Debates of June 21st, 1994

Excise Tax Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I must interrupt the member. I appreciate that he has not been here as long as some of us. It is quite contrary to our rules to make notice of the fact that a member or minister is or is not in the House because of the fact that he or she might be away for a very good reason.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps just a clarification. Even when there are no ministers in the House you are not allowed to make note of it? I am not speaking of anybody specifically. I see a parliamentary secretary has arrived and I appreciate that.

I will get on to my second comment. I was quite interested to hear my colleague from Calgary North speak about cigarette and tobacco advertising. She made the statement that it should be banned. This is quite a serious statement. I am sure she has some very concrete reasons for suggesting that. I would be quite curious to find out what rationale the hon. member has for suggesting that cigarette advertising should be banned in Canada.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we learn so much every day from the Chair and we appreciate that.

My colleague asked me to comment on two things. One was how seriously I think the government is taking this matter of health hazards associated with these attempts to diminish cigarette smuggling. I think the government is serious about the problem. There has been an attempt to address it vigorously. The only problem is that I do not believe this way of addressing it is the most effective. I do not think it was well thought through. I do think the costs of this particular approach outweigh the benefits and that there can be some changes to the legislation which will make it much more effective in addressing the problem.

All of us in this House including those on the government side are concerned that we not have a problem of cigarette smuggling in the country. We know the disruption and the social cost but we have to make sure that what happens to stamp out one fire does not start a bunch of others.

The second thing mentioned by my colleague was banning cigarette advertising. This has not been talked about too much in the House. I guess my comments to start us thinking about advertising are these.

The goal of advertising is to create a need, to create a desire. In simple terms, why are we allowing an activity that creates a need and a desire in our citizens to use a product that is very harmful to them personally, has an enormous social cost and an enormous economic cost?

We need to sit down and do a cost benefit analysis on that. Yes, it does create some jobs and that is good, but at what cost? It seems to me that when we are so eager to legislate, to make moves to change social policies and social structures, this is an area that we really have not considered as seriously as we could.

I would suggest that it would certainly be an appropriate use of the legislative powers of the House to diminish activities that create a need and a desire for a very harmful product for Canadians and for Canadian youth.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we continue, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, human rights; the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, trade; and the hon. member for Richelieu, mass layoffs.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to stand in the House today and state that I support this bill. If I were able to put on simply a politician's hat, there would be enough in this bill for me to support. As my colleague from Kootenay East said, this is one of those difficult bills as it has more than one unrelated issue in it.

The omnibus bill is a problem. I presume that they are all lumped together because of the excise tax component to them. However I would like to express my objection to an omnibus bill as an issue here and having said that, branch off into the areas of this bill that I do agree with.

I agree with a manufacturers' surtax. The $185 million can be used to prevent smoking but of course that $185 million must be used effectively. As far as I can determine it is only in effect for three years. I wonder what will happen after the three years are up?

I also agree with the excise tax on exports of tobacco. That makes sense to me. I believe that to have tobacco going across the U.S. border and coming back makes no sense at all. The government made a good attempt to try to treat fairly those retail and wholesale outlets with inventory on hand when the changes were announced. It was a reflection that this bill might have some effect on the businesses that dealt with tobacco products.

I have occasion to also agree with the airline tax changes and philosophically agree with the fact that there will be GST changes on businesses when people entertain at restaurants. Those are the portions of the bill with which I agree.

However, I pause to think about the portions of the bill that I believe are the most important. Those of course are the portions that relate to smoking and to cigarettes.

I would like to express what expertise I have on this subject. I reflect back to my university days when in my medical training we spent two years of our lives in what we call basic sciences, studying books. We learned about anatomy, we learned about physiology, we learned about biochemistry, we learned about pharmacology.

The very first opportunity we had to deal with patients directly I was assigned an elderly patient, a fellow who had fought in the war. He was hospitalized in a veterans' hospital in Edmonton where I trained. He had a smoking related disease. He had emphysema.

