Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last February 10, the Minister of National Revenue tabled a bill to significantly amend three other acts of Parliament, namely: the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act.

The purpose of the bill is to more or less balance, through various pieces of legislation, the government strategy against smuggling, which was announced in this House by the Prime Minister, on February 8, 1994.

Several people working in the health field expressed concern regarding this national plan to fight smuggling, because of the adverse effects it could have on the health of Canadians and Quebecers. These people, including practitioners and health care specialists, fear an upsurge in tobacco use in general, but more important increased consumption among young people.

Even though the federal government's efforts to eliminate or at least better restrict access to tobacco products for young people may be commendable, the fact is that the situation is serious.

The government is proposing amendments which, it says, will reinforce some provisions contained in Bill C-113, which was passed on March 25, 1993. As you know, this legislation prohibits the sale of cigarettes to persons under 18 years of age.

Just what are those provisions? Part III of Bill C-11 contains three amendments to the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act. Under section 10 of the bill, the long title of the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act is replaced by the following: an act to restrict access to tobacco by young persons. According to the government, this new title implicitly expands the scope of the act and reflects much more accurately the new approach of restricting instead of prohibiting.

Clause 11 adds three new elements to Bill C-111. Clause 7.1 prohibits the sale of packages containing less than 20 cigarettes. As of May 1, 1994 producing or selling what are commonly called kiddie packages, that is packages containing 10 or 15 cigarettes, will be prohibited. Those packages, which are usually sold at a good price, are extremely appealing for young people. Their relatively low cost is also an important incentive. It is easy to start smoking. You never know, it could be fun.

Clause 7.3 prohibits the importation into Canada of any tobacco product by a person under the age of eighteen, whether for personal consumption or for someone else.

In recent weeks, we have looked at the legal and tax aspects of the question, and particularly at the thorny issue of cigarette smuggling. In the process, we also put the health and well-being of Canadians and Quebecers on the back burner.

According to Dr. Richard Lessard, who is the Director of Public Health for Health and Social Services, Montreal Centre branch, it would be a mistake to limit the debate to legal and tax considerations. A major issue takes precedence over tobacco smuggling, and that is the health of Canadians and Quebecers.

Dr. Lessard himself said that tobacco consumption is currently linked to 40 per cent of deaths due to cardiovascular complications-to 87 per cent of deaths due to lung cancer, and to 80 per cent of respiratory diseases. Low birth weight is twice as common among babies whose mothers smoke than among those whose mothers do not smoke. And currently, the increase in smoking is higher among young women.

Young Canadians start smoking between the age of 11 and 15. At fifteen years of age, 22 per cent of males and almost 30 per cent of females are smoking. Also, 65 per cent of these teenagers are paying for their cigarettes out of their own pockets. Any public policy, whether it is non inaction in fighting smuggling or lowering taxes on tobacco, if not linked to aggressive preventive measures, does encourage these vulnerable teenagers to start smoking.

According to Dr. Lessard, tobacco-related health problems cost $2.5 billion to Quebec and $9.5 billion to Canada, even though, before the current crisis, tobacco consumption had decreased by 40 per cent since

Several health officials have criticized the decrease in sale prices of cigarettes following the tax reduction announced by the government. They think it will only encourage the most vulnerable groups, teenagers and young women, to start smoking.

My colleague, the hon. member for Lévis, mentioned and rightly so the devastating effect of smoking among our young. We think educational measures must accompany the legislation which was announced. We must develop new programs and support the current ones by investing in mass advertising.

We must also make businesspeople aware of their social responsibility. Bill C-111 goes ahead by implementing measures concerning tobacco sales. For example, the stamp prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors is a step in the right direction.

We also need to make some long-term investments in an anti-smoking campaign. I am pleased to report that the Quebec government has undertaken a major anti-smoking campaign to urge young smokers to change attitudes. Several governments in Canada have decided to follow suit.

Bill C-11 includes provisions concerning the Excise Act and the Customs Act which confer new powers on the minister and various police forces in Canada and in Quebec responsible for enforcing the law throughout the country. According to the government, these provisions will provide the new legal tools which are needed to achieve better enforcement of the law and to continue the fight against smuggling.

One interesting provision of this bill is found in clause 9 which says that the minister may authorize an officer to sell or destroy the seized goods.

It goes without saying that the government will never proceed, I am convinced, with the sale of seized tobacco products. This is commonly done in some American States but it would be out of place in this country given the current situation. However, the equipment and facilities used to carry or stock these goods could, of course, be sold. This could become an interesting source of funds to be reinvested in anti-smuggling programs or in a public awareness campaign.

In order to be successful in its fight against the harmful effect of tobacco, the government must maintain the National Strategy to Reduce Tobacco Use. As its title says, the main objective of this action plan, developed in co-operation with the provincial governments, is to reduce tobacco use.

Every member of the House knows that this strategy has three objectives: to protect the health and rights of non-smokers, to prevent non-smokers from picking up the habit and to help smokers who want to quit smoking.

