House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was drugs.

Topics

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Controlled Drugs And Substances ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the motion until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House resumed from February 22 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.

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent, since we deferred the vote, to go on to Private Members' Hour as soon as we find the members who are on the agenda for Private Members' Hour.

Private Members' Hour will probably take us up to the time for taking the vote. Instead of doing Private Members' Hour after the vote, we will do it before. If there is unanimous consent, we could suspend the sitting temporarily. As soon as the whips find their spokespersons for Private Members' Hour the sitting can resume. Then we could suspend and start the votes.

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is there unanimous consent?

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The sitting of the House is suspended to the call of the chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.04 p.m.)

The House resumed at 4.10 p.m.

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Madam Speaker, I think you have the unanimous consent of the House to go back to government orders, and proceed with Bill C-11. After that, we will see what time it is and perhaps move on to private members' business before the division. I will come back to that, Madam Speaker.

I apologize to the House. I misunderstood but we would like-and I think there is unanimous consent-to move on to Bill C-11 right away.

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Do we have unanimous consent to resume debating on C-11?

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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.

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Madam Speaker, this is an excellent opportunity for me to develop an issue in this House. I attempted to do this when the government was talking about rolling back the taxes or in fact went ahead with the whole business of rolling back the taxes on cigarettes.

Subsequent to that time it has been interesting to interview the interviewers, the people actually responsible for bringing the news to Canadians. Basically they have told me if you cannot say something and put your point over in 10 seconds it probably will not be news. It probably will not get on television. This is an opportunity then with a little bit more time than that to actually raise an issue I attempted to raise previously.

My issue is that of corporate responsibility. It is the responsibility the cigarette manufacturers and distillers have to the people of Canada. I have some questions about the way in which they are carrying out their responsibility.

During the time this whole issue was boiling another member of the House approached me with two empty Export A cigarette packages. Both of them had been purchased illegally. One was purchased three weeks prior to the government taking its action in bringing forward its measure on export taxes. The other was purchased one week before.

Both packages appeared to me to be exactly the same, until I studied them a little more closely. The first package given to me had on it "25 Class A Finest Canadian Filter Cigarettes" and very proudly "Product of Canada". The package that was purchased one week later, approximately one week prior to the government announcing its export tax, had on it "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Winston Salem, NC, Under Licence from R.J.R.-MacDonald, Inc., Canada".

It appears what was going on here was that the company expected there was going to be some form of export tax. Rather than manufacture the product in Canada and selling it to the U.S. where it would then be taken to a point where it could be brought back into Canada, the company's concern was why would it pay that export tax. It appears the company decided to manufacture the product, which appears for all purposes by its packaging to be exactly the same product, in Winston Salem, North Carolina

thereby avoiding the action the government took about one week later.

My point is Corporations in Canada should be responsible. Corporations in Canada should not do things that will feed into a situation such as we had prior to the government taking action.

We had terror, particularly in the area where the majority of this product was coming through. We had fear and we had murders going on and it was all surrounding the whole issue of illegally smuggling cigarettes back into Canada.

Yet I suggest with greatest respect that it appeared to me that none of these companies was taking any substantial action, they were not contributing to this problem of terror, this problem of fear, this problem of murder that was happening over these things.

Furthermore, I found absolutely unfortunate the fact that at exactly the same time the taxes were rolled back on the cigarettes the distillers sent to all members of this Chamber a plastic 750 millilitre bottle explaining that 83 cents out of every dollar that is paid for that bottle one way or another go to taxes.

It might be instructive, granted this is only by my personal recollection, to think for a second about how the taxes on cigarettes and the taxes on alcohol were raised to the level they were. As a youngster, as a young man and through my adult life I can recall many times that people were saying they could get away with adding more tax to cigarettes, adding more tax to alcohol because people want these products and therefore are going to pay it, therefore it is a good revenue source.

Granted this is only by my personal recollection but I do not imagine too many of the members here or the Canadian public would contest that. It was something that happened.

We do end up with the fact that on alcohol we have 83 cents out of every dollar going to the tax man. This obviously works against the corporate agenda. So it is that the Canadian public naturally becomes cynical. It says obviously that if things are working contrary to the corporate agenda what is going to happen is that companies are going to take whatever action required in order to protect their position.

