Keith Martin

[Immigration Act, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech let me say that I am absolutely and thoroughly appalled at the statements that have been made in this House on this motion. It reflects an absolute and profound lack of understanding of the disease and more important, a lack of understanding and consideration for the health and welfare of Canadian citizens.

This is obviously a politically protected disease. We feel sorry for anybody who is HIV positive and has AIDS. But let it be known that we cannot compromise the health and welfare of Canadians.

In any event, I rise today in support of my esteemed colleague's Motion No. 285 to screen all immigrants for HIV under sections 11(1) and 11(3) of our Immigration Act.

It is not pleasurable to speak about this topic, a modern plague that up to 1993 has claimed 9,910 adult cases including 107 pediatric cases. Of these, 6,930 people have been killed. It is a disease that is as horrific as any fatal illness, particularly so since the individuals who have it are in the prime of their lives. They usually succumb between the ages of 25 and 45, a period that is most productive, with a major part of their lives still remaining.

I have had numerous patients in the past with this terrible disease. I can say from a personal factor that it has been a sobering and profoundly tragic experience to deal with these individuals, particularly in my age group when these individuals are dying before me.

You cannot cure them. All you can give to them is palliative treatment and treat their intercurrent illnesses. To see them waste away is a horrible thing. I encourage those here who have contact with anybody who has AIDS to get to know them and understand the profound pain, agony and anguish they and their families endure.

Equally tragic is to deal with the survivors who are left behind, the family and friends who have to pick up the pieces after their loved ones die. No kind words or understanding can ever fill the void that is left behind from the death of a loved one. It is impossible to fathom or quantify this loss in any terms whatsoever.

My friend has brought this motion forward, not because we are against people who are HIV positive and not because we are against people who have AIDS, the physical manifestations of having the virus. He brought it forward because we are public servants and we are compelled and obligated as elected representatives of this country to protect its people and to enact legislation along these lines. We do this especially for diseases or events that are going to be of great harm to them.

There is no question that HIV positively leads to AIDS and AIDS kills. If any member does not believe this, if a doctor said you were HIV positive, look into your hearts and see what you would feel. Therefore we do this in the name of public safety for all Canadians.

I should mention that we already protect the health and welfare of Canadians in a number of forms. We test drugs and therapeutic modalities in health to ensure they are safe. There is the checking of blood products which has caused so much consternation of late. There is the checking of products that are sold over the counter to ensure they are safe for public use and the checking of food stocks, both local and imported. Immigrants to this country are checked for a number of illnesses, including tuberculosis and syphilis, diseases that are generally not fatal, diseases that are cheap to treat and are curable, unlike AIDS.

Why is there such a vocal opposition to my friend's motion? The disease is pandemic, which means it covers the entire planet. It is universally fatal. It is incurable and it costs money. It costs a lot of money. Every patient who is deemed HIV positive will ultimately cost the taxpayer at least $100,000 per year. This does not take into consideration the very important factor of potential years of life lost for these people.

Between 1987 and 1991 the potential years of life lost for men rose from 17,650 years to almost 40,000 years. Why is there such a backlash against something that we believe is so fundamentally necessary for the protection of Canadians? Why is there so much opposition to this?

The reason is that it is not an opposition by the majority of Canadians. At least 77 per cent of people in recent polls are strongly in favour of immigrants being tested for HIV positive. The reason for this vocal opposition is that it comes from very small groups, small in number but loud in voice. These groups do not represent the majority of people in this country and are admittedly there for their own interests. They believe that people coming to this country if tested positive for HIV, would have a stigma attached to them, that they would be discriminated against.

Fortunately for the Canadian public and perhaps tragically for them, they would not be allowed into this country. This is not something personal. This is something we are going to enact for the betterment and the health and welfare of Canadian people. The individuals who are HIV positive or who subsequently develop AIDS deserve our sympathy and compassion, but it does not mean we have to subject Canadian people to exposure to this illness which is fatal 100 per cent of the time.

We can argue this on purely moral grounds, but another compelling reason is the cost. Unlike what my colleague mentioned earlier in the day that she does not believe it would cost more to the Canadian taxpayer, any health professional in this country would tell you that it is expensive to treat somebody who is HIV positive.

They do have a series of blood tests that are used to monitor a subsection of their lymphocyte count and we give them medications to prevent intercurrent illnesses. Due to better drugs and better treatment modalities and prophylactic treatments we can use this material to lengthen people's lives. This actually increases the cost to our health system, one that I would say is falling apart at the seams, one that does not have any money. These costs are not inconsequential. As my esteemed colleague across the way mentioned, we are going to have 30,000 more people with AIDS. How much is this going to cost the Canadian taxpayer? Three billion dollars.

Our health care system right now is falling apart. Waiting lists are increasing. Hospital beds are closing. People are dying on waiting lists. From her own province alone she has tens of thousands of people on waiting lists, hundreds of whom are waiting for urgent surgery. If more people are let in to add to the overall cost burden to our health system, those Canadian citizens will not get the treatment they deserve.

