
Also, the EDC falls under the same guidelines. Upon a
preliminary look, any indication of any funding being provided
has not been found.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor has participated in seminars about
ethics, corruption, conflict of interest and public sector values
in China, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, the U.K., France,
Chile and the United States. In all that is 10 countries in
every hemisphere and on every continent other than Antarctica and
Africa.
With all this international travel, why has the ethics
counsellor never found the time to travel to Shawinigan to
investigate and verify the facts regarding the Auberge Grand-Mère
himself?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, the hon. member confirms that his colleague when
he raised this question before stated an inaccuracy. His
colleague said the ethics counsellor had visited 22 countries.
The hon. member has just confirmed his colleague was wrong. I
thought he would apologize on behalf of his colleague.
The hon. member is wrong in his allegations, in that the ethics
counsellor has carefully studied the relevant documents and has
reached the conclusion that there was no breach of the guidelines
in question. The hon. member should agree that he is wrong in
his allegations. That is what Canadians are trying to tell the
Alliance. No wonder the Alliance is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment during
the election campaign, and his ministers went one better saying
that there would be a parliamentary commission to review the
employment insurance system from top to bottom.
The members of the standing committee on human resources
development unanimously agreed that such changes had to be made.
Does the government intend to act on the committee's
recommendations?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond for the
hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
The member knows very well that Bill C-2 has now passed all
stages in the House of Commons and is currently before the other
place. We hope to have it passed in the very near future.
We must be seeing some act of contrition on the part of those
who tried on a number of occasions to prevent passage of this
bill to improve benefits to Canadians.
1140
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that Bill C-2 is nothing more
than a sleeping pill to put the unemployed to sleep. No one is
fooled by this government's position.
In the midst of the campaign, the Secretary of State for Amateur
Sport, the minister responsible for Quebec and even the Prime
Minister made a commitment to do justice to the unemployed and
to the workers and employers, those who finance the plan.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development or someone in
the government assure us that the government will honour its
commitments?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government always honours its
commitments, and the member opposite knows that perfectly well.
On the matter at issue, the member also knows perfectly well
that it was his party and others that prevented us from passing
Bill C-2 on March 29 by adjourning the House. He knows that his
party, including his deputy House leader, denied unanimous
consent to pass this bill before the election.
It is a rather tardy act of contrition by the members of the
Bloc Quebecois to be claiming today that they defend the
interests of the unemployed.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, three years ago in the House the
government voted to deny compensation to those unfortunate
individuals who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood. As we
are here today these people are languishing. Even those who were
promised money have not received it because most of the money has
gone to lawyers.
Will he do the right thing and give those individuals who
contracted hepatitis C through no fault of their own the
compensation that they so justly deserve?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health said in response to a
question yesterday, he shares the frustrations of those who are
entitled to money and who are not getting it. He has already
written to the joint committee to express that frustration.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Health feels
frustration, imagine what the victims are feeling right now. That
is not good enough. This has been on the minister's plate from
the beginning. Good people from around the country have asked
the government to do the right thing, the fair thing.
The Minister has one chance. On May 1 there is a conference in
Montreal bringing together the victims of hepatitis C as well as
medical professionals. Will the minister do the right thing and
compensate the people on May 1 who contracted hepatitis C through
no fault of their own? We do not want to have any more of these
mealy-mouthed answers.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that 1,200 claims have been
paid out and that 97% of the claims have been processed to date.
I know the Minister of Health believes that this is not good
enough. I can assure the House that the minister is pushing the
administrator to do a better job to ensure that people get the
money they are due.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while the criminal justice system responds to crime and
criminals, people in my riding and elsewhere believe we must
enhance the role of victims who are caught up in our criminal
justice system.
Could the Minister of Justice tell the House what work is being
done by her department to improve the services and support
available to victims of crime within our justice system?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while obviously crime rates
are falling in the country, each new victim is one too many,
which is why the government acted to improve the voice of victims
in the criminal justice system.
For example, for the first time victims are able to read their
impact statements in open court if they so choose. We have
created a $25 million fund which will assist the provinces and
local victim organizations to ensure that services are available
for those who are victims of crime.
That is why I was so pleased last Friday in the province of Nova
Scotia, the hon. member's province, to be able to announce
$179,000 of new funding for the province so it will be able to
assist in the provision of services for victims of crime.
* * *
1145
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government says education is our economic and social future, but
its record is larger classes, fewer resources, crumbling
buildings, higher fees and less student aid. The system is in
shreds.
Will the Minister of Finance start to fix the problems his
government created through underfunding and inadequate boutique
programs by bringing in legislation modelled on the Canada Health
Act to rebuild accessibility, quality and national standards in
our post-secondary education system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. All members on
this side of the House share the recognition that in the
knowledge economy, knowledge and skills are key. That is why in
the 1998 budget we put over $7 billion into post-secondary
education.
I could go through the list of measures about everything from
registered education savings plans to $3,000 grants to help
single parents return to school, to the millennium scholarship
fund and to the amount of money we have put into research and
development.
All these are part of a very comprehensive package on behalf of
the Canadian government to essentially help Canadians thrive in
the knowledge economy.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. Justice Richard in his
report on the Westray inquiry called on the Government of Canada
to introduce legislation to hold corporate executives and
directors criminally accountable for knowingly risking the lives
of workers.
On October 5, 2000, the House concurred with the fifth report of
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights which
supported introducing such legislation. Will the Minister of
Justice act on the recommendation? When will she introduce this
legislation?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work done by
the justice and human rights committee in relation to the
important issue of corporate criminal liability.
This is a very important issue for corporate law in the country
and that is why my colleague the Minister of Industry and I have
decided that we need to look at this matter together. Perhaps it
would be useful to have the justice committee and the industry
committee hear from a wider range of witnesses, because I do
believe at the committee that no witnesses were heard.
Since this is such an important change or potential change in
relation to corporate liability, I think we would be well served
by further work by the industry and justice committees.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
a company in Truro, Nova Scotia, called Phoenix Agritech,
manufactures an electronic device designed to emit sounds to
scare birds from oil spills and airports. It is sold in 25
countries around the world, but in its wisdom the Department of
Health has decided that the electronic device is a pesticide and
therefore is charging the company thousands of dollars every
year.
I would like to know if the Department of Health, or the
Minister of Health, would immediately lift this unfair,
ridiculous and crazy tax as a pesticide on an entirely electronic
device.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
important issue for his constituents. I will endeavour on behalf
of the member to raise the issue personally with the Minister of
Health so that the minister can answer the member and the company
in question in his constituency.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister concerning his lack of
success in finding a settlement to the residential schools
tragedy.
When will the Deputy Prime Minister initiate a humane and just
resolution to this problem and stop wasting money on legal costs
both of the bureaucracy and of the churches? Why is the
government standing by while government lawyers destroy any
remaining good will between aboriginals and church dioceses?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is not
correct. Government lawyers are not working to destroy any
relationship between the native peoples and the churches.
It is true that thousands of native people have brought legal
actions against both the government and some church organizations
at the same time. That is why on behalf of the government I have
opened a new dialogue with church organizations to see if we can
find some common ground to resolve this matter together with the
victims in a way that is fair, quicker and cheaper than relying
solely on the litigation process.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the new Bush nominee for the commerce
department on international trade said yesterday that U.S.
anti-dumping and countervail measures were being used for
protectionist purposes rather than for ending unfair trade
practices.
With this kind of support, why is the Prime Minister dividing
Canadian interests by assuring the Atlantic lumber industry
yesterday that “we will negotiate?”
1150
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased with the strong
support we are getting in Washington. I have noticed with the
new Bush administration some interest and some opening to revisit
some of the American trade laws. This is very good news. It is
great news in our bilateral relationship and it is very good news
in our multilateral negotiations as well.
We will fight for Canadian industry from coast to coast, all
industries in all provinces. We will stand for the right of our
Canadian producers to export to the United States. We are very
confident that we will win against the unfair U.S. allegations on
subsidies.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the pro-free trade
converts in the Liberal government who discovered their free
trade in lumber position in 2001, the American consumers for
affordable homes has been lobbying the U.S. administration
consistently for the last two years to promote a full return to
free trade.
This consumer group represents 95% of U.S. domestic lumber
consumption. With this kind of support why is the Prime Minister
displaying weakness by saying we will negotiate?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has been working very
closely through our embassy in Washington with the coalition of
consumers in the United States. We have been working with it and
helping it to get a strong voice in Washington. We have been
providing it with all the appropriate information to be able to
take more room in Washington.
The government has been instrumental in developing a strong
voice in favour of Canadian softwood lumber in the United States.
* * *
[Translation]
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
having failed to obtain a relevant answer to my question
yesterday concerning the ten-year lease between the Auberge
Grand-Mère and the golf club, I put it again.
The Prime Minister told us that the lease had been cancelled.
How does he know that the lease was cancelled and will he tell
us exactly when that was?
In fact, will the Prime Minister finally give an accurate answer
to these questions and provide us with formal proof that this
lease was indeed cancelled, as he claims it was?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1993, when Mr. Duhaime took over the hotel, he also assumed
responsibility for the lease.
From that time on, all financial ties between the hotel and the
golf club were severed and all these facts have been confirmed
by the ethics adviser.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
what is at issue here are the Prime Minister's repeated
statements that there was no business relationship between the
auberge and the golf club. A ten-year lease signed in 1988,
however, indicates quite the opposite.
If the Prime Minister is convinced that this legal document,
which clearly contradicts his statement, was no longer valid at
the time of the events in question, why is he refusing to give
us proof to that effect?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have provided the proof. The member is wrong. There was never
any lease between the golf club and the auberge.
Where is the proof of the hon. member who says otherwise? In
our system of justice, it is incumbent upon the member to
provide proof and he has not done so; he is therefore wrong.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have another release from the Surrey RCMP. Another
elderly man was beaten severely in his own home.
Over two years ago I asked the justice committee to address the
issue of home invasions and I was called silly by a Liberal
member of the committee. The minister now will undoubtedly talk
about Bill C-15, an omnibus bill, in which home invasions is
mired. It is not even on the legislative radar screen.
How much longer will Canadians have to wait for some effective
legislation on home invasions?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should
know, Bill C-15, which includes a section in relation to home
invasions, will be debated in the House on Monday.
I look forward to the hon. member's support to speed Bill C-15
through passage in the House.
1155
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is mired in an omnibus bill. On another issue, some
members of the immigrant community in my constituency paid me a
visit a few weeks ago.
Their complaint was that recently introduced legislation does
not go far enough. It only removes charitable status from
organizations that fund terrorism. It does not stop the actual
funding of terrorism.
My constituents want a law that actually makes the funding of
terrorism illegal. Will the government commit to such a law in
the near future?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the
government has gone on record repeatedly condemning terrorism and
the kinds of things that take place as a result of it.
We will bring in the tools necessary to ensure that we have the
kind of capability to make sure that this precisely does not
happen. It is a strength of the government, ensuring that it
puts to rest those kinds of activities in the proper way.
* * *
FOREIGN AID
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those of
us who think that Canada should increase foreign aid to less
developed countries were dismayed to read in the press that in
fact we seem to be going the other way.