We have now discovered through a process of market studies and things of that nature that higher taxes do lead to lower consumption, particularly on the part of young people. I suggest it is the height of cynicism that it would appear as though these manufacturers were not only feeding the product into the system that included within itself the terror, the fear and the murder, they actually took action to try to get around the fact that this government, attempting to act responsibly on behalf of Canadian people, brought an export tax in as was assumed.

If there is low public respect for politicians I suggest equally that in Canada on the part of many Canadians there is low public respect for corporations. I suggest to these and other corporations that maybe within the sound of my voice, within the sound of this speech, they examine their motives, take a look at the whole issue of corporate responsibility. Rather than trying to circumvent Canadian law, rather than trying to get around the well intentioned actions of this and other governments, they work with them and act in a socially responsible manner.

If we do not have respect on the part of ordinary citizens for those corporations that put forward the capital to bring forward the jobs, if we do not have respect on the part of ordinary citizens toward politicians, the next step is not very far away and that step is one of anarchy. I would hate to see that happen in this nation.

I appreciate the opportunity to develop this story. As one postscript, however, I suggest this story which I have just narrated in this House was available to the Canadian news media. I went around to many reporters and attempted to sell this as something they could be bringing forward and none of them paid any attention. It has been suggested to me the reason for that is that it could not be explained in ten seconds on television. If our newscasting has reached that point then maybe the newscasters of today have to also be prepared to take a more responsible attitude, as I am suggesting.

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Madam Speaker, after one false start maybe we will get right on with it this time.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 and I will for the most part agree with the substance of Bill C-11. I do think that it is extremely important that we educate the public about the hazards of smoking and in that way I agree with the bill. I further agree that the export tax on tobacco products is a step in the right direction.

However, it is the companion motion to Bill C-11 that I have difficulty with. I am going to speak along the same lines as my colleague.

What particularly bothers me about relieving the taxation on cigarettes and tobacco is the fact that we on this side of the House are particularly in favour of stronger enforcement laws against smuggling.

We have excellent police forces in Canada and we have laws that certainly cover the situation. Why is this so much different than any other lawbreaker would be? Let us take speeding for example. If we have a lot of non-compliance as far as the speed limits are concerned we never once consider abolishing the speed limits and allowing anyone to drive any speed they want.

In fact, we come up with some very ingenious methods, the latest of which is probably the photo radar. If you break the speed barrier you automatically have a picture of your licence plate taken and you get the bill in the mail. Of course you have no defence against that whatsoever.

Here we have a method whereby we can deal directly with the problem rather than saying that we are going to change the rule so that we will not be troubled with having to catch these speeders anymore.

When we reduce taxes on cigarettes it is a little like the gas war. When the guy across the street lowers his gasoline prices then that behooves me to lower my gasoline prices to stay competitive. It looks to me like we are actually getting into competition with these smugglers and in fact allowing them to set the government's agenda. I have a real problem with that.

The other thing about this companion bill is that we have no idea how much money the government is foregoing as far as reducing the taxation on these cigarettes.

We have heard over and over again that its policy is to broaden the tax base. By its own admission it would like to see the deficit reduced and that is either going to take reduced spending or increased taxation and the term the Liberals have come up with is broadening the tax base.

Here we have a contradiction to that. We have a voluntary giving up of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars. If taxes are reduced in this area it would naturally seem to follow that they will have to be increased in other areas in order to come up to roughly the same level. That is a question in my mind. Where is this foregone revenue going to come from? Obviously it will have to come from somewhere.

As has been mentioned, any time that governments consider raising the taxes on the so-called sins, alcohol and tobacco, the sin taxes, it is always debated in this House and in fact right across the provinces in the legislatures. Often times I am sure the debate would go along the lines that we can certainly raise these taxes because people should have to pay for their sins and not only is it a good revenue builder but it is a deterrent for people to actually partake in the so-called sins of alcohol and tobacco.

We are doing two things by raising taxes on the so-called sins. That has always been the argument as well as the fact that we feel if you utilize tobacco and alcohol then the chances are you will need the health care system more than the average person, and so you should be paying your fair share in order to maintain the health care system.

