Yes, like Quebec. That is right.
Smoking is of great concern to us, not purely from the perspective of health costs for the province, but from the human and social costs exacted on families and communities and the great loss of human potential. I commend the Nova Scotia government of Premier Hamm and his health minister Jamie Muir for their courageous efforts to reduce the incidence of smoking particularly among youth.
In a general sense, the term sin taxes is used with respect to tobacco and alcohol, wine, beer. It is a little harsh to call them sin taxes. We should be a little more ecumenical in the way we approach these sorts of things.
In some ways we should deal with tobacco, particularly cigarettes, in a different way than we deal with alcohol, particularly wine. As many of us realize, wine in moderate consumption is actually a positive health factor. Perhaps something I share in common with some of my colleagues from Quebec is an understanding of the relationship between the moderate consumption of good wine and the augmentation of one's health and longevity. Even if we do not live longer, we are certainly happier during our lifetime, which means something.
We ought to be dealing with cigarette taxes in a different way than we deal with taxes on wine or beer. In many ways wine and beer are very different from hard alcohol and spirits in terms of the nature in which they are consumed. Some people can consume alcohol in moderation and some people cannot. There is a difference.
Beyond that there is no doubt that raising taxes on cigarettes will have a positive impact in reducing the incidence of smoking. It has been clearly demonstrated that it will make a significant difference which is a good thing.
The government ought to work harder on smoking cessation on a national level. As well it should work with the provincial governments. It is very important to focus on the education side. California has been the leading U.S. state when it comes to educating people about smoking. The California government found that efforts focused on the education side of reducing smoking have been significantly more effective than tax efforts and some of its other initiatives.
Education can be extremely effective. Given the degree to which the provinces are charged with education, the federal government ought to work with the provinces. It should work with the provincial health ministers and the education ministers to introduce a more effective pan-Canadian approach through education in our school systems to reduce the incidence of smoking.
Recently I heard the Minister of Health speak about the importance of other lifestyle issues. She was speaking of fitness and levels of obesity in Canada. It seems counterintuitive in some ways if we consider that we live in an age when now more than at any time previous Canadians are more aware of food and the differences between healthful eating and less healthful eating. There were not fitness centres in every town or community 20 years ago. Today there are fitness centres everywhere and people are joining these fitness centres, at least in January; they may not go after February but they are joining. There is a greater consciousness in terms of health issues than has existed in the past.
When we go to a grocery store today the options in terms of low fat or non-fat, low flavour or non-flavour eating have never been greater. It seems in some ways inexplicable that we see greater levels of obesity, particularly with youth, than have existed in the past. Whether it is sedentary lifestyles we are seeing or perhaps the fact that extracurricular sports are receiving less funding on the provincial side largely because of the cutbacks on the federal side to the provinces, perhaps we have to address those issues as well.
I think that increasing excise taxes on cigarettes, booze and wine is pretty easy for the government, because the government finds raising taxes easy at any time, but I think it should find ways through creative and innovative policies, best practices and looking at jurisdictions around the world to address a lot of these other health issues, not just simply those where it sees an opportunity to raise taxes.
Further to some of the specific discussion around the application of these increased excise taxes to the duty free shops, I do not believe that these increases in excise tax should apply to alcohol and cigarettes sold in duty free shops. Duty free ought to be exactly that. Duty free is a different market. It is an important industry and employs a lot of Canadians. First, I think it is inconsistent with the nomenclature of duty free, but it is also extremely damaging to that important industry. As a trading country, if we are to take seriously the practices of other countries in terms of duty free and the competitive issues, it is clearly wrong-headed for these excise tax increases to apply to the duty free shops. I would argue that it is a mistake.
The argument that we need to address the tax disadvantages that our Canadian microbrewers have over their competitors elsewhere is a very important argument. Our Canadian microbreweries are at a competitive disadvantage due to our tax regime when compared to their counterparts in the U.S. There has been a significant growth in microbreweries in Canada. Aside from the jobs and the entrepreneurialism generated by microbreweries, there is another very important argument why we should defend them. Their beer tastes better. I think there are probably many in the House who would attest to the fact that microbrewers do produce good beer. I cannot myself, naturally, because I am hardly old enough to be able to consume alcohol legally.
I would argue that all other public policy criteria aside, I think sometimes we in the House should stand up for better tasting beer. I think Canadians deserve this--