In this context, in order to effectively reduce tobacco use, there has to be a concerted effort by all levels of government and by non-governmental organizations.

We believe that the government must harmonize the various legislative measures in place to combat the use of tobacco and its effects. We believe that the measures proposed in Bill C-11 respecting the sale of tobacco to young people must be accompanied by a genuine desire to eradicate smoking.

The problem of tobacco use will not be solved simply by making it harder for young people to obtain tobacco products through more or less coercive measures aimed at merchants, producers and consumers.

The government must not shirk its responsibilities. As Dr. Lessard said, our governments have already made a commitment to health and have understood that making a long-term investment in our collective health will help us, as a society, solve our serious economic problems. During the present budget cutting period affecting health care in Quebec, and probably in other provinces, how can we explain the omission of health considerations in the debate since the major consequence of this crisis is sickness?

How can we fail to see that the only winners are tobacco companies? Should our society yield to an industry which takes our own health hostage and which economists say is steadily losing ground in our economy?

We understand the important economic and legal issues involved in the revolt of some elements of our population against taxes, and the general outrage over smuggling and its corrupting effects. Prompted by the rumblings of public discontent, our ministers of justice and finance laid out some very convincing arguments on that point.

It seems urgent and critical to ask the premiers to listen also to the arguments of their health ministers and to renew their commitment to the well-being of the population.

It is crucial to reintroduce social and human dimensions into the present debate. No government should be allowed to forget the health and well-being of its population for purely fiscal considerations.

[Pedophilia, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will do her best to ensure that appropriate draft legislation is indeed tabled.

Nevertheless, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give us her assurance that this bill will contain provisions to deal with those who organize what are commonly referred to as sex tours?

[Pedophilia, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Junior Bar Association of Montreal is calling on the Canadian government to amend the Criminal Code so as to criminalize acts of pedophilia committed abroad by Canadian nationals. Certain European countries have recently moved to criminalize acts of pedophilia committed abroad.

My question is as follows: Does the government intend to follow up on the request from the Junior Bar Association of Montreal to criminalize acts of pedophilia committed abroad by Canadians and if so, will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to table a bill on this matter before the House rises in June?

[Native Peoples, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Secretary of State for Training and Youth accused the Bloc Quebecois of waging a vendetta with the aim of destroying the Mohawks because their aspiration for self-government would threaten Quebec sovereignty.

I will remind the secretary of state that Quebec, more than any other jurisdiction, has always shown very great respect for the First Nations. Indeed, on March 20, 1985, the Parti Quebecois government was the first to recognize the principle of self-government for them.

The recent declarations of the Official Opposition never challenged the bonds created over time with the native people. Their sole purpose is to end illegal activities carried out with complete impunity by a small group of individuals.

We are extremely sorry that a member of this government refuses to recognize that the only demand-

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was impressed by how the hon. member for St. Boniface paid close attention when my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois made his speech.

I myself listened very carefully to his own speech, which the hon. member was kind enough to make in the two official languages, since he is fluent in both, and I thank him for doing that.

However, I would like to point out to him some nuances. For example, when the hon. member compares standards related to Canada's signing of an economic treaty such as NAFTA, it must be stressed that those are international standards. It seems to me that, in French, national and international standards are two different things.

NAFTA standards apply specifically to agreements on the economy, the environment and labour relations, among others things. I must admit here that I am not an expert on this treaty.

National standards, to the extent that they apply to this large country, aim at somehow putting all the provinces on an equal footing. It so happens that, out of the ten provinces in Canada, one claims to be different. What makes people and nations different is precisely their differences. You will understand, as will all the members in this House, I am sure, that when the federal government tries to impose standards in the education sector to Quebecers, our province, which defines itself as a state, and which will soon officially become one, must reject such national standards. I might add that the federal government has been trying to impose those standards for several decades.

[Immigration, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the position on immigration put forward by the Reform Party earlier this week in response to the speech by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on immigration levels, we wish to emphasize in this House that the Bloc Quebecois is open to immigration. We recognize the major contribution made by immigrants to Quebec and Canadian society. In fact, we have been welcoming people from every part of the world and from every socio-economic background for over 300 years; they have contributed greatly to our collective wealth and helped make our country what it is.

However, we want to make it clear that we will keep an eye on the government to make sure that it does not weaken the principles of the 1978 Couture-Cullen agreement, which were reinforced by the 1990 Gagnon-Tremblay-McDougall agreement-

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as time is running short and you were in the country in those days, perhaps you could answer the hon. member's question.

Of course it is important to reduce the deficit, but we must cut where it is logical to do so. It is logical to trim the fat first and for the time being, there are still a lot of areas where we can trim some fat.

You know, in my kitchen, if I throw away some milk because it went sour, I am wasting it. Well, in this great and wealthy country of ours, I think there is still some waste. It is a collective as well as an individual responsibility and members of this House, of this government, who should serve as models, must set an example. I hope I have answered your question.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that I will make good use of those four minutes to answer the hon. member for London-Middlesex.

First, I thank him for taking the time to listen to me. He deserves credit for being still here at 6 p.m. on a Thursday evening.