That this bill increases the age limit for the legal purchase of cigarettes it is commendable. At the same time the government is making the product more affordable to those people who do desire to smoke.

Now that we are making it easier, or at least more affordable, to buy cigarettes are we in fact going against the argument that smokers should be paying a higher price for a health care system that would probably see more usage because of their habit? We are talking about a health care system that seems already to be overburdened.

In my opinion there has been a very clear precedent set here. How does this government plan to answer the question that my colleague has raised as far as the Canadian distillers' request is concerned, as far as lowering the taxation? According to my figures, the taxation on a bottle of spirits is in the 87 per cent range. That means that out of the 13 per cent that is left the manufacturer must produce, bottle, advertise, label, ship and pay all its personnel costs and take its profit.

What that also does is encourages a new generation of rum runners. It is a kind of revisitation of the 1920s. Certainly there is money to be made in the bootlegging of illegal alcohol.

Is this a problem in Canada today? I certainly believe it is. According to statistics that I think all members of this House received we estimate 17 million cases of spirits sold in this country per year. Of those, 4 million cases of 12 bottles each are illegally smuggled into Canada.

How do we arrive at the 4 million cases? It is through communication with the provincial liquor boards, the comparison of per capita sales in the United States, and discussion with Revenue Canada Customs and law enforcement agencies. Those figures are pretty reliable.

When we have a problem like this the solution, in my opinion, is not a really simple one. A step in the right direction is a get tough attitude with the smugglers. I think we also have to really increase the profile of enforcement. We not only have to make enforcement more effective, it has to appear to be more effective. We also have to increase the penalties on smuggling. I equate it with upping the ante, particularly when it comes to smuggling cigarettes and alcohol for the purpose of trafficking.

I think we could also add into that the smuggling of guns. Perhaps that is a subject for another day, and I hope to get an opportunity to speak on that at a later date.

Another thing that is ultimately important and that this bill does address is that we ought to be educating the public about the potential health hazards of tobacco. If we agree with the government's policy on reducing taxes and it actually reduces the incentive to smuggle then we have to apply it to the alcohol smuggling problem as well.

In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-11 has merit. In my opinion it would have been a better bill if it had the budget implications included in it. We are not sure just how many hundreds of millions of dollars the Canadian government has foregone in this instance and what the total cost of the program is.

I find myself leaning toward supporting this bill but I would have been much happier to see the financial implications.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Madam Speaker, at this time, I think we will do what we wanted to do at the beginning. I think you will find there is unanimous consent to move on to private members' business right away. We should then be finished in time for the call of the bell.

So if you asked for unanimous consent, I think you would get it.

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Am I to understand that the proceedings on the adjournment motion will take place after the vote or will they be cancelled?

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

If we could have unanimous consent to move on to private members' business, we will hold the necessary consultations during the debate and decide whether there will be proceedings on the adjournment motion.

Excise ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

It being 4.37 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper .

Highway 16Private Members' Business

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enter into an agreement with the province of Ontario to expand Ontario highway 16 south from Ottawa to highway 401 at Johnstown, into a four lane highway in order to ensure road safety and enhance travel in and out of the nation's capital.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion. I have been trying to move it along this far and get it discussed at this level ever since I have been in the House of Commons. I feel I have made one small gain on this.

I want to give a short history and geography lesson for the people across Canada who may need some familiarizing with the location of this highway and hopefully elaborate sufficiently so that people will see that it does have a national interest.

Highway 401 is the main east-west highway through south central Canada. If you have ever travelled through Ontario by motor car you have probably been on the 401. That is the main thoroughfare.

The 401 passes about 80 kilometres south of metropolitan Ottawa, Ottawa-Hull. It is about 100 kilometres from where we are right now to highway 401, the main busy thoroughfare that passes through southern Ontario. The link to get to that highway, however, is highway 16. My hope would be to some day see it a four lane highway, a north-south link between this part of Canada and the 401 and the northern United States.

My riding is not very far away. It has two bridges coming in from northern New York. I would like to think that some of the people would be interested in the nation's capital. However when they look at a two lane road, having been accustomed to four lane roads, they would be more inclined to stay on the four lane highway and move out of this area either to Toronto or Montreal.

