House of Commons Hansard #135 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was young.

Topics

Apec SummitOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Dubé Progressive Conservative Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, CBC this morning is reporting that New Brunswick Premier Camille Thériault had full knowledge of a correctional college to be built in New Brunswick, the same correctional college that the member for Palliser overheard the solicitor general discussing on a very public plane.

The member for Palliser could not make this up. In fact, he heard all too well the solicitor general breaking secrets in public. Will the solicitor general not do the honourable thing? Will he recognize his error in judgment? Will he resign?

Apec SummitOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Fredericton New Brunswick

Liberal

Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I never suggested that he made it up. He just got it wrong.

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In light of the rising tension between Turkey and Syria, will the minister explain to the House what diplomatic efforts Canada is making to defuse this increasingly dangerous situation that could have lasting implications for peace in the Middle East and Asia Minor?

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Liberal

Julian Reed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for asking the question again. There is a little bit of noise coming from the other side, Mr. Speaker, and it becomes rather confusing for a neophyte parliamentary secretary.

Turkey has been concerned in the past by the incursions by the PKK, the workers party, into Turkey.

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Foreign AffairsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I think I better quit while I am ahead and draw to conclusion today's question period.

Presence In The GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Festus Mogai, President of the Republic of Botswana and a delegation from his country.

Presence In The GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, given what went on here today, I do not suppose there is any great question I could ask, but I would like to ask the government House leader the nature of the business in the House of Commons for the remainder of this week and for the next time we sit.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the business of the House of Commons for today and tomorrow will be Bill C-42, the tobacco legislation, and Bill C-40, the extradition legislation.

It would not be my intention at this point to call other government business before the adjournment tomorrow.

Next week is the Thanksgiving break. When we return we will commence with Bill C-54, the electronic commerce bill. This will be followed by the resumption of consideration of Bill C-43, the revenue agency bill. Tuesday, October 20 shall be an allotted day.

I take this opportunity to wish all members an excellent Thanksgiving holiday and hope that everyone will come back here reinvigorated with the best interests of the nation at heart.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this afternoon, in his statement, the member for Bourassa misled the House. I never asked the voters in the riding of Rimouski—Mitis what they wanted us to do with the surpluses in the employment insurance fund.

What I asked, and I am prepared to table the text of the question, is—

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Sometimes, when members are making statements, they quote facts that can be taken in several ways. If I understand correctly, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis is seeking unanimous consent to table an document. Is that correct?

Does the hon. member have the permission of the House to table the document?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Ways And MeansGovernment Orders

October 8th, 1998 / 3:05 p.m.

Willowdale Ontario

Liberal

Jim Peterson LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion respecting the Excise Tax Act and I am also tabling explanatory notes.

I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Ways And MeansGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, does the hon. member not need the unanimous consent of the House to do that outside the regular debate session?

Ways And MeansGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Standing Order 83(1): states:

A notice of Ways and Means motion may be laid upon the Table of the House at any time during a sitting by a Minister of the Crown, but such a motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.

As long as it is being laid on the table and not proposed, we are all right.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Before the start of question period the hon. member for Vancouver North had six minutes left in questions and comments. However, I believe we will be resuming debate.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and speak to Bill C-42.

This bill is very close to me at this time. It is a one that is affecting my family right now. It is a bill that has affected my family in the past.

I really wish that every member of the government was in their place right now to examine what they are about to do with this bill. This five year phase-in on tobacco advertising will probably kill thousands of people and start thousands of more teenagers into an addiction habit.

If members opposite and those who want to support this bill would just sit for a moment. Never mind the tobacco tax they are going to receive because they are going to lose all of it in extra health care. Never mind the grant they are going to get or political patronage from the tobacco companies. Let us just sit down for a moment this afternoon and ask ourselves is it worth it. Is it worth it to see thousands of young people become addicted to the still massive advertising of the tobacco companies? The bill should not be phased in over five years. The bill should come in now and everybody in the House would support it.

My colleague from Elk Island did not want to use the word hypocrisy. I have to use that word for this reason. When the government was faced with massive smuggling, what did it do? Instead of dealing with the smuggling, it said to the teenagers of Ontario and Quebec mainly we are going to drop the tax, we are going to lower the price of cigarettes, go ahead and smoke, you will not have to work a full hour on the lowest pay scale for one package of cigarettes, you can now get two or three packages. So the in thing was to smoke.

