Debates of March 17th, 1999

Criminal Code

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

The jury is still out on that.

I have done some things that I now regret, thankfully not many and thankfully not any that are very serious, but I still regret them. In each instance when I look back at my own experience and look at some of the things other young people did both in my generation and in the generation I have observed as I have grown older, I believe they practised first in their mind what they finally then put their hands and their feet to.

I look at this as a much broader picture. I believe we need to make sure young people growing up and young children like my grandchildren who range from age six on down learn to think correctly when making decisions. When I think of young people taking a vehicle, there is something behind that which disturbs me because in the home I grew up in my parents would not have tolerated that.

I will tell members about one of the things I regret. This was a minor prank that young people do. Back in the days when I was young it was not as difficult to steal a car as it is now. The electronics were different and I was sharp in those areas. We used to move my uncle's car. He would park it in one place and we would move it maybe just to the other side of the building. When he came out we would laugh at him because he was thinking he had forgotten where he had left his car. He would then go looking for it and eventually find it. That was about as serious as it got.

We need to treat with great seriousness the problem of a young person being willing to steal a car, drive it away wilfully and to not have any intention of bringing it back. If somebody happens to notice that he or she should not be driving this car, the police give chase. They then become ready to enter into the excitement of a high speed chase without the experience of knowing how to handle a car. By doing so, they put other people's lives at risk and risk damaging the car. This is very serious.

I highly commend my colleague for bringing this forward. I really wish members would support it because it is indeed a worthy bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.15 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 23, 1999, at the end of the time provided for Private Members' Business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's treatment of many Canadian veterans is simply appalling.

On November 24, 1998 in the House of Commons I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs to finally commit to a just settlement with Canada's merchant marine. I had hoped he would make some commitment to act. I had expected that he might indicate a willingness to do something. Instead the response of the minister was simply that he would listen.

It is not the time to listen. It is the time to act and to make a commitment to these Canadians deprived of justice by this government. I have become thoroughly appalled at the Liberal government's handling of this matter and of the matter of Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war at the Buchenwald concentration camp.

These brave Canadians played a central role in Canada's war effort. Many lost their lives and their health for our country. Families suffered. Communities suffered. As a result our country was poorer for the loss of so many merchant mariners, yet so much richer for the role they played in bringing victory to all of us.

This government has seen fit to provide an ex gratia payment of $23,940 each to Hong Kong veterans who were Japanese prisoners of war. This payment was promised just last December and strikes me as at least an effort to achieve a just settlement.

It is simply a disgrace that this government has betrayed Canada's merchant mariners by refusing to compensate them for the discrimination the merchant mariners faced upon their return home from serving Canada's war effort.

This issue is to be raised tomorrow at the House of Commons veterans affairs committee on which I sit. It is disgraceful that this government has abjectly refused to negotiate a settlement with these Canadians. While I am glad that the committee may make some headway where the government has failed, it is unacceptable that this government has repeatedly rejected calls for negotiation on compensation.

Assuming that the committee comes forth with a recommendation, I worry that this government will then take its time to respond and make an announcement.

How many more honourable Canadian merchant mariners must die before this Liberal government does the right thing and provides just compensation? How many? It has been estimated that merchant mariners are dying at the rate of about 12 per month. From where my New Democratic colleagues and I sit, one more death before proper compensation is provided is far too much.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the government to move to improve the health care package available to all veterans, especially those whose advanced years make them particularly vulnerable.

As I conclude, I am pleased to take a moment to pay tribute to Gordon Olmstead, a man who fought for his country and then continued to fight for what was right for the merchant mariners. The efforts of Gordon Olmstead and others like him helped bring about Bill C-61 and helped restore for the merchant mariners their rightful place in history.

Canada's veterans deserve nothing but the best.

[Bob Wood, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage the hon. member for Halifax West, if he gets a chance, to take a more in-depth look at this issue. As he stated just a few moments ago, he is going to get that chance tomorrow at committee starting at 9 a.m.

For example, contrary to some reports, merchant navy veterans were eligible throughout the war for disability pensions for injuries sustained as a consequence of enemy action. At the end of the second world war, merchant navy veterans qualified for most of the post-war benefits provided to armed forces veterans.

What they did not qualify for as a rule were the re-establishment benefits and there was a good reason for that. The reason lay with the fact that the government intended to keep the merchant marine operational. Canada needed experienced mariners and offering incentives to quit the merchant marine was hardly the way to do that.