Our overseas development assistance which was 0.28% of gross
domestic product in 1999 fell to 0.25% last year. Could the
minister explain to the House what is going on?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government increased the budget by
$435 million in the year 2000. In fact we are doing a great deal
more in development.
The economy is growing much faster and that is why there is a
difference in numbers. We are doing more. In the Speech from
the Throne, as all members know, there was a major commitment to
increase ODA yet again for Canada. I am very hopeful that will
happen.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has testified in
court of a known terrorist, murderer and gangster living in
Canada.
Instead of carrying though with his deportation, Mr. Rat Naval
was allowed to stay in Canada because he caused a fuss during
deportation when he was boarding a plane.
Why is he still in Canada? Do Canadians not deserve a better
standard of public safety from the government than what we are
seeing?
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
the member knows that we do not discuss particular cases in a
public forum.
The process is very simple. When serious criminality or
terrorism is involved, officials seek to continue the detention
of these individuals. The department also seeks detentions of
those likely to disappear and those who pose a danger.
The decision to detain or release rests with an independent
adjudicator of the Immigration and Refugee Board which considers
case specific information before making a final decision. That
is the process.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rat Naval was ordered
deported from Canada on April 5 and is now comfortable in his
home in Markham.
As the minister makes weak excuses, public safety is being
jeopardized by the government. Why is the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration not doing her job? Why is she
allowing known terrorists and assassins to make Canada their safe
haven from justice?
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a
process and we respect it. It is the law. If an independent
adjudicator takes a specific case and renders a decision, I
cannot see why we should interfere.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we all
know, the cost of gasoline is of major concern to the people of
Quebec and of Canada.
The Minister of Industry seems somewhat confused about his
responsibilities in this area, yet he ought to know that the
Competition Act is federal.
Is the government going to recognize that the Competition Act
lacks teeth and that it is high time it began to protect the
citizen and consumer instead of the major oil companies?
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the confusion is from the Bloc
Quebecois. The Competition Act, when evidence is brought
forward, acts accordingly.
A year ago there were record fines, but when it comes to
gasoline pricing the member should talk to Mr. Landry. They did
control the price of gasoline before. They can do it again
should they wish to.
* * *
1200
VOLUNTEERS
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since public safety is such an important part of our Canadian
identity, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General tell us how our public safety agencies are tapping into
the goodwill of Canadian volunteers?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the safest
countries in the world. This is partly due not only to our great
institutions but to the people who assist those people in those
institutions, especially our volunteers.
In the case of the solicitor general's portfolio, we have the
largest number of volunteers who support us, people like elders,
people who are supporting victims, people who are assisting
offenders and people who are working with the auxiliary of the
RCMP in very meaningful ways. They deserve the gratitude not
only of the House but the entire nation. These are unsung
heroes.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the justice minister talked about victims of crime. Let
us stop having victims of crime.
On May 1, I will introduce a private member's bill asking for a
minimum two year sentence for repeat break and enter offenders.
Eighty per cent of these crimes are committed by repeat break and
enter offenders. The bill is being introduced to stop this cycle
of crime and business.
I am asking the minister if she will support the bill.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an
experienced member. He has been here several years. One would
think that he would know that private members' items are just
that, private members' items. He would also know that it is
obviously not the position of the government to comment on the
vote of any individual member on any individual item before the
House at private members' hour.
* * *
[Translation]
TAX TREATIES
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the auditor general, international activities by
Canadian taxpayers, particularly their use of tax shelters,
constitute one of the greatest threats to the tax base.
The OECD is even calling for countries that have signed tax
treaties with other countries with harmful tax practices, such
as Barbados, to withdraw from them.
How can the government remain unmoved by this statement from the
auditor general, and why does Canada not immediately withdraw
from its tax treaty with Barbados, as recommended by the OECD?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
has played and continues to play a lead role within the OECD.
In this connection, as the hon. member must be aware, there is
real agreement between all countries involved, that is to say
all of them are going to take multilateral action, not
unilateral. That is the only way to solve the problem.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of all
hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Rodney
MacDonald, Minister of Tourism and Culture for the province of
Nova Scotia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, during a question period response the
Minister of Finance made a statement that I know he realizes is
erroneous when he said that the official opposition was spending
research money on spies.
I know the Minister of Finance knows that is an incorrect
statement. I will not harp on it much longer. I will ask him to
withdraw that statement, which he knows is wrong.
The Speaker: It sounds to me as though there is a matter
of debate here. I think the way people spend money is not
something that is the subject of the jurisdiction of the Chair.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance has something he would like to
say to illumine the House on the subject. Otherwise I am
inclined to suggest that the matter is not really a point of
order.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a question asked of
me during question period by a member of the Alliance. In my
response to whether Mr. Jonas Prince had received any funding, I
responded that to my knowledge he had not.
I want to clarify for the record that Industry Canada, in its
preliminary look, indicated that no funding was given to Mr.
Jonas Prince.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, on my point of order, I
did not want to debate whether the finance minister made the
comment or not. Indeed, the record will show that he did. All I
was asking is that he realize he made a mistake and withdraw the
comment.
1205
The Speaker: I think there are always allegations
made back and forth in the House, and this one sounds like maybe
it was one of those, if that is the way it was. I will review
the blues and if there appears to be any problem, I will
certainly get back to the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders of the House, I have the honour
to table, in both official languages, the government's response
to two petitions.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing
Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the Canadian Tourism Commission's annual report for
1999-2000, entitled “Working Together, Succeeding Together”.
* * *
INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the
1999-2000 annual report of the Indian Claims Commission.
* * *
TERRY FOX DAY ACT
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act respecting Terry
Fox Day.
She said: Madam Speaker, the name of Terry Fox is one of the
best known names across Canada. His efforts to fight cancer and
to raise the awareness of Canadians are legendary. He was
courageous, noble and modest. He united Canadians as no one has
ever done before. Today over 60 countries hold the Terry Fox Day
Run for Cancer. In memory of Terry, I have the honour to present
to the House an act to establish throughout Canada in each and
every year the second Sunday after Labour Day as Terry Fox Day.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I have in hand a petition of
several hundred names of individuals from across Saskatchewan.
Farmers across the province of Saskatchewan want the federal
government to give them the necessary tools to fight a severe
infestation of gophers.
The petition is calling on the federal government to amend
regulations to permit the sale of concentrated liquid strychnine
to registered farmers until an effective alternative can be
found. Gophers are destroying hundreds of acres of pasture and
grain land every year and to a great extent farmers are powerless
to stop them. The damage to crop and hay lands caused by this
infestation is very costly to farmers in lost productivity,
equipment repairs and injury to livestock.
It is the hope of these petitioners that the petition will
convince the federal government to relax those restrictions on
strychnine poison so that farmers can get the gopher problem
under control. We appreciate the opportunity to bring this
serious problem to the attention of the House.
1210
BILL C-16
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my privilege to table in the House a petition
signed by 42 constituents of my riding of Saint-Lambert.
They ask the government to bring in amendments to Bill C-16, the
charities registration act. They suggest that the bill violates
fundamental freedoms and would like to see legislative safeguards
added to ensure that it does not disproportionately target ethnic
or religious groups.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an
act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise
Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of
tobacco, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want
to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to table the lease I referred to during question period,
since the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to question the very
existence of such a lease.
Therefore, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
table it so that everyone could have a look at it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, if I
understood correctly, the Liberals do not want to know the truth
about the Auberge Grand-Mère. That is really what we heard.
Nor do they want the lease to be tabled in the House. They do
not want to see for themselves that the Prime Minister is
talking through his hat when he says there was no financial
connection between the auberge and the golf club after 1993. It
is rather strange, but I will now get back to my remarks about
Bill C-26.
I must say at the outset that Bill C-26 contains good measures to
fight tobacco consumption. It provides various instruments,
including a tax increase on tobacco products in general and on
cigarettes in particular.
We support this bill. Why? Because tobacco kills. But before it
kills, it creates considerable costs for our health system.
These costs run into the billions of dollars every year. Tobacco
kills through various smoking related diseases.
There is emphysema, heart disease and myocardial infarction in
particular. There is lung cancer. There are strokes, many of
which are linked to smoking.
In the end there are over 40,000 deaths a year in Canada
caused by smoking.
There are still too many people smoking today. There are still
too many people uninformed. There are still too many people
today, especially young people, who are beginning to develop
this bad habit of smoking.
And yet, tobacco kills. It is a real poison. According to the
Canadian Cancer Society, there are a variety of components to
cigarettes, chemicals, which should be made known to those who
have the bad habit of smoking.
They are real poisons.
To name but one, tar in cigarettes by itself contains 4,000
chemical compounds, 4,000 noxious compounds. Nicotine is the
worst element in a cigarette causing dependency, because of its
high level—between 5 and 7 milligrams per cigarette—of such
magnitude that it is likened to cocaine and heroin dependency.
1215
I know what it is like to break a habit like smoking because I
myself smoked for many years. Given the withdrawal symptoms
that one can experience over a long period of time, I know
whereof I speak.
Cigarettes, and tobacco in general, contain acetone. This
substance is normally used as a paint stripper. This is what
one is inhaling along with cigarette smoke.
Cigarettes also contain methanol, something else one is
inhaling. Methanol is wood alcohol, one of the most potent
alcohols on the market.
Tobacco also contains acetylene, another chemical, which is used
to fuel flares. This is what one is inhaling in tobacco
products.
One is inhaling hydrocyanic acid, which is used in gas chambers,
benzene, a very strong solvent on the market, and ammonia as
well. When one smokes a cigarette, one is breathing in ammonia.
This is a colourless gas used for cleaning. I think that
everyone is somewhat familiar with this chemical, which is
extremely harmful if inhaled. It is very bad for the health.
Cigarettes also contain mercury, lead and cadmium. These are
the substances one is inhaling when one smokes a cigarette:
three highly toxic heavy metals. There is also carbon monoxide.
Everyone has heard of carbon monoxide, a colourless, odourless
and deadly gas. Nitrogen oxide, a toxic gas, is also present.
In short, if we could conduct an aggressive information campaign
to provide this kind of fundamental data and make an analogy
with a poison cocktail, we could not find anything more
appropriate.
Imagine a large glass in which there is a certain amount of tar.
This is the viscous, yellowish liquid which becomes black once
it has been mixed with other products and which is used on
roofs. Imagine a large glass with some tar in it.
Imagine another glass in which there is acetone and two or three
spoonfuls of paint remover to enhance the flavour. To this, we
would then add wood alcohol, a product used for torches, and
hydrocyanic acid. We would also pour some acid into our
explosive cocktail. And benzene, which is a solvent. We would
also put a certain amount of heavy metals into the same glass.
We would mix the whole thing with some ice and give it to
someone to drink. This is the image that we should bear in mind
whenever we light up a cigarette. This is what we are inhaling.
The fundamental question that I ask myself is: Would we give
that cocktail to our children to drink? Would we be able give
that explosive mixture, that poison which I just described, to
our children to drink? This is what is happening.
