House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was health.
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this government has no plans to open offices in Vancouver and Halifax.
Michel Daviault Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works.
On this, the 25th anniversary of the Office municipal d'habitation de Montréal, Mr. John Gardiner, the housing co-ordinator on Montreal's executive committee, has once again condemned the federal government's withdrawal from the social housing field. It should be noted that more than 10,000 families
or households in Montreal are currently on waiting lists for social housing.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Since Mr. Gardiner has once again denounced the federal government's withdrawal from this area, are we to understand that his recent meeting with the minister was unproductive?
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. He is going to have to be patient and wait for the remarks of the Minister of Finance who will be delivering his budget at five o'clock. Thereafter the hon. member, as well as other stakeholders, will have an opportunity to review the decision of the Minister of Finance.
Cliff Breitkreuz Reform Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and was inspired by Mr. Creelman MacArthur of Halifax.
While the ports of Halifax and Saint John are ice free year round, the federal government spends millions of dollars annually to ice break the St. Lawrence. This creates a situation of the government indirectly subsidizing inland ports at the expense of those on the east coast.
At a time when the east coast economy is the hardest hit in Canada, why should Halifax and Saint John have to compete not only with inland ports but with the federal subsidies as well?
Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, obviously I am somewhat aware of the activities at the ports of Halifax and Saint John. It has been a need for Canada to be able to ship and receive goods from its major ports on the east coast for the last 40 or 50 years.
I find it rather unusual that anyone would question the activities of the port of Montreal, as essential as that port is to the economy of Canada as a whole. Therefore we fully intend to continue to provide services from the port of Montreal as we hope we will be able to do with enhanced activity at the ports of Saint John and Halifax.
Simon de Jong NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Last Friday the minister announced approval of the sale of Maxwell Macmillan and Ginn Publishing to Paramount Communications. This sale reverses a long established policy and, in the case of Ginn Publishing, is the first time in 25 years that a Canadian owned book publishing firm has been allowed to fall into foreign hands.
The Investment Canada Act requires that Canadians have a full and fair opportunity to bid for a foreign owned Canadian book publishing company yet Canadian publishers have informed me that CDIC thwarted all attempts by them to bid on these companies.
Could the minister explain to the House why the government did not follow its own legislation and did not actively seek Canadian investors? Also, could the minister kindly explain what the difference is between his-
Book PublishingOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. I think two questions in a question are okay, but when we get into three or four we have to draw the line. Would the Minister of Industry care to answer the question?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister responsible for CDIC, let me indicate to the member that the government shares his concern.
However, the obligation that CDIC had to sell 51 per cent of its interest in Ginn was one which had been made previously. Although a number of discussions have been held with potential Canadian purchasers, none of those discussions developed into a substantial indication of interest to the extent that an offer was made that was acceptable to CDIC.
In the circumstances, the decision was taken to realize on CDIC's investment in Ginn in accordance with the previously made commitment by the previous government.
Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning some comments made during question period.
I feel my personal integrity and credibility have been attacked. During my question I said that I was an immigrant and that now I was a Canadian citizen. The member for Carleton-Gloucester shouted: "Now you want to lock the gate".
This was neither the point of my question nor do I recommend-
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member may have a grievance that he could put forward. I wonder if the hon. member would agree to let me have a look at the "blues" and I will see just what was said in the exchange. I will have a look at it at that time.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, an act to amend the Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will try to refresh everybody's memory as to what happened prior to question period.
I am afraid that what the government has done in this instance is to send a loud message that if enough people are ignoring the law, do not worry it will be changed. What the government should have done is enforce the laws that were there. If a law has the support of Canadians it must be enforced and there was support in the community for high taxes on cigarettes.
Calls to my office were six to one against lowering the tax on cigarettes and if someone can get my constituents to oppose the lowering of any tax then he or she has accomplished something. They do not like taxes. They want taxes lowered but they want them lowered in a sane and reasonable manner across the board. The government should have concentrated on enforcement, not on isolating tax cuts on contraband cigarettes.
Unfortunately some Canadians need the occasional reminder that there are laws that have to be enforced. There are laws against speeding despite the fact that most of us speed every now and then. The mere sight of a police car on the side of the road is enough to slow most drivers back to the speed limit. If the government had been in charge of the provincial motor vehicles act it would not have called for increased enforcement. It would have raised the speed limit and then boasted about how it got rid of the country's speeding problems.
In conclusion, the Customs Act and Excise Act both provide for significant penalties for those breaking the law. The government should have given its law enforcement officers some manpower and resources to have carried out its mandate. The initiatives implemented by ways and means motion No. 3 were short-sighted and in the long term this decision will be regretted.
It is unfortunate the government did not have the courage to stand up and address the issue head on. I hope when the alcohol smuggling issue comes before the government it is prepared to stand firm and resist repeating the same mistake.
My constituency runs along the Canada-U.S. border. My riding has two of the busiest border crossings in Canada, the Pacific crossing being one of them. I know there is smuggling of all sorts and I know that cigarette smuggling is not the main concern at the Pacific and Douglas crossing.
Enforcement of Canada's laws is the only way to deal with this issue, not giving in to the lawbreakers.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on an issue that has been coming hour by hour from the Reform Party throughout this debate and it has to be stopped.
The argument being made is that the reduction of the excise tax on tobacco is a singular event and has no consequence on anything else the government did. The whole point of the initiatives brought in by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Health was to break the back of smuggling.