The government created the highest teenage level of smoking in Canada in years by its inability to look at an issue and say we are going to put our money into stopping the smuggling of cigarettes back into Canada. It did not want to do that. It created a double standard. The rule of law did not apply in Canada.

In Dryden, Ontario people could buy cigarettes for less than half of what they could a few miles away in Manitoba. The government continues to justify that.

I agree with the hon. member that we should have an educational program, taking all the money, all the revenue and putting programs into our schools.

Let me tell members about an incident in my life. My brother was 49 years old. I was 35 miles out of the office when the call came to go back to the office. The message was that a 49 year old prince of a man had just died of lung cancer. Today I have another family member who is in serious trouble health wise.

Just think how many people in the next five years are going to become addicted because the government has more concerns about the filthy lucre it is going to get and the political patronage grants it is going to get from the tobacco companies than to face this issue square on. Think about it.

The government failed to recognize what the cancer societies said. It failed to recognize what the Health Association of Canada said. No, the government has to do it its way.

I sat in on a lung operation. I sat in on a smoker's lung being removed. A high tech camera should show that picture in every high school classroom in this country. Watch them take out a gross lung, completely ruined by tar and nicotine.

Here we have a bill that is not going to curb but will be phased in.

Knowing the record of the government, it will never get truly phased in as long as there is kick-in under the table on political patronage and grants. All people in Canada know that. The Canadian Cancer Society knows it. Members on the government side know it and all hon. members know it.

Tobacco has many defenders but, no matter what, nobody can come up with a defence.

Immediately the government has shied away from what it promised. This is not what it promised. It promised it would bring about an immediate change in encouraging the use of tobacco and it would stop this. The hypocrisy continues.

Bill C-42 is the height of hypocrisy. No matter what hon. members want to say, no matter what gestures they make, the public knows that this is hypocrisy.

The government zealously defends health by publicly attacking tobacco companies verbally, but not so realistically. It is still going to take the tax and the political donations and it is still going to be the cause of hundreds of young people becoming addicted to cigarettes in the next five years. The government and the Minister of Health cannot deny that.

The Minister of Health is in a very uncomfortable position with this bill. Go ahead and collect the large revenues and spend less than 1% on public advertising for our youth not to become addicted. That in itself is an act of hypocrisy of the highest degree.

The Minister of Health can tell us that the revenue they take in from tobacco does not even cover the cost of the medical problems caused by tobacco, let alone providing any educational material to put into our schools.

The hypocrisy in this bill, in not dealing with one of the biggest problems facing the health of Canadians, is to phase it in over five years. Even if 10% of those kids who are now 12 years of age become addicted simply because of the inability of this bill to do what Canada wants it to do, then the fault will surely fall on the government opposite. It has to.

The government is phasing this in over a five year period and is still allowing limited advertising and the whole bit. However, when it needs more money, does anyone know what it will do? Canadians know what it will do. It will make amendments down the road in about three or four years and will go over the whole process again.

I have lost relatives to tobacco. I have seen many young people destroy their lives with tobacco. I have seen an adult of only 30-some years of age, addicted in his teens, laying in a hospital bed. How can hon. members opposite sit there and support a bill that is going to be phased in? I cannot understand it and I do not think they do.

I know they say they received a letter on their desk which told them to support the bill, but let each member examine themselves. Let every member who votes in this House examine themselves. Let them take a look at a brother dying of throat cancer at 49 years of age because there was no program. They are not justifying it.

I happen to have a twin brother. The same fate awaits him because we did not have the medical knowledge that the hon. Minister of Health has now. We did not have all of the medical knowledge from the Canadian Cancer Society. We did not have thousands of people who were deadly against this bill.

Death and destruction is being phased in to untold millions of young Canadians who will be addicted under this rather fluffy policy. I beg of all members on both sides of the House to please examine their positions. Never mind the tax revenue. Never mind the political grants. Let us just think of the teenagers who will be addicted, have a free vote and watch Bill C-42 be defeated.

Please, for the sake of our young people, vote with your conscience and not with your party.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member has certainly spoken in very strong terms about this bill. It is clear that he feels very emotional about it.