By 1948 and 1949 it was clear that Canada could not sustain its merchant fleet and layoffs began. Unemployment insurance benefits were available and other benefits were awarded as a consequence of those layoffs, including access to vocational training.

I will add that armed forces veterans did not qualify for unemployment insurance when they were demobilized at the end of the war.

I remind all members of the House that Bill C-61, which deals with issues identified by merchant navy veterans including the transfer of current merchant navy veterans clauses to the main veterans act, received third reading and is now before the Senate.

I also take this opportunity to remind the hon. member for Halifax West that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has agreed, as he stated, to consider the question of compensation for past differences in the treatment of merchant navy veterans under the veterans benefit legislation.

The committee will begin its study on the issue tomorrow and I look forward to seeing the hon. member there.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explore further the government's strategy, if it has any, on dealing with smoking among young people. I have raised this matter on numerous occasions. My question on November 18 about Bill S-13 afforded me another opportunity to try to discover if the government had any kind of comprehensive strategy.

Are we dealing with words, rhetoric and old promises? Is there actually a serious plan in place to reduce smoking among young people and to deal with a very serious health problem that costs all of us an enormous amount of money and loss of health?

Bill S-13 offered the government a very constructive proposal, an opportunity to put a levy on the industry per carton in order to ensure money was available to be directed entirely into anti-smoking initiatives and into preventing young people from smoking in the first place.

At that time the government used procedural wrangling to argue that the bill should not be before the House. It succeeded. It also promised at that time that it would take the issue further and come back to the House with alternatives for putting in place something comparable to Bill S-13 which adhered to the principles of the proposal by Senator Kenny.

There has been nothing, not a word. There is no sign that a process is in place. We do not know if the Liberal caucus has even met on it as was promised and we are waiting anxiously to see what will happen. In the meantime there is a growing litany of broken promises on the part of the government. It keeps promising that money will be spent. It did so in the 1993 election and in the 1997 election. There was a promise for $100 million to be spent on prevention of smoking among young people.

To date, we still believe that about $200,000 has been spent. There is more rhetoric in the budget but no evidence of anything happening. We also know that on other fronts the government had opportunities to act and failed to do so.

As I mentioned before, with respect to tobacco taxes we know that American tobacco prices have skyrocketed as a result of the November 1998 settlement between the United States government and tobacco companies. Cigarettes now cost as much as $15 more in American states bordering Ontario and Quebec. This means that the smuggling threat the government always talks about, which caused the reduction in tobacco taxes, has been virtually eliminated.

The budget offered the government an opportunity to act. It failed to do so. The government also made a great fanfare about Bill C-42 and about how it was working on eliminating tobacco sponsorships. It was supposed to have included a grandfathering effect, with tobacco companies forbidden to initiate new sponsorships.

Lo and behold, just a few days ago, du Maurier put out a press release bragging about 234 arts groups receiving funding for the coming year and many of them being first time recipients. That is contrary to the spirit of Bill C-42.

Whether we are talking about taxation policy, whether we are talking about education programs or whether we are talking about restrictions on advertising, the government has failed to act. It has provided nothing but rhetoric and disjointed ad hoc suggestions without a comprehensive strategy.

What is desperately needed today for the future of our kids and for the sake of our health care system is a comprehensive, concrete plan of action.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North Centre raises a very important issue. We agree that there has to be a comprehensive global strategy.

That is why we have put in place a comprehensive four pronged strategy that includes the legislative and regulatory aspect, enforcement, research and public awareness, to protect our children's health.

We have adopted some of the toughest tobacco control measures in the world, particularly with regard to restricting access to tobacco products for young people. Canada is a world leader in the regulation of tobacco products, with new proposals dealing with labelling, prevention and reporting.

We are working with provincial governments to increase compliance with the law eliminating cigarette sales to Canadians under 18 years of age. We are increasing our research efforts including monitoring and surveillance activities.

Most important, we have allocated $100 million to tobacco control over the next five years. This will enable us to encourage and support Canadians, particularly young people, in their efforts not to smoke. This will include a media campaign using ideas that will work in the Canadian context to counterbalance the steady flow of images that make smoking seem natural and desirable when it is anything but.

We are looking at all the tools available to us to discourage people from starting to smoke and to encourage those who do smoke to quit.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.)