I want to make it clear that the northern stretch of this highway, about 15 to 20 kilometres, is being constructed at this time into a four lane highway but the remaining 60 kilometres will be still only a two lane highway. There was pressure for the highway to be built to four lanes about 15 years ago and the layout is there for four lanes.

They have expropriated almost all the land that would have to be expropriated. They have bypassed the towns and the villages. Very often those are points of great dispute when one is bypassing a community. That has all been done. The right of way is there for four lanes. It just needs the political will to move on with it.

The only way you can get from the nation's largest centre, Toronto, to the nation's capital by a four lane highway is to go to Montreal. Then you can come back to Ottawa on a four lane highway. That lack of access to the nation's capital should be of national interest because of the ever increasing traffic flow on the existing road into the capital from the south. First and foremost is the safety aspect.

In the seven year period from 1985 to 1992, there were 39 deaths on that highway. There were 721 reported accidents and probably minor accidents that were not reported. Ninety per cent of the accidents occurred in the southern portion of the highway, in other words, the part that is not being constructed into four lanes, the part where there is no plan currently to improve the highway.

The federal government has some responsibility because it is the road into the nation's capital. That is why I presented this motion. There is nothing novel about spending federal funds to construct highways. Indeed, we announced a great infrastructure plan not too long ago. A lot of federal government money has been spent on highways.

I have a list here starting back in March 1993 during the previous government, I will admit, of federal funds going into the highways in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There were no funds for Ontario. No arrangement was made for federal government funds to be spent on highways in Ontario. That is what I am asking for now. I am asking members to support the idea of a four lane highway into the nation's capital.

I could support this motion with further documents if it were appropriate. I could table those with maps and so on. I have statistics showing the great increase in traffic flow that has occurred on that part of the highway since the first part was completed many years ago.

We hear a lot about the information highway these days and I am sure it is very important to Canada. We hear a lot in eastern Ontario about Pearson airport. It is the busiest-the best some would say-and the largest in Canada. Its needs are very important and they have to be addressed. I am sure they will be addressed.

We have not heard very much about access into the nation's capital by means of a four lane highway. A better access road linking the capital area with highway 401 would make the whole Ottawa area more accessible to all Canadians who travel by road. Just as important, as a citizen of eastern Ontario, it would make more accessible our biggest and best trading partner, the United States. It is less than 100 kilometres away but you cannot get to the United States on a four lane road from the nation's capital.

The infrastructure program was announced with great enthusiastic support from all provinces. It was to create employment, give jobs to unemployed Canadians and stimulate the economy of the nation.

It is estimated that the completion of the highway from 401 to the nation's capital would create over 12,000 person years of direct employment. It would create an awful lot of jobs for a few years while it is in the construction stage.

The infrastructure program is to get our country and our communities ready for the time when the nation's economy is moving ahead and a good deal of what constitutes a moving economy I think in the minds of most Canadians moves by highway traffic.

As far as I know the current provincial government in Ontario has never even considered completing the access road from the nation's capital to 401 except in the north end. Mr. Speaker, if you examine the political map of Ontario you will understand why that part is being done. The current Ontario government has one MPP from this part of eastern Ontario and she is from Ottawa. The highway is being built to four lane standards in this part of Ontario but as far as I can tell no plan has been made to extend it. The only part of the highway that is being done is adjacent to Ottawa and it is for a political reason.

I know that the usual partnership arrangement with the three levels of government does not quite fit the infrastructure plan. The cost of one-third of the highway would be far too great for the small rural townships. Small rural townships in Ontario have never had to build major highways. They just do not have the tax base to do it.

When I asked people to show an interest in my motion, a lot of people from outside the Ottawa area were interested in speaking to it. This suggests to me that fixing this highway has a broader appeal than just to selfish people like myself who live in eastern Ontario. It does have a national flavour to it.

Also with reference to the infrastructure program, the time line would be far too restrictive. It could not be completed by 1997. I cannot imagine it being done that quickly. However that is a minor thing. Apart from those variances the main criteria of the infrastructure program would be met and far exceeded in building highway 416; the creation of jobs-I have given the statistics on that one-and accessing eastern Ontario to markets both domestically and internationally.