Is this threat from HIV real or is it imagined? Let us look at some areas of the world. As I said before, it is a pandemic. In certain areas of Africa where I have worked the HIV positivity rate is 30 per cent or more. In south east Asia there has been an explosion of HIV positivity. What a tragedy for those countries, but does it mean that we need to bring this tragedy to our door, bring it to this country and expose Canadian citizens to it?

The World Health Organization says that AIDS is a pandemic and that it will continue well into the 21st century. I quote the WHO's AIDS program director: "There is far worse to come as millions of infected people will fall ill and die".

There is no breakthrough and I do not think one is imminent. If the HIV epidemic continues to expand at this rate on the Asian continent, we will soon see more Asians infected with HIV than in Africa where there is an explosion of HIV positivity. If this is not a problem, if this disease is not infectious, if this disease does not kill, then why is the WHO so concerned about it?

In conclusion, this is not a diatribe against people who have HIV. This is not a diatribe against people who have AIDS, drug abusers, homosexuals, hemophiliacs or any other unfortunate person who has been infected with the disease. These people deserve the deepest sympathy and compassion which everybody from my side of the floor extends to them. As I said before, a far more important concern for us is to ensure the health, welfare and safety of Canadians.

That is the reason for the motion of my friend. Anyone who does not support it is sticking his or her head in the sand and severely compromising the health and welfare of Canadians.

[Student Loans, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to speak on the motion of my esteemed colleague, Motion No. 291, to amend the Canada Student Loans Act to include an income contingent loan repayment system in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayers of financing post-secondary education.

Before I begin I would like to address my colleague's concern. This is not a turf war between provinces. We are bringing this motion forward for students across this country and we do not care what province they come from. I suggest that he look to

New Zealand and Australia to see two places where the motion has been brought into play and where it works.

If health is the most important thing that Canadians value then surely education is its greatest investment. A solid investment in education for the people of this country, particularly its youth, is the greatest guarantee that we can have to ensure the social and economic integrity of our society.

Canadian universities are now in a state of serious financial crisis. Administrators, faculty and students alike agree that the fiscal crisis we are now in compromises their ability to provide for the best educational opportunities for the youth of this country.

Underfunding on every campus is pervasive and the effects are extremely negative. Fat has already been removed from the system. We are now down to the bone and the bone is being chipped away.

It was not so long ago that I graduated from the University of Toronto after spending seven years there. It has not become any easier since I graduated. Underfunding for the students is still a huge problem as an example. The percentage of students borrowing from 1982 to 1990 has risen from 44 to 47 per cent but the amount they owe when they get out has also increased dramatically, from $5,400 to $8,600 for merely a bachelors degree. This is especially prevalent among those of lower socioeconomic groups.

The fact that costs are increasing is compounded by the fact that students cannot find summer jobs or part time jobs to offset their tuition fee. In effect they are caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand they recognize that their best hope for a career and a future to become financially independent is to acquire post-secondary education. On the other hand they recognize that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to fund it but to drop out of school will commit them generally speaking to a life of low paying jobs with little potential for advancement.

Recent studies have shown that the most important factor of gaining employment is in fact some form of post-secondary education. This fiscal crisis that students have can be amplified on a macro scale to our country by the fact that we have increasing deficits that add to the debt which produces increasing interest payments that extracted from the government and enables less money to be paid for programs such as education. I know we keep on harping on this fact but we will repeat it a thousand times until the government gets into its head what needs to be done.

It is a vicious cycle that has to end. I am encouraging the Minister of Finance who has at long last admitted to the problem and has an understanding of what to do. However he does not have a plan. We do in this party. It is called the zero in three plan. Again I encourage the Minister of Finance to solicit our help in aiding him to make fair, equitable and constructive cuts to minimize the hardships for people while enabling this country to get the economic kickstart it is so desperately in need of. We have a plan. All he needs to do is ask us for it.

We in this party have also looked for ways to ensure that every qualified student gets equal access to post-secondary education and not just the rich. In response to this my colleague has again brought up what I will refer to, and he has explained, as the ICLR, a concept that our party has been advocating for years. It has widespread support among students, administrators, and educators alike across the country. It has been applauded by these groups as being fair, more effective, and more fiscally responsible than any other way of dealing with the student loan system.

Currently our system has the same loan limits and criteria and has not changed since 1984. It is behind the times; behind the times with the costs of education rising, the cost of living rising, and job availability decreasing. The loan system has become archaic and much less helpful for the student population and requires immediate revamping.

When students graduate they often find it very difficult to find employment in the job market and this is becoming increasingly more difficult with time. Real incomes are down, job prospects are down, and they cannot pay back their loans. As a result of this, 70 per cent default in the first 12 to 18 months. This does not lead to a system that is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating for future generations. It costs the taxpayers money. It is a drain and an unnecessary one at that. It detracts money from higher education.