Since the end of the eighties, the only age group that has
significantly increased its tobacco consumption is the 15 to 19
year olds. Where are the parents? We must provide that
information, but we must also have it.
I could not give that to my child. I could not accept that my
child would take such a quantity of poison. Yet, according to
statistics, this is what is happening.
As a society, we have an obligation to act. In the case of young
people aged 15 to 19, statistics on tobacco since the end of the
1980s are staggering. At the end of the 1980s, the percentage of
habitual smokers among female teenagers 15, 16, 17 and 18 of age
24%. Today, it is 31%, an increase of almost a third since the
end of the 1980s and early 1990s.
This is cause for concern, when one considers the devastating
effects of tobacco.
At the end of the 1980s, 21.6% of teenagers aged 15 and over
smoked. Today, it is 27.2%.
1220
This too is a cause for concern because we know that diseases
that can be developed, like emphysema, myocardial infarction,
lung cancer and even strokes are linked to a lifelong
investment, from youth to maturity. It is a cause for concern
when teenagers, who will become young adults and mature adults,
are increasingly becoming smokers.
I believe we should take urgent action to put an end to the
deplorable increase of smoking.
I was recently reading a report that showed that the situation
with young people between the ages of 20 and 24 is stable but a
stable catastrophe is still a catastrophe. When one looks at the
data for young people between 20 and 24, and these are young
adults we are talking about here, it is surprising to see that
39% of men and 32% of women in that age category are still
smoking.
Again, when people hit 40 or 50 years of age, which is the time
when tobacco illnesses surface, they end up with the health they
built in their youth. If they neglected their health when they
were young, it will not improve as the years go by.
What I am trying to say is that starting to smoke at a young age
is a negative investment in one's health.
It is a bad investment in one's health that can cause two major
problems: first, it ensures a slow and painful death, and
second, society has to pay for one's bad habit and one's choice
not to quit.
Smoking kills and it costs billions of dollars in health care
and other services. That is something those with government
responsibilities have to bear in mind.
When the packaging of cigarettes and the horrible and repulsive
pictures to be displayed on the cigarette packs were debated in
the House, the Bloc Quebecois tabled a report containing a
number of recommendations to better discourage smoking.
We, of course, recommended an increase in taxes, which has
proven to be an effective tool. It has been proven in the past
that tax increases have a deterrent effect on young people.
Young people do not have a lot of money, particularly 15, 16 and
17 year olds.
We also said that putting photos on cigarette packs and
increasing taxes was not enough. We need other solutions, such
as requiring cigarette manufacturers to reduce the nicotine
content of cigarettes.
As I was saying earlier, there are hundreds if not thousands of
toxic products in a cigarette but nicotine is the one chemical
that creates addiction. It is as addictive as cocaine or
heroine.
This should be our first priority so that young people who try
that first or second cigarette do not become addicted.
There are means of reducing the nicotine level which, according
to various scientific studies, should not exceed five milligrams a
day for a person not to get addicted to cigarette smoking.
Members will certainly remember the scandal. If the tobacco
industry was able to increase the nicotine level to get more
people addicted to their product, an act which is totally
reprehensible, irresponsible, appalling and despicable, it means
that science is sufficiently advanced to enable the industry to
lower the nicotine level.
It could be a first step toward helping people to quit smoking
or preventing them from becoming addicted to smoking.
1225
Funding for anti-smoking campaign has to be increased as well.
At the moment, some $40 million is spent on developing awareness.
With new tax money available under C-26, $100 million could be
set aside. There is an urgent national need to do so.
With slightly less than 30% of the population still smoking,
still having the habit, and with the mortality rate of the
various smokers' illnesses, and increased smoking by young
people, it seems to me it would be worthwhile investing a little
more money there.
Instead of swelling surpluses or the government's consolidated
fund, it seems to me that it would be a good idea to invest this
tax surplus in information, training and public awareness, not
only among children and adolescents, but among parents as well.
As parents, we have huge responsibilities and we cannot know
everything. Despite all the information campaigns, I think
there are still parents around, as there are adolescents, who
are not completely in the picture about the problems of smoking
and all its ins and outs. They are also unaware of the
consequences of this bad habit smoking. We have to lay it all
out in order to change these habits.
In the past 20 years, progress has been made. Fewer people
smoke but there are target groups.
Budgetary resources must be deployed such as information resources
and
educational resources, to ensure that there is reinvestment in
health so that we do not end up 20 years from now with the
same problems we have had for the last 20. I am thinking of
such things as the increasing incidence rates of lung cancer,
emphysema and stroke. Something must be done.
Our second recommendation at that time, and one I believe is
still current today, was additional funding. There will be new
funds connected with the new taxes imposed by the Minister of
Finance on smokers and on the tobacco industry. Please, let us
use this money to invest in the health of our young teens. It
seems to me this would be a good thing to do.
Our third point was that smoking is not the only thing that
creates victims, so do changes to the industry. If government
continues its approach—and I choose this terminology because we
are talking about smoking here—to burn an industry right off the
map, even one as harmful as the tobacco industry, it must not
penalize workers in the process.
There will be tens of millions of dollars at stake. Why
could some of that not be earmarked for worker retraining and
relocation? Why could some not be set aside for policies on
conversion from tobacco?
Farmers in various regions of Quebec and of Canada are hurt by
these measures. They will hurt even more because the
government, like ourselves, seems determined to continue to
battle against smoking.
Why not earmark an amount to help them retrain?
Some farm families have invested a lot of money in machinery and
land improvement to produce the best possible tobacco. Now that
we are indirectly fighting this production, we must provide
adjustment policies because there are none.
A few years ago the level of taxes on tobacco was so high that
contraband was thriving. There is a direct link between the
level of taxes and smuggling. If smugglers can sell cigarettes
at a cheaper price than on the market, contraband will become
more prevalent as the gap grows between these two markets.
This is my fourth point.
We support an increase on tobacco taxes. We support any other
measure that might be effective in the fight against smoking.
1230
At the same time, we must realize that as taxes increase so
will the urge to engage into contraband activities. This means
that we must also step up law enforcement.
With these four measures—although there is no quick fix for such
an issue—we would be on the way to helping those who are addicted
to tobacco, an addiction that is often the result of the
industry's greed. In the United States—I do not know if the same
thing was done in Canada—it even increased the nicotine content
of its products to get more people addicted. It seems to me that
the victims of that industry could benefit from these four
measures.
These four initiatives would also help the some 30% of Canadians
who currently smoke kick this harmful habit so that some day
there will not be any smokers left.
We will support the bill.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is my
great pleasure to rise today and support the steps being taken in
Bill C-26, an act to amend the various acts including the Customs
Act and the Income Tax Act in respect to tobacco.
Everyone in this Chamber knows that smoking kills. Everyone
knows that more needs to be done to help those Canadians addicted
to nicotine to quit smoking. More needs to be done especially to
stop our kids from starting to smoke. Our goal in this place
should be a smoke free generation.
Ways in which this can be done are to make this dangerous
substance cost more, take away the incentives of tobacco
companies and often less savoury organizations from making huge
profits through smuggling, increase the taxes on what profits
tobacco companies make and hopefully to divert the funds
allocated to fight tobacco use in our population.
Bill C-26 is a step in this direction and I commend the
government for that but, and yes there is a but, there is much
more to do.
The tax increase on tobacco could and should have been higher.
I believe higher prices are a major deterrent to smoking,
especially for young people. The tax increase has been far too
timid. We need just look across the border at the United States.
The price for a carton of cigarettes in Maine is $60.31 in
Canadian dollars. In New York state a carton in Canadian dollars
costs $65.21. In Michigan a carton costs $59.00 in Canadian
dollars and so on. What would the price of a carton of
cigarettes be in Canada once this bill is in effect? Our prices
would range from a high of $54.38 in Newfoundland and Labrador to
a low of $37.00 in Ontario. There is more room to tax smokers
without the terrible fear of smuggling, which dominated the
headlines in the early 1990s.
The government's use of an export tax, once again a bit timidly,
is a welcome step in allaying the fears of the development of new
booming cigarette smuggling operations. The financial measures
contained in Bill C-26, including the clauses on taxing duty free
cigarettes and eliminating the traveller's exemptions, are only
the first steps to protecting ourselves, our neighbours and
especially our children.
I commend the excellent work which has been done by
organizations, such as the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian
Council for Tobacco Control, the Canadian Lung Association, the
Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the National Cancer
Institute of Canada, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association and the
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, in developing an
implementable plan of action which the government can use to
further reduce tobacco consumption in our population.
I also feel compelled to congratulate Senator Kenny and my
colleague from Winnipeg North Centre for their outstanding
individual contributions in the fight against tobacco.
One of the most constant and recurring themes that these
organizations and individuals have recognized as a priority is
the need for adequate and sustained funding for tobacco control.
The government currently takes in billions of dollars in taxes on
cigarettes but does not spend anywhere near as much to directly
discourage smoking. These organizations say that at least $360
million is needed to fight against smoking but the government has
refused to commit those funds.
1235
While I reluctantly support Bill C-26, I wholeheartedly support
Bill S-15, a bill that has the seeds of a comprehensive
anti-smoking plan and a funding mechanism through an arm's length
agency. Bill S-15 would create a $360 million funding stream
through a dedicated levy taken from tobacco manufacturers to an
arm's length agency which would be committed to implementing real
tobacco control programs aimed specifically at young people.
Frankly, I would love to stand in this place and say we do not
need any arm's length agency to deliver unnecessary health
policy, but the government has shown itself to be playing both
sides of the tobacco fence in the past. Too many lives are at
stake to trust this initiative to politicians. We need these
things.
I do not wish to leave the impression however that nothing has
been done up until now. I commend the government for the new
bigger warning labels on cigarettes, and I look forward to them
bringing in labels on alcohol bottles.
I commend the government for ending tobacco advertising even
though I know the real pain that this initiative caused for many
arts organizations across the country. I also know that most
arts organizations never liked accepting tobacco money but they
were given no alternatives after years of Liberal cuts to the
arts.
The steps in Bill C-26 are not enough to move us toward a
smoke-free generation. We need to support community initiatives
aimed at making smoking uncool to young people. We need to work
with all jurisdictions to make public places and all work places
smoke-free. We need fund multitudes of community initiatives to
help those addicted to tobacco quit. We need to eliminate the
opportunities for our children to start smoking.
In short, we have to get a lot more radical on this front. I am
not going to quote the horrific financial costs, both personal in
health terms and as a country, that Canadians suffer due to
tobacco. I am sure we all know them here, even the smokers. I
will continue to urge the government to see Bill C-26 as only a
small step towards this effort. Furthermore, New Democrats will
continue to push for Bill S-15 hopefully with improvements.
It is going to take real sustained funding programs, creativity
and tenacity through many anti-smoking initiatives to lead us to
our first smoke-free generation. Let us get to work on it.
I will be splitting my time, Madam Speaker, with the hon. member
for Churchill.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech the member just
made. I spoke on this subject before question period. I feel
very passionately about it because of the impact that it has
particularly on our people who take up a lifelong addiction when
they start smoking. The implications that this has range all the
way from health to premature death and loss of loved family
members to even issues like fires which are caused by careless
smoking and so on.