I was particularly interested and keen to look after this man so well. He was my very first patient. I had responsibility for him. He was aged. He was in his mid-sixties. He had problems that related specifically to the fact that all his life he had smoked and he had emphysema. His chest was barrel shaped. He had difficulty breathing. He lay in the bed unable to get up. He was on medication that would hopefully prevent infection which often affects somebody with that disease.

I spent many hours with him. I spoke with him at length about his life, his family and his history. I spoke with him about his hopes, dreams and desires when he was a young person. I spoke with him in fact about when he started smoking and why he started smoking. Over a span of about six weeks I felt that I became his friend and his confidant. In fact he and I had many good hours together.

As he slipped quietly and slowly into a state where he was no longer able to communicate, I remember very clearly his last words to me before he passed on. He called me doctor even though I was not at that point in time a full-fledged doctor. He said to me: "Doctor Hill, I beg you to tell the young people not to smoke. I beg you to tell them not to start".

I have never forgotten that man. I have never forgotten the anguish in his heart when he died of this problem relating directly to tobacco.

One of the things we did as medical students was participate in autopsies. One of our pathology experts was a somewhat ghoulish individual in fact. I felt that his way of dealing with material that was so special was quite interesting. He had a lung. It was a lung he had taken from a specimen that had smoked. He had a lung from an individual who had not smoked. With great delight he used to come into the anatomy lab for the young students and say: "I'd like to show you young students what it means to smoke". He took the lung from the person who had smoked and it was black as coal. It looked like somebody had sprayed it with spray paint. He would take that lung and squash it between his hands. After he squashed it he would let go of it and it would stay squashed.

Then he would show us the nice pink lung, the dried up lung from someone who had not smoked. This lung was not black as coal but was pink and supple. He would compress that lung and when he let go it would expand immediately back. It was in fact very much like a piece of foam rubber. He would shake his finger at us individually and say: "Don't you ever smoke. You are going to carry the medical message to the country. Don't you ever smoke".

I reflect back on my first hospital duties and the medical staff in the hospital where I first practised. I looked around the table at my confreres and over 50 per cent of the doctors in that room smoked. I graduated back in the late 1960s. I practised medicine from 1970 until coming to the House.

I have noticed a significant change in the medical profession over those 25 years of practice. At the end of those 25 years-I hope not the ultimate end, I hope to be able to return to that practice if we can get some sanity back into the House of Commons-there was but one of the medical staff smoking.

The medical profession has learned over the last 25 years what a serious problem smoking is. It is a serious enough problem that I became a confirmed anti-smoking medical doctor. I lectured my patients about smoking. I begged my patients to quit smoking. I gave them nicotine gum to have them stop smoking. I tried hypnosis to get them to stop smoking. I sent them to acupuncturists hoping they would quit smoking. I gave them a medication called Inderal which we thought maybe would help.

I would like to say that you can usually tell how successful the medical profession is on an issue by how many different forms of treatment they have. If you are successful in the medical treatment there is one treatment. I gave you the list of the things that I tried to do as a medical practitioner to stop people from smoking. It is very difficult, very unsuccessful. I have to stand here and say that my success rate in my practice of medicine was singularly poor. I am embarrassed to admit that but it is true.

Smoking is highly addictive. It is much harder to quit once you start, and in my view all the efforts of the medical community should be directed toward youth to prevent them starting.

I believe the main problems with this bill are just those issues. All efforts are not being directed toward our youth.

I have youth in my family. I have given them every opportunity to be educated on this issue. I had a foster native son who chose to smoke and one of my natural sons also chose to smoke. Of course I asked them why. The answers they gave me were in both instances peer pressure and rebellion. If dad told me not to do it I probably should do it, an if my buddies told me to do it for sure it was going to be good. My firm hope is that those two sons of mine who chose to smoke will change their minds.

There are four main factors in starting to smoke. The price of the product is number one and this bill does have an impact on the price. Promotion of the product is number two and that is something that we can do something about. The product itself and the place in which you live are other factors in this issue. Societal factors are a big deal.