How bad is this situation? Let us take a look. In 1992 loan defaulting became epidemic. The value of loans defaulted since 1964 is in the order of a billion dollars. That represents 180,000 students. The cost of extraction will be between $135 million and $270 million, money again removed from the educational system that could best be spent to provide for students in the trenches.

The finance minister has also proposed to convert the cash contribution of education from $2.6 billion to zero by the year 2006. This will produce a sharp rise in tuition fees and some say will double in the year 1997. The problem is becoming more critical in the very near future.

This is the most interesting fact. Most people after they receive their post-secondary education ultimately do find a job. The problem occurs in the first few years after they graduate when they are not making much money at all. Because of the inflexibility of the current loan repayment system they are forced to default. This is a tragic loss to the taxpayer and our educational system and one that is unnecessary.

That is why this ICLR system that we propose is a powerful tool to ensure greater certainty of return by tying the repayment scheme to the income of the student. It would not cost more to operate because it would operate through the existing income tax structure and would be easily managed.

With the ICLR, this would produce a system that would be self-sustaining with a much higher rate of return and much more money being kept in the educational system. It is fair and non-discriminating.

Education is indeed the hope of the future. In this world of globalization and specialization, with the rapid movement of capital across borders, economies are forced to change and change rapidly. That is why our educational system must be nimble in its ability to accommodate the needs of a rapidly changing economy.

It is estimated that a student now graduating will change his or her profession four, five or more times in the course of their lifetime. With this in mind, we will need an expanded educational system and the ICLR will produce the funding for this system by stanching the losses incurred through defaulting.

I implore the government to look ahead to the future, not five years but forty years down the line to anticipate the needs of our economy and provide for these educational opportunities now. This will require courage and foresight with this knowledge.

Our country demands a strong workforce. A workforce can only be strong if it is given the proper educational opportunities that it deserves which will cost money, money that will be harder to find. That is why Motion No. 291 is a must to support. We in this party support it. I hope people across the House and across party borders will take it in their hearts to support this motion for students all across the country.

[Tobacco Taxes, October 20th, 1994]

moved:

That this House urge the government to introduce legislation to restore the tax on tobacco to the level existing at January 1, 1994, and to apply the revenue from the tax on tobacco to health care.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with varying emotions. On one hand it saddens me to have to present this motion, but on the other hand, it infuriates me.

The motion I am bringing to the House today, a motion to restore tobacco taxes back to the level they were in January 1994 and apply this revenue to health care is something we should not need to be discussing here at all. Unfortunately, I have been pushed to do this, given the tax rollback that occurred on February 8, 1994.

The reason for my sadness is that this reduction enacted by the government poses the single greatest threat to the health care of Canadians in the last 50 years. No legislation will have a more

detrimental effect on the health of Canadians than anything that has gone on in recent history. This is particularly germane to the youth of the country.

This rollback will cause hundreds of thousands of people to take up smoking, half of whom will die of cigarette related illnesses such as pancreatic cancer, lung cancer and suffer from illnesses such as chronic obstructive lung disease, a disease that tears away at the very fibres of somebody's lungs so that if they were to walk from where I am to where you are, Madam Speaker, they would be severely short of breath and exhausted.

We are not even talking about the pain and suffering that is endured by the hidden victims of this, the families of the patients.

Already in the six months after the rollback the sales of cigarettes are up 41 per cent. The number of people smoking has also increased, especially among youth, going from 23 per cent to 27 per cent now. This trend is completely opposite to what was going on since 1982 when the tobacco taxes were raised and the cost increased.

I am chagrined that the standing committee of management has decided not to make this motion votable. This issue was highly contentious back in February. The vast majority of the public opposed it, virtually every health care professional vehemently opposed it, and yet the government brought it forward.

If this motion had been made votable it would have enabled members to truly represent the wishes of their constituents and vote for this motion which would have such a significant impact on the health and welfare of Canadians.

Before we look at the reasons for my motion and the constructive solutions that I pose, it is wise for us to look at the situation that existed in February 1994. Up until that time Canada was a leader in the fight against tobacco consumption. Interestingly enough, in 1979 virtually half of all 15 to 19 year olds smoked. However, because of the increase in taxes on cigarettes and the cost, by 1991 this percentage had fallen to 16 per cent, something of which Canada was justifiably very proud.

This rate of reduction was unparalleled in the world. The cause of this was cost.

It is estimated that had the proportion of tobacco users in Canada remained at 1979 levels, there would currently be three million more smokers in this country today. All statistics show this powerful relationship between price and consumption.

As a result of these tax increases, a price differential existed between Canada and the United States in the order of $48 a carton in Canada to $25 a carton in the United States. This was a double-edged sword and the smuggling of contraband cigarettes became rampant. Cigarettes were exported legally into the United States but were illegally brought back into Canada, primarily through the reserves in Quebec. Some contraband was brought in through other conduits, private cars and through the mail routes, but they were minimal compared to what was occurring on the three reserves in Quebec.