Would the hon. member care to address the one burning question,
if I can use a pun here, on this issue? Will the increase in
taxes and the resulting increase in the cost of cigarettes
actually curtail the number of young people who would start the
habit? Does she have confidence in the Liberal government
actually stopping the resulting smuggling of cigarettes which may
again increase.
1240
Ms. Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, we have room to further
increase the cost of cigarettes without bringing about a massive
smuggling effort. As I said, the cost of a carton of cigarettes
in Maine is $60.31 Canadian. With the addition in Bill C-26, we
would still not see our cigarettes go up that high. We would see
a range anywhere from $54.38 to $37.00 in Ontario. Quite
frankly, we need to put the prices a lot higher, then I think we
would see a decrease in availability and a decrease of young
people starting the habit.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the bill today.
There has been much work done on behalf of the Standing Committee
on Health. I recognize that the government is making efforts to
improve the situation to reduce smoking among Canadians. Also,
our health critic, the member from Winnipeg North Centre, has
been very active and keeps us abreast of everything that has been
going on.
I am not going to dwell so much on Bill C-26 as to the specifics
of it. We are going to support the bill. Any incentive or
anything we can do to decrease the opportunity for young people
to begin smoking and to discourage people from smoking, is
definitely the route to go.
I have no shame in admitting now that I started smoking when I
was 12 years old. By the time I quite I was smoking a pack and a
half to two packs a day. I could barely breathe when I got up in
the morning. I did not have the guts to go to my doctor and say
that I had a problem with my lungs. My biggest incentive to quit
was not being able to face my doctor and listen to him give me a
good tongue lashing over the fact that I was smoking and
complaining about not being able to breathe. It took a number of
attempts but I have not smoked for close to 20 years. I have had
my moments when it seemed like a not so bad idea. Maybe price is
a deterrent but I am not sure.
I certainly think we must do everything to discourage people
from smoking. I have to admit I am truly concerned that this
increasing will just not cut it. I have seen young people buying
one cigarette at a time from someone down the street. For 25
cents a cigarette, children as young as seven or eight years old
can pick up a cigarette from certain people they know.
We all know that video games, trips to the arcades and little
hand held Game Boys are a lot more expensive than a 25 cent
cigarette. Those same young people, who have money for those
things, are the ones who are out there buying the cigarettes.
They may not have to pay the $6 or $7 a pack but they can buy
them individually a little at a time. It is not hard to find a
quarter lying around in the shopping carts or wherever. There
will be money available for that.
What is of the utmost importance is that we have proper
education in place and that we have proper pharmaceutical
supplies available, whether it be Nicorette or the patch. It is
important to have these available to assist people when they do
want to quit.
I tried to quit a number of times and I know there are people
out there, even teenagers, who by the time they are 16 or 17 are
thinking about quitting but they cannot afford buy a box of
Nicorette. I am sorry to use just Nicorette but it is the only
name that comes to mind. I am not giving them advertising and I
am not getting paid for using that product. A lot of people want
to quit but they cannot afford to buy Nicorette or the patch.
They do not have a prescription plan available where they can go
out and get it. As a result it makes their job to quit that much
harder.
What I personally would like to see is a more sincere effort to
dedicate dollars to education and to help people quit smoking.
Maybe what we need is dollars or legislation to say to those
tobacco companies that they will have to pay for all of the
products that people who smoke need to use to help them quit.
They should be required to pay for the oxygen required when
someone's lungs get so bad they cannot breathe because they are
responsible for it.
1245
Tobacco companies, after all these years, now admit, for the
most part, that they deliberately encouraged people to take up
smoking and made it habit forming by increasing the concentration
of certain chemicals within the cigarette. I would much rather
see an increase in education than an increase in the cost of
cigarettes.
To those of us who do not smoke, no one complains more about a
smoker than someone who has quit smoking. I know a number of
smokers who want to quit but who have a hard time quitting. They
do need help and we need to provide that help. Increasing the
price of cigarettes will not make their lives any easier.
Granted, we should not hand cigarettes to them at will. They do
need to pay a reasonable price because of the additional health
care costs, not just for smokers but for others around them,
associated with secondhand smoke and numerous other factors.
Children in homes of people who smoke are jeopardized. I wonder
if at some point we may need to seriously consider whether we are
injuring our children by continuing to smoke or having them in
smoke filled places. We need to decrease the opportunities where
people are able to smoke or where they inhale smoke, but slamming
an increase in the cost of cigarettes on smokers will not do it.
We need to have the dedicated dollars.
One of the issues that I get the most mail on, to the credit of
Senator Kenny, is his bill. I have received literally hundreds
and hundreds of letters supporting Senator Kenny's bill to ensure
that dedicated dollars go to education. Recognizing that there
is that support, we need to push along in those areas and
dedicate dollars. People do not have faith that the government
will use tax dollars for the benefit of health care, to assist
smokers and those around them, and perhaps look after the
environment.
Instead of creating a bullheadedness between smokers and
non-smokers, between tobacco industry workers and those opposed
to smoking, we need an alternative plan for those workers and
alternative uses for tobacco other than smoking, so that we are
not creating these head on forces. We do not need these
divisions with smokers literally cursing every non-smoker around.
This might make smokers put more of an effort into trying to
quit.
I wish it could be quicker but I think we are a long way from a
generation of non-smokers unless we seriously commit to educating
people and deceasing the number of places where people can smoke.
One of the best routes that we have taken which has had the most
impact is having fewer places where it is okay to smoke. It is
wonderful, even for smokers, to enter a place that is not filled
with a haze of smoke. Our eyes do not get as sore. Smokers have
to go outside for a smoke but overall even smokers appreciate the
curtains and the ceilings not being covered with smoke. Smokers
appreciate areas where there is non-smoking as well.
Those are the things that we need to be doing, along with
possibly increasing the cost of cigarettes.
1250
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I suppose someone has to keep the debate rolling since
the 172 Liberals do not seem to be interested in getting into the
debate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member knows
the rules of the House. We do not mention the presence or
absence of members. Would he put his question, please?
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I apologize. I do know those
rules. I thought I was being careful. I said that the Liberal
members did not seem to be interested in participating in the
debate, and my statement stands.
The member made a very good speech. She showed a genuine
compassion for people who want to quit smoking. It occurred to me
while she was speaking that perhaps we, as leaders in the
country, as those who set the standards which our young people
should follow, are not vigorous enough in providing leadership in
this particular area. Has she speculated as to what we could do,
perhaps something really radical, that would turn this thing
around, because it is so long overdue?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, one of the things we
can do is admit that we do not need to smoke. We can also
encourage people not to smoke. We can let young people know that
it is not a great thing. We can let smokers know that we do not
appreciate them smoking in non-smoking places. I know a number
of people who feel quite comfortable putting no smoking signs on
their door even though it does not always go well with their
friends.
As members of parliament, a radical thing we can do, if we want
to see a generation of non-smokers, is make a commitment not to
smoke. There will be those who say that it is easy for me to say
that because I have quit, but the bottom line is that it has to
come from somewhere. As a true representation of what we think
people should be doing, we should all make a commitment to be
non-smokers .
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
this morning the Ottawa Citizen had an op-ed piece
commenting on warning labels. One of the members of the NDP had
a motion before the House dealing with health warning labels on
containers of alcoholic beverages. I found that to be an
interesting argument with regard to warning labels in general.
The applicability of warning labels with regard to tobacco is
important, but the key point is that there is no empirical
evidence that such labels work.
I want to put a comment forward and perhaps the hon. member
would like to comment on it. To have empirical evidence would
mean measuring things before and after doing something but
keeping all other things constant over a long period of time to
look at the marginal impact. This is not an issue of
subjectivity about whether something will work or not. Labelling
in itself is part of a more comprehensive strategy, including
taxation and other healthy, lifestyle choices initiatives.
In my view Canadians have a right to know and a right to make
choices, but in terms of having a comprehensive approach to
healthy lifestyle choices for people, proper taxation, proper
labelling and proper health incentives are a big part of it.
Public education and awareness are probably the most significant
factors which are key to changing behaviour. If we are going to
change behaviour, we need to ensure that the public are properly
informed in every possible way so that they can make healthy
lifestyle choices.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I missed sharing this
little story with everyone and the member has given me the
opportunity to do that.
I agree with the member when he said that people have the right
to know what is coming, whether they are inhaling it, eating it,
drinking it or whatever, so they can then make conscious
decisions.
I want to mention the different tobacco packaging. A young
woman goes into a store and asks for a pack of cigarettes without
a picture of ugly teeth.
1255
It is funny the way things work. It is enough that it just
sickens us a bit. If we happen to break down and sit with
smokers at a table and they throw their pack of cigarettes down,
for everyone else at the table the package is enough to make them
a little ill. We should go ahead a do everything we can do to
make it that much more distasteful.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, my question
is for the member for Churchill. I found her speech most
interesting. I am also a former smoker who had to fight hard and
for a long time to kick the habit.
Even if the laws are tougher and if health warnings are required
on cigarette packaging to warn about the dangers of smoking and
so on, I notice that today the companies seem to easily sell
their products in certain places, via television shows in
particular. If I am not mistaken, there seems to be more actors
smoking on television, particularly amongst the young actors and
the stars.
I wonder how the producers of those shows could be made to join
the fight and stop playing the companies' game.
I would like the member to tell me what she thinks of the idea
of trying to get young actors to stop holding a cigarette or
smoking on television.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I am torn on that one
having raised three sons, having been around a number of young
people, having been a school trustee, and having been young and
having started smoking. Sometimes the criticism of smoking is
incentive enough for young people to think they should smoke
because they want to take that stand.
We need legislation to disallow producers from taking any kind
of cash payment or any kind of payment from tobacco companies to
promote smoking. That is the issue. There are tobacco companies
and cigarette producers which are feeding into movie producers
and sponsoring them if they have smoking in their presentations.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, in 1919 at Barnes Hospital
in St. Louis, Missouri, a doctor summoned some medical students
to an autopsy saying that the patient's disease was so rare that
most of the students would never see it again. It was lung
cancer.
This story is from a December 1992 article by Dr. John Meyers
entitled “Cigarette Century” from Time magazine. It
illuminates like a lightning flash this fact: much, probably
most, of our hideously costly health care crisis is caused by
unwise behaviour associated with drugs, eating, driving
recklessly, sex, alcohol, violence, insufficient exercise and
especially smoking.
Focusing on wellness, on preventing rather than causing illness,
will reduce the waste inherent in disease oriented hospital
centred high tech medicine. The history of the connection
between cigarettes and lung cancer illustrates the fallacy of
associating health with the delivery of medicine.
One of those 1919 medical students later wrote that he did not
see another case of lung cancer until 1936. Then, in six months,
he saw nine cases. By the 1930s advances in immunology and
public health measures such as sanitation, the handling of food
and so on, were reducing the incidence of infectious diseases.
However we were about to experience an epidemic in behaviourally
driven disease.