I believe that we should have freedom in this country. I believe we should have freedom to do many things that are harmful for us. It is extremely difficult to legislate people into doing what is good for them. I believe we should have freedom to eat junk food even though junk food ultimately may not be good for us. I believe we should have freedom to drink water, or juice, or alcohol even though one of those products ultimately may not be good for us. I believe we should have freedom to run home from the office for exercise or ride in a vehicle with no exercise.

I believe we should have the freedom to smoke if we choose to smoke but I do not believe that we should make it easy to start. I do not believe that we should encourage our youth to start. I certainly hope that this House will do none of those things.

I tried to look with as much favour as I could on the government's strategy here because this was not just a smoking issue. I tried to ask what is the all-embracing, anti-smoking strategy of our health minister. I have not really been able to pin

the health minister down on this issue, but there have been some pieces that have dribbled out in terms of that strategy.

The minister has said that the $185 million that will be taken in the manufacturers' surtax will be used in large measure for advertising to prevent smoking. I said before that the money must be used effectively and I have yet to see an advertising campaign that would prevent teens from starting. It certainly will have no effect on adults who have already started.

I also heard the minister talk about plain packaging. Plain packaging has had a significant amount of input and feedback in our committees and a significant amount of witnesses on both sides of the issue. If plain packaging will make a difference to prevent youth from smoking I will support it and support it strongly.

I simply ask that before plain packaging is embarked upon, an expensive proposition, a job dislocation proposition, that we have proof it will work. In my view that proof is not so far away. There is a study at the University of Toronto looking at this specifically. I thought we would have a good study from our Department of Health. I am not sure of that anymore, but I hope that study will also prove that plain packaging of cigarettes would be efficacious.

The health minister has said eventually we will raise taxes. I hope that eventually is not so far down the road that eventually will never happen.

The other point that I wanted to bring up on this debate was the issue of the freedom in this House. There are actually more medical doctors in Parliament today than I believe have ever been in Parliament before. Three of them sit on the government side. I have listened to the three of them speak about their view on this bill as it relates to health. We are going to have individuals on this side of the House voting against my personal position on this bill. I have to oppose it for health reasons. I believe there will be members of my caucus who will stand up and say they disagree with me, they agree with the government. However, I will watch with profound interest what my medical colleagues do with this bill on this issue.

I reflect upon two members in the last Parliament who voted against their government on a specific piece of legislation. I watched what happened to them. I watched them removed from their caucus. One of those individuals is in this House today. I say to the medical individuals on the government side that if you vote for this bill you are voting against everything that your medical profession taught you. You are voting against the Hippocratic Oath.

I will watch with great interest, if they do vote against the government on this bill, exactly what happens to them in their caucus. If they get booted out of their caucus for voting for the

health of Canadians our government is down the tubes. I will state that as strongly as I can state it.

There is one thing that tobacco companies have done in terms of the advertising of their product. They have a mobile billboard that they are using now. The race cars that race on the tracks of this country are now advertising tobacco. I hate to say this because I am a race car driver, but the tobacco companies have found a way around the advertising ban.

As much as I hate to say this to Jacques Villeneuve who drives a car with logos all over it, this should not continue. The racing car fraternity will choke as I say this-millions of dollars being put toward the activity that I enjoy a tremendous amount-there should not be the allowance of cultural events sponsored by the tobacco companies. There should not be mobile billboards on the tracks of this country to attract our youth to smoking.

I am going to use an illusion that comes from the race car world. When you are driving a car very fast you know that you are running into a wall of air. The car shakes and shudders, but if you can get right behind another car and draft that car you can go faster. The turbulence decreases, you can go faster than you could by yourself. Interestingly enough, you can push the car ahead of you faster. Drafting actually makes both vehicles go faster. It has something to do with the turbulence behind the vehicle that you are pushing.

I look upon this government as the car in the lead. I look upon this party as the drafting car, pushing the government faster than it would otherwise move. I challenge this government to keep us in the draft, continue with legislation like this and there could be a passing manoeuvre coming up.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think the illustration that has just been used is an excellent illustration of what has been happening in this House. It is not just with regard to this piece of legislation, but the Young Offenders Act and some of the other things that have been happening are good examples of how an opposition that is strong and prods the government can have quite an influence in some positive directions that government can take.