When analysing the smuggling, it is wise to divide up the situation between Quebec and the rest of the country. The smuggling that was occurring in Quebec had a profound effect on the lives of the people living there. Quebec represents 30 per cent of cigarette consumption, 70 per cent in the rest of the country. In Quebec one-third of the cigarettes that were purchased were purchased legally and two-thirds were purchased illegally, a complete reversal to what was occurring in the rest of the country.

Also at this time a tragedy was occurring. The smuggling was occurring right before the noses of our judiciary and our police forces. They were directed to look the other way. Why? To avoid confrontation, to avoid an Oka situation that nobody wanted. It is completely unfair to have a legal situation that looks at the law and enforces the law in one area and in another area does not.

The smuggling not only occurs in contraband cigarettes but also involves drugs, liquor and illegal weapons, all of which are occurring right now. Getting rid of the smuggling of tobacco does not get rid of the smuggling of other contraband.

Outside of Quebec and parts of southern Ontario the smuggling was minimal. This was the dilemma that we were in. How the government reacted was appalling and incurred the anguish of many Canadians and every health care professional in the country. The reaction had the primary effect of increasing legal consumption of cigarettes and decreasing illegal consumption of cigarettes, which was worthy, and eliminating the smuggling of contraband cigarettes which is to be applauded. However there is another way of doing this.

They also brought in to eliminate these channels the export tax of $8, a pledge to increase enforcement and education against smoking, all of which I applaud.

Now that we have analysed the situation, let us look at the impact that this tobacco rollback had on the financial cost and the human cost of Canadians.

Let us look at the financial cost first. The loss of revenue to the provincial governments is massive. Tax revenues on cigarettes are estimated to decrease from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion per year, a loss of $3 billion outside of Quebec. In Quebec tax revenues will decrease from $774 million to $559 million per year, roughly a $210 million decrease. The total loss in revenue to the public purse is $3.2 billion. The loss to gross national product is very difficult to quantify but in my province of

British Columbia it is estimated that if the decreases go ahead that it will cost $150 million per year.

Let us look at the human cost, something impossible for us to quantify. For every 10 per cent decrease in cost the overall cost in consumption is between 4 and 9 per cent for the general public. In youth and teenagers the major factor in determining consumption is cost. It results in a 14 per cent increase in consumption for every 10 per cent decrease in cost.

Thus we can see that the tax rollback has had a devastating effect on the health of Canadians, particularly in that group which is most vulnerable, the youth.

As I said in my opening statement, this has already been borne out. By the most conservative of estimates a 50 per cent decrease in price will result in a national increase of 14 per cent in consumption but in teenagers this increase is 35 per cent which translates into 840,000 smokers, 175,000 of which are teenagers.

Let us look at a more realistic view. It is a more chilling view. A 50 per cent decrease in cost will result in a 45 per cent increase in consumption which is close to the 41 per cent I originally mentioned. This is going to add 1.8 million more smokers to the list, of which 250,000 are teenagers. This great effect of consumption will not be in the areas where smuggling was maximal but in areas where it will be minimal. Tragically for the people who live in Quebec and for those in southern Ontario, the effect has already been felt because they have been consuming cheap cigarettes for a while.

The World Health Organization recently estimated, after long study, that 50 per cent of all smokers will die as a result of tobacco consumption. It kills in at least 24 ways. Each smoker will get 20 years knocked off their life expectancy.

To put it in more graphic terms, it will result in many times more deaths than all the people who died in World War I and World War II combined.

The increase in health costs are staggering. Smokers currently cost the health care system approximately $9.5 billion a year. The increase in consumption will result in an increase in health care costs of between $1.3 and $3 billion every year. Our health care system does not need this at all, it is in desperate need of funding currently.

The combined increase in health care costs and loss of revenue is between $4 and $6 billion per year to the Canadian taxpayer. This does not include the costs we are going to suffer in our loss of gross national product.

The Minister of Health stated that she wants Canada to exchange and share her expertise with other countries in an effort to decrease smoking. Madam Speaker, I hope not. I hope we do not do this. What she wishes to share is an increase in human suffering, an increase in death, an increase in deficits. I hope no country in the world learns those lessons.

The minister also stated that she would do anything to save even one life from the results of tobacco consumption, and in particular the youth. If this is true, then I have some constructive solutions.

First, continue with the $8 export tax. It was a very worthy move. It has proven it works. We have an example. In February 1992 the then government instituted an export tax of $8 per carton, the same as was instituted by this government. In four weeks it decreased the smuggling of contraband cigarettes by 60 per cent. It is important to remember this figure.

Second, enforce the law. Do not allow the law to be applied differently in different areas. We have one law in this country. To apply it differently in different areas is a travesty of the law. We must all bear in mind that the smuggling conduits that exist involve other contraband, not only cigarettes. The only way to address the smuggling is to enforce the law. This is imperative.