The lung cancer epidemic can be said to have sprung from the
1881 invention of a cigarette making machine. Prior to that
commercial manufacturing of cigarettes was largely a cottage
industry. However by 1888 North Carolina's James Buchanan Duke,
whose wealth brought Duke University to life, was selling nearly
a billion cigarettes annually throughout North America. Between
1910 and 1919, cigarette production increased by 633%. The U.S.
national cigarette service committee distributed cigarettes free
to soldiers in France during World War I.
In 1930 the lung cancer death rate among men was less than five
per 100,000 per year. By the 1950s, after another war in which
cigarettes were sold for a nickel a pack, were distributed free
in forward areas and were included with K-rations to soldiers,
the lung cancer death rate among men had quadrupled to more than
20 per 100,000.
Today it is more than 70 per 100,000. Women's lung cancer rates
are soaring and lung cancer is far and away the leading cause of
cancer deaths.
1300
According to the World Health Organization, about half of all
long term smokers die from tobacco related illnesses and half of
those die in middle age, losing 20 to 25 years of productive
life.
We have come a long way from the early days of television when
sponsor-anchorman John Cameron Swayze's The Camel News
Caravan required him to have a lit cigarette constantly
visible to the audience.
The social disaster of smoking addiction illustrates why
behaviour modification, especially education, is the key to
containing health costs.
To that end, legislation such as the bill we are debating today,
the tobacco excise tax act, can serve the public good. However
the government must address concerns about the increased
smuggling that may result from a spike in tobacco costs and the
difficulty of policing our vast borders.
We must not forget that when combating smoking, drugs, foul
language and other mischievous activities, especially among the
young, social stigma has its place, as the member for Elk Island
put it. Information campaigns about the public health dangers of
smoking have a role to play as well.
The addictive qualities of tobacco and the craving for the
product at the lowest possible price could spur a dramatic
increase in cigarette smuggling. On January 27, 1994, the member
for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the current government House
leader, recognized these concerns when he told the House:
Our country is faced with a serious smuggling problem. As a
non-smoker, I am generally in favour of high taxes on tobacco to
help discourage young people from smoking. However, the reality
in Canada today is completely different. Because of the
smuggling problem in our country, almost any young Canadian can
buy cigarettes cheaply, even illegally...We have no choice, Mr.
Speaker. We must put an end to this illegal activity by
reducing, however temporarily, taxes on tobacco. We have to work
together to enforce the laws of our country.
This was followed by an ambitious crackdown on cigarette
smugglers. The government told MPs it would dedicate 700 RCMP
officers to anti-smuggling operations and that anyone
participating in the tobacco smuggling trade in any capacity
would be subject to the full range of sanctions and penalties
under the law.
Presumably enthused by the new found enforcement of our laws, on
October 20, 1994, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca
called on the government to restore the tax on tobacco to the
level that existed on January 1 of that year and to put the
increased revenue into health care financing. His call was
opposed by the current government House leader who told members
the smuggling situation persisted and that the Minister of Health
had tabled a report two months earlier which had showed the
reduction in taxes had not resulted in an increase in smoking.
The government House leader was wrong. From 1979 to 1991 the
real price of cigarettes in Canada increased by 159% and teenage
smoking fell from 42% to 16%. In 1994 Canada's reduced tobacco
taxes, which were in response to concerns about smuggling, caused
the real price of cigarettes to fall by one-third. As a result,
teenage smoking increased from 16% to 20% and total tobacco
consumption began increasing, especially among young Canadians.
From a health point of view this was a clear and significant
failure. Revenue losses were equally acute. The February 1994
tax cuts resulted in a combined federal and provincial revenue
loss of over $1.2 billion for the fiscal year 1994-95. The
federal loss was $656 million, more than twice what the
government had predicted.
In 1998 the government increased cigarette prices to try to
reduce consumption. On April 20 of that year the member for
Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier rose in the House to inform his
colleagues that the morning's papers showed that the increase had
brought back cigarette smuggling with a vengeance to southern
Quebec and Ontario.
The government has dropped the ball on this file in the past,
both on the taxation side and the smuggling side. The
government's batting average has been far from good.
On May 9, 2000, during a debate of Bill C-24, the so-called
sales tax and excise tax amendment act, the member for North
Vancouver reminded the House that up to that point, despite the
government's dedication of over 700 RCMP officers to the cause,
not one person had been charged with cigarette smuggling.
1305
During that same day's debate the member for Elk Island told the
House:
It was about three, four or five years ago that cigarette
smuggling was a huge issue, so the government decided to reduce
the taxes on cigarettes to make the price differential between
smuggled cigarettes and those purchased at the store less so
there would be less demand for the black market, thereby reducing
smuggling. The government tells us that this has had some
effect.
Bill C-24 will once again increase cigarette taxes...However, I
have to ask the question: If high taxes were part of the reason
for developing the smuggling industry in the first place, would
it not be possible that by increasing these taxes, as Bill C-24
will do, the problem will return?
I was not a member of the House when those comments were made
and yet today we are considering the same question with Bill
C-26.
Having worked in Ottawa in 1997 and 1998 and travelled to and
from British Columbia extensively at the time, I can tell my
colleagues that straight prices for cigarettes in Ottawa were
roughly the same as duty free prices for cigarettes at Vancouver
International Airport.
At that time federal cigarette taxes were high in Vancouver but
dramatically reduced in the Ottawa area in an attempt to reduce
smuggling in this part of the country. If taxes are to have the
universal benefit of reducing smoking they must be applied at the
same level in every part of the country. There cannot be a gap
in the cost of cigarettes across Canada. This has been a failure
in the past.
As a person who is interested in discouraging smoking from coast
to coast, I remind the government that unless it deals
effectively with smugglers and enforces the laws of our country,
the problems that have plagued past efforts to reduce smoking
will return to haunt the government.
Upon passage of the bill it is important that the government
carefully and aggressively establish a plan to fight an impending
surge of smuggling. If it does not, the good intentions behind
the bill will fail to produce what most Canadians want: a
healthier country inhabited by fewer smokers.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very interested in the smuggling
issue with respect to raising taxes on cigarettes. I may have
missed the early part of the member opposite's speech. Did he
make any reference to the price of cigarettes and tobacco in the
United States?
During the last go around on this issue, the reason
smuggling became such a large industry, particularly in eastern
Canada and the Montreal area, was because of the price disparity
of cigarettes across the border. I wonder whether the member
opposite has done any analysis or looked at all at what the
current prices of tobacco are right now vis-à-vis the time before
when we went through a major price increase because it seems to
me that the price of cigarettes in the United States has risen in
the interval and that may ameliorate the smuggling problem when
we raise the taxes ourselves.
Mr. James Moore: The point is taken, Madam Speaker.
However the member knows that in the United States, just as in
Canada, the lion's share of cigarette costs is taxation. In the
United States, therefore, as we see with as Michigan, New York,
North Dakota and Washington, cigarette prices vary from state to
state. This puts an increased obligation on Canada to keep
smuggling out of the country, and we must fulfil that
responsibility.
As the member knows, in places like Akwesasne we have a
tremendously complex border with differing police jurisdictions
and the government must make sure it sufficiently guards that
border.
I will also note that one cause of cigarette smuggling is the
increase in price that results from aggressive taxation policies
designed to discourage smoking.
In Great Britain, for example, the government has decided to
implement, on an interim basis and with a sunset clause, a 5%
increase in cigarettes taxes each year. The U.K. government
argues that it is best if such increases are done cyclically, as
seen with Canada's increase of 1993, its drop of 1994, its
increases of 1996 and 1998, and its expected increase of 2001.
If such tax increases are too great or too sudden they will cause
a surge in the black market.
1310
The government in Westminster has implemented a gradual increase
in taxation. There is no instant spurring of the cost of
cigarettes and therefore no spurring of black market or smuggling
activity. That is the sort of legislation the Canadian
government should keep in mind if it is to continue down the path
of increasing cigarette taxes to reduce consumption.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak to Bill C-26 concerning
the raising of taxes on cigarettes.
My position is not an easy one to take. When I consider raising
taxes I swallow rather hard. Canadians are hurting desperately
because of the taxes they pay, and imposing even more taxes
cannot be healthy for the country. However the bill is less
about raising taxes than about stopping the use of cigarettes. It
is a health matter.
The use of cigarettes in our country has become a serious health
issue and it must stop. I have been involved in the health care
system for many years. When I talk with my counterparts I
understand that one in six patients has a tobacco related
problem. Canada has a critical problem with its health care
system and cigarette smoking.
However to suggest that increasing cigarette taxes will solve
the country's health care woes is misguided and dangerous. It is
only one piece of the puzzle. We need to look at the whole
puzzle and determine what must be done to change the paradigm and
the way people think about tobacco use.
It would be better to ask where cigarette taxes are being spent.
If they are not being spent to determine the health dangers of
cigarettes then we have a serious problem. We need a game plan
that does more than raise taxes because that is not the whole
issue. The issue is about stopping cigarettes and the damage
they do to the health of Canadians.
We should ask whether that can be accomplished. My father
smoked all his life. I look at kids today and think of when I
went to school and how difficult it was to discern whether or not
to smoke. I was saved because of a basketball team and a coach
who decided that if we smoked we would not be able to play. Those
were the issues.
Teenagers are very vulnerable. The battle is about who will win
the minds of our children with regard to cigarettes: the tobacco
companies which are putting more and more nicotine into their
cigarettes so they are more addictive, or the government which
should address the issue in an educational sense so that
teenagers know they are becoming victims rather than exercising
free choice.
I believe a society should have free choice and that we should
stop victimizing the weak. Someone who starts smoking at age 13
will have spent $15,000 on tobacco by age 30. That is a down
payment on a good home or half the price of a good car. That
does not even take into account the health effects of smoking.
Tobacco companies in Canada reap $260 million in profits every
year from the sale of cigarettes to teenagers. Ninety per cent
of those who start smoking do so between the ages of 13 and 20.
That is where the battle must be fought. Approximately 28% of
teenage girls in Canada smoke cigarettes.
The real question is whether we can win the war. Can we win the
battle at that level? Let us look at the example of alcohol.
Massive education campaigns have seen drinking and driving in
Canada decline dramatically from what it was a couple of decades
ago.
1315
We have to be careful when we look at other countries and
examine what they are doing. What California has done is worthy
of note. It has put the pieces of the puzzle together a little
more than we have here in Canada. As a result it has moved its
percentage of teenage smokers from 30% down to 9% today. That is
a success story that we need to perhaps model ourselves on and
improve on, because it is an area that we have to look at.
The whole area of health care is something I would like to
address because it is a bigger picture issue. We need to
understand that if we are to address efficiencies in health care
and sustain a health care system, we have to look at the bigger
picture of preventative health. Since the seventies we have been
talking about preventative health and yet I see very little
effort directed to doing something about it.
The bill moves very slightly in that direction, but we have to
recognize that as the baby boomer bubble hits our health care
system we have to do more than just add funds to the system and
stop the crisis management of health as Canadians end up in our
emergency wards or clinics. To start with, we have to look at
preventing them from becoming ill. That is something we have to
look at in a bigger scheme. To do that we must recognize how
smoking impacts our health care system. We have to realize that
$3 billion is spent in direct costs for hospitalization and
physician time in regard to smoking, and another $8 billion is
spent in lost productivity in the workplace. Those are amazing
figures.