That goes along with what this government is advocating, does it not? Is not this government saying it is listening, it wants that co-operation to take place, it is looking for input?

I hope it is listening because we are trying to make a point. We have been addressing this for quite some time and the health concerns are not going to go away. We have heard some of the statistics that have been quoted and some of the results of this legislation already coming forward on how smoking seems to be on the increase. It is a legitimate concern that we have.

Coming back to the remarks that were made, I am not an expert in this area, someone who is in medicine of course would be. There are some people who will absolutely never smoke. No matter what advertising might take place, they would not be lured into that habit. There are others who will probably smoke no matter what contrary advertising took place. No matter what the government did to try to discourage that, they would still smoke.

There is a group on the edge. They can be influenced one way or the other. I would like the member to maybe comment in this regard about the vulnerable sector of our society that will be influenced by the price. Would that not be a factor that the government should consider?

Some will say they are not going to start smoking just because the price has been lowered. That may be true, there may be an element out there. Some will smoke no matter what the price is. That could be true. I am wondering if there is not an element in between there, a vulnerable element that would be influenced by price. I do not know if the member has any research or any opinion on that.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I happen to have some research and data on that issue. I think we should maybe join up in Question Period. We could have a very similar process as I see across the way.

Smoking increase is the first in 30 years, and this actually came across the wire this morning from Toronto on CP. For the first time in 30 years tobacco use is on the rise in Ontario and women account for most of the new smokers.

Among those women age 18 and older smoking soared to 25 per cent this year from 19 per cent in 1993. These particular data suggest that the availability of cheaper cigarettes has halted the decline. In Canada that decline in smoking has been going on for 30 years and has perhaps reversed the trend. The fellow who conducted the research at the foundation said the greater increase for women is consistent with the fact that women's lower incomes make them more price sensitive than men and more likely to react to the tax cuts.

One of the tragedies in medicine is that women have overtaken men in terms of cigarette smoking, and cancer of the lungs in women has now overtaken the other horrible cancer in women, breast cancer, as one of the major causes of female death. Preventable illness-there is nothing in medicine more satisfying than preventing disease.

These data are the first data we have had made available to us. It has not been very long since these proposals have been on the books. Surely 30 years of decline in smoking with a sudden spike tells us something. This spike has nothing whatever to do with legal or illegal cigarettes. It is simply a spike, an indication. As we get more indications I think the government will backtrack on this bill. Why backtrack on it when we can prevent it right now?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague for the wonderful speech he made. I listened to the graphic details of what happens to our organs when we smoke and he talked about lungs that seemed to be rather unpleasant to see.

Then he went on to talk about the fact that it was against the Hippocratic Oath of doctors to vote in favour of this bill and he expected any doctor in the Liberal government would oppose this bill.

At the same time the Minister of Health acquiesced while her government introduced this legislation and dropped the excise tax on cigarettes.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he feels the position of the Minister of Health should be and whether the minister should resign when her government has introduced this type of measure which will increase smoking. We have all agreed that it is going to increase smoking. We have started to see the effects of it already in the statistics.

The health minister by her position is dedicated to protecting, enhancing and improving the life of Canadians.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he feels her position should be and whether the minister should resign based on what the government is trying to do.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not think the health minister should resign on this issue. The minister has enough trouble without worrying about resigning on this issue.

Traditionally the health minister on an issue like this would be the strongest and most vocal supporter of the health of Canadians. I did watch with interest to see whether that took place. I am dismayed to report to this House that I do not believe it did take place. There seems to me to be at least four individuals who should vote against this bill.

I would strongly state that the Minister of Health should stand in this House and state her opposition to anything that would do what this bill will do and that is increase cigarette smoking in our youth. I state that strongly.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 8 this government announced its national action campaign to combat smuggling. Bill C-11 was introduced to address some of the enforcement measures and tax changes were implemented using a number of ways and means motions until Bill C-32 was introduced on May 27. As has already been outlined, there are a number of positives mixed up in the bill with the obvious negative of lowering cigarette taxes and thereby lowering the price of cigarettes to smokers.