Can the member elaborate on why he believes that not just this government but governments over the past several years have refused to take a tough stand on this issue when we have known for some time through scientific evidence that this addiction is deadly and that children are taking up the addiction because of advertising?

I would also ask the member to elaborate on the comments he made surrounding his belief that there are several people on the government side who would vote against this bill if they were given the chance to do so. I would like him to explain clearly what he means by that.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the latter part of the hon. member's question first.

I believe that people on that side of the House, as well as on this side, if they are given the opportunity to do some soul searching, and if that soul searching is strong enough and rises above the party's position, will vote this bill down.

I respect hon. members on the other side of the House and I know how many of them want to vote. They have told me how they want to vote.

With respect to the other part of the question, it has been proven beyond a doubt that more advertising, more accessibility and a cheaper product increases consumption. All it does is bring about more death. It brings about more addiction. The fault, as we look at the five year phase in period, will hang very heavily on some people's shoulders. It will be on the shoulders of the people who vote yes for this tobacco bill. Make no mistake about it.

As Abraham Lincoln said about liquor, it has many defenders, but so far nobody has come up with a defence. I would challenge anyone on either side of this House to realistically study Bill C-42 and come up with one good defence as to why we should continue to advertise tobacco products and make them available over the counter. I know they have taken strong action, but the fact is that I cannot go to any high school in my riding and not see youth smoking, despite what they are doing.

With this phase in period, all they are doing is asking them to continue in dribbles.

My conscience, and I am sure the conscience of many members, both in the back and front rows, will say that Bill C-42 is a mistake. Take it back to the drawing board and come up with something that is saleable to Canadians and to all the health organizations in Canada who do not think kindly of this bill being passed.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made another comment that I would like him to elaborate on, and that is that he believes that the portion of this bill that is supposed to be phased in will never happen. I have heard others in the debate make that comment as well. They believe that the phase in will never happen, that the government will back off on this once again, as it did on the original piece of legislation.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. As long as the profits from the tobacco industry contribute to the revenue of this government, or of any government, without going directly to health care or directly to education, then it is going to be wiggled around forever because it likes to get its hands on money.

Secondly, as long as the tobacco tycoons are able every four years to shovel a whole bunch of money into the coffers of this party or any other party, this bill will never become a reality.

I can assure members from experience that this bill will never become a reality because the government always wants money and it just loves political patronage from tycoons in the tobacco industry.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, it is clear that his emotional involvement in this issue has clouded his usual judgment and has led him to speak excessively, inappropriately and inaccurately.

I will put aside the inappropriate and excessive remarks, some of which were clearly out of order. But let me deal with the inaccuracies because it is important that the record be set straight.

The bill before the House strengthens the Tobacco Act which already is the toughest in the western world. When I was in Geneva last June at the World Health Organization a number of countries asked me for a copy of our legislation. They want to copy it. This is the most intelligent and effective anti-tobacco legislation in the western world.

Bill C-71, which as passed by this House a year and a half ago, provided for promotion by tobacco companies forever, although it was limited. This bill goes further. It prohibits sponsorship and promotion by tobacco companies altogether within five years.

The Canadian Medical Association said “We are pleased that health minister Rock has recognized the need for a full ban”.

The Cancer Society, through its spokesperson Rob Cunningham, said “A total ban on sponsorships is an important improvement to the act, one that we strongly support”.

Garfield Mahood of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association said “We are pleased the government has finally recognized the need for a complete sponsorship ban”.

The Calgary Herald wrote “The new legislation is workable and defensible”. I could go on.

The public, the spokespersons, the informed members of the public in this country support the government. The step we have taken will end sponsorship by tobacco companies within five years and that is very much in the interests of the health of Canadians.

Tobacco ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has come into this debate saying that it is most progressive.

Will the minister not agree, and I know that he will, that phasing in something of this nature does not work? It has never worked in this country and it is not going to work now.

If it is a good thing to bring about a total ban on cigarette and tobacco advertising in the year 2003, what is wrong with a total ban in 1998? That is what Canadians are asking.

I say to the Minister of Health that a lot of people will lose their lives to cancer during those five years and the guilt is going to lie on those people who support this bill.