Labour Canada estimates that it costs between $2,300 and $2,600
more to employ an individual who is a smoker. The rate of
absenteeism in the workplace has increased because of it. Life
insurance premiums have also gone up. Not only is there a
productivity cost due to smoking, but there are other direct
costs. These are the things we do not really recognize.
We have to get to the teenaged mind. Teenagers need to
understand that not only is it costly to smoke and not only does
it stink, and in more ways than one, but there is very little
upside to smoking and to becoming addicted to something that will
harness them to an addiction they cannot escape. I have talked
to a lot of people who smoke. Very few of them want to smoke.
Most of them want to quit, for many reasons.
Yesterday I had five individuals in my office. One of them was
the president of the Canadian Dental Association. I have never
thought about cigarettes and their effect on dentistry. These
people came to my office to talk about cigarettes and what they
see as they look into the mouths of Canadians. What they see is
that baby boomers keep more of their teeth as a result of
accomplishments in the dentistry field. However, they are
suffering from far more cancers because of their cigarette
smoking. Dentists are very concerned with the amount of gum
disease and cancers of the mouth that they see brought on because
of cigarettes.
I want to impress upon the House how important it is that we
look at funding a plan to address teenage smoking. Just raising
the cost of cigarettes is not the issue. If we took the money
raised and put it into such a plan, Canadians would support it
much more.
Here is what amazes me and why I ask the House to implement such
a plan. The bill was introduced once before. Now it takes 40
pages to introduce the legislation and 50 pages to explain why. I
am a little suspicious. It was introduced in 1998 by the Senate
and supported at that time by the health minister. Unfortunately
the Speaker of the House did not support it because he felt it
was a taxation issue, not a health issue. Obviously this is a
health issue and not a taxation issue.
1320
It is a little suspicious to see the turnabout in the minds of
the members next to me in the House, because they have to address
this as a health issue. I am a little suspicious about how fast
this is happening and about what kind of energy is behind it. If
we do not address it as just one piece of a very large puzzle,
then we will have missed our opportunity.
The House needs to examine it as not just a taxation issue but a
health issue, one that has to be addressed in our country. We
cannot fail in this one. We owe it to our teenagers and to the
next generation. We owe it to them to sustain our health care
system.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Shall I see the clock
as reading 1.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-305, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
(inventory of brownfields), be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, in the short time that I have to defend
my bill, Bill C-305, I will try to address four key areas: a
definition, an explanation, the need for and approaches to
remediation, and the reasons why this legislation should be
deemed votable.
What is a brownfield? According to the 1998 report by the
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, entitled
“State of the Debate on the Environment and the Economy:
Greening Canada's Brownfield Sites”, brownfields are defined as:
—abandoned or underused properties where past actions have
caused real or suspected environmental contamination. Although
they are classified as a subset of contaminated sites, these
sites exhibit good potential for other uses and usually provide
economically viable business opportunities. They are mainly
located in established urban areas, where existing municipal
services are readily available, or along transportation
corridors. They may include, but are not limited to:
decommissioned refineries, railway yards, dilapidated warehouses,
abandoned gas stations, former dry cleaners and other commercial
properties where toxic substances have been stored or used.
I am only guessing but I dare say each and every one of us in
the House of Commons has a brownfield site or two in our ridings.
Redevelopment of brownfields is often paralyzed due to a variety
of reasons, including uncertainty regarding liability and
ownership, and provincial and federal liens. Since brownfields
are normally located within urban areas, municipalities are the
main drivers of brownfield development.
The concept of brownfields is in contrast to that of
greenfields, that is, low cost virgin land on the urban fringe
which is often more attractive for industrial or commercial
relocation or expansion.
Why do we need to remediate and what are the approaches to
remediation? The advantages to the remediation of brownfields
are obvious: job growth, the revitalization of our downtown
cores and the reversal of urban sprawl, as well as the cleanup of
potentially environmentally hazardous sites right in our own
backyards.
What we are seeing in many cities today is the growth of the
urban doughnut, where the city expands ever outward while the
once vital core becomes nothing but a hole.
1325
I do not need a police study to convince anyone in this place of
the high crime rates in brownfield areas. They can be dangerous
places, not only for environmental reasons but also because of
the threat to personal safety. Vacant lots and abandoned sites
become lairs for drug users and violent criminals. Perfectly
good commercial and residential land which just happens to be
nearby such an area drops in value because of its proximity to
the abandoned sites. In short, these sites are dangerous, ugly
and wasteful.
As we begin this new millennium, we need to adopt the new
virtues of reduce, reuse and recycle in ways that are more than
just putting newspapers and pop cans in the blue box. The three
Rs hold a lesson for city development as well. All of our cities
and towns are stuck in the wasteful habit of growing outward and
ignoring their cores. This trend cannot continue.
By encouraging brownfield remediation and reclamation, cities
and towns can capitalize on infrastructure already in place, such
as roads, sewers, et cetera. The strain on public transit
systems will be eased by putting people to work in town rather
than in newly developed areas. Increased construction, commerce
and real estate transactions will return to where they were, to
where they are most needed, to downtown.
In Toronto in April 1998, an international symposium was held,
entitled “Redeveloping Brownfields: A Different Conversation”.
I would like to pass on to my colleagues the findings of the
executive summary of that comprehensive symposium. Ten
recommendations were made.
First, there is no single generic approach. Best practices for
brownfield redevelopment are not so much a list of directions or
a prescription as much as a new way of thinking. The best
redevelopment approach is closely related to a site's competitive
advantage, its marketability, the intended use and location. The
key is to integrate site restoration and the land redevelopment
process in a way that fosters reinvestment.
Second, a project is nothing without a vision. It is important
to be able to imagine and articulate the possibilities, to
describe what others cannot yet see, because brownfield
redevelopment is about protecting and revitalizing the very heart
of our communities.
Third, integration makes it happen. Planning, design and
environmental issues should be addressed together in an
integrated, transparent process.
Fourth, a decisive set of players is needed. Project teams must
have diverse skills and experience. In addition, brownfield
redevelopments benefit from collaboration among players,
regulators, citizens, investors, bankers, technical experts and
other members of the design team. Getting the right players
involved at the right time saves money and effort.
Fifth, every brownfield project requires partnerships to make it
work. Those partnerships can result in consensus about the next
use and site design as well as innovative financing strategies,
formal agreements regarding cleanup and monitoring, and ongoing
communication and community development initiatives.
Sixth, local government and its citizens know best what is
needed to spark reinvestment in brownfields. The local spark may
come from the public sector, such as a city department, agency or
politician, or the non-profit sector such as, for example, the
local economic or community development corporation. Improving
the investment climate by clarifying and streamlining the
decision process and articulating the community vision are two
areas where local government can play a key role.
Seventh, risk based decision making is about managing change,
ensuring that environmental and human health are protected in
cost effective ways and making sound economic investments.
Eighth, broadening the scope of the decision leads to better
understanding and better decisions. Effective communication
should be seen as a priority task for all members of the project
team.
The ninth point is best viewed as a shared responsibility of
private and public sectors. When we speak of education around
the issue of brownfields the decision has traditionally been
focused on public education. The question of education and
learning must be more comprehensive and should include all
stakeholders, such as risk assessors, lenders, landowners,
purchasers and developers.
Finally, the last point is that many successes have resulted
from upfront public sector investment in environmental
restoration, infrastructure improvements and job creation.
Setting a new standard for design and land use can go a long way
to improve the investment climate.
1330
I would ask that members present consider these recommendations
as they listen to the details of my proposed legislation and
evaluate it accordingly. I have endeavoured to take these
recommendations to heart in my consideration of the problem of
brownfield remediation and I believe that this bill, Bill C-305,
is an effective first step toward this goal.
In summary, the bill would amend the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act to expand an existing registry that is already
there. Any member of the public can report suspected
contaminated sites with the express purpose of building an easily
accessible national registry of brownfields. The registry would
accept voluntary reports of contaminated lands according to
regulations which would determine how much evidence of
contamination is required.
The bill would also allow the federal government, together with
provincial, municipal and private partners, to assist with the
often prohibitive costs of environmental assessments.
To solve a problem, we first need to identify the problem.
Ultimately I see this as a three stage process: identification,
assessment and remediation. The bill addresses the first two
stages directly. First, we identify the extent of brownfields
right across the country and once we know where these sites are
we can begin to assess the costs of the cleanup. Having this
information open and available to all levels of government and
private enterprise would foster co-operative and innovative
solutions.
The bill is a small but crucial step toward reclaiming these
commercially useful sites, revitalizing our city centres and
combating urban sprawl. The existing public registry system,
under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, was set up to
facilitate public awareness to ensure convenient public access to
records on projects requiring environmental assessments.
One of the impediments to brownfield remediation is the
reluctance to report a site due to the expense involved with the
assessment. By expanding the registry to include not only
projects requiring an environmental assessment, in other words
sites already in the process of remediation, but also suspected
sites, the public will have access to information about sites
that are lying dormant. This is the key difference between the
existing legislation and the changes I am proposing in Bill
C-305.
At the moment there is little or no concerted effort by the
federal or provincial governments to address the issue of
contaminated property that is cheaper and legally safer for the
owner to ignore and let lie fallow rather than clean it up or
sell it to someone who will.
Another aspect of the legislation would permit the federal
government to fund projects before the environmental assessment
is completed, in other words to pay for the assessment. Bill
C-305 would exempt projects from one component of the
environmental assessment process. No assessment would be
required before the federal government provides any funding but
only as long as the funds are used to pay for the actual
assessment.
As I mentioned before, one of the impediments to remediation is
the prohibitive cost of environmental assessments. What I
propose is that the federal government be allowed, be allowed I
say especially to the Bloc who I know has a concern about
jurisdiction, not obligated, to fund the assessment possibly in
co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments and
private partners.
Why should the legislation be deemed votable? I believe that my
bill meets the five criteria which the standing committee
responsible for private members' business has set out: First,
the bill is clear, complete and effective; second, the bill is
constitutional and concerns only an area of federal jurisdiction;
third, the bill concerns a matter of significant public interest;
fourth, the bill concerns an issue that is not part of the
current legislative agenda and has not been addressed by the
House; and fifth, the bill is not of a purely local interest and
certainly is non-partisan.
By virtue of its voluntary nature, the registry would not
encroach upon provincial jurisdiction.
What the registry would do is collect and share voluntarily
submitted information, thereby fostering intergovernmental and
private co-operation.
1335
There are no punitive measures associated with being on the
list. In fact, it would be in the interest of a brownfield site
owner to be on the list, as it would open up opportunities for
remediation.
The issue of brownfields remediation is a matter of highly
significant public interest. This is a problem of enormous
magnitude which is long overdue for some kind of a solution.
According to the redeveloping brownfields symposium, it is
estimated that there are 2,900 such sites in Canada with an
estimated cost of $3 billion.
Permit me to read from a part of the report from the symposium.