On February 10, I wrote a column on this very issue for newspapers back home. It was printed in all the local papers. I think it is of interest and I would like to quote from my column and read it into the record:

The Prime Minister says there is a breakdown in respect for the law in Canada and this will no longer be tolerated. His House leader states that smuggling is a crime and we must restore law and order. Brave words, hopefully to be followed by strong action undertaken with a resolute strength of will.

The government unveiled its national action plan to combat smuggling, the objective being to eliminate cigarette smuggling in Canada. Like most government plans, it is a mixture of good and bad. Its plan to step up enforcement by police forces and customs officers is certainly commendable as is the implementation of an $8 per carton export tax.

Stepping up the anti-smoking education campaign is also a positive move. However the government's announced reduction in taxes on legal cigarettes sold in Canada must surely be a disastrous error. Make no mistake, the federal government struck this deal primarily for the benefit of one province.

Quebec has been clamouring for action on this for weeks. Almost immediately after the Prime Minister's announcement, Quebec indicated its willingness to participate fully in the tax reduction scheme. As a result, the price of a carton of cigarettes in Quebec will fall from $47 to less than $23 when federal and provincial taxes are removed, along with relevant GST and sales taxes. What is the fallout from this?

Criminals have been sent the message that we cannot protect our borders or enforce our laws, particularly on the Akwasasne Indian reserve through which an estimated 70 per cent of contraband tobacco is funnelled. We will instead lower the price of legal cigarettes and compete for their customers.

Provinces other than Quebec will be forced to match the tax reductions. If not, an international smuggling problem will simply become an interprovincial one. Every province will face a resultant drop in tax revenue at the very time they are all struggling to balance income with expenditures.

Price is a deterrent. Cheaper cigarettes will act as an incentive for Canadians to start or to continue smoking, especially our youth. The end result will undoubtedly be higher health costs for all Canadians in the future.

For years, our policy has been to attempt to offset the costs attributable to smoking by levying higher tobacco taxes. Now suddenly with one stroke of the pen, this government has reversed that policy. This new policy of reducing domestic taxes in lieu of initiating a higher export tax will primarily benefit the tobacco industry by maintaining or increasing current cigarette consumption levels.

If past performance is any indication this government, just like its predecessor, will lack the political will to follow though with its announced crackdown on smugglers. In my opinion what is needed is a comprehensive plan which would include strict enforcement of our laws. If the present police and customs forces are inadequate as the past record of seizure of only an estimated 1 per cent of illegal cigarettes would seem to indicate, then those forces should be augmented.

If necessary, our armed forces should be called upon to assist with this mission. Perhaps a little trip down the St. Lawrence might make a good shakedown cruise for our new frigates. It is time for politicians to make some tough decisions and give the police a mandate to enforce our laws.

That was my column on February 10. What has changed since February 10? I note not a lot.

I would like to change the focus of the debate a little at this point and talk about cigarettes from a personal perspective. I have been a smoker for approximately 25 years.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Shame.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Shame. That is right.

When it comes to quitting smoking, I am a professional quitter. I have quit hundreds of times. However, I can attest to just how powerful a hold cigarettes have on an individual.

Make no mistake, nicotine is a highly addictive drug. We have all heard that it is perhaps even more addictive than the drug heroin. I started smoking when I was 16 years old and as one of my colleagues remarked earlier, being raised on a farm I started smoking out behind the barn at a very early age. Why the barn did not burn down I have no idea.

At that time cigarettes were 35 cents a pack. I can remember very clearly when they were raised to 50 cents, then 75 cents, finally climbing to $1. Of course with each price increase a few more people would quit smoking. That is the reality of it.

I can remember my father for one stating that when cigarettes got to be $1 a pack that was it, he was going to quit smoking. It certainly was a deterrent for young people and although that was many years ago I was a young person at that time. It was hard to come up with 35 cents some days.

Last night on my way home I stopped at a corner store to purchase a package of cigarettes. Three dollars and thirty cents is how much it costs to buy them by the pack. I heard an hon. member earlier state that they are down around $2 a pack if you buy them by the carton.