Also, nobody speaks about the law-abiding citizens who live on the reserves. What about the effects the illegal activities through the smuggling of contraband has on their lives? Why should we apply the law any differently for them than we apply it to people outside the reserves?

These two efforts by themselves will have a dramatic impact on smuggling. As I said before, the export tax alone had a dramatic effect. There is no need to produce these tax rollbacks that are going to have such a devastating effect on the health of Canadians.

In order to decrease consumption, particularly among teenagers, it is imperative that we bring the cost of cigarettes back up to where it was. As I have said before, this is the number one factor in consumption. If we do what I said before, then we would be honestly imparting knowledge to other countries of which we can truly be proud.

The current rollback in taxes is a large blight on the country's health care system. The other aspect of my motion is to utilize the funds from the taxes to apply to a health care system, a system that is in critical shape and needs emergency care.

Our current health care system is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand we have an increasing demand from an aging population and more expensive technologies, on the other hand we have a system of decreasing funding and squeezing an increasing deficit. If we manage to go ahead and apply this money to our health care system we would be able to give it

an injection of capital that the health care of the people of this country desperately need. Right now the provinces are forced to engage in the deplorable concept of rationing. They are rationing essential health care services-bypass surgery, hip operations, the closure of hospital beds. All these things are occurring and are compromising the health care of Canadians. This past week the head of the Heart Institute here in Ottawa said that the waiting time for bypass surgery is now five months.

If one needs a new hip in this country and are in severe pain, that category of people who are in severe pain, 40 per cent of those individuals will wait at least 13 months to get their hip operation after spending that time in severe pain, a travesty in a country that is as affluent as ours.

Another benefit of raising the taxes on cigarettes is that the moneys can be applied to a public anti-smoking campaign. I advise this government that the greatest impact that it will have on youth is between applying those moneys to an anti-smoking campaign for them between the ages of eight and seventeen, the age at which 90 per cent of the individuals who smoke take up this habit, a habit that is the second most addictive one that we know, more addictive than heroine.

To that end I would like to briefly give members a testimonial from a 13-year old girl who wrote a letter that was actually published in Newsweek :

Right now I am 13 and I am going into ninth grade and started smoking in the sixth. The first cigarette that I ever had was in fifth grade.

I have tried to quit, but it is very hard when all my friends smoke, too.

Some people think that Joe Camel is directed towards teenagers.

She is referring to advertisements.

I do not think so. If they are trying to get it directed towards teenagers, they are doing a pretty bad job. I am sorry, but a goofy looking camel who smokes his brains out does not quite turn me on. Actually, I have never seen an ad that made me want to smoke a particular brand. All those cigarette ads are practically the same.

She is 13. On health she says:

Since I have started smoking I can hardly run around the block without getting out of breath. A lot of my friends have gotten asthma. My mom and dad quit smoking about 14 years ago, and my mom now has cancer and my dad has had three heart attacks. My grandma quit eight years ago, and she has emphysema. Not only that-my two grandfathers died from the results of smoking. After all these problems, you would think I would know better than to smoke. But I guess I do not.

I cannot tell that I smell when I smoke, but my parents and other can. I remember one time, before I smoked, I left my jacket at my friend Brynn's House. Her whole family smoked. I got the jacket back around five months later, and I had to throw it away because it smelled like an ashtray.

It is funny, but I think it is easier to give up drugs than cigarettes.

I really hate the thought of quitting. But yet, I do not want to do anything that might make cigarettes more expensive to buy. You see, I am really hooked on cigarettes.

I would suggest that the government does not emphasize its advertisements on showing a group of yuppy Rosedale teenagers playing basketball and turning into cigarettes. Rather, we have to face the facts that teenagers believe they are immortal. There is another way of dealing with this. It will not work to tell them that they are going to die of lung cancer or mouth cancer 40 years from now because they believe they are immortal.

I feel it would be far more potent to threaten their sense of narcissism. Tell them that their breath smells foul. Tell them that their hair smells foul and tell them that their skin will become pallid.

In conclusion, I hope that this government which promised to bring back the taxes to where they were and has not made any efforts whatsoever to do this will take it in its heart to look at the facts.

Smuggling is under control. It can continue to be under control with the export tax and enforcement. It needs to apply those taxes to the health care and welfare of Canadians. One does not need to keep a tax rollback and compromise the health and welfare of the people of this country and sacrifice smuggling as a result. One can do both without sacrificing the health care of Canadians.

[Tobacco, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Imperial Cancer Research Fund released the staggering results of the longest and most extensive study ever undertaken into tobacco use. Their findings show that smoking causes 100 times more deaths than it prevents and at least half of these smokers will be killed by their habit.

These statistics are shocking but even more shocking is the fact that in the six months since the government rolled back the taxes, sales are up 41 per cent.