To break the back of smuggling they had to eliminate the profit motive. The combination of the reduction of excise tax, the export tax that was levied and the surtax on manufacturing collectively represent the elimination of the profit in smuggling.
If we eliminate the excise tax and apply the tax totally to export taxes, if we allow export taxes and that surtax to deal with it totally, all we are doing is shifting the burden from exports to the U.S coming back into Canada and forcing the creation of underground manufacturing facilities in Canada.
Members really have to open up their minds to understand that there is a comprehensive approach to one of the most serious problems that the government has had to face in its first three or four months of operation.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling the hon. member forgot the first part of my speech which was over an hour ago.
My concern is not that the government has just reduced taxes. My concern is that it did not enforce the laws that were there. If it had enforced the laws we would not have this problem.
Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
We weren't here.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
The member was here for at least 100-plus days.
My concern is that this is only dealing with cigarette taxes and that the government is not stopping smuggling. It is going to have smuggling of alcohol. It is going to have smuggling of alien persons. It is going to have smuggling of heroine and hard drugs. We have it now.
If the government is not going to enforce the laws, it will continue to have smuggling of these contraband items. Lowering the taxes of one item is not going to stop smuggling.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech and her point of view. It was very well presented.
However she said something in the first part of her speech, which was over an hour ago, about this bill doing very little to reduce smuggling.
Does she believe that by taking the profit out of smuggling it will increase or decrease the activity?
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give the same lecture to my hon. friend and seatmate but it will reduce perhaps the incentive to smuggle cigarettes.
It will not reduce the incentive to smuggle hard drugs, alcohol or illegal aliens. The problem of enforcement cannot be solved by reducing the incentive to do it. One has to enforce the laws of the land the same for all people. It is only through enforcement that smuggling will be stopped.
Julian Reed Liberal Halton—Peel, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member how she expects by zeroing in on enforcement alone she can enforce the laws on the world's longest undefended border and the world's longest sea coast.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at one time that my constituency goes along the United States-Canadian border. I have two of the busiest border crossings in my constituency and this has not been identified as a major problem.
Yes, there is cigarette smuggling. I do not deny that, but it has certainly not been a problem to the extent that it has been in Ontario and Quebec. I do not think that problems are solved by isolating a solution for one area and putting it over the whole country. If there is a problem in one area of the country, solve it if it is isolated to that area. Do not assume that this problem is all across the country.
I know at my border crossings cigarette smuggling is certainly not at the limit it is in Quebec.
Murray Calder Liberal Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech and one thing I picked out of it was the fact that she was pointing out everything we have done wrong. I have yet to hear an alternative from the hon. member as to how she would solve the problem.
We have watched contraband cigarettes grow from the late 1980s into the early to mid-1990s, a 60 per cent growth in less than one year; 75 per cent contraband in Quebec, 35 per cent to 40 per cent in Ontario, 15 per cent in the western provinces and growing. I stress the word growing. In on one box of cartons there is a $500 profit. In a truckload there is a $500,000 profit. We are creating a millionaire a day. All this money is seed money for what the hon. member is talking about which is the smuggling of alcohol, arms and drugs.
What we have done is stop that seed money. I would ask the member regarding everything we have done wrong, how she would do it right.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, actually the hon. member has also forgotten the first part of my speech in which I did acknowledge that there are some things in this legislation that are positive. One is giving the same ability to peace officers as the RCMP in dealing with the problem.
However that is where to deal with it, in giving manpower and support to the enforcement of Canadian laws, not giving in to criminals and reducing the laws. To give in to criminals and allow them to change Canadian law because of criminal activity is sending the wrong message. Give more enforcement, more support to the law enforcement people in the country.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is suggesting that we not follow the advice of the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who, as a professional law enforcement officer, the top one in the country, said that if we are going to get a handle on the problem then we have to narrow the gap between the price of cigarettes in Canada and in the United States.
I wonder if the member does not recognize that our policies in the past have been an incubator for organized crime and we were actually growing the underground economy.
Given the position of the hon. member's leader when he would say that there was a tax revolt brewing in the country, do the members of the Reform Party not recognize a tax revolt when it bites them in the derrière?
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I guess my concern is that this reaction of lowering taxes on one contraband item is not going to solve the problem. I recognize that perhaps for the RCMP this was an easy way to deal with an issue. However, are they also going to suggest the same thing when we talk about the smuggling rings taking on hard drugs or alcohol?
Are we also going to suggest that we should lower the taxes on alcohol and that we should legalize heroin and hard drugs just because it then makes the job easier?
I do not think that is the issue here. The issue is we have Canadian laws for a reason and we should not be giving in to criminal activity and changing our laws just to make it easier for them to change products.
Susan Whelan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the hon. member has had the opportunity to read the entire action plan which dealt with the very issue of enforcement. We have increased customs officers by 25 per cent to deal with the idea and with the problems of enforcement.
I also inform the hon. member that the problem is not unique to one part of Canada.
The busiest border crossing last year was the Windsor-Detroit bridge which is just outside my riding. This problem is not unique to Quebec. It is not unique to one particular part. It is happening all across the country. We have a total plan to deal with it, a plan that deals with enforcement, a plan that deals with health. I hope the hon. member has a chance to read clause 3 of the bill particularly.