Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-32 on behalf of the Reform Party. Other members of my party had planned and prepared to make presentations on this as well but unfortunately they will not have the same opportunity as I have.
Last night we witnessed a Liberal interpretation of open democracy when they invoked closure on this and every other critical piece of legislation before this House.
Here we have another omnibus bill that tackles issues as varied as airport tax, meal allowance changes and the anti-smuggling initiatives. Today I will concentrate my remarks on the cigarette smuggling and taxation component of this bill. I believe that this is a step in the right direction. We should be educating the public about the hazard of smoking tobacco. I agree with the export tax on tobacco products.
We in this party are in favour of stronger enforcement of the laws against smuggling. We have a police force in Canada that is one of the best in the world. We have laws. Why this situation is so different from any other law breaker is really difficult for me to understand. Take speeders for example. Because people do not comply with the speeding laws is no reason to change the laws to do away with the speed limit so that people can drive at any rate they like. Instead we come up with different ways to apprehend these speeders and we penalize them for having no respect for our laws.
When we talk about compliance we have a problem now with smuggling east and west in Canada. It occurs to me that we are all too ready to enforce our smuggling laws east and west but we are very hesitant to do the same as far as other smuggling is concerned.
How much money do you suppose this government is foregoing with this new policy of the reduction of taxation?
The government's policy is to broaden the tax base. It has voluntarily given up hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. If one reduces taxes on cigarettes across this country and foregoes those hundreds of millions of dollars worth of revenue, it would seem to me that in order for the Liberal government to reach its target of 3 per cent deficit of the GDP in three years' time, it will be compelled to make up this revenue somewhere else since it seems reticent to reduce its spending by any substantial amount.
I suspect that there have been many debates in this House and in the provincial legislatures that increasing taxes would not only bring in additional revenue from the so-called sin taxes but it would also be a financial deterrent against smoking. This reduction in the taxation on cigarettes seems to be a complete departure from that rationale.
This bill also increases the legal age limit to buy tobacco which I suppose is commendable but at the same time the government is making tobacco and cigarettes more affordable. Now that we are making it financially easier for people to purchase cigarettes, will we see an increase in the usage of an already overburdened health care system? Some members have quoted facts and figures on both sides, whether there is an increase in smoking or whether there has actually been a decrease in smoking.
It makes me wonder when we are quoting facts from Statistics Canada if they have taken into consideration the amount of cigarettes that have been smuggled into this country and consumed that do not show up on StatsCan's statistics.
I will take a slightly different tack. In my view, a very clear precedent has been set here. We have established that in order to deter smuggling, we must take the profit out of smuggling by reducing the taxation on whatever.
There is also a significant problem with the smuggling of alcohol and spirits into Canada. It is very easy to draw a parallel between the smuggling of tobacco and the smuggling of spirits. The price of a bottle of spirits in Canada is approximately double what it is in the United States. Eighty-seven per cent of the cost of a bottle of spirits in Canada is taxation. The manufacturer must produce, bottle, advertise, transport, pay all capital building costs and employees and take its profit out of the 13 per cent that is left.
Is it any wonder then that we have the smuggling of spirits north and south across our border. It seems to me that we are encouraging a new generation of runners here. The statistics that I have indicate that of the 17 million cases of alcohol or spirits that is sold in Canada today per year, four million of those cases are contraband. They reached Canada illegally. They were shipped out of Canada and smuggled back across the border.
We arrive at four million cases by communicating with provincial liquor boards, comparisons of per capita consumption between Canada and the United States and consumer surveys on consumption habits and Revenue Canada customs law enforcement agencies.
There has been quite a lot of discussion about what the law should be and the two tier system. Is there a law for one group and another law for another group? Perhaps that is a debatable point. There is no question that it is debatable. There is definitely a difference in how the law is enforced.
What we are looking at here is an enforcement problem. We should have gone to a more stringent enforcement. We have the laws. We have the police force. We simply need to apply it.
I believe that if we follow the rationale that the reduction in taxation is the route to go as far as discouraging smuggling of cigarettes, then exactly the same thing has to be done with alcohol. We have to improve the enforcement profile, as I have said, and we must increase the penalties for smuggling. I do not believe that reduction of taxation should enter into it at all.
I find it extremely difficult to support this bill in its present form. I do not have any intention of doing that at this time.