The very thing we spoke out about in February when the government announced this legislation and their intentions are actually coming about, the lower cost of cigarettes in central Canada. With the resultant lower cost we are starting to see an increase in consumption, especially among young people who would not be able to afford cigarettes in many cases at $7 a pack or thereabouts where it was a while back.

I ask the government, what message does this send to teenagers. That it is this frivolous with their health? The government cares this little about the health of teenagers that it lowers the cost of cigarettes like this. Tobacco is a drug addiction. I would equate it to alcohol. Once you become an alcoholic everyone

recognizes that you are an alcoholic for life. It does not matter if you have not had a drink for 20 years, you are still an alcoholic. Past alcoholics who are successful are people who recognize that fact and never take that first drink. I can certainly attest to the fact it is very similar once you take that first cigarette. It does not take long for nicotine to take hold of your life again.

Probably since the lowering of the tax and consequently the cost of cigarettes, in the neighbourhood of hundreds or perhaps even thousands of young people have begun to smoke. Certainly a lot of young people who perhaps would seriously have considered giving up the cigarettes are continuing to smoke.

As I outlined in my column, the international smuggling problem has become an interprovincial one. Westerners, the people I represent, feel very disenfranchised by this. They feel they are second class citizens when they know what the price of cigarettes is in central Canada and it is still over $6 a pack back home.

Polls are indicating, as some of our hon. members have indicated, that the use of cigarettes is going up for the first time in recent history. Common sense would seem to dictate that hon. members opposite should vote against this, but common sense seems to be sadly lacking on the other side of the House on this issue.

In conclusion, I would like to sum up by making three points. My colleagues have addressed the majority of their concerns with this legislation.

Nicotine is a powerful drug. It is well if we all remember that, especially when it gets a hold on our youth, when the youth take to smoking.

There is ample evidence to note that smoking is dangerous to a person's health. I know that used to be disputed for many years. Certainly when I first started smoking it was not as well known as it is now just what are the inherent dangers of cigarette consumption. We are just beginning to learn about the real danger of second hand smoke to our children, to our spouses, to people around us in the workplace.

I find it somewhat ironic that the government would initiate lowering the cost of cigarettes at the same time as municipalities across the country are having smoke free zones, smoke free buildings. Yet the government through this lowering of the cost of tobacco is actually encouraging people to either begin to smoke or to continue smoking.

We note that the government has no real handle on what the cost to future taxpayers is going to be in health care. It is very relevant to remember that it is future taxpayers who are going to pay this. Just like the deficit and the debt, we are passing on this cost to our children.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Pass the buck.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

That is right, pass the buck.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Pass the butt.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Or pass the butt.

The third point I want to come back to is that price is a deterrent. I can attest to that, as I said earlier. Any young person who smokes today would also be witness to that fact. There is a big difference at $2 or $3 a pack than if it is $7 or $8 a pack of cigarettes in how much they will smoke or whether they will even continue smoking.

I am very pleased to be able to rise today and voice my opposition to Bill C-32, not because, as other speakers have said that it does not have some good built into it but that strictly on health reasons alone I feel that in all good conscience, if we care about future generations, if we care about the young in Canada, we should vote against this bill.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I enjoy going home from Ottawa is not simply because the humidity is much less, although it is partly that. There is a lot of space, that is true. But there is also a lot of common sense out there.

One of the things that Cariboo-Chilcotin people are often criticized for is perhaps their lack of subtlety. There may be some subtlety in this bill that I find distressing.

If I remember correctly the reason we came at this is because of a problem with smuggling. We have heard hon. members talk about the consequences of this problem on the lives of community members where this smuggling was taking place, the hardships that people endured with smuggling taking place in their driveways, of not being able to deal with the threats that were involved, of the police being overwhelmed. There is no denying the government was confronted with an enormous problem.

The difficulty that I have and the subtlety that I am speaking to is that the problem has been taken from the streets of these communities and passed in general to the young people across the nation. The problem is such that the lives and the of these people are going to be affected at a time when the federal and provincial governments are facing enormous problems with the country's medical plan. In a sense, we are placing extra burdens on the medical profession and the hospitals in caring for people in the long term.