The priorities of the current provincial government have to be changed and that is the reason for my private member's motion. I think perhaps one-third federal funds; I am not suggesting the provincial government exceed the plan for more infrastructure funds. I am suggesting it arrange its priorities differently, one-third federal funds, two-thirds provincial funds. I am sure that would make a satisfactory arrangement and there would not be any more money spent. It would just be redirecting the money.

The plans for the project have been in place for years. What we need now is the political will in the province to move on with this.

Before its defeat three years ago, the previous Liberal government of Ontario had announced a plan. It said it would complete the project by 1999. I was there for the press announcement. The media were there and they said it was a long way into the future, 1999. I will tell you it would look pretty good to eastern Ontario right now if somebody said the highway would be completed by 1999. That date would look extremely good because it might still be possible, but do not hold your breath.

Let me make it clear again, it is a rearranging of priorities that I am asking for in the infrastructure program, with the federal government's involvement being one-third. I am asking the provincial government to be a little flexible, rearrange its priorities and spend two-thirds on this much needed project. I know how important and how very much needed the infrastructure programs are to all communities, but we have infrastructure

needs beyond those local levels. I think this one warrants being addressed as almost an emergency need.

If the government of the province of Ontario misses this opportunity by not putting highway 416 on its priority list, we who live here and are interested in the economic development of eastern Ontario will have to wait once again to see even the start of a project which is already 20 years overdue. It has been 20 years since the original plan was set and nothing has been acted upon since.

I am asking in my motion for the two levels of government, the federal level and the provincial level, to get together to make the infrastructure program fit the needs of eastern Ontario and the capital region, the capital region of Canada being the fourth largest metropolitan area in Canada, by constructing a four-lane highway in order to ensure road safety and enhance travel in and out of the nation's capital. I am sorry it is not a votable motion, but I have sensed a great deal of support for it.

Highway 16Private Members' Business

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mercier-Manpower Training; the hon. member for Bourassa-Immigration; the hon. member for Lévis-National Defence; the hon. member for Drummond-Tainted Blood Inquiry; the hon. member for Jonquière-Native Communities.

Highway 16Private Members' Business

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the motion. On its surface I cannot find the normal things wrong with it.

The member for Leeds-Grenville clearly stated that he was not requesting additional federal government funds, which I appreciate. Certainly this side of the House looks for that in every motion. He talked about the safety concerns on the roadway. I appreciate the statistics that he presented in his background material have borne out the cause of concern.

I am not going to take too long on this motion. If I have any concerns it would be whether changing the rules of the infrastructure program as laid out in the famous red book would set any kind of precedent we might regret later on down the line. The infrastructure program clearly calls for a sharing of one-third federal government, one-third municipal and one-third provincial.

If we are to spend this credit card infrastructure program money anyway, I am wondering whether changing the rules to accommodate a need in the member's riding will set a precedent in the future throughout the life of the infrastructure program that we may have to address later. If we make an exception for one, we may find ourselves having to make exceptions for others. Even though this particular one might have justifiable merit in the minds of many, will the others who seek exceptions to the general rules of the infrastructure program have merit? Could they cause us any harm?

The member has stated that he would like to see the provincial government pick up two-thirds of the cost. I have seen the reports on the financial position of the provincial government. I am wondering whether that is at all possible with the state of the finances of the province of Ontario.

Clearly the premier of Ontario has stated on a number of occasions that they simply do not have enough money to go around. On one project, highway 407 I believe it is, they have sought financing from the private sector to help complete it. I am wondering whether it might be an idea for them to do that in this case.

Does the provincial government have $300 and some million to invest in the project even if the rules were changed? My main concern is whether we are setting a precedent both on making the exception from the municipal contribution and on the extension of the time limit of the infrastructure program application to be completed. I am wondering whether the precedent may cause us a problem down the road on other applications.

We are not being asked to spend any more federal money, any more federal funds than have already been allocated, the one-third sharing. Apart from those two points I do not have any opposition to the motion. Perhaps the member might be able to explain the two points.