The hon. member says he asked me two questions. Unfortunately, I believe he asked only one question because he first said that the Bloc Quebecois wants to destroy this magnificent country. His only question was: Why do we want to destroy this magnificent country since we, of course, recognize that the social security services which exist here, especially since the end of the Second World War, are services which we can be proud of.

Canada is indeed a great country, but it is so great that, somehow, Quebecers feel a little removed from it. Unfortunately, we are different; we have different values which are important to us and, like Canadians, we respect people. Indeed, Quebecers, like Canadians, truly respect the importance of people's health; the difference is that Quebec was able to innovate and break new ground in all kinds of areas. Let me give you two examples. I believe Quebec was the first province to introduce maternity benefits or childbirth grants. Quebec's way of looking at things is slightly different and this is what makes a society rich and special.

What the Bloc Quebecois wants, along with a great number of Quebecers, is to create a new state which will be able to have equal and active relations with its neighbours. I should add that we will be very happy to have Canada as our neighbour, because it is a great country which we respect, and we will also be very happy to have the United States as our neighbour.

I hope that answers the question of the hon. member for London-Middlesex.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, western society, that some see as an advanced society, maintains certain values on which is based the principle of equality among individuals. These values can be summed up as the right to health, education, work and personal respect.

These values have long been recognized as essential by Quebec society and by Canadian society. People here have agreed to assume their responsibilities by providing everyone with health, social and educational services whose quality we can only be proud of.

In his motion to the House earlier this week, the Minister of Human Resources Development considers broad consultations to modernize and restructure Canada's social security system, "with particular reference to the needs of families with children, youth and working age adults".

In his statement, the minister assures the Canadian population that, far from wanting to make our social security system less efficient, he wants to improve it. The minister could not be more explicit. We must ensure, he said, that the system continues to offer basic security to all those in need.

What worries me is that there are more and more people in need in this country. Where should we draw the line? Can we draw a line without endangering the principles of universality and accessibility?

If I may, I would like to remind the House that one out of five Quebecers lives below the poverty line; it is easier to identify the groups that are not affected than those who are.

In Canada, one child out of six is poor. If the children are poor, it means that their families are poor. They are not able to offer the living conditions essential to the development of children. It

must be pointed out, however, that this situation is not the parents' fault but results for the most part from economic hard times and the current climate of government indifference.

Being poor means being hungry, being cold, being unable to concentrate in class, being sick more often than others; it often means having lost hope, living with violence, addictions and despair.

Some say that the government is on the brink of bankruptcy. Everyone agrees that it is imperative to reduce the deficit. However, the government has a moral obligation to ensure that the measures advocated will have no negative effects on the disadvantaged. These measures should primarily be designed to improve socioeconomic conditions for those in need. To launch a real effort to put its fiscal house in order, the government must concentrate on its operating costs and on defence spending.

It is only during an election campaign that we dare to propose miracle solutions to balance budgets with such large deficits. No one in this House is fooled, let alone the citizens of Quebec. The government must resist the temptation to cut social programs and service delivery.

The minister of human resources tries to reassure us by saying that under the system, basic security will be extended to all those in need. However, the services that are available right now to help those wishing to escape difficult circumstances and improve their lot in life are already inadequate. The government must devise a strategy to beef up social programs and services while bearing in mind the financial ability of the provinces, and of course Quebec, to pay and scrupulously upholding the principle of program accessibility and universality.

Substantial cuts in recent years in federal transfer payments for health care have considerably increased the tax burden of the provinces and of Quebec. Public concern over possible cuts in federal social housing subsidies has left us fearful that this government is no longer seeking the path to reform, but has already found it.

The official opposition will never agree to allowing this government to get a handle on the deficit by strangling society's less fortunate members. Curbing the deficit by cutting social security is unacceptable in a society that for many decades has defined itself as just and fair, a good place to live.

Quebec has long been demanding, and with good reason, an end to overlap, duplication and federal government encroachment on provincial areas of jurisdiction, especially health care and education.

Quebecers and Canadians have long been calling for a healthier, more streamlined government machine. Eliminating the additional expenditures resulting from program overlap would be another step forward in the process of putting our public finances in order.

The consultation process launched this week is important. The stakes are high and this government cannot afford to misdiagnose the problem and, especially, to prescribe the wrong medicine.

I am proud to be a member of the nursing profession and recently, the Association des infirmiers et des infirmières compared the cost of health care in Canada with costs in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and Sweden. It would appear that health care costs are higher here than anywhere else. But, is our health care system any better for it? Would our services suffer if we were to identify the reason for these cost disparities?

Nurses are in favour of maintaining the quality of health care in this country. By listening to their expertise, perhaps we can come up with ways of using all of our health care system's resources more intelligently.

Like all modern societies, Quebec want to control its growth and confront the future in a dynamic, responsible manner. The outcome of this debate must not impede the attainment of this objective.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to inform the Chair that, from now on during this debate, the speakers for the Official Opposition will use 10-minute periods, followed by 5-minute periods for questions and comments.