This sharp increase in overall consumption is directly attributable to the drop in prices. The federal Minister of Health said it is time for Canada to share the expertise it has gained in its efforts to reduce smoking in Canada.

The government is guilty of negligence with its policy in this regard. It should now do the right thing and scrap the tobacco tax rollback which has backfired so badly. Anything less will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in lost GNP, increased costs in health care, and untold human suffering and death.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

I thank the hon. member for his question. It brings up a very important philosophical question that has been discussed at length privately.

I do not believe Parliament should legislate the behaviour of an adult population. However, we are dealing with legislation that is going to affect children more than anyone else, children who do not have the objectiveness and experience that adults have.

Also, the product that we are talking about is something that is going to affect them in a horrible, detrimental fashion, as my hon. colleague just mentioned a few moments ago. It is going to kill them. It is going to affect them in horrible ways, in diseases and in morbidity.

Smoking tobacco, a deadly product, is exempt from that because we are dealing with children, as I said before, who cannot make necessarily an objective decision for themselves. The cost is also another issue. We lose revenues by bringing the tobacco costs down. However, on the other hand, the cost to society globally is also very much increased in terms of health costs, fires and loss to gross domestic product.

When people take up cigarette smoking it is not something that only affects them individually. The consequences of their behaviour is something that is borne out by all of us collectively as a society. As a result of that I do think we have a say in the matter as a society and as a House.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It brings up some good points.

There are two things. First, consumption globally is up. I do not know what statistics the hon. member is looking at but I would be more than happy to speak with him privately to see what he has. The figures I have show the exact opposite. Global consumption is up, particularly in youth. Youth consumption is up dramatically.

As I said before, in terms of youth smoking it is not plain packaging that is the important issue. Cost is the single most important determining factor in consumption in youth. It affects how much they smoke and it affects even how many of them are going to start to smoke.

Again, if it is cost we are looking at as the single most important determining factor, it is unthinkable, reprehensible, immoral and unjustifiable for the House to pass a bill that will lower tobacco costs to children and commit tens of thousands of

them to take up this habit which will ultimately result in a decline in their age, an increase in their mortality and morbidity.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you in a very grave fashion to speak on Bill C-32, the act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income Tax Act.

This reduction in taxes to cigarettes is the single most disastrous act of sabotage to the health of the Canadian people which has ever been enacted by any government in the history of this country. This is not an understatement. Smoking kills at least 26,000 individuals per year.

The lowering of taxes committed thousands of youth in this country to smoke per year, ones who would not normally do that, and results in a dramatic increase in consumption.

I have some data that just came out from the Addiction Research Foundation. There was, as has been said before, a long term decline in tobacco use but this stopped in 1994. Smoking in Ontario increased in the few short months that the tobacco taxes have decreased from 22 per cent to 26 per cent.

Among women that increase is particularly dramatic. It has gone from 19 per cent to 25 per cent in the last four months. A 10 per cent decrease in cost results in a 14 per cent increase in consumption particularly among the youth and an 8 per cent increase in consumption among the rest of the adult population.

Some say that this decline in tobacco taxes has resulted in at least 800,000 new smokers in this country, of whom 175,000 are youth. These numbers translate on a personal basis to disasters that I cannot tell members enough about. They result in often fatal diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease and a myriad of other malignancies.

They result in lives lost and the untold pain and suffering by people who are afflicted by these diseases and also to the families and friends of the loved ones who unfortunately succumb to these diseases.

To put it in more impersonal terms, the decrease in tobacco consumption will cause a decrease in gross domestic product and increase in medical costs. Nobody has ever been able to show us the increase in costs that is going to result from the decline in tobacco taxes.

I can tell members from working as a health care professional that the cost to our system is in the billions of dollars. In 1982 the cost of tobacco consumption in this country was $7 billion, or $2 billion more than the total expenditures on tobacco including the taxes.

A decrease in consumption would decrease revenues from tobacco taxes, this is true, but it will greatly decrease the cost to the taxpayers of this country by decreasing health costs and also to avoid the loss in gross domestic product from job losses and a decrease in losses from fires caused by smoking.

The original idea to decrease tobacco taxes came as a response to the rampant tobacco smuggling that was occurring between Canada and the United States. I sympathize with the government completely on this issue.

This is occurring especially in central Canada, particularly in the three native reserves, the Kahnawake, Kanesatake and Akwesasne reserves that straddle the border. The decrease in tobacco taxes was also strongly supported and promoted by none other than the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association.

To give an idea of the scope of this problem, at the height of tobacco smuggling there were 35 cartons of cigarettes smuggled into the reserves per person per day, which is an incredible problem.

The natives claim-I do not have any disagreement with this whatsoever-that they have an inherent right to trade across their border. I would not dispute this at all, certainly for their own needs. However, when that trade involves the distribution of a commodity to the rest of Canada which by-passes the laws, results in smuggling and results in the death of Canadians all over this country, native and non-native, I have a big problem with that.