It states:
By far, the overriding success stories in the United States
Brownfields program have turned on the ability of the parties to
engage all appropriate decision makers and for all decision
makers to have a common goal of redevelopment using flexible
decision making authority. The cooperative approach, very
consistent with the Canadian style of regulation, will be the key
to the success of redevelopment in any jurisdiction.
My proposed legislation, without overstepping federal
jurisdiction, can do just that, by initiating a co-operative
movement between all levels of government and the private sector.
I conclude by re-emphasizing my earlier statements. To solve a
problem we must first identify the problem. Ultimately, I see
this as a three stage process: identification, assessment,
remediation. The bill addresses the first two stages directly.
First, we identify the extent of brownfields right across the
country. Once we know where these sites are, we can begin to
assess the costs of the clean-up.
Having the information open and available to all levels of
government and private enterprise will foster co-operative and
innovative solutions.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise with pleasure to take
part in the debate on Bill C-305, which proposes to establish a
national registry of contaminated sites through amendments to the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
First, I commend the hon. member for Hamilton West on his
ultimate goal to rejuvenate contaminated sites. I share his
goal. I have a number of contaminated or brownfield sites in my
riding of Etobicoke North. In 1999 I worked with a graduate
student from the University of Toronto who developed a report
entitled “Rexdale Brownfield Sites: A Framework for
Understanding”. It dealt with a number of policy issues and
alternatives. I submitted the report to city councillors, the
provincial government, the Minister of the Environment and other
stakeholder groups.
Ensuring that Canadians have a clean and healthy environment is
an important goal for our government. For example, the recent
Speech from the Throne notes that for Canadians, protecting the
environment is not an option. It is something we must do.
[Translation]
In his reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister
stated that a safe, healthy environment is essential to the
health of Canadians and to the future of our children. We will
accelerate our efforts at home and internationally to foster a
clean environment.
[English]
These contaminated sites or brownfields are a legacy of poor
environmental practices in the past. Because of this terrible
legacy we have shifted our thinking and our efforts toward
preventing environmental damage before it occurs.
Our government strengthened the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act so that it focused on pollution prevention. The
Minister of the Environment recently introduced Bill C-19 to
strengthen the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act so that
future development projects do not cause environmental harm. In
this context, it is necessary to look at Bill C-305 to determine
if it would help us better achieve our environmental goals.
The bill proposes to do two things. First, it suggests that the
current registry system in the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act be altered so that any individual could report and therefore
register contaminated sites in municipalities.
Second, Bill C-305 would enable the federal government to
provide financial assistance for the environmental assessment of
projects to remediate contaminated lands.
1340
I would like to bring the House up to date on recent
developments relevant to the hon. member's proposal.
[Translation]
The Minister of the Environment just completed an exhaustive and
comprehensive review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act. This review included the release of a discussion paper in
December 1999 with options for improving the current law.
[English]
The public consultation phase of this review comprised 38
sessions in 19 cities across Canada. One day workshops were held
in six major centres. The Internet was put to good use as a
means to distribute information and solicit the views of
Canadians. Over 200 written submissions were received. All
told, the Minister of the Environment heard from a broad cross
section of Canadians: environmental assessment practitioners,
provincial governments, industry, environmental groups,
communities, aboriginal people and individual Canadians.
One of the findings of the review was that the goal of
facilitating public participation in environmental assessment has
not been fully achieved. In particular, the current system of
establishing a separate paper based registry for projects that
undergo an environmental assessment has not worked.
I note that Bill C-305 is based on the same registry system
concept.
On March 20 the Minister of the Environment tabled his report to
parliament on the outcome of his review, entitled Strengthening
Environmental Assessment for Canadians, and Bill C-19 proposes
specific Amendments for Improving the current act.
[Translation]
Bill C-19 proposes to create a new Internet based government-wide
registry of information about the environmental assessment of
specific projects. As a result, Canadians will have easy access
to information about projects in their communities and across
the country.
[English]
Because it is based on the current act, the proposal in Bill
C-305 does not really mesh with the amendments in Bill C-19, the
amendments that require the establishment of a new modern
registry that takes advantage of the Internet.
Moreover, the proposal in Bill C-305 would mix the objective of
ensuring that Canadians have access to information about the wide
range of projects that undergo a federal environmental
assessment, such as proposed mines, dams, roads and pipelines,
with the important task of identifying and registering
contaminated sites.
For those reasons, Bill C-305 would not help us better achieve
our environmental goals.
The second related point I would like to make is that the
discretionary authority to provide financial assistance for the
environmental assessment of projects to remediate contaminated
sites, as proposed in Bill C-305, is not necessary.
In fact, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act already goes
much further by requiring environmental assessments of
remediation projects where there is federal involvement as a
proponent, as a provider of financial assistance or land, or as a
regulator. For example, remediation projects with federal
financial assistance have triggered requirements for an
assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
[Translation]
We must also be mindful of provincial jurisdiction. Many of the
contaminated sites that are the target of Bill C-305 would fall
within provincial areas of responsibility.
[English]
This does not mean that the federal government does not work
with its provincial partners on this issue. Quite the opposite.
Through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,
Environment Canada has provided the scientific expertise
necessary for the development of a national classification system
for contaminated sites, as well as a comprehensive set of
guidance manuals promoting the consistent assessment and
remediation of contaminated sites across Canada.
The Government of Canada is also taking measures to get its own
House in order.
1345
With over 25,000 owned and leased properties, it is essential
that we identify and clean up contaminated sites in our control.
Work is under way in this regard. Under the federal contaminated
sites and solid waste landfills inventory policy a database of
federal sites is being compiled. The database will soon be
accessible to Canadians through the Internet.
In their sustainable development strategies tabled in February
departments with large land holdings such as National Defence,
Transport Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada committed
to continue with the identification, assessment and remediation
of their contaminated sites.
[Translation]
Environment Canada also continues to be a global leader in the
development of technologies to clean up contaminated sites.
For example, field experiments near Trail, British Columbia, and
Île-aux-Corbeaux in the St. Lawrence River have demonstrated how
certain plants can successfully remove toxic substances from
soil, sediment and ground and surface water.
[English]
Sunflowers, ragweed, cabbage, geranium and Jack pine show
considerable promise. Further field trials are being conducted
on this innovative method for removing contamination from our
lands and water.
In closing, Bill C-305 is a very forwarding looking and
thoughtful project, but in the view of the government it is not
appropriate because of more wide ranging proposals in Bill C-19
which will significantly strengthen the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act.
Bill C-19 will help safeguard our environment through an
environmental assessment process that is more predictable,
certain and timely. Bill C-19 will improve the quality of
assessments through measures to improve compliance and ensure
more follow up. Bill C-19 will increase opportunities for
Canadians to have a meaningful say about projects in their
communities.
I applaud the hon. member for Hamilton West. I encourage him to
keep his initiative alive and to keep a light on this issue. In
light of the efforts of the government on many fronts to deal
with contaminated sites, Bill C-305 is not necessary at this
time.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for
Hamilton West. The reason the bill came about is that his own
government has not acted upon cleaning up these sites. That is
why the man has done it. Had it already been done, the bill
would not have seen the light of day.
I compliment the gentleman from Hamilton West on his foresight
in trying to move this issue forward. Unfortunately Bill C-19
was dropped from the legislative calendar. Maybe it will come
forward in September; maybe it will not. The government will do
what it usually does, which is to sit on its hands, in particular
on environmental issues.
We live in an extraordinarily beautiful country. What the
public may be interested to know is that despite the beauty
around us, it is only a shell. Underneath we have a government
that is known worldwide as a serious polluter, one that ignores
its own rules and regulations domestically and internationally,
one that willfully pollutes, one that does this through the
actions of government and does not regulate properly the actions
of the private sector.
The member for Hamilton West has put forth an articulate, simple
plan suggesting that what the government should do is say yes,
this is a good idea. It is a good idea to identify these
brownfield sites. It is a good idea to put forth a plan of
action. It is an even better idea to implement solutions to
change the sites that have been contaminated. The public wants
that and most members in the House want that. Why does the
government not act?
It has been quite unfathomable to us on this side why the
government has failed to act on so many issues of environmental
importance. Let us talk about some solutions that stem from Bill
C-305, things that we can certainly support as a House.
First is the assessment phase. The public would be fascinated
to know that today most environmental assessments are done after
projects are completed. Does that make sense? It violates the
government's own policies. It violates the government's 1995 red
book which said it wanted all environmental assessments to happen
at the early stages of plans and programs.
A 1998 survey by the environmental agency revealed very clearly
that only 20% of screenings occur at a conceptual stage and that
40% of environmental assessments occur late in the project or
after the project is complete. What is the benefit of that? It
makes no difference doing it at the end.
1350
For example, some huge energy projects have been proposed under
NAFTA which could benefit people. Unfortunately most of the oil
will go to the United States and no assessment has been done on
the far ranging energy projects that will extract oil from tar.
It is a good idea, but it should be done under the guise of sound
environmental policies.
It is also essential that consideration be given to the need for
alternatives in every project. Why do we go through a project
and not consider other alternatives, ones that would be better?
This can happen.
Sustainable development is the goal. We should have a list of
credible indicators of sustainable development such as no net
loss to habitat, ensuring renewable resources are used at
sustainable levels, and no net increase in air or water
pollution. There needs to be a duly elected duty on the part of
the government to do just that. There also needs to be a follow
up process.
There are the transboundary responsibilities that fall clearly
upon the shoulders of the federal government. It is up to the
government to ensure that projects which take place across
boundaries, affecting not only our country but others, adhere to
sound domestic and international environmental standards.
There has been hypocrisy in our actions outside Canada. The
public would be fascinated to know that Canada's own Export
Development Corporation is using public money to fund development
projects abroad which pollute rivers from Borneo to Central
America, which dump mine tailings into rivers and into the ground
and which clear-cut. These projects are funded by Canadian
taxpayer dollars and are being carried out by Canadian companies
from Borneo to New Guinea to Central and South America.
They are violating not only the basic norms of international
environmental standards, but they are also violating our own laws
and the environmental standards set up by the Export Development
Corporation. Why is Canada known through the EDC as a pillager
of the environment? Why does the government, after being here
since 1993, not have a handle on this? It happens far away,
thousands of miles away, unseen and unheard by the Canadian
public.
Would the public also be interested to know that the cultures of
indigenous peoples are being laid to waste by these actions, that
they have been turfed out and that they have been marginalized,
all to allow Canadian companies to go in and pillage in an
irresponsible fashion areas that have been pristine for a long
period of time?
The environmental commissioner has said time and time again that
the Canadian government has failed miserably, not only in the
actions it takes as a government but its actions as a polluter.
Standards were set and targets were set, but no assessment or
action has been taken to deal with pollution by the Canadian
government through its actions.
The environmental commissioner puts out an eloquent report every
year or so which contains effective, concise and doable solutions
to deal with environmental challenges in Canada. What happens to
that report? That report gets tossed on a shelf like the myriad
of reports out of the House.
Even the youth in the gallery are crying and lamenting over the
terrible situation in our country. Just mere words are causing
them to shake and cry with despair. Let us imagine what the
public is doing out there. It is very true.