This kind of subtlety, this kind of passing the buck, or the butt as we have mentioned this afternoon, raises an extremely important moral issue. It does deal with the original problem but it makes the problem move from that area of the country and generalizes it across the country. It increases the difficulties for

many people and increases the costs for a long, long time to come.

My hon. colleague has spoken so well of the difficulties of smoking in his own life. How would he encourage the government to deal with the smuggling which was the original problem the government faced?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my hon. colleague for his comments and his question.

As he so ably put it, the government was faced with a horrendous problem, the smuggling problem in Canada. As I said in my column, 70 per cent of it had been identified as coming through the native reserves in central Canada. What I advocated then and what I still advocate is we have to get tough with law breakers no matter who they are and no matter where they are in our country.

I felt then as I do now that a dual approach is needed of raising the export tax enough to take away the incentive as well as clamping down on smugglers wherever they may be, even if it were to cause bloodshed. If we have laws on our books but are not prepared to enforce them, then what good are they?

This government developed a national strategy with this legislation to address primarily a central Canada problem. Certainly we did not see the same problem in western Canada. If it had been there those governments would have reduced their cigarette taxes as well and they have not, except by a minimal amount.

We have to get tough with the smugglers instead of sending them a clear message that we will compete with them for their own customers by lowering the costs. If we follow this train of thought through where does it lead? Other things are smuggled into the country. Are we going to address them in the same manner? That is ridiculous.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again speaking as someone who might be a proponent of the bill, my hon. colleague who has been a smoker for 25 years, does he believe that Canadian smokers will only smoke Canadian cigarettes if there is a large price differential? Does my colleague not have concerns about other damage to society which might occur if the ill-gotten gains of cigarette smuggling were to find their natural investment path in other criminal activity?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking as an experienced smoker, I can tell my hon. colleague that Canadian cigarettes are the best cigarettes in the world. I have travelled in Europe and I have travelled quite extensively in the United States. I must say their cigarettes and tobacco simply do not stack up. I am quite prepared to state that yes, Canadian smokers would be prepared to pay more for Canadian tobacco. That is a great indication of what a terrific job Canadian farmers do in growing quality products.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his fine speech. He mentioned the problems he has had in wrestling with smoking for 25 years.

We have been talking about reducing the price of cigarettes making them affordable for young people. More and more young people, especially young ladies, are starting to smoke. We heard the medical opinion from my colleague from Macleod who told us how dangerous it is, how it ruins one's health, ruins one's lungs.

My hon. colleague personally knows how difficult it is to stop smoking. I think he said he has tried at least a thousand times, so he is a professional stop smoking person. I would therefore ask, is it far more important that we put the emphasis on making sure people do not start smoking rather than allowing them to start, thinking we will to convince them to quit later on by raising the taxes through the roof? Surely it would be much better to focus on not allowing these children to start smoking.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree the emphasis has to be placed on trying to educate the young people. With my three young children at home I certainly have endeavoured to do that. I have tried to tell them to do as I say and not as I do, obviously.

Although I have smoked on and off for 25 years, I did quit for four and a half years at one point, quite an accomplishment I felt at the time. However, along came the 1988 election and by the time I had gone through the election I was smoking again. It might say something for the profession I am currently in.

As to what we can do to encourage young people, I think it is incumbent on every one who has children or young people around them-if you are a coach of a team, if you have young nieces, nephews, grandchildren, whatever-to certainly encourage them not to smoke and to warn them about the dangers of smoking. That is something each and every one of us can do.

I do not believe, as someone else said earlier, that plain packaging or government advertising programs which spend millions of dollars will be that effective. I have talked to a number of young people. When they see these frightening ads on television that try to portray the danger of cigarettes, they do not relate to them. Peer pressure is much greater and it will not be offset by that advertising.

Personal contact from people they know and trust, their family and friends, would be much more successful in preventing them from starting to smoke or convincing them to stop if they do start.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you might find there is unanimous consent to revert to presentation of reports by committees to table the report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which I attempted to do earlier.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to presentation by committees?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just to clarify it is the one report the hon. member is bringing forward.