I have no sympathy at all for the people who are involved in it. I believe that this criminal conduct should be dealt with with the full force of the law as it must be dealt with in any part of this country. There has been a great reluctance to deal with this issue head on.

A fear of confrontation permeates the whole situation as much of this activity is with organized crime. Illegal weapons are rampant in the whole situation. I know that this is a dangerous situation but it is also an illegal one. Like it or not, as a cancer in our midst that needs to be eradicated on behalf of all law-abiding citizens in this country, native and non-native alike, we have to deal with this situation and deal with it now.

Now that we have defined the problem of rampant smuggling of tobacco products into Canada from the United States, let us look at some constructive solutions that would obviate the need to lower tobacco taxes.

I believe the first and foremost solution which has been proven to work is the export tax. I applaud the government in

instituting its export tax. In February 1992 the then government instituted a tobacco export tax of $8. In six weeks it reduced smuggling by 70 per cent. However, under pressure from the tobacco manufacturers, the government of the day caved in and removed it. I applaud this government again for instituting this tax.

I also applaud the investment in education but I would caution this government to spend its money wisely. It is not worthwhile investing money in 30 and 40-year olds who are addicted to tobacco to stop smoking. I would start at the ages of 6, 7 and 8, and please utilize your money carefully in that age group. It will pay off in spades in the long run.

Also, if you are going to institute education in teenagers, which must be done, do not tell them that they are going to get lung cancer 20 years down the road, do not show them a bunch of nerdy teenagers who look like they jumped out of a Rosedale high school playing basketball and turning into cigarettes. Tell them that it will affect their looks, address their vanity, address narcissism, address them on a personal basis. That is the way to address education in teenagers.

Getting back to the enforcement aspect, we must not accept a double standard of law enforcement in Canada, one for natives and one for non-natives. The problem of tobacco smuggling is one that extends far beyond the immediate problem of cigarettes but, as I said before, involves organized crime, the illegal smuggling of drugs, weapons and liquor. It is something that affects not only the reserves but also the rest of Canada. It is everybody's responsibility. Also, it does not serve the law-abiding citizens who live on the reserves. Nobody is addressing that problem at all, nobody is speaking out for them.

It is an affront to the citizens of this country and the people on the reserves this affects. We must provide our enforcement officers with the equipment and training to deal with this problem expeditiously, at any cost. Law is law, you either have it or you do not.

I would also ensure that we have an increase in the penalties for smuggling. Again, I applaud the government in its efforts toward this end. I also urge the judiciary to enforce these laws that have been brought in by the government to the fullest of its abilities.

As I said before, I strongly implore the government to bring the tobacco taxes back where they were prior to February 8. I instituted private member's motion 295 that has been selected, requesting that tobacco taxes be where they were and bring them back to pre-February 8, 1994 levels.

It is interesting to reflect right now on what is happening in the United States. It has instituted taxes and made changes to make it such that tobacco and cigarettes in Canada are now cheaper than in the United States, in Ontario and in Quebec.

I would ask everybody in this House to please reflect carefully on this bill. I ask them to look at their children and look at their grandchildren and think of the tens of thousands of children who are going to be subjected to starting up smoking and who are going to suffer the pain and death of them and their loved ones by taking up this horrible habit.

This bill is reprehensible and we have alternative solutions. We have alternative solutions to address the smuggling issue that are effective, and so there is no need whatsoever for this government to lower the taxes on tobacco.

Bring in these other issues, enforce them to the fullest ability and do not drop the tobacco taxes.

[Committees Of The House, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if there is unanimous consent, I would like to spend a minute addressing this if I may.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act.

The primary reason for changing the act is to ensure that decision making is done with transparency and under public scrutiny. We are trying to ensure that lobbyists are going to truly represent the people and not special interest groups. I applaud the government for making these changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Historically, lobbyists have wielded enormous power. Their numbers are not insignificant; they have grown from over 800 two years ago to some 944 as of March of this year. They have often operated in a secretive fashion and not, I believe, in the best interests of the public. It is unfortunate their power has been so significant because they do not necessarily represent the silent majority this country has. It is something the people of Canada have often felt powerless to engage in.

These individuals run their agendas through government, often peddling their influence to certain groups. As I said before, it is not necessarily in the public interest that they prevail. It is wise to look at some of the changes this act provides.

The proposed legislation tabled today is aimed at restoring public confidence in the decision making process. As part of its commitment to ensure that members of Parliament are given a greater role in drafting legislation, the government intends to send this bill to committee before second reading as permitted under the standing orders. I applaud the government in doing this because it makes the process more open to all parties.

The proposed amendments would strengthen the Lobbyists Registration Act by increasing the transparency of lobbying activities directed at the federal government and by increasing the power of the newly employed ethics counsellor to investigate complaints about lobbying activities. The amendments follow the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations requiring all lobbyists to reveal more about their projects.