We are asking the government to listen to the environment
commissioner and to implement and adhere to the rules set out by
that commissioner. The government should also adhere to the
principles that we wave like a flag in our own country but fail
to adhere to.
1355
It is unthinkable for us not to do that. Part of the reason, I
think, is that there has been a death of innovation within this
House. It seems that innovation within the House of Commons is
wilfully crushed on the altar of this game that we play where we
bash each other over the head about issues the public does not
care about.
That is in part why the hon. member for Hamilton West is having
his bill defeated by his own government. The man is trying to
put forth something intelligent and meaningful, something that
Canadians from coast to coast are interested in and that will
help our environment and help their livelihoods. Yet it is being
defeated, all in order to deal with this at a later time. If I
had a dime for every time I have heard that we will do this
later, I would be a very affluent man.
We also need transparency and public participation in all we do.
That is not taking place.
In short, this bill is an original and worthwhile addition to
the CEAA. It is built on a win-win situation, environmental
cleanup, revitalization of downtown cores and job creation, all
in a meaningful way. It could also—and should, if the
government were wise—talk about the polluter pay principle, the
principle that if a company goes into an area in our country or
outside it and wilfully extracts resources or does some
development, it is the company's responsibility to clean up the
area. That is the principle that exists.
The problem is that there is no enforcement. The government
turns a blind eye and says that it is not going to actually look
at what that company has done. Rather, it says that it is just
going to leave it there and the people who live in the area can
pay the price for it, and indeed they do pay a price.
We can look at the people who live around the Sydney tar ponds,
who pay a terrible price in terms of birth defects and in terms
of levels of cancer we do not find in other parts of the country.
We can look at the price paid by the flora and fauna of our
country. We can look at the beluga whales that live in the St.
Lawrence. The flesh of a beluga whale would be considered a
toxic substance because of the high levels of cancer causing
agents it contains.
In closing, I compliment the member and ask today for unanimous
consent for the bill to go to committee for study.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a pity
that we have to deal with this issue today at this hour, at the
end of the week. It takes a truly superb speaker to make the
House crackle with excitement, even though the issue we are
dealing with is extremely interesting.
Environmental issues have always been one of my concerns, but
this is especially the case since I became a politician. I
learned the ropes of political life in Quebec's National
Assembly. At the time, in 1976, when Mr. Lévesque came to power
in Quebec, there was no Department of the Environment.
The first environment minister was Marcel Léger.
Not long after that, I became his assistant in environmental
matters. Therefore, there are a few issues that are of concern
to me and that I know better than others. Among them, of course,
are issues related to environment.
The legislation introduced by the hon. member at least has the
merit of bringing us to talk about the environment. In my
opinion, we do not deal with it often enough. This is an area
that should be a major concern for the population, because if we
do not ensure that the environment is protected and if we do not
make more efforts in this regard in the future, future
generations will surely lay the blame at our feet.
We only have to think of greenhouse gases, for example, which
are warming up our planet. The hon. member who spoke before me
talked about pollution in the St. Lawrence River.
1400
We realize it is high time governments did the right thing and
tried to restore the environment, and not only try to restore
it, but also ensure we no longer pollute it.
There is one aspect of the bill I disagree with; once again, we
have here a bill which encroaches on provincial areas of
jurisdiction.
In the area of the environment, Quebec has come a long way since
1975-76. I can tell the House that contaminated sites are now
being reviewed. We have what it takes to do it. We have the
necessary legislation and the BAPE does an excellent job.
The bill is flawed in the sense that once again there is
overlapping. This slows down progress not only with regard to
restoring the environment but also to protecting it.
In an area such as this one, it is important that each level of
government stick to its own jurisdiction and act without delay
to restore—studying is not enough—sites that unfortunately
were allowed to be polluted. The areas of jurisdiction are very
clear. We do not need new legislation for that.
I had the opportunity to talk about Lake Saint-Pierre, among
others. Lake Saint-Pierre was polluted by the Canadian Forces.
They fired shells into it. The consequences have been obvious
since the 1950s. There were serious accidents as a result of
shells being carried away by the ice.
This is clearly a federal jurisdiction. We do not need studies
and special legislation and special committees to see how Lake
Saint-Pierre must be restored. This lake is a source of vitality,
of life for the river. It is the lung that restores polluted
water coming from cities such as Montreal.
Lake Saint-Pierre was polluted with bombs. The Canadian Forces
polluted it and we are asking the minister responsible to see
to its cleanup as quickly as possible. We have been asking this
for years. This is clearly a federal jurisdiction and this is
not open to dispute. And yet, this is not being done.
This morning I talked about the pollution in Bagotville. This
is a serious case of pollution that is spreading and seeping
into groundwaters in the town of La Baie. I asked a question
this morning on this.
What answer did I get? I was told the government is examining
the issue, that it is looking at the situation and that it will
solve the problem when it arises. However the problem exists and
this is clearly a federal jurisdiction. We do not need a private
member's bill. We need only the government's goodwill to solve
the pollution problem in Bagotville.
Not only have the shores of the St. Lawrence River been ruined
but between Trois-Rivières and Quebec City we have lost and are
still losing a great portion of land to erosion. Some houses
have had to be moved back, because traffic on St. Lawrence River
moved a little too rapidly. Again, this is clearly a federal
jurisdiction.
In the past we have managed to get some money to restore and
protect the shores of the St. Lawrence River but it is far from
over.
Municipalities like Sainte-Marthe, Champlain, Batiscan and scores
of others all the way to Quebec City are asking us to try to get
money to do something because the shores of the St. Lawrence
River are being eroded. This comes under federal jurisdiction
but the federal government is not doing anything.
There is a disaster waiting to happen on the St. Lawrence River.
I already talked about this when we discussed
the marine transportation bill.
1405
Throughout the world there is an increasing number of accidents
involving ships carrying oil or other dangerous substances.
Almost every month we hear about ships sinking somewhere and
polluting the shores.
Imagine for a moment that a tanker moving oil to or from
Montreal had an accident on the St. Lawrence River. Seven million
Quebecers would be affected. What are we doing to prevent this
from happening? Some will say that it never happened. Well, it
did.
Fortunately it was not a disaster, but last year a ship broke
in two near Sept-Îles. Fortunately, it did not cause any damage.
I live by the St. Lawrence River and each year we see spills,
not major ones but enough to see oil on the shores.
Through a bill, I suggested that the Canadian government, that
is the Minister of Transport who is responsible for that—it is
his jurisdiction—should require that every ship entering the
St. Lawrence River carrying dangerous products be inspected. It
would be a preventive measure. We do not need legislation for
that, just the political will to do it. We could certainly
prevent disasters. I hope it never happens. Still, every year we
are concerned about that.
Oil shippers seem to use older tankers. When a ship breaks in
two, it is often said that the ship was not inspected properly,
that is was too old. These same ships go up the St. Lawrence
River to Quebec City, to Montreal and on to the Great Lakes.
I often see these ships sail by since I live by the river. I
pray to God that we not have a disaster like they had last year
in France. We hear about this sort of thing happening all the
time all over the place.
This is something that could be done immediately to cleanup and
protect our water. I am talking about Lake Saint-Pierre and about
inspecting ships carrying dangerous products on the St. Lawrence
River.
When we talk about the army or the air force contaminating the
water table, as they did in Bagotville and Shannon, the minister
says “There is no problem. The people are satisfied; we give
them bottled water”. Yes, the water table is useless now but
the consolation prize is that “From now on, you will be drinking
bottled water”. Or better yet, we are told that the water table
will clean itself up.
I want to thank the member who introduced the bill for raising
the issue today. Although I just have to support the purpose of
the bill, I still think that the member should introduce a bill
asking the federal government to respect the jurisdictions in
this area, to get involved in the restoration of the shores of
the St. Lawrence River and all contaminated sites and to respect
and support the work of the BAPE in Quebec.
Since my time is running out, I hope I will be able to come back
to this very important issue in the near future.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as
is the tradition, I have been given five minutes to clean up
after the presentation of the bill after an hour in the House.
I listened very carefully to all the interventions made in the
House today. To my friend in the Bloc, I am still trying to
figure out what a ship going up and down the St. Lawrence has to
do with brownfields but I take his points.
1410
My friend with the Canadian Alliance Party indicated or assumed
that the government was not doing its job on the environment.
Through my experience from 1988 to 1993 in opposition, the
Conservative government of the day did precious little on
environmental concerns compared to what this federal Liberal
government has done since 1993 to the present date. It is quite
extraordinary and outstanding what has been done on issues of the
environment under a series of different environmental ministers.
My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, will probably not
leave his seat and allow me another opportunity to ask for
unanimous consent to move this bill along for more than just an
hour. I jest because he is a friend. Quite seriously, to my
hon. friend who is standing in as a parliamentary secretary, I
know he has to represent the government's point of view and I
know he has a job to do. I have done that job myself.
However I would ask him to take back the message to the
officials that Bill C-19 does not address the need of cost
assessment as outlined in my bill. If we have a project we want
to proceed with then we go out and do an assessment. Then we can
get funding for the project.
Bill C-305 would amend the act and take it back a step so the
opportunity of financing would begin at the assessment stage.
Doing that would involve not just federal, provincial or
municipal money but also tax money. Also the private sector
would be invited to play a role and to network with levels of
government to spend the money, make it possible, make it happen
and pay for it at first blush.
There was an interesting use of language in the government's
rebuttal. The word altered was used as opposed to my words of
expanding the existing registry.
As addressed by the government, Bill C-305 says that we fear
this paper registry versus the Internet or computer registry, and
that a paper registry does not work. What bill is perfect? If
we had perfect bills we would not have to spend time in the House
debating them, making amendments at committee, taking them to
report stage in the House and then making amendments at report
stage. No bill is perfect. We would make those adjustments from
paper to computer.
By the way, and the hon. member might pass this along to the
government, even the new Internet based registry under Bill C-19
would still only list environmental assessment projects, not
suspected or presently unreported sites that my particular bill
would do. Maybe we will have to make an amendment to Bill C-19
in order to make that possible.
I look forward to the reforms that are being discussed and may
take place shortly in the work of the House. However what harm
is there in permitting a private member's bill, which takes place
in an hour outside of regular government business, to be
discussed more and to have a second and third hour of debate in
the House? It could be in a stretch that might take six months.
Then it could end at a parliamentary committee where the bill
would be addressed, amended, clarified or even thrown out if the
government, with its majority on committees, saw fit. What harm
is there in moving the bill along?
Remember that a private member's bill takes hours upon hours of
work to formulate. Then it goes to the legislative process. I
thank Debra Bulmer at legislative services because she spent
hours looking through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
to make the appropriate amendments to respond to what it was I
wanted to see in the act vis-à-vis brownfields. I thank her for
her hard work.
I ask hon. members, with all the hours that were spent in
developing, researching and drawing up the appropriate measures
in the bill, to give this private member's bill a shot. There is
no harm in it. It can be killed at committee if it has to be
killed, and if not at committee at third reading in the House.
In closing I ask one more time, and I may know the answer to
this already, that the House give unanimous consent to make the
bill votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired.
Since the motion was not selected as a votable item, the item is
dropped from the order paper.
[English]
It being 2.15 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)