Consulting lobbyists who act on behalf of clients would be required to file more specific information of their undertakings. Right now they disclose only the general subject matter of their lobbying campaigns. Under this bill they would have to report the following: the specific subject matter of their lobbying efforts; the name of each department or government institution to be contacted; the techniques they will use; and the true beneficiaries of their efforts.

Under the current act in-house lobbyists who work for companies or organizations need file only business card information. Under this bill they will be required to file once a year specific information including the following: a description of who their employer represents and the employer's lines of business; the specific subject matter of their lobbying efforts; the name of each department or government institution to be contacted; the techniques to be used; and the names of the employees who engage in lobbying.

All lobbyists would have to inform the registrar of lobbyists within 30 days of the termination or change of activity.

Lobbyists that do not adhere to these rules can be found guilty of a criminal offence and fined up to $25,000. It is interesting to note that these penalties are often missing in the lobbyists registration acts in the United States.

This act is a leader in North American and in first world nations because it gives some teeth to the act that are missing in other countries. It also provides for the ability of the RCMP to enforce the act.

The legislation tabled today also provides that the ethics counsellor would develop in consultation with the industry a lobbyists code of conduct and investigate complaints about lobbying activities that run counter to the code. It would also make a public report of the results of any investigation. These are all in keeping with the transparency I mentioned before and can only be applauded.

With the legislation the government intends to ensure that lobbyists cannot exercise the undue influence they have in the past. The primary reason for revamping the Lobbyists Registration Act will ensure, as I said before, that decision making is done with transparency and under public scrutiny. It will try to ensure that lobbyist representations are made very clear and the techniques they use are made very obvious to everyone concerned.

There are some amendments that we need to make. The new ethics counsellor is available to the Prime Minister to investigate cabinet ministers. We believe it should be the other way around. Instead the Prime Minister should be available to the ethics counsellor for these investigations. The reason behind it is that we feel the counsellor must be independent of political influence.

Another point to be made is that government funding for lobby groups and special interest groups must stop. That is something we have continued to put forth as a party in the House and in the public for a long time. We believe it is very unfair for the public to be funding a special lobby group, a special interest group, that in many cases does not represent the true interests of the silent majority most of the time. I implore the government to take heed of this point. We have raised it before in the House. I also implore all government officials, particularly those of us who are new at the job, to be very wary of these groups.

One of the most difficult things I have found since being here is how to get to the truth of the matter, how to find out what the true answers are, what the people want and what the real problem is in definition. We are all in our offices subjected to large numbers of people from different groups who are giving us various points of view. Sometimes when we sit there listening to them we can be convinced that they represent the will of the people.

Being a sceptical individual I find it very difficult to believe that many individuals truly represent the truth, truly represent what our constituents want or truly represent the wishes of the silent majority. I would ask all of us in the House to be wary of that and try to continually ask ourselves what the majority of Canadian people feel about a specific issue. It is not an easy thing to do. It will be a continual battle for all of us to try to answer during our tenure.

I also implore members of the public to influence us where they can. We do not as a group want to be influenced by special interest groups. We need the influence of the silent majority in order to effectively represent the wishes of the majority of the people in the country. Only by the Canadian public coming to us to tell us what the average person on the street wants can we effectively and truly represent their wishes and do the best job we can.

I make an open plea to members of the Canadian public, if they are feeling apathetic, to try to influence us, to write to us and to give their wishes and views on what they want us to do here. That is the only way we can be forceful in terms of wishes. We are only as good as the constituents who influence us.

It is wise to summarize by looking at the underlying principles of the current legislation we want to promote such as openness. Records on paid lobbyists should be available publicly. There should be clarity to reinforce the principle of openness. There should be access to government by all people, not only lobbyist groups. The people on the street must have access to us freely, as the minister mentioned before. They must take advantage of that in a democratic society such as we have in the country. Not every country in the world has given the power to the people to do that. We are one of the few countries to have it. I implore the people of Canada to come out and exercise their right to do so.

We have a credo in our party. I ask all members of the House to please listen. We believe in the common sense of the people, their right to be consulted on public policy matters before major decisions are made, their right to govern themselves through truly representative and responsible institutions, and their right to directly initiate legislation for which substantial public support is demonstrated.

I hope the government will listen carefully, use them as guiding principles in its legislative efforts and institute and support efforts to democratize the system this party has presented, which I know many people in the House support.

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I came to this country when I was eight years old from England. I will clarify what I said. I was saying in my speech that we need to find out whether or not individuals who come to this country are going on social services or are not.

The only reason I say this is to dispel a lot of the myths that are being thrown around. I am trying to get at the answers. I am not making any prediction as to what immigrant groups are or are not doing, but I think it is important for us to find out if immigrants are or are not going on our social services. If they are, then perhaps we are doing something wrong and perhaps we can find ways of helping them to ensure that they do not go on social services or perhaps integrate them into Canadian society in a better way.